If I didn't know it was fabricated, on what basis would I decide whether to escape it? — Vera Mont

Fair enough but that's beside my point.

It's not rational to escape from a satisfactory environment. — Vera Mont

I'll take that as a 'yes' to the title question.

OP said " there is something here that i feel is true but i can't put my finger on what it is."

It seems that it is his desire to possess 'the true' and 'put his finger on it' that creates the nagging and irritation.

Good job quoting Krishnamurti, that will make things clearer for OP (sarcasm)

If I say "there is only one possible world" then it is true (in some possible world).

Now solve this.

✍( ͡¬ ᴗ ͡¬)

To me religion is the personal journey of growth of an individual. The growth being the unveiling of deeper levels of reality.

If by 'religion' you mean organized religions as they historically are, I too find them ultimately childish and detrimental to the pursuit of truth.
It's like trying to catch the wind in a box.

Interesting question.

If The One is an illusion then each fragment would have an independent reality.
Then we would be able to find the unchangeable good and the unchangeable evil.
Each fragment would be an 'absolute' reality on its own, for without The One there is no continuity or interrelation.

I cannot comprehend a reality where everything is independent.
From my own observation and scientific knowledge what we call things, events and phenomena are really within spectrums and interrelations.
Even the scientist for years have tried to find the Unifying Theory of Everything.
Even for them, the universal laws in order to work as they work, they have to come out of the same source.

Imagine dismantling a car to each individual piece.
Give them a shuffle and throw all the pieces on the floor.
What do you have? Where did the car go? All the pieces are there.
Without the laws needed to create the 'car', the individual pieces are just that, pieces.

I'm assuming there is no electricity/power.

1. High quality bow - Long range
2. Katana - Close range
3. Antibiotics - as much as possible
4. High quality backpack
5. High quality cooking canner - I don't think I can make one
6. Bicycle - Faster travels
7. Good Axe - There will be a lot of chopping
8. Grain seeds - As much as possible
9. Thermal clothes
10. The Bible - in case I need to start a fire (hehehe jk)
You said chose items/supplies but I would pick a fast strong dog.

I would move to an inhabited valley with 4 seasons, preferably soft winter.

I mean, if you move a rock. That is manipulation of the object. If someone forces you to move the rock, that's also that (causality right?). Maybe i'm using the word manipulation wrong. — trogdor

Simply put, a subject can consciously manipulate an object.
An object cannot consciously manipulate anything.
The key word in this case is 'consciously' not 'manipulation'.

Just that there is something here that i feel is true but i can't put my finger on what it is. — trogdor

An advise for when you are struggling with a problem:
Stop trying to arrive at an answer and step back and work on formulating the question better. Even formulate many questions of the same problem from different perspectives.

I met a man today who claimed to know everything everyone was thinking. — trogdor

The best answer you could give to him is "Ok".

This goes for objects and humans, and one self. — trogdor

I wouldn't say objects 'consciously manipulate'.

How does one go about leaving this rabbit hole? Like i have a normal life but this is nagging on me. — trogdor

I'm not sure what exactly is nagging you.

The opposite is also true.

Jesus was God in man.
Jesus said "The bread you eat is my body, the wine you drink is my blood"
And what happens to the food humans eat?
We secrete it.
So humans secrete God.

You could say The Holy Ghost is the Divine Fart.
The human fart is the Divine Spirit released.

The metaphor is coming together
wouldn't you agree @Agent Smith ?

Where is the rigidity?

Ignorance is knowing the partial as the whole.
The knowledge of good and evil is in duality. As the knowledge of one creates the other.
Duality is the fragmentation of the One into the many. Love-Hate Life-Death Day-Night Beauty-Ugly
So any knowledge in duality is partial knowledge thus ignorance.

No need to apologize for what one takes joy in.

It seems, either there never was a God or one is being created. — Agent Smith

If you'll allow me to be "contradictory" (but not really):
If one sees God, there is no God.
If one cannot see God one can start believing in it.

For example. For Jesus there is no God when he is alone.
When those who cannot see ask him of God he has to bring the truth into a word and make it a relative one thus creating the image of God.

Agreed.

I am not sure if you are trying to advocate moral anarchy. — Jack Cummins

I'm pointing to no-morality, neither anarchic nor hierarchic.

As far as chaos is concerned that may be the general background from which all development emerges, but even chaos theory points to patterns of order. — Jack Cummins

Exactly my point.

So, to say that morality is ignorance is contradictory because to cast morality aside would be the abandonment of reason in favour of irrationality. — Jack Cummins

In accordance with you what you said above on chaos, what's appears as irrationality may be beyond rationality.
As I said before I'm not speaking of the ordinary man but beyond it. I pointed to the man of Chuang Tzu, Zarathustra's etc.

As far as we ordinarily are we live in chaos thus we need reinforcement of order which we call morality. Which is why I conclude that forcing the system of moral codes because of lack of understanding is ignorance.

One doesn't cast aside morality but rather drops it, just like the music expert drops the music score and reaches the rank of virtuoso by unbounded creativity.

¯\_( ͡• ‿‿ ͡•)_/¯

Care to elaborate on that question?

And yet you eat fruits and vegetables that is grown with the help of animal secretion.

"Eat the apple Eve and you shall be as God"

However, if the idea of going beyond morality was taken to the extreme it would be ethical chaos. — Jack Cummins

What may seem to man as chaos to the universe it is natural order.

This preamble contradicts the title of your thread which otherwise doesn't make much sense to me. — 180 Proof

There is no contradiction.
Knowing good and evil is ignorance in duality.
An animal is not ignorant in that sense.
Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge but of understanding.

Yes you can say anything and then just add 'it just is'.

1. A sculpture of a pyramid is on my table.
2. A sculpture of a pyramid made of diamond is on my table.
3. The pyramid of Giza is on my table.

There are different levels of possibility-impossibility.

I think that’s difficult to do because one has to have a reason and a way to modify how one approaches the situation. All we have to go on is how we have previously understood it. In order to behave freshly , we have to be able to come up with a new insight, and we can’t just will that. — Joshs

I agree that it is difficult and one needs to work a lot on it from different perspectives.

A number of schools of philosophy, as well as researchers in perceptual psychology, believe that a ‘now’ divorced from memories of a past is a now with no content and no meaning. — Joshs

I do not mean that in spontaneity the 'now' is divorced from the memories of the past. I should have made clear that being free from the past does not mean forgetting it, but rather not being conditioned by it.
For example, a tall blonde man has hurt you in the past. In the present you come into contact with a tall blonde man. The hurt, which is the past, triggers you and influences your relationship, thus the past creates the present.
I'm asking if it is possible that you divorce yourself not from the factual memory but from the hurt (emotional memory) and thus you meet the situation fresh.

When it is spoken, it is and idea. When experienced, it is the unspoken truth.

The wave function collapses into a particle.
The word is the collapse of the Truth into a unit, thus turning it into 'just an idea'.

The truth, if true, is never old. For the old belongs in time whilst the truth, if true, is timeless.

What you are pointing to I would call it reaction not spontaneity.
Accumulated experience, which is conditioning, is mechanical reaction which is of the past, be it emotional or intellectual reaction.

Is t the immediate ‘now’ always a synthesis of past and present? — Joshs

That's how it usually is. The 'now' stops being 'now' and becomes the future through the past.

The question is: Is there a 'now' that is not mechanically determined by the past, a 'now' that is constantly refreshing?

I'm not a good enough student of history or anthropology to be definitive, but I think my description of how most people make moral decisions probably applies during all times. — T Clark

I think whatever the age people adapt their behaviour to the standard of the culture. In other words, people were/are generally conformist. So they followed the morality of the tradition otherwise the price to pay was too high.
The best of them are those who defined the structure and obeyed their conscience but I believe that was uncommon. Maybe that is why they are the ones we remember and admire.

Thank you.

It just is.
Logic applies to the limited not to the eternal.

Most people don't make decisions based on a formal system of morality. — T Clark

It is true that in modern times people base their morality less and less on formal system. I took into consideration the whole history of mankind.
But still I observe that people, consciously or unconsciously, create a structure of morality for without it they feel at a loss.
When self-understanding is lacking, a system of belief takes its place.

Can you be more explicit? — Agent Smith

Ah you are making me think. Its usually a drag.
In my metaphor matter is not separated from God.
If you want some entertaining picture:
God eats us, secretes us, we become the humus,which the creates the fruit, we are the fruit, God eats the fruits, secretes it, and so on.

There's animals, there's us, there's God. You see anything intriguing in there? — Agent Smith

Hmmmm. There is God. In it there's animals, there's us. They do not stand on the same ground.

I did

Relationship between humans and animals is material.
Relationship between God and man (in cases where there is one) transcends matter.
So one has to take God eating us as a metaphor.

Now answer the question. — Agent Smith

It is an interesting metaphor but half complete, I would say.
If God eats us, God must also give birth to us.

I finished high school in 2015 in Albania. I grew up in a post-communist society that suffered for many centuries under oppression. The atmosphere growing up was and still is that of the zero-sum game where success is god, all I remember from my teachers is that you must make money no matter what and that wisdom has no value in this era.

So that created a rebellion in me towards the direction of the current culture, so naturally I found affinity with controversial writers down the ages. Always felt like people lived 180° so I looked for those who were outsiders. One of the first things I read and inspired me was Nietzsche's Camel-Lion-Child story.
A strong influence was also Krishnamurti although it took me some time to really understand him for I was very young.

I strongly suggest McGilchrist because he is really trying to direct our attention to a more holistic approach to reality and he does this through hard science data to begin with and how to understand its implication epistemologically and ontologically.

I don't really have a formal education. I finished high school but it was basically a useless education in a 2nd world small town.

I have to make clear that I never had any interest in politics and my approach on this matter is not political but still people mostly responded to this post in a political perspective because the word 'democracy' is used and that triggers politics in our conditioning.

As far as book suggestions for you, I don't think I have ever read books on this specific matter but the approach of personal responsibility (change starts from within) comes from many sources, like Nietzsche (poor man still misunderstood), Socrates, Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti, Dostoevski, Zen masters, and many others.

A recent discovery for me is Iain McGilchrist. His work is abundant but very much worthy.

You are assuming that there are such things as propositions apart from human consciousness.
The question that you should first make is whether propositions are emergent or fundamental.

I think there is a dynamic objective morality. Which means that the objective morality is ever-changing in the present (Heraclitus: All is flux).
The main problem in this, is man's impotence to realize ("keep up with") the constant flexibility of objective morality. The reasons for this are so many that would need a whole another topic.
People (most of them) have understood that there is no fixed objective morality and they use this argument to jump to the opposite: moral relativism.
Man realizing the lack of inner power, understanding, self-knowledge in themselves they succumb to their weakness and use relativism to their own convenience.

Why do you think that "Our virtual choices (simulations, hypotheticals) are independent"?
Are they not also susceptible to external influences, conscious or unconscious?