Objective values

Really enjoying writing on the train.  Here is this mornings commute notes.

Morality is often referenced in objective terms (I think this is good for psychological reasons) with the idea of a godless world being said to lack any place for this notion.

The failure of he imagination here is one of treating morals as an abstract notion rather than a practical one. If we are to assume that the existence of morals is a result of our evolutionary and cultural development, then we should treat it as a biological fact.

Another example of a biological fact about humans is the existence of opposable thumbs. You can metaphorically substitute the existence of thumbs for any inference about the development,or platonic nature, of morality.

Do animals have thumbs?
Well some do and some don't it depends on their evolutionary heritage. More over we can see that there are different variations and levels of sophistication to thumbs.

What do we do with people who have no thumbs or under-developed thumbs?
We try to give them assistance.

Would intelligent extra terrestrial entities have thumbs?
We imagine so, but they may have developed a different method of gripping things.

 ____________________________________________
 The focus becomes different here, more general. This may be a great topic to explore in more detail.

We are then left the question of whether certain types of things are inherent in their materials or if they are one of a possible group of strategies that might be deployed.

The two types of objective ideas are the Platonic ideal and the developmental solution. These may be in full philosophical conflict or may exist in some synergistic form. With certain ideas being inherent and discoverable while others built from reaction to constraints of the past.

We can also see that when applied to mathematics we have systems that might be inherent in the definitions of things while other ideas are tools developed to deal with a limited realm of information.

We see that systems are to some extent a simplification of something greater. We have from incompleteness the understanding that any single system we create will fail to describe itself and be self consistent. This is overcome to some degree by overlapping separate exclusionary systems. And may be the result of trying to describe the universe in terms simpler than itself. We have then (if true) reached then limit of the "thing in and of itself"