The agonistic categorical imperative

The commandment of Kant is the categorical imperative, which formulated with Natural Law verbiage is to ‘act as if the maxims of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.’ To me this has always exemplified the hubristic and basically undecidable nature of action in the land of high-minded Königsbergian bullshit. Same thing with utilitarianism and all its modern flavors. Kant says for each action I take I must compute the effect of that action on the world as if its maxims were natural law. In other words everyone must compute the universe for each atomic act they take, resulting in computing the universe squared.

I think Agonistic Unity can give us an eigenvector of Kant's square matrix. It might say something prima facie tautological but compressionally useful like ‘act as if the universal laws of nature were the maxims of your action.’ In other words, instead of computing the effect of your action over all places and times as if you were God, compute the effect of God on your action.

This is in fact a Christian imperative and a Platonic one too. Virtue lies in coming to know (God). It is substantially more powerful than Rabbinical Judaism, because it does not decree that textual analysis and rhetoric is the only way to know God. It is substantially more powerful than Islam, because it does not decree that bloody physical conflict is the only way to know God. The agnosticism as to how one sharpens one's iron levels the playing field of action and analysis, harmonizing physis and the logos. Does this seem right to resident Gnon respecters?

Kant's categorical imperative is a failed attempt to provide binding moral norm through logical trickery after having rejected any natural basis for moral norms. Not only is it not correct, it doesn't provide even a rough framework for something correct.

Correct norms would be something like:
• Act in ways that, when habituated, will tend to promote flourishing in accord with human nature.
• Eschews acts that, when habituated, will tend to promote degradation in relation to human nature.

No Kantian-style reference to universality is needed or helpful. Nor need we reference laws of nature beyond the human (unless perhaps you bring in something interesting about energy and entropy).

>I think Agonistic Unity can give us an eigenvector of Kant's square matrix. It might say something prima facie tautological but compressionally useful like ‘act as if the universal laws of nature were the maxims of your action.’ In other words, instead of computing the effect of your action over all places and times as if you were God, compute the effect of God on your action.

Interesting idea RE "prima facie tautological but compressionally useful," but why would this law/heuristic have any compelling moral force? Why shouldn't one just act as one wishes from instinct in the moment, or follow a virtue ethical framework, or use any other moral heuristic? What's the motive force behind the imperative to respect an impersonal natural law?