the ethical manoeuvre

THE ETHICAL MANOEUVRE (what existence really is or ought to be + attuning to it) 

I've been thinking recently that any ethical view of living (which we all have in one way or another) is constructed in two moves. Firstly, that we come to have an idea about what existence/reality really is or ought to be. And then, secondly, we simply call on ourselves and everyone to get attuned to this reality. 

For example… 
. St Paul: God is love; thus you should love; and the fruit of the spirit is love, joy and peace; thus you should take on this spirit. 
. Buddha: Life is suffering; embrace this, don't deny it. 
. Singer: Sentience has this special thing called agency; thus don't remove agency but rather give space for agency (over 'humanity'). 
. Tolle: ego is identification with form, but life is that which is beyond and beneath form, thus, stop identifying with form and get into the now. Etc etc. 

The 'attuning to it' part of the equation comes fairly simply in the wake of determining 'what existence is all about'. Actually attuning to it might be hard in practice, but marking out the idea of attuning is a fairly simple matter I think. If we’ve done the hard work out working out what existence really is or should be, then we already know a lot about what we should be attuned to – so we come to a simple injunction: do it (hey, you, attune!). 

Consider this from Joseph Campbell: “The goal of life is to make your heartbeat match the beat of the universe, to match your nature with Nature.”

And why do we need to attune, and why is this hard? Seems to me that every ethical position has an original sin/rift of some sort -- and this is why the 'attuning to how existence really is' is crucial to mark out, because somehow we are not ordinarily attuned. If we were ordinarily attuned, then there would be no need to speak of attunement, and thus there would be no ethical manoeuvre and no ethical idea/debate in the first place. 

What this means, I think, is that any ethical debate or tussle really be a tussle about what we think existence is all about (and the nature of human engagement that we somehow miss the point so often), even if the debate is not framed in those terms. And often it isn't framed like this. Eg, discussions about education very rarely want to go back to the very basics of existence. Although people at the Blackened Wood do want to get down to these basics - which I've really appreciated - always wanting to ask in your own ways: but what is learning, what is being human, all about? (The Garbo via critical history of industrialism, capital and control, Lurch via critique of contemporary educational paradigms, notions of self, caring and trauma, Mr Skinny via a certain Socratic questioning as a teacher etc). 

Presently, The Garbo says: "What you call the ethical manoeuvre actually summarizes the entire philosophical enterprise". Yeah, I started to already think that. Ie. step one: ontology. step two: ethics. 

I suppose my point is to firstly understand if that's what I'm doing in my own way (as you confirm it: "you seem to be searching for a way ahead that has some ethical shape.") and also to clearly announce this to the reader... especially since so my discourse covers over these steps/manoeuvres. I think it would also give people a chance to work out what they want to debate: what I say about what exists, or what I say about what this means for living better.