was just thinking about moral consistency, not that I think attaining it to be overly important, because taken to its extreme of the various scales to all its detail probably a creature (or machine) burdened with such a task’d self-destruct, or become catatonic, or weird.

so I think the mind toolkit has to have ways of simplifying things, just to survive thinking and being conscious.

i think too overdoing moral consistency would render more of reality understood as what minds do than is healthy – reality overly a mental construction. And of shared (and agreed constructions – territory of ethics) understanding could become overly a social construction.

but demonstrating (reliably exhibiting) moral consistency seems important in the social field. Is there a conscious creature that never looked for a moral inconsistency?(in others too). That feels like a dumb question to me, and without the aid of cocaine i’ve written it down quickly here before introspective fade obliviates it.

and who hasn’t experienced introspective fade?

so, it’s probably the situation that humans have to tolerate some moral inconsistency, of others, and self. Maybe in that order, i’m not sure. Sigmund’d probably do another line at this point and come up with an answer coming out of the dream state a few hours later.

i guess one of the reasons there are individuals with personal (and private) selves, that it’s allowed (perhaps encouraged) is because there is no universal absolute moral consistency to be had. It’s necessary for survival not to be pretending there is 24/7.

people could loosely agree though on the upper boundaries of (at what point/level of complexity) introspective fade (is acceptable). Save many a lot of work. A good thing.

it probably doesn’t matter while asleep. But while awake, and others are awake to observe, it probably matters a lot. Fade’s your best friend.

so, I wonder, of the news for example, of a story (whatever, make it up), my attention is being encouraged, i’m drawn to the details provided, but is there another message to do with the level of complexity of understanding preferred, a level at which introspective fade is commonly accepted, the normal view. The morally consistent view you can relax with. You’re there. You understood, no further effort required, no added internal conflict.

quick without much dwell time might help, and here’s the next story. I should mention a panda bear somewhere too toward the end here, and it’s done.

What concerns me is not “moral consistency” and “introspective fade”

It’s “moral polarisation” and “introspective feedback”

“Moral polarisation” is a postmodern phenomena. In the modern era, morality was (nominally) set to “always do more good than harm”, and similar. In the postmodern era, morality is polarised into diametrically opposing camps of “do no harm” and “do whatever you can get away with”. Both postmodern moral systems are shockingly bad. Because every action has both positive and negative consequences, “do no harm” is exactly equivalent to “do nothing”, and a “do nothing” morality does nothing to ensure proper maintenance so everything decays and dies. “Do whatever you can get away with” allows every possible sort of corruption.

Introspection is meant to act as a process of internalising and processing external inputs after the fact. But it tends to get stuck on a feedback loop where memories, both true and false, end up reinforcing themselves. The feedback from introspection becomes uncomfortable after a while. And as external input changes from real life to media-driven repetition, introspection gets further and further removed from reality. One consequence of introspection feedback is paranoia. Most people try to minimise introspection in this unreal world by use of talking and music.

I suppose in reality the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, so certain dangerous peoples and organisations need to be removed from the equation of life on Earth as they pose too high a risk to most people living a reasonably decent life. The human race probably needs a benign dictator (if such a person could actually exist) to force certain changes upon us to insure the hopefully long term survival our species and the planet and everything living upon it. Most world leaders seem to want the exact opposite, short term gain for continued political support and to hell with the consequences and fallout

I can see a way, that of contempt, that it maybe can lend to a type of moral consistency. Plenty of contempt around, looking for semething to focus on, it helps trim reality down (economy of mind, or minds). It roams around, has a territory, like wandering comparison (envy, jealousy, even the failed apparent avoiding of).