from what I understood the context for the "break from nature" was that the human mind is too sophisticated for its own good and that we thus navigate this with the creation of narratives and motivational notions.

Am I still in the ball-park here?

If so I maintain what I said earlier. With questioning everything/curiosity (the break from a nature of "simply be")
We have constructed a society off radical reasoning instead.

My conclusions was that with a lack of the "simply be" we invariable replace it with "simply ought to be" - some form of principle for direction.

That principle must be both morally and rationally sound. Because reason without moral alone is not sound, nor is moral without a good foundational reasoning as its basis.

If we can't simply be we must define what we ought to be (an ideal state). And thus we construct ideologies unlike our animal counterparts.

What I was saying is that such an ideology woukd require knowledge (reason) and benevolence (ethics/moral imperative) to be workable, and both motions must satisfy one another, in essence be unioned.

"it's moral to reason and it's reasonable to be moral" thus concepts like "truth" must be the foundation of both reason and morality as it is an integral part of both.

Am I still in the ball-park here? — Benj96

Yes in the ball park.

My conclusions was that with a lack of the "simply be" we invariable replace it with "simply ought to be" - some form of principle for direction. — Benj96

Ok. With you there...

That principle must be both morally and rationally sound. Because reason without moral alone is not sound, nor is moral without a good foundational reasoning as its basis. — Benj96

Ok, so here is where it kind of takes a left turn.

That principle must be both morally and rationally sound. Because reason without moral alone is not sound, nor is moral without a good foundational reasoning as its basis.

If we can't simply be we must define what we ought to be (an ideal state). And thus we construct ideologies unlike our animal counterparts.

What I was saying is that such an ideology woukd require knowledge (reason) and benevolence (ethics/moral imperative) to be workable, and both motions must satisfy one another, in essence be unioned.

"it's moral to reason and it's reasonable to be moral" this concepts like "truth" is the foundation of both reason and morality. — Benj96

I just don't know what else to say to this. I guess I can start with how much of our lives are motivated by a moral narrative versus other narratives? We are pretty contingent beings, so our narratives can vary, but it seems more-or-less circling around self-interested ideas such as accumulating goods and services for survival, comfort, and entertainment. One huge (and easily identifiable as an internalized meta-fiction) is "I have work to do!" to get work done one would sometimes not care to do. It becomes routine self-referentially justified with "I have work to do!" self-referentially justified with "I have work to do!", etc. etc.

@plaque flag, is that your new name now?

Do you think that giving someone a deficit to overcome is immoral, bad, unjust, not right, etc?

is that your new name now? — schopenhauer1

Yes, it's my final name for my final resurrection.

Do you think that giving someone a deficit to overcome is immoral, bad, unjust, not right, etc? — schopenhauer1

Creating a child violates some of our intuitions of what we owe other people. Yes. But I also think it's disgusting the way we treat animals. And so on and so on.

we still must write narratives of motivation. — schopenhauer1

I think we've evolved a tendency to 'secrete' orienting narratives, and it seems that we need such software to get along in the world.