We have argued in other posts here that the universe exhibits an intentionality that manifests as intuition through the intuition of its Meaning (the final purpose of everything). Nevertheless, the universe cannot modify its own nature and it has no consciousness of itself; it is incapable of making deliberate decisions – its actions are always therefore intuitive ones, blundering rather than flowing through intention. Seen in this way, we can say that the universe has evolved into its laws via a blind process of selection through trial and error. In turn, the laws have sustained a directionality of accidental evolutions that have developed their own intentionality, and allowing for the creation of the meaningfulness of existence through the presence of consciousness in the universe – albeit, a consciousness that is experienced not by the thing-in-itself, but by its individual parts.

The state of existence through consciousness, i.e. the Ideal State, should be considered as the first realisation of Meaning in a full sense (with a capital M). This Meaning that comes from perceiving and knowing, must be measured qualitatively against the blind, intuitive cosmic purposiveness beginning with the primordial spark of intuition which first produced dimensionality, then matter and forms in that dimensionality, out of the meaningless void that preceded it.

At the physical level of reality the difference between the Ideal State and the matter and forms of reality created through trial and error are (almost) irrelevant – once meaning is intuited by the universe it becomes an essential part of it. However, from a qualitative standpoint the difference is existentially immense and deeply profound.

Because of this qualitative difference that we, as the knowing, conscious, and (potentially) rational components of the universe, all possess in ourselves, our being here is impressed with a cosmological importance and moral responsibility at an existential level of everything that points to another kind of humanity, vastly different from the kind of individuals being produced by civilisation as we understand it today. In other words, we are just not who we should be.

This is not because the truth concerning our reason for being here is so hard to understand or find, but because it is so difficult to accept, for all the responsibilities such an acceptance contains.

The first moral lesson to be taken from this is that:

The world (universe) does not exist for me/us, I/we exist for the world (universe).

I live in a surrounding world that I exist for, as through my existence the world attains a part of its Being (where Being = being perceived and cognised).

The world exists for me, but only because I exist for it. If I were not part of the world’s intuitively developed intention for existence I would never have existed myself. Around me are other subjective, cognitive beings that also exist for the world. In my synthetic activity with the other subjective beings that I am connected with the world becomes constituted in an originally perceived way that grants the world an original form of existence. Our experience and observations regarding our lives in the world around us is an enriching experience not only for us, as subjective agents, but also (more importantly) for the world itself as the object of our original perception.

The amalgamation of all these original syntheses of perception belonging to humanity and other perceiving organisms (in past, present and future states) make up the grand synthesis which constitutes the existence of the universe. It is from this perception of reality that an authentic and spiritually honest morality for all humanity can be constructed.