I think you may be mixing some of my points with Ben's.

I'm certainly open to evidence. Is it unreasonable to argue that good and bad are the basic biological binary of beneficial and detrimental, but that good gets elevated to a supreme ideal because the group needs a core principle, even if the concept is as ambiguous as "yes," or "up," or "on."

Throughout history, good referred to ingroup behavior, while those outside the group were not accorded ingroup rights and so the notion of good for them didn't apply.

Now we try framing what is beneficial on global scales and it starts to break down. While the underlaying tension is often economic, as in the 1% versus everyone else, since they see themselves as the ingroup, but publically we get fed divide and conquer, along other group lines, race, sexual preferences, identities, etc, as ways to keep everyone fighting and not seeing beyond their more basic impulses and identities, to larger forces at work.

I'm just putting ideas out there, to start dicussions, not close them.

As for math, to use an example, is the three dimensional frame a mapping device, like longitude, latitude and altitude, or is it some deeper platonic framework on which space is projected? Which goes to a deeper issue, of conceptual tools coming to dominate our thoughts and becoming gods. The consequence being this cycle of building out, to the point of instability, followed by a breakup and new paradigms emerging.