Naturality, Normality and Morality

  • Title: Contemplationam, Naturality, Normality and Morality.
  • Author: Arvindus.
  • Publisher: Arvindus.
  • Copyright: 2015, Arvindus, all rights reserved.
  • Index: 201508101.
  • Edition: html, first edition.

In this short contemplation the differences and relations between naturality, normality and morality shall be thematized.

The English word 'naturality' obviously stems from the word 'nature'.1 This word was in 'An Etymosophy of 'Father' and 'Mother'' etymosophicallly traced back through the Latin 'nātūra' to the Latin 'māter' (instead of the Latin 'nāscī').2 This word was in the same contemplation posited as being also the root of the English words 'mother', 'water' and 'matter', thus laying etymosophically a relation between nature and the referents or inferents3 of the latter mentioned words.4

Now in 'An Etymosophy of 'Father' and 'Mother'' were the above mentioned etymosophically related words 'mother', 'water' and 'matter' set opposite to the family of words consisting of 'father', 'fire' and 'spirit'.5 This raises the expectancy that naturality, belonging to the same family of words as 'mother', 'water' and 'matter', has an opposite too. And indeed this is so, for the Oxford English Dictionary mentions as an opposite of naturality morality.6 Now on base of naturality being found as related to matter can its opposite morality be related to the opposite of matter, being spirit. And this makes sense. For where naturality has to do with material values there can morality be said to have to do with spiritual values. In the material interactions of nature for instance it is very natural to use physical violence for the gain of a material good, however spiritually this is considered as immoral and with that opposed to spirituality.7

The English word 'morality' itself can be traced back to the Latin 'mōrālis'.8 This word was a neologism that was formed by Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) from the root 'mōs'9 to translate the Greek word 'ethĭkós'.10 Now this root 'mōs' has like 'ethĭkós' reference to habits but then especially to those that are right.11, 12 Morality then has to do with the establishment of right and spiritual habits.

That morality has to do with the establishment of right and spiritual habits does not mean that 'morality' refers directly to habits. A habit is a standard and usual behavior and to refer to this the word 'normality' is more in place.13 This word stems from the Latin 'normālis'.14 The latter referred basically to the construction of an angle of ninety degrees,15 however in course of time it came in English to refer to a usual state or condition,16 probably through the conception that what is habitual and usual is straight and orderly like a ninety degree angle.

Now the question may rise how normality may be related to the opposites of naturality and morality. It was thematized before in quite a number of contemplations that when the opposites of spirit and matter come together a third given occurs, namely that of the soul or of consciousness.17 And this third given is then also that which relates the two opposites to each other. The soul is the relation between spirit and matter. Then with morality related to spirit and naturality to matter it can be expected that these two are related to each other by a third given. And from what has been brought to the fore so far it can be accepted that this third given regards normality. Normality relates naturality to morality. On the evolutionary arc from matter to spirit on which we are presently placed18 leads normality us from naturality to morality. The use of physical violence for the gain of material good for instance may in our society naturally still occur but it is not habitual and usual. So by the setting of habitual standards for behavior are we led out of our natural state towards a moral state. That in normality this moral state has however not yet been fully reached is shown in for instance the persecution of those individuals who in history morally transcended the normality of their society.19 The crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is probably the best example in this.20 Normality diminishes the natural harm but does not yet fully abolish it. This is done only in morality.

May we thus in morality transcend our normality as we in the latter transcend our naturality.