So much to take in.
I believe I agree with your premise. I have always had an intuition that there is something different deep down between humans that is solely related to nature. One might be able to argue it could have to do with the specific hominid (Neanderthal, Denisovan, or Naledi) that Homo Sapiens Sapiens bonded with to produce modern man. I am sure one could make anecdotal cases for variants, to which I would call that an outlier. This intuition has become a near surety since Covid. The division between NPC, middle class and highest level has become obviously naked to any casual observer.
Risking the perception that I am put myself at the highest level, as most would naturally do, I think it best describes me. For instance, I tried to take a boxing class. However, when it came to the act of raising my hand to strike another person in the face, I found it offensive. The idea of reaching out and striking someone, even in friendly competition, somehow felt beneath my ideals. If Jesus, showed up and said, "it's okay to kill", I would likely say "No thanks".
We have used the word morality in this discussion, but I have some trouble with the word's meaning. We are conditioned to think that being moral or having morals is "taking the high road or being good", however, I understand the word to mean "whatever society determines is good". That is a slippery slope, some societies consider eating dogs as perfectly fine, they have no compunction with it. Does that make eating dogs moral? Not in my book, but I wasn't raised in that society. See how morality can mean different things to different people.
That being said, I am against all violence (right, everyone says that, but do they really mean it), being a fan of history, the amount of loss that has taken place over time due to fighting wars is unimaginable. Especially, that wars are fought by the little guy for the sake of the big guy. That I cannot abide. It is my opinion, based on a study of history, Israel has been at the heart of aggressing this conflict in this region.
As regarding what "morality" really is, as far as I can tell it could be defined as, "conducting one's life in accordance with natural law". Of course, that just brings up the question, "What is natural law?"
Mark Passio has done a very long, extremely thorough presentation on natural law. I would consider it required viewing. Among many other things, you find that the concept supersedes any legislation or norms or moral codes as being corrupt or imperfect. Living in accordance with natural law is what we should all be shooting for.
I would here interject an idea to keep in mind as you watch the presentation, something that Mark hasn't integrated into his worldview. That is, NPCs--comprising perhaps 80% of the population--can't simply be told about natural law, whereafter they will "get it" and start behaving that way. That's not how NPCs function.
NPCs require a relatively clear external system of rewards and (regrettably) punishments. To be blunt, you would never expect a 5yo to act correctly just by going over the behavioral norms with him. This is why organized religion has played such an important role in human history by providing this framework. It's also why the Elites--to the extent They cannot control it--wish to destroy it.
As for the origin of man and it's implications, well, therein lies a book-length tale. If you're not already familiar, this next will sound kookoo bananas but stay around until the end for a surprising new take on an old tale.
First, Zechariah Sitchin was correct, and we were first created by a race of aliens about 270k years ago engineered as a slave species from (probably) homo erectus and their own DNA. Few or no humans at that time were conscious, no more than farm animals are, which is what we were.
Later, perhaps 35k years ago, an improved species was introduced, still not conscious but apparently capable of such. The Garden of Eden story recounts that event, very ancient and very imperfectly perceived that the time but with surprising remnants of the history still intact.
Referring to Adam and Eve, two examples of the improved species, I paraphrase Yahweh when he said, "If they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, their eyes will be opened and they will become like us, knowing good and evil." As far as I can tell, everything ever said about this passage has been wrong.
Rather, this "fruit" was apparently some technology to elevate human consciousness from NPC to fully awake. What is the absolutely fundamental sign that a person is conscious? That his or her eyes are open, correct? And what is it to know good from evil? It is precisely to possess a moral sense, is it not?
So at one and the same time, Adam and Eve gained both consciousness and a moral sense, which I think you would agree wraps back around to exactly what we've been discussing.
I would just add that as good as my creativity is, I could not possibly make this up... lol
So much to take in. I believe I agree with your premise. I have always had an intuition that there is something different deep down between humans that is solely related to nature. One might be able to argue it could have to do with the specific hominid (Neanderthal, Denisovan, or Naledi) that Homo Sapiens Sapiens bonded with to produce modern man. I am sure one could make anecdotal cases for variants, to which I would call that an outlier. This intuition has become a near surety since Covid. The division between NPC, middle class and highest level has become obviously naked to any casual observer.
Risking the perception that I am put myself at the highest level, as most would naturally do, I think it best describes me. For instance, I tried to take a boxing class. However, when it came to the act of raising my hand to strike another person in the face, I found it offensive. The idea of reaching out and striking someone, even in friendly competition, somehow felt beneath my ideals. If Jesus, showed up and said, "it's okay to kill", I would likely say "No thanks".
We have used the word morality in this discussion, but I have some trouble with the word's meaning. We are conditioned to think that being moral or having morals is "taking the high road or being good", however, I understand the word to mean "whatever society determines is good". That is a slippery slope, some societies consider eating dogs as perfectly fine, they have no compunction with it. Does that make eating dogs moral? Not in my book, but I wasn't raised in that society. See how morality can mean different things to different people.
That being said, I am against all violence (right, everyone says that, but do they really mean it), being a fan of history, the amount of loss that has taken place over time due to fighting wars is unimaginable. Especially, that wars are fought by the little guy for the sake of the big guy. That I cannot abide. It is my opinion, based on a study of history, Israel has been at the heart of aggressing this conflict in this region.
As regarding what "morality" really is, as far as I can tell it could be defined as, "conducting one's life in accordance with natural law". Of course, that just brings up the question, "What is natural law?"
Mark Passio has done a very long, extremely thorough presentation on natural law. I would consider it required viewing. Among many other things, you find that the concept supersedes any legislation or norms or moral codes as being corrupt or imperfect. Living in accordance with natural law is what we should all be shooting for.
I would here interject an idea to keep in mind as you watch the presentation, something that Mark hasn't integrated into his worldview. That is, NPCs--comprising perhaps 80% of the population--can't simply be told about natural law, whereafter they will "get it" and start behaving that way. That's not how NPCs function.
NPCs require a relatively clear external system of rewards and (regrettably) punishments. To be blunt, you would never expect a 5yo to act correctly just by going over the behavioral norms with him. This is why organized religion has played such an important role in human history by providing this framework. It's also why the Elites--to the extent They cannot control it--wish to destroy it.
As for the origin of man and it's implications, well, therein lies a book-length tale. If you're not already familiar, this next will sound kookoo bananas but stay around until the end for a surprising new take on an old tale.
First, Zechariah Sitchin was correct, and we were first created by a race of aliens about 270k years ago engineered as a slave species from (probably) homo erectus and their own DNA. Few or no humans at that time were conscious, no more than farm animals are, which is what we were.
Later, perhaps 35k years ago, an improved species was introduced, still not conscious but apparently capable of such. The Garden of Eden story recounts that event, very ancient and very imperfectly perceived that the time but with surprising remnants of the history still intact.
Referring to Adam and Eve, two examples of the improved species, I paraphrase Yahweh when he said, "If they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, their eyes will be opened and they will become like us, knowing good and evil." As far as I can tell, everything ever said about this passage has been wrong.
Rather, this "fruit" was apparently some technology to elevate human consciousness from NPC to fully awake. What is the absolutely fundamental sign that a person is conscious? That his or her eyes are open, correct? And what is it to know good from evil? It is precisely to possess a moral sense, is it not?
So at one and the same time, Adam and Eve gained both consciousness and a moral sense, which I think you would agree wraps back around to exactly what we've been discussing.
I would just add that as good as my creativity is, I could not possibly make this up... lol