Relation of Moral Order, Value, and Meaning - A Thought Piece
Deconstructing the Question - the Devil is in the Details
Moral order describes a hierarchy of morals which governs behaviour - hierarchy because prioritisation, needed due to the evolution of complex neurological systems, we need because we need some sort of system to automate acting in some sense, because our decisions became so complex. We look for reliability in patterns of behaviour, a loop of constructing the moral hierarchy with each new thing experienced, from then which became embedded in the works of Freudian topology (conscious, preconscious, subconscious) and Jungian archetypes (‘living characters’, if you will, that exist across all human psyches). It is an absolute necessity to fit things into existing hierarchies - we will not give things their own domain, that would make us far too uncomfortable. This is contributing, in part, to the avoidance of the adventure I will go on to mention. We put everything in the context of things we have already experienced in order to make human decisions.
Meaning is not a question - hence people never getting an answer. They are searching for something that isn't there. This is the fault with contemporary philosophy - hence my references to older texts. The meaning of anything is to experiment with that thing - the adventure of trying to find out exactly how that thing may be of use to you - whether that thing is material or psychological (which is the best assumption to use as it balances logic and practicality). A balance is required because more logical things are more complicated for us to comprehend as our emotions cannot come to our aid, which is often how we choose to ‘see’ things, therefore harder to make practical as we have no existing domain in which we can put the thing. The largest danger with that is not exploring that balance in a productive manner. What constitutes a productive manner? something approximating acting in what you see as the truth (‘approximating’ as there is no exact formula), as this is what is most likely to open the curtain on meaning. History has demonstrated that when pushed into the depths (where we lose sense of the light, the light representing the idealism of our life, or divine qualities if you are religious), it’s very hard to come out, and if you ever do, with your psyche intact (the chance exists you will lose some sense of direction, and you will feel worse in whatever way than before – but that way is too idiosyncratic to state). My advice would be... don’t adventure unknowingly into the abyss, you will lose representations of the ‘light’ (to stick to the analogy’, effectively meant as the representation of the possibility for your life heading in a productive direction). Every ‘spiritual’ journey needs to be prepared for. In order to prepare effectively, it is wise to choose your guide, which is what your consciousness is – another important constructor of the moral hierarchy due to its being laid out through a narrative – the story we tell ourself as we live our life. Where we often go wrong is being too conscious, wanting to look for correlations that aren't there and proceeding to live a life predicated on a false structure of beliefs you think is your 'reality' but is in fact not. It arose as a trade-off with becoming extremely self-conscious. We consider things at multiple levels of our consciousness, mainly the subconscious (things that we are not aware of but govern us anyway – Jungian archetypes are near enough to this) and pre-conscious (the location of the repressed). The highest price we have had to pay for this, perhaps such a high price because it presents us with so many opportunities, so we must pay our dues at the gates of opportunity. This is the danger of both being at risk, and occasionally tempted, to give in to false beliefs, even if we know they’re false, for the sake of a quick solution (a classic narrative manifested in many stories e.g. any story with power as a force for good gone corrupt) - which isn't responsible, considering the complexity of the problem. If we consider things in such a complicated manner, we risk pushing out the boundaries too far and taking on forcibly taking on more than manageable. But boundaries of what exactly? something like the boundaries of where we can remain comfortable while on the adventure to find meaning, where the 'light' in the 'abyss' is still manifest within you, almost as an archetype once again. It’s an old idea (as old as recordable human history) that your nature transforms itself as a response to the characteristics of the environment, both at a physical level (evolution) and a psychological level (nature), which any mythological story will tell you in the lessons they were created to teach our ignorant selves. This means that, referring to the psychological level, our nature is an archetype, an idea Jung spent so long formulating (and rightly so). It’s something that is almost living within us, which manifests itself as our personality.
The value of something, while not quantifiable, is approximated by the extent to which it has the capacity to change the story through which your layers of consciousness (topology) narrate your life to you for the sake of interpretation, so to alter the parameters in which you can act freely and fulfill your aims, whatever they may be, catalysed by a change in perspective. It is imperative that the boundaries are not pushed too far, only so much meaning can be found as is there. If you make this mistake, you’re playing yourself the fool. Do not end up the ‘Prodigal Son’ (Luke15:11 – 32). So, why value? As the question suggests, value has been always associated with moral order and meaning. Value can be thought of as the utility provided to you, which exists in accordance with your aims. We see the material world as an amalgamation of objects for use in whatever sense, whether it be survival e.g. food, rest e.g. bed. Because meaning is the adventure I go on to describe, and moral order is a hierarchy of beliefs predicated on what you see to be the truth, that leaves value as the connecting principle of the two. Our goals, the next important theme now being introduced, are determined by two things - the utility we stand to gain, and the moral order we hold ourselves to. Existential philosophy, a school of thought responsible for a rather bleak but realistic outlook on existence, focuses on the search for meaning, and lack therefore at both a physical and psychological level – so you can look at thinkers like Nietzsche or Heidegger for a greater understanding, enjoy the life long task. Existential philosophy does offer an explanation we can put in short form...Moral order has the tendency, as primary determinant of our aims, to lead us to make impressions of the material world based upon our goals, and if we stand to derive that utility from the accomplishment of that goal or not. For example, imagine a glass enclosure at a zoo... One day, perhaps when feeling like pushing it a bit, you want to have some closer interaction with the animals - the enclosure is then an obstruction to the aims upon which we depend so deeply, at least for now. We depend on these goals so deeply because we often take our goals to be the 'meaning' of life itself, and in consequence our emotional state often is heavily dependent on it. A costly error in judgment. Avoid those shortcuts.
Moral Hierarchy and its Necessity
Moral heirarchy is the delegated authority of morals - certain morals are allocated authority according to the situation at hand, but some are more accepted than others at a much more general level e.g. the tendency for acts of Luciferian nature is further down the hierarchy than the moral that suggests you should act in a mutually beneficial manner, for example. Our language evolving over time has shown us that we tend to think things of a more ideal nature are ‘higher’ and the contrary is ‘lower’, much alike heaven and hell. This delegation is necessary due to the complexity of life on many levels - life consists of many events, each of which demand their own interpretation (adaptation to way in which we view the world). No shortcuts there either. Where it became complex is that each event 'calls' a different action, which is largely responsible for life being so hard to navigate - every situation has never made itself fully familiar to us. Because of this, we need a generalised framework of morals which allows us to ‘call’ on an appropriate moral, hence moral order/hierarchy's importance. A solution humans have so wrongly relied upon, which is worth pointing out, is developing a socially accepted belief of what is objectively right or wrong. Dealing with objectivity doesn’t leave much room for adaptation, things are just too certain – it is not a factual matter. As easy as that would make things, it is not the case. Everything is completely subjective - so, naturally, there are tradeoffs to consider. Tradeoffs exist within yourself and within the collective interests of society, albeit at a broader level. An example of a personal trade-off would be whether to focus on one interest or the another. Providing you can't, in the long run, balance out the resources devoted to each, you will have to prioritise one over another - which you may notice the majority of your decisions consist of (or consist of in the most part, it may not be the sole constituent). An example of a trade-off at a societal level would be charity. You could keep the money for yourself, or you could help smoothen things out a bit. While it's up to you, either way somebody loses, assuming the person who is considering donating would rather spend the money on themselves or invest it etc. There is no fixed meaning, and the fact we have tried to create a rough outline of one (in moral objectivity) is exactly why humans can become so torn apart on everything - we debate what we previously thought was fact, which can so easily tear our perceptions to threads, which is the downside to the application of the ideas laid out in this piece. This does not leave us with much - without perceptions we will not be able to navigate the world in a productive manner, which is akin to productive sacrifice –(the giving up of pleasure immediately accessible to us in the spirit of long term benefit), most easily done by not trying to gain any utility from anything that doesn't contribute to your (carefully) chosen goals. The reason this is seen in such rarity is because it’s extremely hard to do. We’re often not equipped to choose our long-term goals - we lack the proper moral order for it - The framework (moral hierarchy) for decisions is missing. This relates to short term gratification. If we consume things for short term gratification, it is very rarely the case that we’re also contributing to our long-term goals. This is what we are predisposed at an archetypal level for. Excessive focus on the near future is an evolutionary mechanism, due to resources being less accessible back in our primordial days. We had no choice but to be concerned entirely with the present. In all fairness, it's miraculous we even evolved to comprehend delayed consumption, given the circumstances throughout most of history (quality of life has rapidly accelerated in the last few hundred years), referring to how we used to have concern ourselves with surviving for the day – developing an inventory was not something they cared about. However, this isn’t to say that acting in short term gratification doesn’t yield benefits on occasion - you can refer to the Adam and Eve story for why this would be the case (you know where to find that). But in short: some things can't be put off; every snake tempts us eventually with the need for knowledge of something not all that good, but may yield benefits (as in the Adam and Eve story). It's very dangerous to assume otherwise as you don’t give yourself the proper chance to prepare. If you do not act in the search for knowledge, which sometimes may be best done in aiming for short term gratification, life risks becoming something of a Sisyphus-esque affair. If we do not build our perceptions over time, along with our moral hierarchy (and moral order by extension), we will be pushing the boulder up the hill forever and then it will roll down again – doesn't sound so productive does it. In other words, we will not be accomplishing goals that move our lives anywhere, yet we will suffer. Not a desirable position.
On the other hand, it’s been very well argued by moral relativists like Gilbert Harman, who have clearly devoted great time to the matter, that we’re completely ignorant towards the world around us, and therefore the people within it, so a proper moral order could never be established. Thinking of our decision-making process as a system, and us as the engineer, we cannot effectively make decisions for ourselves through moral hierarchy as we’re not aware of all the components of the system. This makes the system very difficult to tweak and fix in order to navigate the world in that productive manner. The nature of things is beyond our comprehension, so we aren’t equipped to make judgements about anything objectively moral – so don’t. Morality is a sharp blade, it can act as your greatest protector, guiding you in a productive direction or can be the end of you, guiding you in a direction you believe to be right but proves self-destructive, as is often the case. It will be the case for as long as we stay willingly ignorant towards the danger an ill-considered moral hierarchy poses towards our moral order. This also puts value in order, considering that we will not be able to make the astoundingly tricky decision of taking the adventure (which takes care of meaning) to find out the utility things can provide to us in accordance with our long-term goals. We shouldn’t carelessly be led by our moral order just for the sake of it. The solution? to continually question everything proportionally by its importance, or more specifically, the extent to which it could change your life relative to the other things being considered. The reason it should be proportional to importance is that you should kill your biggest dragons first - they demand the most energy. This is the optimal allocation of energy in order to get the treasure (what lies as the reward for the accomplishment of your long-term goals). If you do not do this, you will fail.
Adventure as the Resting Place of Meaning
Adventure is an absolute necessity... We experience our psychology on the borders of something and its categorical opposite. For example, we like to think we try to act according to what we think 'moral order' is, but we are so close to acting within 'moral chaos' at any moment, which are their own categories - hence why people can change character so seemingly quickly and unprompted. Just because the change became visible now doesn't mean it wasn’t a compounding series of changes over time – do not confuse occurence and visibility. Since I have already established a definition of moral order, consider moral chaos its categorical opposite - no behaviour pattern to rely on, nothing to help us govern ourselves in the 'adventure' that is the topic here. This is a very old and profound idea, going back as far as the Stoics (3rd cent. BC), which later manifested itself in the biblical texts in the same fashion. It’s clearly an idea that has possessed society – almost like an ideology, but not quite. Because you exist on the verges, we need to consider the consequences of going to either side. You cannot stay on the verge forever if we wish to ‘move’ in some sense. Our goals cannot be accomplished that way, and that will drive us mad - human history has made it clear that underliving to one's potential will make life seem noticeably less meaningful (manifest in the common observation by psychologists that regret can ‘paralyse’ a person, if you will), as can be seen in the immense regret older-aged people feel about mistakes of omission. So first let's say you decide to stay inside your comfortable domain. This would look something like your life not ‘going’ forward in any sense, whether it be at a material or psychological level. No development can be expected if you don’t venture out into the abyss - an idea which possessed existential thinkers like Nietzsche or Kierkegaard until they could write enough to make some sort of sense of it all - a form of adventure in itself, and finally then did it bother them only a little less. If an idea can possess your spirit in such an authoritative grip on you, it follows logically that that idea must be extremely important to consider - even if it will drive you mad eventually, but this is not to say that we don’t catch ourselves thinking about pointless matters every now and then... It’s a necessary evil. Exploring ideas that have that effect are very important as it shows you what you’re not yet comfortable with, and it’s in those places the treasure most likely lies. You must kill the dragon at a psychological level first. The potential downside of this is that the more you understand the idea the more insane it risks driving you. So, if you are a deeply philosophical thinker like Nietzsche was, and you devote your adventure to exploring ideas like this, you risk exceeding your capacity and collapsing e.g. Nietzsche, in these efforts to enrich his spirit, spent the last 11 years of his life incapacitated by both mental and physical sickness - the former preceding the latter, and likely contributing to it as it so often does. Do not take on more responsibility with this task than you can handle. Train up to it. If you fight a bigger dragon than you are ready for you will be burned, and this idea doesn't possess merciful qualities in the slightest – it is not a fickle affair. Having to confront the possibility that you don’t know what the hell is going on, ever, and you may remain like this forever, fear will be propagated at a subconscious level, gradually rising to the conscious (which is how we become aware of its existence) - and once its made itself comfortable, your need for adventure only becomes more of an imperative. As turns out, the resting place is the antidote, something that isn’t often the case. What I mean by this is that the meaning we so desperately desire to find (at a deep psychological level) is not something found but is the adventure itself. Meaning lies in the confrontation of your most uncomfortable ideas – a massive part of the adventure. It wouldn’t be much of an adventure if you didn’t explore, and if you explore for long enough in a random-walk fashion, you’re bound to end up somewhere you’re unfamiliar with. That, and only that, is an adventure at its most basic definition. Cruel I know. It's why it's not a particularly appealing idea that to make sense of anything, AKA finding meaning, you’re obligated to put yourself through the realisation of more and more potential for chaos in the unknown, or whatever it is that gives spirit to the fears that strike you most 'deeply' (once again our language using the ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ phrases I mentioned in the previous section). If done correctly, which is very hard to do (due to the amount of thought it takes), it will give you the necessary 'armour' (necessary qualities) against the 'dragon' (task which risks harming you) you have to fight to get to the ‘treasure’ (the carrot for being beaten by the stick and putting up with it – to play with the saying). The interpretation of the endless possibilities your life possesses, providing you so choose to act by a moral hierarchy predicated on what you deeply believe is the truth (which I recommend you devote a great amount of thought to, continuously, throughout your life, as it will change in accordance with your life) is exactly the dangerous idea that presents us with the most opportunity. Its ability to enrich your existence is equal to its propensity to damage you. This is fairness manifest. It is not something easy to grapple with, but bigger and bigger burdens, like this one, must be taken on in order to move 'forwards' in a productive manner. Doing more than you did before means progression, if you're thinking about it even just a bit. This will be your adventure. Enjoy.
The Trade-Off With the Need to Destroy as a Means of Deconstruction (+ the Conclusion)
To wrap up, there’s a trade-off to consider between the implementation (or at least consideration) of moral order and meaningful adventure and the need to destroy your current moral order for the sake of long-term reconstruction. It should be apparent by now that the relation between the three title subjects is not set in stone, so it is largely up to how you want to see it. Just be careful what you choose to look for, the way in which you orient your life is not something to do carelessly. Think it through, and properly too. If you think you’ve ‘got it’...go at it again. Part of this implied risk is in the fact that this is a very malleable idea - in the sense that it is likely your interpretation of this idea will change in accordance with your life. We tend to view things with the lens of what we are currently feeling, which is a distortion of objective judgment, hence the need for caution. In order to deconstruct your current moral hierarchy, perception of meaning, and the goals which determine your utility derived, you must fulfil the task of the philosopher - to question what you hold as fundamental (moral order, meaning, value). The more reliant your 'spirit' is on an idea the more important it is to question it - this is where the largest propensity for change is, therefor the largest chance of moving towards where you want to be, and the largest chance of being dragged down. Change is required for change, there must be a catalyst. If you don’t question your closely held beliefs, it will be your achilles heel. You’re likely to lead a life of misery, which is common - an insult to the incredibly complex potential you were given. The reason in most cases is that in order to properly criticise something it must first be understood, so that it can be taken and put into its individual parts for examination - we remain the engineer. Criticism is a fine catalyst. The make-up of all this is possibly infinitely complex, so it’s highly unlikely we can even begin to comprehend the answer, but do your absolute most to make sense of what you can, and push at that boundary constantly. You’re ignorant to how close you could get, but then again we don’t know the limit obviously. If you’re not aware of the fact that, which you get by questioning your inner beliefs capabilities for harm, moral order can never be established in an effective manner. If this is the case, your moral hierarchy will be unstably constructed - so the 'wrong' moral will be prioritised at the wrong time. And if you can't have that, you will not have the ability to adventure, so meaning will never be found, and value derived from the accomplishment of long term goals will never be realised.
Thanks for the thought,
Oliver