Book 8 - Ethics

	Our subject matter deals with the relational in general and the ethical in particular, the latter involving those relationships that enlist the presence of one or more agents. Our subject is the Eighth Book in Volume Two in the work entitled 500 Propositions and is divided between 15 postulations and an accompanying commentary to the same.

Ethical Postulations

Theoretical Postulations

	0 - Necessity
	1 - Existential
	2 - Determination
	3 - Process
	4 - Evolution

Practical Postulations

	0 - Practicality
	1 - Absoluteness
	2 - Relativity
	3 - Education
	4 - Reservation

Critical Postulations

	0 - Criticality
	1 - Internality
	2 - Externality
	3 - Accommodation
	4 - Generation

Theoretical Postulations

166 That in theory there is necessitated in a relationship a basic degree of attentive awareness on our part, or on the behalf of the relationship itself or some other, that is relationally and teleologically orientated that through the intentional process of the relationship establishes the ongoing integrity and identity of that relationship.
167 That the degree to which a relationship is truly ethical is to the same degree that it is existentially orientated, i.e. to that degree a relationship as a relationship is a fact beyond the mere summation of its parts through the ongoing resolution of all integral and contextual forces.
168 That for agents, as agents, to interact and survive in the world  they must possess the judgmental ability to adequately determine the ethical potentiality of the most probable courses of their actions and interactions.
169 That all ethical interaction is in a state of process which necessitates the involvement of an aesthetic-like existential ongoing harmonized integrity which manifests itself as a mutual non-discriminate devotion (love) or relational attraction equal to the facticity of the relationship.
170  That physiological structuralization and all involved facets of psychological evolution in the epistemological hierarchy are reflected in an evolution in the essential structure or nature of the ethical interaction under examination.

Practical Postulations

171 That in practcse the ethical is always necessarily present in all relationships, agental or non-agental, and is potentially recognizable on phenomenological examina-tion.
172 That the absoluteness of ethical principles applies only to the general nature of the relational and the general nature of the experience of such and not directly to the specific content, process or type of relationship under ethical examination.
173 That the existential nature of relationships is such that it is possible for us to recognize and let them fully initiate their own unique ethical processes hence the concept of ethical relativity.
174 That because the ethicality of our relationships is experiential therefore that which promotes the epistemological function and ethical-education of ourselves promotes our receptivity to the nature and presence of the relatively ethical.
175  That because of the internal individually unique essential nature of relationships is it therefore possible in the non-existentially non-mutually orientated relationship to that degree it is in relational existence, through the agent(s) of more advanced epistemological evolution and functioning, for it to be allowed to more fully direct itself on the behalf of that relationship hence the concept of ethical reservation.

Critical Postulations

176  That the critical ethitician should learn how to distinguish the relatively ethical from the relatively non-ethical through a well constructed phenomenological interpretation and appreciation of the relational.
177 That the critical ethitician can learn to distinguish what the relatively ethical is through the proper application of the Schema noting the internality of its extention and the relational orientation of the relatively ethical.
178 That the critical ethitician can learn to distinguish what the relatively ethical is not through the proper application of the Schema noting the externality of its extention and the non-relational orientation of the relatively non-ethical.
179 That the critical ethitician can distinguish through a phenomenology of the relational how the internal is generated out of the external, i.e. appreciate the dependence and accommodation between extension and intension in the epistemological hierarchy.
180 That the critical ethitician should realize that ethical reflection when properly conducted is generated in process, and en context, and is direct and is neither a priori nor a posteriori through the transcendental synthetic a priori nature of transcendental productivity and that this applies equally to the essential, aesthetical, ontical and the pragmatical, i.e. to all forms of transcendental value.

Commentary

	Our postulations are divided into three fields, namely, the Theoretical, the Practical and the Critical representing in essence, respectively, the science, the art  and the conjoining of these two disciplines in the self-critique of this branch of philosophy. As a science our subject matter correctly includes in its embrace the entire world of relationships through an implicit essential phenomenological appreciation of the nature of the relational. Giving this subject matter relevance is its application to the field of human endeavour wherein the guidance of our intuition is structured through our appreciation of the nature of the relational that underpins all ethical interaction. As implied in Postulation 172 the absoluteness of this ethical interaction and responsive activity is doubly grounded upon the invariant absoluteness of the nature of the relational and the nature of our experience of the same. Correctly these two natures are phenomenologically two aspects of the same phenomenological reality. The relational is embedded in experience and v.v. and correctly cannot be separated or segregated except provisionally.
	Expressed in a simple manner we could say that ethical theory applies to a theoretical understanding of the phenomenological nature of the relational as it enters into experience. That a practical application of this theory results in an ethical philosophy as it is generally understood (through a reference to one or more agents). That lastly, through the self-critical nature of transcendental deliberation, the critical response ensures the delivery of appropriate behaviour subject to adequate information and correct conditional procedures.
	The zeroth postulation of these three divisions effectively grounds our discourse whilst the fourth postulation effectively summarizes the consequences that can be drawn from these divisions.
	In this commentary I shall first simplify each postulation. Through this uncritical translation I hope to reveal primary intentions behind the formulation of these postulations. Following this our commentary will elaborate each postulation and bring to it additional philosophical material necessary for an enrichment of our appreciation pointing out in this process associations and connections that can be profitably brought to our attention. Finally an attempt will be made to reveal the inner logic of each postulation. 

166 That in theory there is necessitated in a relationship a basic degree of attentive awareness on our part, or on the behalf of the relationship itself or some other that is relationally and teleologically orientated that through the intentional process of the relationship establishes the ongoing integrity and identity of that relationship.

	Put simply this Postulation of Necessity could be roughly translated by the following proposition - that the persistence of a relationship necessitates its preservation with the implication that the relationship in question, or some other, must recognize this intention.

	The keywords in this postulation are necessity, identity, teleology and integrity. The relationship between these four terms generating the import of this fundamental postulation (being an unpacking of the phenomenological concept of intention). 
	A relationship can be viewed as a conventional entity which through some form of persistence necessarily involves an element of the teleological. The essential confines of the relationship in its temporal and spatial instantiation and/or its persistence in experiential or epistemological terms of reference involves the equal necessity of its integrity, i.e. its ability to persist as an identifiable relationship. 
	Put into a social framework we can translate and question our interest in this matter along the following lines... Is it possible to be completely dishonest in our ethical interaction with other persons? Is it possible for an unethical group of individuals in their dealings with each other to be completely dishonest? Lastly, is it possible for one to be completely dishonest with one's self? 
	It would seem to be self-evident that the intrusion of any form of dishonesty places the relationship involved in some degree of jeopardy and that although some relationships may be thought better sacrificed it is not possible to sacrifice all relationships, especially that relationship involved with the various senses of our own self. This last undertaking involving various polarities that oscillate between the visions of past, present and future, between ideal and real, potential and actual, personal and social, physical and mental, emotional and  non-emotional, cognitive and transcendental, etc. Our very ability to appreciate ourselves and all our endeavours demonstrating unequivocally that we possess both an ability and a facility in this regard. Even in various states and degrees of insanity the sense of self is preserved, albeit not without some form of responding struggle that naturally attempts to restore its weakened continuity and diminished integrity.
	The expression on the behalf of the relationship itself indicating that the theoretical science of our subject extends to cover the world of all relationships (which in our Metaphysics is defined as the World). Moreover, that the relationship itself has this ability internal to itself, its teleological presence, to effect its own self-process or self-unfoldment. This apparent ability to initiate its own self-action as a response, establishing the practical side to our discipline, that our understanding and perfection of this responsiveness constituting the practical art of our ethical (and existential) interaction in the world. This integrity of the relationship re-establishing the ongoing existential persistence and experience of the same. The harmonious functioning of the relationship, and our exercise of judgments therein, manifesting itself to us with an existential flavour in keeping with the nature of that relationship subject to such responsive experiential review. Our openness or transparence before the sense of the relationship establishing in turn a certain related degree of self-authenticity or self-authentication. It is through such an existential attitude of self-openness or transparence that positive and appropriate forms of valve can be spontaneously created by the individual or social community for that individual or social community or for some other individual or social community.
	The World is constituted as a hierarchy of relationships. In the expression by some other we take into account that some relationships are more dominated by other relationships and that at that level the apparent intentional teleology of the relatively minor relationship is better appreciated.

	To establish this postulation it would be argued that relationships necessitate the persistence of the integrity and identity of that relationship and thus the relationship must take into account its own intentional teleological process. By intentional (in distinction to the term intension as defined by myself) we recognize a phenomenological dimension that is attached to all relationships in general although the domain of possible relationships correctly can only include those that are entertainable in experience. The term intension is defined in this philosophical exposition as the integrated epistemological and hierarchical structures that underlie the totality of a thought-structure, the contextually determinable contents of such a process in their ostensive logical form representing the extension. In a certain speech report, e.g. the cat sat on the mat, extension recognizes the primary linguistic import of the expression of such a proposition. If our primary interest is perceptual then the primary extension of such a proposition is perceptual. On the other hand if our interest is aesthetical, i.e. poetical, our extensional interest will reflect this extensional emphasis. All extension however is grounded on an intensional totality, all intended intentional extension being determinable through a signified contextual appreciation (indicating that area of the psyche with the greatest differential in conscious attention).

167 That the degree to which a relationship is truly ethical is to the same degree that it is existentially orientated, i.e. to that degree a relationship as a relationship is a fact beyond the mere summation of its parts through the ongoing resolution of all integral and contextual forces.

	Or put simply... the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, the extent to which a relationship is greater than the sum of its parts indicating its existential interest, integrity and facticity for us.
	
	Whether we accept this principle, or not, that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts would appear to be a more a matter of taste or fashion. However, although a limited reductionism is not without its useful contributions meaningfulness is generated in context and therefore our de facto recognition of this continual use of synthesis should in all honestly be accepted.
	The question of contextualism and monadism is raised by this recognition of wholes in conjunction with the epistemological fact that relationships can have no meaning purely in and through themselves. However this will be examined elsewhere, see Postulation xyz.
	In this postulation there is drawn to our attention an equation between the facticity of a relationship and the existential-orientation or extentiality of that same relationship. To demonstrate the meaning of this equivalence or equation necessitates an exposition of what shall be known as Relational Theory, correctly the province of our Ethics.
	A certain morality need not be ethical in some absolute-like sense. But for all that it still entails a certain degree of relational entertainment and to that extent it must take into account the ethical (as per Postulation 166).
	A relationship persists through the ongoing resolution of all integral and contextual forces that essentially enter into its constitution. Such facticity is achieved through the activity of process which in turn is achieved through three moments, namely, the Preconditional Moment, the Conditional Moment and the Postconditional Moment. 
	Preconditional to a relationship are the first two Relational Moments and their interaction through synthesis to realize their third partner. 
	A relationship is always entertained between two or more parties in virtue of some common feature or facet. A rock sits on the ground because the physicality of the rock has the same physicality in common with the ground beneath it. A person has open to them the same relationship as that held between the ground and the rock through their possession of this mutual property of physicality. On the other hand a person cannot have a personal relationship with a rock as the rock is perceived to possess no sense of personality in a personal mode. A problem arises however in that much of the world of interrelationships is entertained between ostensively disparate forces or parties. Water is boiled by fire, a mother and a father produce a child, through a mental act of will a letter is written, predicates or relations interact with logical subjects, past causes appear to initiate future effects, etc. The resolution of this interesting problem introduces the concept of isomorphism. Disparate parties can enter into interaction through all parties concerned entertaining all other parties on their own terms. The nature of the overall interaction is then mirrored in each of the individual terms of reference supplied by all the apparently interacting parties or facets. All facets could then be seen to be in resonance with each other. It will be argued elsewhere that all meaningfulness is generated through resonance and that there can be no pure identity although through the individual uniqueness of all relationships this does not rule out the phenomenological fact of essential distinctness or purity. Nevertheless, let us not digress at this point. The phenomenological concept of essential descriptions will be discussed elsewhere (see Postulation xyz). 
	The Preconditional Moment necessitates in situ the existence of three Relational Moments...
	The First Relational Moment states - that through isomorphism the basis bulk of a relationship is grounded on a shared sense of similarity or consonance and that in the entertainment of a relationship this experiential mass is perceived as a relative background to all senses of dissonance introduced therein.
	The Second Relational Moment states - that those features at variance with the consonance or the relative background of the field of the relationship, considered either non-experientially or experientially, constitutes its dissonance or relative foreground.
	The Third Relational Moment states - that the existence of the relationship is initiated and preserved through the ongoing resolution of all integral and contextual dissonance in the total field of the relationship. This is achieved through the ongoing interaction of consonance and dissonance mediated through the transformational process of the relationship.
	No relationship can come into existence purely in its own right therefore contextual considerations are just as important as integral considerations.
	Dissonance and consonance are resolved in process through transformations that preserve essential isomorphic invariance at integral and contextual levels of functioning.
Facticity can therefore be defined as the degree to which resolution is maintained being in effect the binding energy of that relationship, the power of that relationship, etc. This power in its nature and degree describing in personal relationships the nature and degree of love existentially centered within the ambit of that relationship. The intensity of the relationship defining the degree of love in that relationship (hence Postulation 169). That affection being mutual through being centered in the body or field of that relationship and therefore being metaphorically shared by that relationship. All other affection being some form of lust, for good or bad, which when thwarted in its expression can reverse itself as a kind of revulsion equal or proportional in intensity to the intensity of non-mutual affection originally entertained.
	The power of a relationship is equal to its facticity being the successfulness of that relationship to resolve in process all forms of presenting dissonance. Too much consonance and a relationship becomes static and dies still born. On the other hand too much dissonance tears the potential relationship apart and leaves it in the throes of inevitable death. An appropriate balance is therefore necessitated between consonance and dissonance. In the course of our natural existence sources of conflict should neither be avoided nor sought for their own sake. The very fact of a relationship therefore is living proof that it is able to resolve its differences and it is on such sound grounds that a relationship should be allowed to improve itself. Sweeping revolutions, therefore, only trade one form of dissatisfaction for another. Relationships are more successful if they can establish processes of ongoing resolution, those relationships that leave themselves open to adaptation being better at preserving and amplifying their facticity. In this task particular non-existential aspects of a relationship are better either stripped away from that relationship or subjected to existential transformation or existentialization. It must be recognized at this point that a relationship cannot be purely existential as it is generated out of the non-existential, such a transformation necessitating the co-presence of the non-existential as the ongoing raw material for the process resolution of the relationship. As stated before, by implication, no dissonance - no relationship, as the presence of dissonance (as a Second Relational Moment) is a necessary precondition for the conditional existence of a relationship. Rather, the emphasis should be on resolution. In an ethical context this could be paraphrased to read as a resolution of conflict and not its avoidance!
	The Conditional Moment is the process of the relationship through resolutional transformation. Under experiential reflection the conditionality of a relationship should be recognized through the distinctive phenomenal nature of the relational as it presents itself to consciousness. Such reflection should recognize the distinctive spacial/temporal instatiation of the relational as trans-spatial and trans-temporal. Moreover such spontaneity and all-embracingfulness should also manifest a trans-causal component and a trans-egotistical component.
	The Post-Conditional Moment recognized the consequential implications of the conditional process. Under such retrospective reflection facticity, relational appropriateness, influential power, relational success, intentional realization, etc. can be examined and where possible the fruits of such an examination re-invested in the same or some other conditional relationship.
	
	To establish this postulation an argument to the effect would be presented that the impact or facticity of a relationship in the world is equivalent to the transformational successfulness of its resolutional process.

168 That for agents, as agents, to interact and survive in the world  they must possess the judgmental ability to adequately determine the ethical potentiality of the most probable courses of their actions and interactions.

	Translated this postulation notes that ethical relationships have an integrity that preserve their participants, and allow them to participate, implying that those participants have the ability to make appropriate ethical judgments.

169 That all ethical interaction is in a state of process which necessitates the involvement of an aesthetic-like existential ongoing harmonized integrity which manifests itself as a mutual non-discriminate devotion (love) or relational attraction equal to the facticity of the relationship.

	This postulation could be stated succinctly to imply that the intensity of the ongoing resolution in an agentally involved relationship equals both the facticity of that relationship and the degree of love or mutual affection shared within it.

170 That physiological structuralization and all involved facets of psychological evolution in the epistemological hierarchy are reflected in an evolution in the essential structure or nature of the ethical interaction under examination.

171 That in practice the ethical is always necessarily present in all relationships, agental or non-agental, and is potentially recognizable on phenomenological examina-tion.
172 That the absoluteness of ethical principles applies only to the general nature of the relational and the general nature of the experience of such and not directly to the specific content, process or type of relationship under ethical examination.
173 That the existential nature of relationships is such that it is possible for us to recognize and let them fully initiate their own unique ethical processes hence the concept of ethical relativity.
174 That because the ethicality of our relationships is experiential therefore that which promotes the epistemological function and ethical-education of ourselves promotes our receptivity to the nature and presence of the relatively ethical.
175 That because of the internal individually unique essential nature of relationships is it therefore possible in the non-existentially non-mutually orientated relationship to that degree it is in relational existence, through the agent(s) of more advanced epistemological evolution and functioning, to be allowed to more fully direct itself on the behalf of that relationship hence the concept of ethical reservation.

176 That the critical ethitician should learn how to distinguish the relatively ethical from the relatively non-ethical through a well constructed phenomenological interpretation and appreciation of the relational.
177 That the critical ethitician can learn to distinguish what the relatively ethical is through the proper applica-tion of the Schema noting the internality of its extention and the relational orientation of the relatively ethical.
178 That the critical ethitician can learn to distinguish what the relatively ethical is not through the proper application of the Schema noting the externality of its extention and the non-relational orientation of the relatively non-ethical.
179 That the critical ethitician can distinguish through a phenomenology of the relational how the internal is generated out of the external, i.e. appreciate the dependence and accommodation between extension and intension in the epistemological hierarchy.
180 That the critical ethitician should realize that ethical reflection when properly conducted is generated in process, and en context, and is direct and is neither a priori nor a posteriori through the transcendental synthetic a priori nature of transcendental productivity and that this applies equally to the essential, aesthetical, ontical and the pragmatical, i.e. to all forms of transcendental value.

Editors note: the terms ‘intension’ and ‘extension’ have a technical meaning in relation to the epistemological hierarchy and are not to be read as ‘intention, extention,’  N.