There is a difference between what an evil act can create, and what situations are sustained by evil action. I think the former is not necessarily evil, while the latter is necessarily evil. Lets take an example...
Click pic for more awesome prints from LawrenceArtsCenter.org
One of the most evil acts known to man is rape. The use of force to physically control another person. It is not uncommon for a woman victim to get pregnant from the assault. In this case, there is no obligation for the child to follow in the steps of the father. Good raising and care will create a good person, regardless of the father. We have all seen cases of good children from bad parents.
On the other hand, there are situations that can only exist - be sustained, perpetuated, by evil acts. Take another extreme evil: slavery. It is not possible to possess slaves, without coercing yourself on them. Without continuous coercion, slavery will not exist, instantly so.
It seems that anything caused by evil may be either good or bad, while anything sustained by evil must be also wrong. This observation lets us better judge people's choices! Anyone who enjoys the results of another's evil is not liable, unless they are also involved.
However, if you are enjoying the sustained evil actions of others, then you are collaborating and are necessarily committing evil!
I would like to experiment, and write down a clear and practical guide for good behavior. Moral behavior, both positively (generally necessary habits) and negatively (prohibited behavior). A guide that can, periodically, stand as a reference for the moral standards that humanity's best minds have discovered.
Eventually, I plan on giving it a page of its own. For now, here is the index and subtitles, with a little description, for your review.
They had their morality, and we have ours.
Subtitle: To reflect the wisdom of our age, through clear and reasoned guidance.
1. Morality 1.1 The Non-Aggression Principle
A single core principle that can explain the larger part of our existing and accepted moral rules, such as not to steal or murder.
1.1.1 Only self-defense justifies force. 1.1.2 Judging self-defense situations.
This principle is well argued, and exemplified throughout historical and modern times. Our greatest achievements, such as the abolition of slavery, follow hand-in-hand with it.
1.2 The Ideology of Anarchy
A complimenting ideology that solves the remaining issues in society, where-in coercion is not necessarily applied, by denying the morality of dominating or abusive relationships.
1.2.1 Authority is always personal. 1.2.2 Responsibility versus Ownership - plan rather than blame. 1.2.3 Partnership versus Service - never obey.
To both explain and solve the error of social hierarchy, the ideology first shows the logic it holds, and then goes to give clear examples of its use.
1.3 The Pursuit of Wisdom
A moral code that is unchanging, and based on history rather than contemporary evidence, leads to immorality. Moral understanding must always evolve and be fine-tuned, so that it reflects the knowledge and experience of its users.
1.3.1 Why & How to Find Challenges.
An improved morality is the result of facing challenges, and coming out of them the better and wiser. The more varied, unexpected, unknown, and dire the challenge or choice, the better.
2. Practices 2.1 Exercise
A sickly body is unable to concentrate and reason, to a normal extent. Morality, first and foremost, requires taking care of the self.
2.1.1 Cardio, strength, and flexibility.
A regularly active person that has full mobility in both resistance and reach, will always feel comfortable in their own body.
2.2 Self Defense & Arms
Justice is the ability to act on your morality. It is not enough to understand right from wrong, if it is not possible to protect what is right, and fend off what is wrong.
2.2.1 Strategy, Tactics, Evasion - Also see chapter 2.3.4. 2.2.2 Contact fighting. 2.2.3 Short range weapons, long range weapons, and projectiles.
Through analyzing situations, planning ahead, and enjoying advanced equipment, anyone can defend themselves efficiently.
2.3 Discussion
Open debate and freedom of speech are tenants of the modern age. Without those, progress is slowed, and conflict increases.
2.3.1 Personal needs. 2.3.2 Community needs. 2.3.3 Planning for goals. 2.3.4 Political negotiations - the social-economical front.
Discussions are intentionally organised, so that debate does not turn into harmful gossip. When people's thoughts are acknowledged, it is important to plan on how to address them. Finally, it is also important to acknowledge and address outside issues.
3. Community 3.1 Events 3.1.1 Organizing people for coordinated action.
Pre-defined events give people access into initiatives that would otherwise be private. This way anyone can contribute to others, without the normally necessary personal connection.
3.2 Gatherings 3.2.1 Bonding different communities.
It is impossible to make a disconnection between communities. Even if the distance may be far and wide, there will always be both positive and negative influences. It is important to seek the positive.
3.3 Support 3.3.1 From public shelters to friend circles.
Planning and effort are limited, and that is why we have backups. Public spaces help, when a home is lost. Reliable friend circles, where responsibility is shared voluntarily, help when personal ability is diminished through injury or disease.
Privacy is a social term that defines an acceptable limitation of interference into another person's life. It means that even if the space around me is not mine alone, we all agree that I have greater rights over it, than others.
For example, even if no one is touching me, it is within my [socially accepted] right to remove people from my near proximity. Or, even if the sound of my echoing voice is not strictly under my possession, it is still frowned upon to eavesdrop to a conversation.
However, simply because a group or society might hold certain aspects of privacy as the norm, that does not mean that they are logically correct. If a person, by chance, walks near my door, and overhears me saying something of relevance to them, then it is hardly expected that they pretend otherwise.
Continuing with that logic, if I really wish to uphold my privacy, then it is up to me to take responsibility on the matter, and not discuss my private matters in an open environment, or in plain words.
But, am I blaming the victim?
I am not. Privacy is not akin to property! There is no ownership of information. For example, my voice and words are mine, but once they go out into the air, they are attached to a public medium. Thus, they are public.
If I wish to protect my privacy in a public medium, then it is entirely my responsibility to add safeties that will make my information less accessible, for anyone whom I did not intend it.
We each give our own meaning to life. Some of us may be unaware of what drives us onwards, or what holds us back, while others are yet busy questing for answers. I propose a method of gaining satisfaction out of your life, through the identification of emotions & needs, and the apparent conflicts that arise between them and your behavior.
This idea is presented in three short parts, each a necessary logical step on the way to culmination.
Part I - Priorities Among Emotions. Part II - Unidentified Emotions & Needs. Part III - Mismatching Behaviors and Emotions. Conclusion - How to Plan for Your Needs!
We can all recognize that some emotions take precedence over other emotions, or needs, at any given time. While this is a fluctuating phenomenon, its' patterns can be identified and described very well. For example, a hungry person who is exhausted and needs sleep, may feel a greater need for sleep than for feeding, and so will retire to bed.
However, we are not always able to clearly identify the emotions that most strongly direct us. And so, a person may feel tired, and even though they had planned on going directly to bed previously, find themselves guzzling down hamburgers at the kitchen table, at a very late hour.
Click him for more brilliant quotes.
This mismatch between the behavior that person expected - being tired and thus going to sleep, and actually going to eat greedily, tells us that it is likely that they were simply unaware of their accumulating hunger, until they had finally reached their home. When the choice between food or sleep presented itself, the stronger emotion ruled the hour. The price to pay is in being unprepared for this turn of events, sleeping late, and even sleeping heavy.
Through this process of identifying such patterns, that person is then able to meditate on the conflict in needs - find out which emotions and needs were actually in conflict, and plan a future strategy to avoid the repercussions. Such strategy may be as simple as eating something earlier, or getting back home earlier. It is a process of trial and error, yet the solutions are usually simple, when we knowourselves, and then choose for ourselves, for best results.
Much thanks go to my friend Vins, who had spent several long hours today debating this topic with me, and negotiating how best to represent it in an orderly & thinker-friendly manner. :-)
Thinking is important. Not just the occasional burst of thought that we encounter in very dangerous or just boring situations. Organized and systematic thinking is how we reach conclusions that are not immediately evident to us.
For example, trees grow upwards, towards the sun, sure, but without that extra thought, we would never realize that trees also grow according to their root mass! What an intriguing idea!
We use thoughts to understand our emotions. Emotions, our feelings, such as dislike, anger, love, happiness, and sadness are how we define our priorities. Being hungry makes us feel bad, so it's very important! Some random video on the web might be amusing, but it is hardly as important, in our personal scale of priorities, right?
This fact, that thinking is important, is how we can start to choose the tools that work best for us, when it comes to figuring out ideas. Which idea is good and which is bad? Our tools can help us figure that out, without having to try every single idea that comes across us.
I hold two philosophical tools, and they both fall under the category of Logic; which dislikes anything random in the thinking process.
One method is to attempt to find a practical solution to a very specific problem. Do I want something changed? Do I dislike something in my life? Do I want to add something into my life? To use this tool most efficiently, I define the question in the most practical way, so that the answer can be very precise.
So, if I want to learn, say, Japanese, then I would define it: "How can I know Japanese, to the extent where I can understand most parts of the online series that I watch, and understand the general meaning of most Japanese conversations?" And then I put some effort into defining an answer that is within those boundaries, such as: "I will use a nice website that teaches basic and intermediate Japanese, and I will do this for about one-hour, every day or two, for about three-months, mixing both reading and listen-and-repeat exercises." Simple, eh?
The second method is to raise my own general curiosity, and then aim it at a topic, gradually becoming more concise and specific. We do this most often with games - with puzzles. So, let's say that I take an interest in gardening, which I do. I would begin by generally educating myself about it, through the more popular channels: Google, popular websites for gardening, and people near me, who take interest in this.
Slowly and surely, this quest of curiosity will lead me to narrower sub-topics, under the same category of gardening. This means that I would connect to those people who find those specific sub-topics as interesting, and that I would dedicate more time only studying these sub-topics. And so, I will have obtained a new intellectual hobby, which is bound to turn into me planting tomatoes in a pot on my window sill; which I am.
As I enjoy life & beauty, so do I enjoy truth & wisdom.
I have not read her books,
but she does make for great quotes,
so she gets some free advertising from me!
The Buddha, as described & depicted by the ancient Buddhist texts in the Suttas, specifically the older text from the Pitaka, is painted for us as a person who did not strictly associate himself with any group, nor considered any place as a specific place of practice. That is to say, that the Buddha did not weave together with his Dhamma, the concepts of a monastery, or a religious group, under one name.
Just like researchers today, and in the past, he was a man, who suggested a system of rules & practices that recognized a problem, and pointed to a solution. And just like other researchers, even since before his time, his system was described in terms that were relevant to his time and place. Beyond its' basic principles, it only created many responses to issues of its' time.
The Buddha is depicted as debating his opinions with others. The Buddha is depicted as putting forth concentration & thought, into understanding his reality. The Buddha is depicted as a person who accepted disciples, which means that he accepted disagreement, and different ways of using his ideas.
Understanding this history of Buddhism, and by doing some research about our own contemporary Buddhism, it comes to light that there really is no such thing as "Buddhism." What there is, is the Dhamma - the rules that the Buddha described, and the results he predicted, for following those rules. We also have several millennia, in which people have tried those rules, in an endless variety of ways.
And the result? Failure. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that the Buddha's Dhamma actually achieves the results it predicts. Saying that a person has not used the Dhamma for "enough time", or that those who fail, do not "really follow the Dhamma", is not acceptable reasoning. Scientists and researchers do not, these days, accept "laws of nature" that do not prove themselves constantly.
I practice meditation, but do so regardless of Buddhism, like most people.
Today, there are simply too many recorded instances of people, who do follow the Dhamma, but do not present the expected results. The ending to suffering - Dukkha. This is not only objectively so. Many who have practiced this faith wholly, and for a period of several years, often describe not feeling what is to be expected.
For the Buddha's ideas to be true, to be a law of nature - Dhamma, they must repeat in a reliable manner. This is simple scientific observation. Naturally, there can be argument about the validity of certain cases. But, like with anything else, when there is an overwhelming account of failure, then there can be nothing left, but suspicion and doubt.
Lao Tzu, of the ancient wisdom of the Tao Te Ching, was not affiliated with any group, either. He taught what he saw as the law of nature - Tao, in an a way that is applicable to people, as well. These are the most concise and specific ideas he could use, to predict results with. There is an interesting correlation between the two faiths, when their origins, history and modern expressions are examined and compared.
If the Buddha ever had a religion, it was simply the manifestation of his own ideas, and nothing more. If he ever had a monastery or sacred place, it would be nothing more, than just his home. If he ever had disciples, they would be nothing more, than just interested equal parties. Buddha, like many other charismatic teachers, had his own traditions and notions about life. Those worked out in limited ways, and never proved to be anything but generally good ideas, if even that.
In these cold winter days, up here in the northern hemisphere of the Earth, I find myself spending more hours reading books of fiction. Well, I say reading, but I enjoy more audio-books than paper books or ebooks, really.
It is enjoyable to imagine different worlds, full of unexplored wonders with tales of thrilling adventures. Whether these worlds are either strongly or loosely based on our own reality, matters little.
The Elder Scrolls Online
Is it all just a pretense?
The careful mixture of emotions and ideas that is displayed in stories, represents a reality that is not quite our own, but more so how we feel about it.
In other words, stories feel more real, while representing reality in an impossible way. After all, stories can describe events and objects that clearly have no evidence for, in our own lives, while still feeling true and eminent.
Sort of like living a lie?
No. Our perception of reality does not change, when we pretend. A pretense is only a layer that we put over our perception of reality, just like putting sunglasses over our eyes. It does not change our notion what is real.
Still, to pretend that a story, or even a game, has real meaning, requires from us a justification. We justify the pretense, by setting out rules of conduct in a defined setting. This is the same as actors, when they play a character on stage or in front of the camera. Pretending to be a character outside of that setting, would only then truly be lying.
Is the purpose of pretense to generate beneficial behavior?
Dreams are a pretense. We experience dreams, in order to improve the functionality of the brain, and thus generate beneficial behavior, when we are awake again.
We also have many popular games, from card & board games to sports and social entertainment games, that encourage action and thought, where idleness and atrophy would have been the default. Even if on rare occassion conflict or injury may result, those are still generally considered beneficial.
Never the less, there are many instances of pretense that neglect to consider our well-being. False marketing, militarism, nationalism, religious fanaticism & extreme hierarchies are some examples that we are all familiar with.
Behold, how this monstrosity turns into an innocent little girl, in front of your eyes!
Does pretense enhance our sense of reality?
It sounds like a contradiction, right? Imagining things in order to enhance our sense, or understanding, of reality. Almost laughable.
All cultures, from the wildest tribes to the most technologically sophisticated nations, bask in fantasy. More often than not, it is those most impossible ideas and stories that persist, when a culture makes the transition from tribe to nation: The belief in deities, and superstitious behavior.
It is the need of living things to grow that encourages pretense, wherever and whenever life is little more than subsistence. Boredom, tediousness, disinterest, and even apathy, are all urgent signals for us to find entertainment in pretenses that rejuvenate our faculties.
So, I must conclude that yes, pretense enhances our sense of reality. Pretense brings us to life, when we would have become dull and detached, from our own needs and abilities.
If a person's view of what is good or right is such that it ignores other people's views, then by necessity, that person will harm those others. This is, because being considerate of other people requires the use of empathy and sympathybased on information. When a person bases their feelings on personal opinion, then their actions ignore the will of others.
In other words, a person who is ignorant of the will (even opinion) of others, is bound to create conflict between themselves and those others, eventually and often.
How can a person take others into consideration without knowing what they think?
No person can take others into account, without knowing them properly. It is true that some things seem easily generalized. Noticeable examples would be the need for food and water, hygiene and the company of others. Never the less, beyond the very basic needs, without proper communication, there is no way to avoid the conflict of wills.
This is why we have the Golden Rule in its' variations:
No. The answer is always no. There are degrees of freedom to every person, and these are defined by natural and social pressures. A person cannot be completely free, and just the same a person cannot be completely without freedom. We always have a choice, even if that choice is not to our liking.
What is liberty, then?
Both words mean freedom, but liberty is used in connotation with persecution and defense. To have liberty is to be without persecution. To have no unfriendly forces putting pressure on your choices. We can either be with liberty or without it. Unlike freedom, liberty has no degrees. A liberated people have no enemies forcing their choices.
Can I be both free and liberated?
Yes. While we cannot force our enemies into surrender, and thus changing their opinions of us, we can find ways to make their efforts not worthwhile. Being liberated from external social forces, by design, now we maximize our freedoms. Being free means to feel that your most important choices are your own; including daily actions, social interactions, professional work and self-care. A liberated people can continue to design their environment, so that not only liberty is kept, but also that individual freedoms are enhanced.
How can a people enhance their freedom, then?
Just as we would put a fence (a physical negative incentive) to keep aggressors at bay, we would also put social rewards (a social positive incentive) to encourage non-aggressive behavior within our friendly circles. The former, making unwelcome outsiders feel that handling the fence is not worthwhile the catch beyond that fence. The latter, making valuable friends and family encouraged to behave positively by rewarding them constantly - not by agreement, but by emotional reward.
A romantic fantasy...
Free to live as you wish with all that you need, while kept Liberated from aggressors in a remote and inaccessible place.
Or, as I have originally referred to this post in my head: Why Do All Ideologies Not Work?
First, let us start by briefly defining what an ideology is, in practice.
An ideology is a set of logical rules, vis-à-vis "ideas," that we choose to live by. In other words, my ideology represents the perspective I have on life. More often than not, I would refer to my ideology, in order to decide my actions, rather than describe my ideology by reviewing my past choices.
We develop an ideology as a strategy to cope rapidly with challenges. Having a pre-made set of rules that we feel are safe to follow, lets us worry less and achieve more. This, of course, does not mean that we have more success in life - but, rather that we feel a sense of steady progress and stability. Important things to have!
So, why does having an ideology not work?
Funny drawings are great at giving us a break, while reading a long post.
Well, I do not want to drive anybody to extremes. Having an ideology, in the sense that I have an idea or a set of ideas, is not a bad thing. We all have ideas, after all. We only face a conflict, if our idea of life does not represent our own experience of life.
For example, if I find it important to have a romantic partner (spouse), and upon examination I see that I have no such person in my life, then I will reveal an internal conflict. Like in any conflict, I then have to choose to either pursue my goal or to give up on it.
If, on the one hand, I choose to pursue it, then I might do so without really asking myself, whether this goal is worthwhile. It just might be that at my current situation in life, having a spouse is not a good idea. Harmful, even.
On the other hand, if I let go of this idea, then I can feel I am missing out on something big. It would take soul searching for a resolution, and that may take more time than I am willing to spend. It is not easy to resolve internal conflicts, because they are internal, and thus not available for outward examination. People often recommend writing your thoughts down, exactly for this purpose.
Ideas are a great occupation. I love ideas! Most people do. Maybe some few silent hermits - not so much. Ideas let us review life inside our own minds. Ideas let us understand life better. Deeper. With more meaning.
Ideas, dangerously enough, are also infectious and addictive. We fall prey to ideas all the time. Holding onto an idea that does not work for us, is a sure recipe for hurt and failure. That is why, having a full set of ideas that are interconnected - an ideology, is many times more dangerous. We can find ourselves trapped in our own minds.
To conclude this idea, this individual idea that decided to stand up against all those groups of ideas out there, remember this:
If you have two ideas and they are in conflict, because life disagrees with your current perspective, then simply put them aside and find a new idea that works for you.
It is as simple as that. Take a step backwards and review everything, again.
