I think it's very interesting what you've said there. It does sound logical that the level of morality below cannot recognize the level above, but I think that they can indeed exist. In fact, I see it as a microcosm of morality where it's very much based on perspective.

For example, a human that is part of the sociological morality walks into the wild. In his act of 'goodness,' he offers to save a weak animal that should have died, which was morally acceptable in the fundamental level of morality. But there's many levels of this, and that has to do with the way we as humans interact with animals. We cannot understand how they feel or whether they feel, but there are always exceptions in the 'survival of the fittest' rule.

Survival of the fittest: another sort of societal rule that often goes unnoticed. We humans seem to follow this rule, it's undeniable in times of chaos and oppression, war and conflict. We seem to neglect a more humane side of us only because the war calls for a more animalistic side, the idea that we must win, we must be better. Sometimes, humans might not even notice the fundamental morality that affects them.

But sometimes, we can notice this omniscient morality. Let's say, imagine how shocked that weak animal may have been to find a creature defying the law of fundamentality, the very law they must abide by to survive. That is the surprising goodness that comes out of the discovery of the higher level of morality. And it can happen to and come from any human, but the good act is always shocking because we cannot see it until it happens. However, when we see it, the very image of the past that such a good act solved, will become a horrible embarrassment for humans. And this has happened many times in history: the disbelief of their own horrifying act comes to light when a small group realize and fight with omniscient morality.

Perhaps these moralities don't exist as independent from each other, rather as existing within one another. For example, you mentioned sometimes Humans resort to Fundamental moral behaviour (ie, in anarchy), despite being part of a society. As such, it could be considered that Humans still possess Fundamental Morality, but also have an additional, outer 'layer of morality' which is Sociological morality.

So what you mean is that there are layers of morality? Like an onion with fundamentals at it's core?

If so, are you saying that we, as a part of a society, cannot grasp the morality of 'omniscience?'
- If the answer were to be 'no, we cannot,' then what we've identified as morales cannot be true morales at all, because there exists a type of purer morality that we cannot comprehend-- the outer layer of the onion ring we've trapped ourselves in. Then, how did we even come to know of a bigger truth? How do we tell the difference from what belongs in what layer?
- Were the answer 'yes, we can grasp it' then why must the layers system exist? An animal could possibly hold a bigger sense of truth in the world than a human. And we would never know.

As much as I love categorizing things, I don't believe morality is something that can be categorized, or at least not in such a way. How would I organize it, you ask? Let me sleep on that...

As such, it could be considered that Humans still possess Fundamental Morality, but also have an additional, outer 'layer of morality' which is Sociological morality. — Javants

Considering such would mean that human could never see an omniscient good and will always fall victim to the omniscient bad. So do you think that morality is something we can only reach to a certain extent?

The idea of three existing moral spectra does not impact the importance of the Human morality that we live by. Practically, this argument is used as a justification for moral relativism and as proof for a God which can still be omnibenevolent despite the apparent suffering in the world. Yes, it is true that we can never understand omniscient morality, but that doesn't mean we can't still live by the morals of our society. Our sociological morality is the purest form of morality we can cognitively attain, and thus, the best one by which we should live.