The 5 Levels of Ethical Expression

Reinelm · Mon May 08, 2006 8:51 pm The 5 Levels of Ethical Expression

The 5-fold Hierarchy of Ethical Expression:

The Body/Nominal Consciousness has Habits as its Ethical Expressionand should serve Physical Preservation.

Life/Vital Consciousness has Customs as its Ethical Expression and should serve Communal Growth.

The Soul/Individual Consciousness has Virtue as its Ethical Expression and serves Personal Happiness.

The Mind/Rational Consciousness has Value as its Ethical Expression and serves the Universal Order.

The Self/Transcendental Consciousness has The Truth as its Ethical Expression and serves the Absolute Union.

Notice that on the Nominal and Vital level I explicitly use the words "should serve", because it is fair to say that Habits and Customs are not always Good, because afterwards one may conclude that a certain Habit or Custom did not serve a particulair Natural End. Yet they are intended to do so. On the Level of Individual Consciousness there are seperate terms for Good or Bad Ethical Expressions, namely Vice and Virtue. So if there were to be proper synonims for the words "habit" and "custom", that imply not only good intent, but also desirable effects, namely serving its Natural End, than that problem would be solved.

Another point to made is that the 5 Natural Ends were originally written from the perspective of Man. The choice of words does not always fit when trying to describe a Natural End from the perspective of another Level of Being. This can clearly be seen with the term "Communal Growth", which should describe the Natural End that comes with Vital Consciousness. For Man this means communal growth, but for the Animals and Plants, which also exist on this Level of Being, this simply means Reproduction. These problems will become more clear when applying these 5 Level of Ethical Expression to the 9-fold Hierarchy of Being.

As was mentioned here there is a certain hierachy to the Natural Ends and that same order of precedence can be applied here. Whenever Man acts or even when a event occurs, it is either Positive, Neutral or Negative towards each of the 5 Natural Ends Based on this one can no longer say that certain combination Ethical Expressions are neither solely Good or Evil, except in the case that all or none of the Natural Ends are served. This fits perfectly in the worldview of the Heathen: Although pure Good and Evil exits, one will rarely come across its Ethical Expressions and in everyday lives any action will serve one Natural End and conflict with another. More on this can be found here

As far as my understanding of Wyrd goes, the main Ethical responsibility of Man is to predict whether or not his actions either serve or conflict with a certain Natural End. I am tempted to say, that the concept of Wyrd has only one purpose, which is to make Man aware of his Ethical responsibility, and to fully understand Wyrd is to be fully aware of all the Levels of Natural Ends and there be able to consciously do as much Good as possible. In my opinion, a full understanding of Wyrd would lead to actions that serve all Natural Ends.

Maurer · Mon May 08, 2006 9:12 pm

Drifter:

(At the risk of interrupting your thread...)

Fantastic! I think you are definately on the right track here. I wish there were more people that shared your enthusiasm and dedication. I am looking forward to the next two parts of your presentation with great anticipation! :D

Reinelm · Tue May 09, 2006 1:14 am

[moved]

FLechdrop · Tue May 09, 2006 11:12 am

Interesting work, Drifter!
Don't you think that not particularly serving any Natural End results in some sort of neutrality, while being Evil requires actively working against these Natural Ends?

Reinelm · Tue May 09, 2006 12:48 pm

FLechdrop wrote: Interesting work, Drifter!
Don't you think that not particularly serving any Natural End results in some sort of neutrality, while being Evil requires actively working against these Natural Ends?

I was wondering about that as well. I guess that it makes more sense to have 3 attitudes towards a Natural End: Positive, Neutral and Negative.

I'll need to make some changes to incorporate this idea. I think it will make some patterns appear, that may or may not clarify de structure of Ethics.

If you have any suggestions on terminology, please help me out. I find my vocabulary lacking to describe the concepts accurately.

Maurer · Tue May 09, 2006 2:10 pm

Drifter & FLechdrop:

Drifter wrote: I was wondering about that as well. I guess that it makes more sense to have 3 attitudes towards a Natural End: Positive, Neutral and Negative.

Though I'm not sure sure how relevant either of you will find this, I was instantly reminded of a passage out of the Bhagavad-Gita:

Bhagavad-Gita Chapter 14, Verses 1-14:

BG 14.1: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Again I shall declare to you this supreme wisdom, the best of all knowledge, knowing which all the sages have attained the supreme perfection.

BG 14.2: By becoming fixed in this knowledge, one can attain to the transcendental nature like My own. Thus established, one is not born at the time of creation or disturbed at the time of dissolution.

BG 14.3: The total material substance, called Brahman, is the source of birth, and it is that Brahman that I impregnate, making possible the births of all living beings, O son of Bharata.

BG 14.4: It should be understood that all species of life, O son of Kuntī, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed-giving father.

BG 14.5: Material nature consists of three modes (gunas) — goodness (sattva), passion (rajas) and ignorance (tamas). When the eternal living entity comes in contact with nature, O mighty-armed Arjuna, he becomes conditioned by these modes (gunas).

BG 14.6: O sinless one, the mode of goodness (sattva-guna), being purer than the others, is illuminating, and it frees one from all sinful reactions. Those situated in that mode become conditioned by a sense of happiness and knowledge.

BG 14.7: The mode of passion (rajas-guna) is born of unlimited desires and longings, O son of Kuntī, and because of this the embodied living entity is bound to material fruitive actions.

BG 14.8: O son of Bharata, know that the mode of darkness (tamas-guna), born of ignorance, is the delusion of all embodied living entities. The results of this mode are madness, indolence and sleep, which bind the conditioned soul.

BG 14.9: O son of Bharata, the mode of goodness conditions one to happiness; passion conditions one to fruitive action; and ignorance, covering one's knowledge, binds one to madness.

BG 14.10: Sometimes the mode of goodness becomes prominent, defeating the modes of passion and ignorance, O son of Bharata. Sometimes the mode of passion defeats goodness and ignorance, and at other times ignorance defeats goodness and passion. In this way there is always competition for supremacy.

Notes:

BG 14.3: It should be noted here that Brahman, here described as the 'total material substance' of creation, is etymologically connected to Brimir, which is another name for Ymir (see R. Simek, Lexicon der Germanischen Mythologie). Coincidence? You decide.

Rajas-guna, here described as the mode of passion or action, is that moral quality which is responsible for keeping men here on the earth, stationary, as it were:

BG 14.14: When one dies in the mode of goodness, he attains to the pure higher planets (lit: lokas, 'worlds') of the great sages.

BG 14.15: When one dies in the mode of passion, he takes birth among those engaged in fruitive activities; and when one dies in the mode of ignorance, he takes birth in the animal kingdom.

...

BG 14.17: From the mode of goodness, real knowledge develops; from the mode of passion, greed develops; and from the mode of ignorance develop foolishness, madness and illusion.

BG 14.18: Those situated in the mode of goodness gradually go upward to the higher planets (worlds); those in the mode of passion live on the earthly planets (worlds); and those in the abominable mode of ignorance go down to the hellish worlds.

I don't know if you guys will see the parallel or not, or if you will even see the value in this, but I felt compelled to make a note of it.

Monne Diedrixsone · Tue May 09, 2006 2:41 pm

Drifter,

Very nice work! Even I, being not too fond (understatement) of highly analytical 'stuff', have to admit that this approach of ethics is quite interesting. I'll comment later, when I have read it a couple of times more.

Reinelm · Tue May 09, 2006 10:27 pm

Sigifrith:

It is all still very messy and I will make regular alterations to this post. I have taken on this approach for several reasons:

- I feel confortable with visualization of concepts. I just know that a graph can be a symbol just like anything else. I only have to find the right one.

- If this is to be a credible system of Ethics, that even lures the scientific atheist, this might just be the thing for some people. There is different "yogas" for everyone.

- I have a very chaotic line of thought. Most ideas only take shape as I play with them. All I have at this moment is some concepts, which I cannot quite put into words, and a sense of direction. I have about 5 spreadsheets filled with data, that generated about 20 "useful" graphs so far, which I will not bother you with at this moment.

To all:

Does anybody have any pointers to a list of known Heathen Values (old meaning of the word). I want to try to incorporate these as Principles that can be seen as pilars, that go through all 5 Levels of Ethical Manifestation. I am aiming to put this whole matrix of Positive, Neutral and Negative towards a certain Natural End on one axis and the 5-fold Hierarchy of Ethics on the other into practice and explain each of the typical Heathen Ethical Principles on each Level.

Yes I am talking to you! You know I am right and that it would rock like nothing you have seen on this site before, so get moving! 8)

Reinelm · Tue May 09, 2006 10:38 pm

Maurer:

I am not sure if the analogy fits smoothly, but I get you point:

Goodness > Passion > Ignorance : Positive > Neutral > Negative

Or is that not what you mean? I would say that it is not a very solid analogy.

Maurer · Wed May 10, 2006 3:25 am

Drifter:

The main point was that I found it rather intruiging (as well as strangely charming) that were are looking for something similar to that which the ancient Aryas were talking about almost 5000 years ago.

And I wouldn't focus too much on the English translations of SATTVA - RAJAS - TAMAS as 'goodness, passion and ignorance'. (This particular translation is strongly affected by Gaudiya Vaishnava theology and Bhedabheda philosophy. Interestingly, Paramahansa Yogananda as well as Sri Yukteswar translate the three metaphysical principles as 'positive, neutral and negative') It is the principles themselves in connection with the present discussion which caught my attention. ;)

Though, none of this need really concern you. This is just me making random obsevations. Don't let me interrupt. :D

Reinelm · Thu May 11, 2006 1:56 am

I think I will be needing more threads for this. Check the latest update, folks.

Mods: Sorry, about this absolute mess. :oops: I will clean up as soon as I am in control of the Ideas and am no longer a piece of wood on a wild river called Heathen Ethics. Whenever I seem to get some structure in this, there is new Ideas coming my way and slapping me in the face. :)

Reinelm · Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:21 pm

I wish to make an addition to the idea of Ethics being the Serving of Natural Ends. In the book "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis I came across a reference to Hooker's Conception of Law. Now, I not been able to find any further information on the subject so far, but the idea is quite simple.

To illustrate by an example giving in the book (footnote on page 77):

"To disobey your proper law (i.e., the Law God makes for a being such as you) means to find yourself obeying one of God's lower laws; e.g., if, when walking on a slippery pavement, you neglect the law of Prudence, you suddenly find yourself obeying the law of gravitation."

Apart from being quite humorous, I believe this idea holds great truth when putting it in the context of Consciousness on a certain Level of Being. Our Consciousness on a certain Level of Being allows us to know the Law, which exist on this particular Level of Being, and, if out intentions are Good, thus obeying this Law, meaning Serving the Natural End.

Say you wish to make it clear to a child that he or she has done something wrong. Any reasonable person would first try to talk to the child and explain in a reasonable manner, what the Child has done wrong. This displays Consciousness on the Level of Mind and addresses the child on this Level. In all likelihood, this attempt will fail, because it is a child. So you are forced (and thereby you force the child) to descend to the Level of the Soul. You tell the child that what he did made someone really sad or attempting to connect to the child's soul in a similar manner. Yet, this may still be without the desired result. So again you are forced to descend to another Level of Consciousness and to apply the Laws, that exist on this Level. I picture social exclusion or peer pressure to be (at least partly) applicable on this Level. You may send the child to his room, not allowing his to play with his friends. And even this might fail. And with a saddened heart, you are forced to apply the Laws on the Level of Body an let Pavlov do the work. (No, not beating the crap out of a child! I mean grabbing it by the arm or something. )