@AlphDoti, I don't look at my conversation with @symbols as a monologue. In fact, I'm most grateful that our conversation took the path that it did. Thank you for the 'unzipping' @symbols.

You raise some interesting points @AlphDoti.

1. Is perfect goodness possible in a community, or society?

Let's take the example of our short conversation with @symbols. While one may not be so wrong to think that we were enjoying ourselves, it's also clear that there exists some who didn't find it enjoyable. Can goodness be standardized?

2. How are ethical systems to be compared, and evaluated?

You have mentioned the ills that mark the Western worldview, and as I was reading them I asked about what about the evil among Muslims? Traditional Africa?

Can one form of evil claim righteousness over the other?

How can Man triumph over evil? Should he even try to overcome evil?

3. How are people to interact, in and with ethical, and philosophical systems. For example, what happens when Europe converts to Islam? Or Russians adopt an African worldview? How is this possible?

How westernized is the African? What are the outcomes of westernization?

Ethical systems then it seems to me, are to be evaluated by:

1. How much variety in human expression they can accommodate?

2. How communalistic, and holistic they are

3. How powerful and resourceful each individual is, on average.

4. How evil is understood and dealt with, and how human life is valued.

5. How goodness is expressed and experienced.

Looking at these yardsticks I find the traditional African system as the system of choice.

Yes, you can. That's the case at most times.

Meaning is possible only in being.

Being is structured, and has control mechanisms.

Meaning then is about how control mechanisms work, and how incoming data and information are interpreted in relation to being.

Frequency range limitations.

Please elaborate.