HOW SHOULD WE JUDGE WHAT IS GOOD? Can a Science of Morality make good sense? How essential is participatory freedom to a meaningful appreciation or critique of goodness, virtue, civilizing values, or form of governance? In what sense ought we judge a form of governance or religion to be a proponent of evil?

TOWARDS A PHILOSOPHY OF GOODNESS?

Essentially, what would a meaningful understanding of “Good” mean? There is no objective standard for weighing goodness. There are contingent meanings, but their applications change as situations change and unfold. What was once thought good later becomes thought un-good. It seems more meaningful to think upon goodness in respect of that which is unfolding contemporaneously to the appreciation of some Perspective of Consciousness.

Conscious appreciation is directly experienced. The fact that it is experienced is objective to that Perspective. But the quality of that experience of Consciousness is subjective. In that, it defies being reduced to a permanent measure. Goodness entails subjective valuation by a Perspective of Consciousness.

For a Perspective of Consciousness, to contemporaneously judge an organization “Good” is for a person, thing, or event to be reasonably valued to that Perspective more than its supposed or imagined alternatives. Such judgment may entail subjective intuition or practical experience, but not objective certainty.

Ultimately, neither goodness nor freedom is “in” material bodies or particles. Rather, freedom to reconcile the Holistic System would seem to abide with the Holistic Consciousness, which would not seem to be a physical body to be “in”. Whatever freedom abides is not as a physical objective, but as the experience of a participatory Perspective. Without appreciation of Participatory Freedom, notions of goodness, virtue, ought, responsibility, and crime would tend to constitute a mere circulation of nonsense.

Nor is Participatory Freedom "in" any part that is less than the Holism. Rather, Participatory Freedom is an expression by the Holism that is reconciled through the limitations of a particularly focused perspective. The range of each particular focus will depend on how each matter-energy-based perspective is organized for the receiving, interpreting, and transmitting of information.

How does the Matrix allow Consciousness to function through varying Perspectives whose maths-within-maths of sub-organizations and foci preclude them from experiencing the Perspective of any one part that is apart from themselves? Even were two brains somehow synced or wired together, how could they remain the expressions of distinct personalities and still completely appreciate one another?

Perhaps no fleeting and mortal Perspective apart from all others could abide but for the capacity of the Matrix to sponsor fluxing ASYMMETRIES that continuously un-balance and re-balance the maths (matters and anti-matters) that define the Matrix.

In any event, it is quite debatable whether even measurable matter, at its most fundamental level, must be “in” matter. Yes, we measure matter-energy-substance. But what is IT, fundamentally, that we are measuring? What is the smallest building block? The thing-in-itself? How can a conceptualization of any thing-in-itself make coherent and consistent sense? Must IT be a particle, a wave, or an experience of a math-based function that is part of a Matrix that abides – not coordinate with any Thing objective – but coordinate only with a reconciling aspect of an immeasurable qualitative that, for lack of a better term, we refer to as Consciousness? That, with a flux of dynamic feedback, participates in determining which among all possible paths for giving expression to the universe is actually allowed to manifest and unfold?

If so, it would contribute little sense to imagine such Math-Matrix, as it is written on and fluxed by Consciousness, must be “in” anything.

It may be reasonable to conceptualize the Math-Matrix and the Consciousness with which it is fluxed as constituting The Source. Taking the Source as innately seeking that which it values, then those most inclusive values towards which it reconciles may be termed Good.

To honor such Source would be in Good Faith to honor the concept of a Source of Goodness. To honor Good Will would be to honor the pursuit of goodness -- whether by the Source, by a Perspective, by yourself, or by others.

But how could one be kind to a wannabe despot in a way that would also be kind to his intended victims? If one honors human freedom and dignity, how could one in kindness empower a conniving despot or a repressive regime?

A mortal can reasonably act on empathies for persons that come within his sphere of influence. But how could any mortal really identify with justice for the direction of the entire world?