Reflections on the BioPsychoSocial Equilibrium Meta-ethics.

Reflections on the BioPsychoSocial Equilibrium Metaethics
The current problems of ethical disagreements whether in Washington, DC or the international HiQ community alike surface up because their protagonists may adopt inadequate standards of objectivity. These inadequate standards are subconscious and metaphysical in nature and appeal to the individualized independent reality and truth of biopsychosocio-political (bpsp) survival values in our turf. We are in dire need for objective standards in reasoning to solve practical problems about what to do about real time immanent challenges of existential reality in the real world today and how to avoid probable transcendental predictions tomorrow. If we focus on defining which priorities people reasonably disagree about ‘what’ to value, we will appreciate the need to reach an agreement about what to do today, here and now, that will also impact what will probably happen tomorrow, somewhere and/or somehow. The priorities are clear, the immanent present biopsychosocio-political reality precedes any relevant future transcendental meta-ethical constructivism and both must be guided by normative truths about what one ought to do morally or ethically about either ‘economic cliffs’ in Washington, DC or a neurophilosophy of consciousness, they both depend on how rational, honest agents (not including politicians for sale) would reason in an idealized deliberative situation.
Once we deliberately agree on the advantage of starting the analysis with the construction of the ‘original position’ we would be on our way to find a consensus. This way the practical human problem of disagreement on priority issues should be sufficient, at least in the biopsychosocio-political domain of public discourse, to warrant a stable system of good will cooperation among citizens with different moral, philosophical, and religious views while in their ‘original position’. Hopefully, this experience will provide the ground work for at least ‘agreements to disagree’ on more complex issues of probable transcendental impact in future generations on planet earth or anywhere else. If we can agree on the basic premises of a biopsychosocio-political constructivism where humans are assumed free and equal before any man-made law anywhere according to the principles of justice and respect for the relevant basic institutions of society, then we will be ready for the kind of probable truly meta=ethical constructivism addressing all normative metaphysical and transcendental claims about things like the micro and cosmological transfinities and the corresponding brain dynamic features that must go along with whatever ‘agreements to disagree’ surge. The big surprise this writer has personally experienced is to realize how difficult it can be to reach hypothetical agreements even among intellectually privileged academicians and researchers who enjoy radically different values and life styles. Was it always that way…, can we successfully ignore our gender, religion, moral views, and socio-economic status during a deep introspective search for guiding principles during a ‘thought experiment’, or is this a sign of the difficult 21st. century times we now experience?
Contrary to the classical Kantian ‘practical reason’ approach we prefer to account for the nature of moral and normative truths by distinguishing first considerations about the real space-time features of quotidian existential reality of living human species in their ecologically changing environment as preceding their evolution of a rational agency in substantial control of their lives. On this view, reasons for being morally conscious spring from our preceding subconscious BPS needs, interests or desires for survival as a species. As we evolve into maturity beyond the second birthday introspective self consciousness takes root in our nature as evolving rational agents. The subconscious natural forces (genetic, acquired) never cease to play an important, if not decisive, force in our psycho social adult experiences. Every individual and his environmental circumstance has a personal equation representing the degree of ongoing successful evolution towards the Kantian required goal of consciously free willed practical reason and moral obligations to self and others that ideally will become universal and hopefully binding for all rational beings. We do not need to emphasize the great influence a healthy, happy and socially convivial cooperative environment plays into that ongoing evolution towards the practical rational state that makes possible –with the cooperation of the language faculty- the transcendental and reciprocal information transfer in search of species survival answers issues beyond the phenomenologically obvious. These issues vary in complexity and content from the transcendental possible transfinite sources of guidance/righteousness to the immanent solution of the global economic chaos among western nations committed to the freedom and equality of all humans within the liberal democratic socio-political axiological context. Once the ‘original position’ is freely committed to practical rational judgments can be arrived at, or “constructed,” which are likely to be more acceptable to all ordinary citizens regardless of the particular position, race, ethnicity, religion or lifestyle they hold in society and the specific interests that accompany such circumstantial existential realities.
Intuitivism inspired ‘constructivism’ when applied to transcendental complexities like ‘neuro-philosophy of consciousness’ or the spontaneous emerging of physical complexity from nothingness or infinities, where self-serving pronouncements are not based on phenomenologically falsifiable observations or measurements or a mathematical logic based epistemology will unfortunately either grounds moral truths on arbitrary self indulging standards, theosophies, materialism, cults, etc. or collapse into a limited realism in its well meant effort to advance our understanding of moral principles and the inherent species cognitive resolution limits. These misguided constructivism rather attempts to create reformist movements that feeds the ego hunger. We prefer to advocate an evolutionary pace congruent, if not in total harmony, with the individualized vital biopsychosocial equilibrium. This is the main reason we prefer a more relaxed ‘intuitivistic’ mathematical approach different from the classical Kantian model advocating a rational agency wielding strict ‘constitutive’ standards resisting any constructivist effort. So long as there is room for a type of naturalism compatible with the tenets of scientific methodology and metaphysical logic principles in forming our intentions and beliefs, we can make plausible poems about the relevant invisibilities that influence our existence and keep our fingers crossed that our consequent predictions become confirmed by all….sooner or later…if ever…
Having heretofore argued in behalf of the self evident notion that human phenomenological ontological descriptions and/or the correlative non-physical epistemological explanations are instantiated inside a physical human brain, it is not farfetched to prioritize the biological viability of such physical entity in anticipation of its future ongoing developmental maturation in sensory acuity/resolution before the rest of the body adaptively respond to anything that compromises that biological integrity. A successful defense of that integrity makes possible future brain engagements in its defense against relevant falsifiable objects/events or experiences outside phenomenological thresholds to detect or even frame into appropriate language symbols to express, e.g., the apparent existence of a non spontaneous and negentropic micro and cosmological order. Neither should it be farfetched to submit that some subhuman creatures share with us the same subconscious concerns for their biological integrity, happiness and cooperative conviviality. If any reader can evidence falsifiable measurements and/or logically credible explanations of subhuman abilities to introspectively search and affirm self as distinct from its surroundings we are all ears. Otherwise we assume this activity as uniquely human. Ergo, the metaphysical carriage cannot precede the physical horse, i.e., epistemology cannot precede ontology as a valid argument to explain the human version of existence and reality. If these premises make any sense, how can the physical brain dynamics make sense of what escapes phenomenological verification or metaphysical logic? Then we make poems and hope the predictions of the wishful thinking model are confirmed by any observer, if ever. The model, theological, scientologist, materialist or otherwise makes its practitioners healthy, happy and accepted by his followers, why not pursue them? It makes existential reality viable like in other advanced subhuman species; if it fulfills your highest aspirations, and makes possible a transitory democratic, free and peaceful society, why give it up? Should we throw the towel and abandon the search for the relevant invisibilities that effectively influence our lives? Never!

Finally, a few notes/guidelines on the evolving practical rationality we tentatively prefer, the ‘intuitivistic mathematics’ poem challenging the dogma of constitutive rationality ‘uber alles’ of classical mathematics. The first effort should be directed at dispelling incoherence by adopting and enforcing the ‘original position’ strategy on the analysts by spelling out clearly the axiological norms that constitute objective and truthful values. Only by engaging in practical reasoning first can produce abstract conceptual norms of universal aspirations. A moral order of values is not discovered but rationally constructed as just normative natural facts that can be investigated by ordinary empirical methods, e.g., polling, constitutional conventions, etc. The mathematical purists should note that this kind of constructivism appealing to norms under the guidelines of practical reason are essentially non-reductive to meaningful parsing symbolism. Likewise a human truth existing outside the activity of a human thinking brain just like an abstract conceptual proposition about an object or event can only become true after the living brain of subject has perceptually experienced its existential structure and/or functional truth. We can extend this argument by proposing that an epistemological deduction/induction can only become false after the living brain of a human subject has subjected the abstraction to appropriate mathematical logic analysis and demonstrated it to be an impossible mental construction, e.g., it is theorized that an average man can swallow an ordinary open umbrella!  Consequently there shouldn’t be considered as human truths objects or events not yet experienced iff a human subject has previously experienced its logical falsehood (by realizing that an appropriate mental construction is not possible).
One of the most controversial and perplexing consequences of intuitionist reasoning is that it is based on the awareness of time as a free will creation of a normal conscious mind, as we often said, a convenient conceptualization of experienced or rationally inferred changes. Like we always said, mathematics are convenient and useful language tools that follow phenomenological existential experiences to begin with. This way present b and past a of same object or event can simultaneously coexist so long as a memory of that past survives the present. This may seem to violate the dogma of the excluded middle, if a then not a (i.e., b) is not possible. An extended discussion of this apparent paradox is beyond the scope of this brief introductory presentation.
Summary and Conclusions.
In this abbreviated summary we have provided arguments in behalf of an intuitionistic model of universal reality which in our BPS model gets tentatively reduced to a human brain based model of an ever changing and evolving existential 4-d space time reality if we objectively consider both the intrinsic limitations and uniqueness of the human phenomenon. Along these admittedly controversial arguments we respectfully challenge several of the time-honored classical conceptualization models of reality in an effort to update its conclusions as justified by reliable modern technological measurements and credible conceptualizations rooted on metaphysical logic. Most of the daring challenges have been based on the undeniable fact that the human cosmology is the product of the human brain activity with all its limitations and uniqueness as argued in 4 published volumes and a treatise on the brain dynamics underlying the neurophilosophy of consciousness.

Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq. In Deltona, Florida Late Spring 2012.


About Dr.d

See CV, family & publications at:
This entry was posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Reflections on the BioPsychoSocial Equilibrium Meta-ethics.

  1. Owen N. Martinez says:

    Querido Angel: Te felicito por tu manera tan profunda de analizar el problerma politico-economico del gobierno de los EUA, pero mi capacidad mental, poca familiaridad y limitado conocimiento de tu lenguaje me hace dificil entenderlo. Que Dios te bendiga a ti y a los tuyos en el Ano Viejo y el el Nuevo, y durante el 2013! Sinceramente en Cristo, Nilda y Owen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s