This conversation is a carry over from the last
posts on 'Millennium Shift' and 'Challenge the
Philosophy' that predate this post. But since the
others had become so lengthy, I thought to bring
them together under a new topic that reflects
where they seemed to be going, a new philosophic
enlightenment. --Ivan

Dear Ivan,

I agree with your idea that the ideal way to
interact with others is through agreement rather
than through coercion. Politically, an anarchist
system would be ideal if all people were able to
resist the use of coercion either through brute
force, power of the majority, and so on. However,
as a reality, we have been unable to develop
social institutions that could eliminate the need
for government to protect the weak from the
strong. However, I disagree with your idea that we
need some form of consciousness outside human
consciousness that helps us "justify" our choices.

The question--"What justification do we have for
this freedom of choice?"--is misleading. It
assumes that "freedom of choice" in the broad
sense needs justification. Gravity needs no
justification. Gravity is a fact of nature.
Similarly, freedom of choice is a fact of human
nature. However, "freedom of choice", in the
narrow sense of political freedom, or individual
freedom, or choosing one movie over another movie,
does require "justification"--at least,
explanation in terms of reasons, and evaluation
in terms of looking at expected consequences in
the light of ethical values and goals. In
practical terms, every decision--even the most
trivial--could have ramifications that are totally
unknown and unpredictable, and so every decision
has risks that no amount of forethought,
rationalization, justification, and so forth can
avoid or eliminate. So, in the long run, human
decisions and choice can never be fully
justified: choice involves inescapable risk.

If choice involves inescapable risk or minimally,
every choice has unpredictable consequences, then
justification is impossible. If justification is
impossible, then there is no consciousness outside
human consciousness that can justify our
decisions.

Genuine choice and genuine freedom is like jumping
into a flowing river where the hidden rocks
beneath the surface cannot be seen from above.
Moreover, when we jump we must do so alone and
without a safety net. Life is risky. There is no
big MAMA or PAPA who can catch us if we fall and
smash ourselves to bits.

On the positive side, to conclude with a less
pessimistic tone: the very unpredictability of
our choices allows for the discovery of new
worlds, both within our souls and in nature. One
takes the risk of going to school and makes new
friends; one takes the risk of starting a new job,
and finds new skills and powers; one takes the
risk of walking down a different street and finds
new sights and sounds. Whatever "justification" we
have for our choices, only comes after we have
made the choice, and sometimes never to one
personally. For instance, Mozart, personally had
no justification for his decisions, his
choices--they resulted in a life of poverty and
early death. However, if he had taken a different
route in life we would not have received the
beauty that he created in his music. His choices
are "justified" only in the long run after many
generations; in the short run, if Mozart had
sought security as opposed to Beauty, he would
have produced trivial music that would have been
forgotten.

Thanks,

Ask the Philospher

-------------------------------
http://as
kthephilosopher.cjb.net
askthephilosof@yaho
o.com

Dear Philosopher,

You say: "Similarly, freedom of choice is a fact
of human nature." Indeed it is, but rather than
taking it a priori, as we do now, there is a way
to see it as a justifiable conclusion. This is
the body philosophic of Habeas Mentem, whereby we
have a right to be who we are because that is how
we are then able to occupy our space in time in
terms of who we are. But this is true only for a
conscious mind, since an unconscious mind neither
knows who it is, nor does it matter whether or
not it occupies its 'being' in terms of who it is.
So this is another step, one that jumps over
accepting freedom of choice as a starting point
and ends by justifying why this freedom is so
important to us. Thus, once understood, a
conscious mind would never let it be taken away.

You also write: "If choice involves inescapable
risk or minimally, every choice has unpredictable
consequences, then justification is impossible."
And I agree with this too. However, the
unpredictable consequences can be understood as
what manifests from a greater reality, and this is
how a self-interrelated universe responds to our
choices. So there is an explanation, if not
justification, for why the risks exist: it is
because reality has defined itself for the results
to be what they are. 'It' already 'knows', and we
are always but participants in this. Not a big
Consciousness that guards over our individual
selves, but rather one that is the construct of
itself; though the potential then exists for us to
tap into this Universal Consciousness once we are
positioned within the whoness of our being, our
identity as it is described by that Consciousness.
Communications then develop that we did not have
before (which at this point can only enter into
the realm of speculation as to what that
communications is, because we had never been
there). This is why it is so important, as
concluded by Habeas Mentem (which is still an
unknown philosophy, I may add), since then
'coercion' becomes not merely something we don't
personally desire, but something that is demanded
by this Consciousness, or interrelated Totality:
that we do not coerce one another, or else pay the
risk of becoming disconnected from our identity of
who we are. Once disconnected, as the philosophy
explains, we then lose contact with our greater
being, and the communications from the Universal
Consciousness is lost (though we never knew we had
it in the first place!). So the next human
evolution will be one of awareness of this.

What I am describing here is how the pieces fit
together in this universal model of a universe
that is spanned by the fabric of its own
interrelationship. What is so intriguing about
this idea is that it is able to jump from the
physical into the metaphysical, and then surpass
that too and jump into the meta-social, how we
then interact as human beings in a way that is
true to how the universe is constructed. I
realize this is quite a reach, but it is doable.
And if it succeeds, which at this point I do not
know that it will, since it involves our conscious
choice for this to be so, then we have the
prospects of a whole new way of seeing reality and
our existence in it. By reducing human
interaction to a process of agreements vs.
coercions, we then have the potential to see major
changes in how the world is now. But to cease
having the crimes, abuses, wars we see today would
require a conscious human choice to accept the
philosophical validity of a world built on the Law
of Agreements. I think we are partially there,
though we still do not know it, and more or less
got there by chance. With the Rule of Law and the
Enlightenment's focus on human rights, liberty,
equality, etc., we have more or less moved in that
direction. However, remove the randomness of what
we do to one another and replace it with the
choice to act only in ways that elevate a person's
right to be who they are, to occupy his or her own
space in time, that this is a right given by the
Universal Consciouness, you then position the
world to grow in a very positive direction. Then
what manifests is in relation to who they are, and
not in relation to some 'imprisoned' version which
manifests for them something less. So this is a
liberating philosophy, and what results is the
'why' we need freedom of choice.

I must say that it is rather more complicated than
this, and I hope other minds join in someday. But
if they do not, then if the idea is a good one, it
will eventually find the light of day. If not,
then it will simply die. I just hope that it does
not take another social catastrophe to propel us
beyond the current impasses of intolerance,
isolation, and adversarial human relations. I am
especially concerned over the Israeli-Moslem
conflicts since they are religious in nature and
given the irrational passions on both sides are
virtually unsolvable. But to change all this will
take not only a new philosophical enlightenment,
but truly a change of heart.

Take care, always a pleasure,

Ivan

This was written into "The Examined Life Journal
Forum" in response to the arguments shown below:

http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html
See: "Aristotle, Creation, and Evolution", also
copied arguments at bottom
:
----------------------------------
By Ivan A. on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 06:00 pm:
THE SUBJECTIVE VS. OBJECTIVE PARADOX

Dear Humiliberty, and all,

I think it has been overlooked that there is an
inherent paradox in the Objective vs. Subjective
argument. Objective arguments apply to 'things'
only. In your quote, for example: "If the ideas
'work' in reality, then the factors that made the
results possible must be objective in nature,"
you identify this correctly. However, apply this
to a person, other than an inanimate object, to
living things, then the argument fails. When we
reason objectively that we have identified
something that 'works', then no matter how
detached we may be from this, we 'buy' into it,
and internalize it; thus making the objective idea
now a subjective. There is no way around this,
since we are seeing things only from the
perspective of ourselves. Even if everybody in
the whole world agrees with you, even if the
proof is unassailable, it is still internalized as
part of your belief system. The only way around
this, in my opinion, is to detach from it and let
reality describe itself, since we are in the end
only the observers. But that is a philosophical
other step into which I won't go into here.
Otherwise, to insist instead that our 'objective
truth' applies to all reality, then, is to put the
Subjective before the Objective by the very nature
of the argument. Why should an objective argument
have to prove itself, for example, if it exists
detached from you? So to present an argument to
another person, mind, human being, body of people,
etc., is to automatically step from the Objective
into the Subjective. And, especially this, when
we argue objectively to show the error of someone
else's personal belief, then we are truly
invalidating the Objective argument with our own
opinion, which is then once again Subjective.
This is especially sinister when it 'objectively'
applies to something like 'Love', because it may
be a person's 'sacred cow', and to argue against
that person is then to disrespect him or her. So
this is the paradox, that we cannot use Objective
arguments as they apply to Subjective beings. You
can use Subjective arguments, which are opinions,
which we are entitled to, but are not binding
unless accepted by the other. Now, if the other
person's 'Love' for example is binding on you
against your desire, then it is a trespass, and
the story changes completely. But an unrequited
argument when subjective in nature has no
objective recourse, or else it simply becomes a
trespass. Any such subjective trespass then is
simply an error. (Remember 'chaos theory', that
this error with time only gets worse; Communism
and Fascism come to mind.) So, each person has a
right to his or her belief, even if you think it
is wrong. Of course, this is my Subjective
opinion. But I dare say, that most everyone who
agrees with it will fight to protect their sacred
cows, either intellectually, verbally, or
otherwise. This is the nature of our human love
for liberty and why a freedom of choice is so
important.

Sincerely,

Ivan

PS: Anon-1,

Hang in there! I can feel your pain. But as a
human being, you have a fundamental right to be
who you are, even if no one else agrees with you.

PPS: The above argument belongs under the "Isms"
argument page, but I posted it here under
"Evolution" because this is where I found
Humiliberty's last post.

-----------------------------------------------
Below are the arguments as they were presented:

By Anonymous on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 05:38 am:
WJ, G-man,

The world is driven by emotions, and the strongest
of all is desire, or want. Love is one human
desire or want; therefore, is it love that drives
forces of the world? In a way I suppose it should
be assumed that love is the strongest driving
force known to anyone, but why? The answers are in
each of your minds, and the problem is, you know
those answers but give sway to listening to other
people, and allowing them to influence your
notions, thoughts, and whims; so, I ask you again,
why? Are not your experiences as valid as those of
the great philosophical authors each of you study?
After many years of attempting to find the
‘perfect philosophy’ to follow, I finally
discovered that I had my own, and wondered why I
should adopt the philosophy of someone else? They
have not lived my life, nor have they experienced
my experiences, so how can I trust their method of
thought instead of my own? Truth is, I cannot
trust them for they do not walk in my shoes. I
will not give up my philosophy, nor can I give it
away to others even if I wanted to. Is my
philosophy right or correct? Not for everyone, but
I consider self a middle of the road type person
with natural wants and desires just as everyone
else has.

This discussion was bound to enter ethics and
morality, but what is ethical, or what is moral?
Again, each of you know what is ethical, and what
is moral; therefore, why is it so difficult to
openly declare and write a simple statement that
defines “ethical” and the more difficult “moral?”

Ethical and moral essentially mean the same thing,
but philosophers seem to make it most difficult to
define each word, which is ludicrous because
languages are not equal, and if we define
something it should be simple and straight
forward.

Moral = do no harm

Ethical = deny lies and demand truth

Can you fault the definitions? If so, how? Was
that difficult? I don’t think so, but to listen to
a debate about morals and ethics among
philosophers often is disturbing because of the
gyrations many will go through to overwhelm an
opponent.

If everyone would live his or her lives according
to the two definitions as stated, could the world
obtain a modicum of peace all over the earth? I
think it could, albeit equality will never be
fully equal among peoples when some are unwilling
to give part of their excess to those that have
less than adequate means. So, say what you will,
and think what you will, but remember, what goes
around comes around, and personally I do not
believe that ends with our lives.

God? Who knows, but I am sort of fond of Pascal’s
Wager, and believe that if you do no harm, no harm
will come to you. I have read many arguments pro
and con Pascal and his bet; however, I do not
believe that reason alone is sufficient to fully
develop the human factor, mainly because, human
factors are not reason based; instead, they are
based on consciousness, life experiences, and
emotion, not reason.

Anon – the 1st one
-----------------------
By Humiliberty on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 02:50
pm:
Dang it!

The strongest emotion is "desire" or "want"?
Desire of what? Want of what?

If you live to see only a white sky never to hear,
see, smell, touch, nor taste anything, what
possibly could you "want", "desire", "wish you
had"?

How are we so readily willing to attribute
emotions to the mystics? Because what once took a
child days to grasp, now takes an adult an instant
to "feel validated."

Check out the objectivism vs. subjectivism site.

Anon,

I like your post but for the one element you've
yet to explore: the origins of emotions. And for a
quick definition:

Love -- that feeling attributed to one's greatest
values. How does one value what cannot be
explained nor identified? If never identified,
then this individual necessarily loves NOTHING.

-Humiliberty

To anyone, Subjectivist or Objectivist:

Himilberty writes: [The "objective truths" to which you refer can be obtained only by interacting with reality in the only means possible to man: sensory-perception, the five senses. What "intuitive knowledge" is possible to an idiot?]

I can think of many 'intuitive' leaps of faith that when tested against reality become 'objective' truths. For example, take Copernicus. He lived in a Terra-centrist world as formulated by Aristotelian thinking, and officially endorsed by the Catholic Church of the time. All the 'objectivists' of the time subscribed to this Earth centered view of the universe. This accepted view was extremely well reasoned, visually tested by the then most modern astronomical observatories, and well debated by the scholars of the time. Their mathematics supported this with, what to us today, was unbelievably convoluted, especially as it pertained to planetary regression, so that there were cycles within cycles to explain this. It was all very well reasoned and accepted by the best minds of the time, including Tyco. However, there were people like Copernicus, and later Kepler, who had a different idea, that a Helio-centrist astronomy made more sense. Their ideas were 'subjective' because they were unsupported by the 'objective' observations and philosophical thinkers of the time. Of course, today, we know that Terra-central thinking was totally wrong, and that the Copernican view was correct, though the math was a little off, but then made whole by Kepler's introduction of the elliptic. Now, since the math worked and coincided with observation, the Aristotelian view was grudgingly discarded, eventually even by the Church. So which was Subjective and which Objective? Was Aristotle an Objectivist, though he was wrong? Was Copernicus a Subjectivist, though he was right? Kind of murky, I would think. As Humi says, Reality is always the final gavel of Truth, the final arbiter of our observations. But for us humans to make the Objective vs. Subjective distinction is not always so clear, as per the example above. Taken to the next step, let's say Kepler wanted to go and work for Tyco at his highly acclaimed astronomical laboratory (which in fact he did), and he had to pass the university exams with honors to gain this post; would he not have to excel in studying a system that was totally in error? Yes, of course. So now we have the added component of being personally subjected to an Objectivist view which was the accepted doctrine of the time, even dogma. As per my "Subjective vs. Objective Paradox" (posted under "Aristotle, Creation, and Evolution" 6/25/01), we are now faced with an Objective that turns out to be a Subjective instead, because it applied not only to physical reality, but to a human condition instead: whether or not Kepler will get the job at Tyco Labs. In the end, he did get the job, but he had to keep his Copernican theories to himself until Tyco's death, or else face 'objective' retribution. Or simply, he would have been called an "idiot" by his quarelsome and pompous employer.

I think this example had been repeated throughout human history, whenever the accepted, reasoned, and even 'objective' doctrines of the times had to be overturned. So where is the philosophic Truth in this? Indeed, we need Objectivism as a tool of understanding physical reality, but it is not an article of religion, and should not be viewed that way. It is never to be used against people, however, (sorry Ayn Rand), because that immediately disqualifies it as 'objective' and self-negates it into the 'subjective'. This is okay, as long as every intuitive, logical, rational and irrational, idea is understood as such: that all Objective ideas are subject to change with observation, and that they can never be used as a Truth on the thoughts and beliefs of others, for then it reverts back to being merely Subjective.

"Or was possible to Hellen Keller?" Yes. This argument is true whether or not a person has all five senses, for as long as they have a conscious mind and are the beneficiaries of their own thoughts and the thoughts of others which, by extension, become their five senses as well.

Ivan

As posted in The Examined Life Journal Forum:
By davet84 on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 04:55 pm:

Hi Ivan,

So, 'Coober Pedy Noir' could be 'white man's black
holes'!

Well done. I've always noted that 'The Book on the
Taboo' was hard to come by. It seems like it was
published by a private person or something. Rare
though, like a jewel.

Your list of influences reminds me of a notion I
had. The day I attempted just off the top of my
head to recall influences that I'd struck since I
became 'interested'.

It was in a 'personal thread' called my 'At Home'
series idea from about 400 pages back in my
'ideas' files.

I had this notion, which was basically along the
lines of a 'talk' show. I combined that with Brian
Magee's format in his 'The Great Philosophers'
book and TV series where he chats to a given
contemporary philosopher, a specialist, on a
philosopher in history. Then I worked in the
notion which I saw in a Psychology journal item a
while back that in future students might attend
lectures given by a holographic virtual reality
version Einstein.

I called it my 'At Home With Series' idea. So you
switch on the monitor, light the fire, get a cup
of coffee, and you're 'at home with' Aristotle or
Kant or whatever.

The thoughts I had about it were these, plus I had
a list I made out of the influences I had found at
that stage. I made sure they were off the top of
my head so I could genuinely note the influence.
I'd now have to add Mitch Hodge, Graham Dennis,
Paul Rezendes, Ivan, WJ, Humi, G-Man, Ida and
Anon1-7 of course.


--------------------------------------------------
Quote:

At Home with Kant (idea title)
· The ‘At Home’ series.
· At home here meaning, ‘at home’ with one’s own
conscious and unconscious thoughts, as a modern
being in the 21st Century. But using the thoughts
of other ‘thinkers who wanted to share their
visions’, to expand one’s own vision of ‘humanity’
and one’s place in it.
· E.g. ‘At Home’ with Buddha, Dammadinna,
Hippocrates, Hypatia, Democritus, Heraclitus,
Diotima, Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, Mohammed,
Augustine, Nagarjuna, Aquinas, Frances of Assisis,
Hildegarde of Bingen, Pico de Mirandola,
Descartes, Galileo, Copernicus, Montaigne, Kepler,
Leibnitz, Locke, Hume, Spinoza, Johnson,
Jefferson, Rousseau, Kant, Blake, Schiller,
Fichte, Wordsworth, Vico, Schopenhauer, Hegel,
Kierkegaard, Thoreau, Emerson, Marx, Darwin,
Spencer, Mill, Wollstonecraft, Whitman, James,
Wundt, Bradley, Dostoevsky, Chekov, Twain,
Brentano, Meinong, Bergson, Freud, Jung, Einstein,
Pierce, Dewey, Russell, Wittgenstein, Proust,
Kaffke, Heisenberg, Bohr, suffragettes, Heidegger,
Ayer, Austin, Moore, Churchill, Gandhi, Sartre, de
Beauvoir, Crick, Galbraith, Kerouac, Kennedy,
Presley, Dylan, King, Kennedy, Wilson, Lennon,
Rogers, Maslow, Krishnamurti, Frieden, Steihem,
Franz, Greer, Mother Theresa, Watts, Bowie,
Browne, Derrida, Foucault, Laing, Geldorf,
Gilligan, Bateson, Reanney, Ness, Suzuki, Laszlo,
Irigaray, Noddings, Capra, Wilbur, Kornfield,
Chalmers, Diamond, Hawking, Macy, Sessions,
Collins, Tannen, Kim, Adeline Yen Mah, bellhooks,
Palmquist….and others….

· An ordinary working/family person, caught up in
the demands of everyday life is generally unaware
of the thoughts which many of these people
recorded. Save for some of the religious and
scientific names, ordinary folk would not have
come in contact with many of these thinkers. But
their legacy belongs to each and every one of us.

· Apart from the musicians, the religious and
political leaders, the prominent scientists and
feminists, and some writers which I happened upon,
I was unaware, until seven years ago, of much of
the thinking which the above list (and others) had
left and is still leaving as their legacy to the
world. My change of career path (from a computer
programmer to amateur philosophical seeker)
allowed me to acquaint myself more closely with
the ideas of these people and others. I set about
recording, in soft copy, many of the wisdom
passages which these people have made public. I
will cite appropriate bibliographic references,
but I hope that people would see my approach as
not being a desire to appropriate the thoughts of
prominent thinkers, but to assimilate the thoughts
with my own innate intuitions and feelings – my
irrational becoming self. And I would encourage
any reader to do likewise. Our thoughts are our
own little sacred share of the entire cosmos…so we
shouldn’t devalue them.

The activities in academia, in my view, for the
purposes of this exercise, serve mainly to
critique the views of the people I wish to cover,
and pass the ‘critical tradition’ and model on to
the next generation of academics. Thus the
ordinary person passes through life without ever
having been exposed, let alone given the
opportunity to synthesise inspiring thoughts. The
actual value in developing a deeper ‘understanding
of the world’ that can be gained from these
thinkers is lost on those who have more immediate
problems at hand or who separated from ‘academics’
earlier in life, and have been kept excluded.
· My goal is to render these views in such a way
that ordinary folk can gain some benefit. My
intention is for ordinary folk to simply ‘play’
the views across their ‘ordinary’ mind. In light
of this, given the rather elevated and complex
language that is employed by many thinkers, I will
try to cover the thought presented in everyday
language, and give some ideas on the connections
that are relevant. It is a little like the task of
political commentators, trying to express complex
political processes in language which can be
understood by the average person.
When ordinary people come to a better
understanding of some political point or other,
they can make up their mind, and they can cast a
thoughtful vote. The ‘democratic’ process as it is
today, more or less relies on the ignorance of
people, and the ‘better knowledge’ that the
elected representatives supposedly have.
Pragmatically, we have to live with what we’ve
got. Perhaps in 200, 500, or pessimistically 1000
years, every thought of every person (given that
90% of adults will be educated, mature, aware, and
thoughtful) will be online to the political
process, and drive it accordingly. Until then,
that is until ‘the people’ have a better
understanding, then at least we can hope, for the
short term, until true, participatory, informed,
democracy is achieved, that the representatives
put before us will be truly ones which can
enunciate our wishes for a better world.
If it is suspected that I have a political aim
here, it only this – to garner more votes for
humanity, sentient life, earth’s natural systems,
and earth itself, and for humanity’s happiness in
simply being.

--------------------------------------------------

There, that was one one of my 1600 or so ideas
from my 600 page 'ideas' file. None of it has come
to fruition yet (I still keep getting new ideas!),
but at least my daughter might read it one day. I
might call it 'Daveus Mentum'

Dave.

(In Answer to post 6/24/01 to AskthePhilosopher)

Dear Ivan,

For now I would rather not comment on your
cosmology. I will make a few comments on the
issue of freedom of choice and explanation.

Generally speaking there are two types of
explanation: scientific explanation of natural or
physical events, and historical or humanistic
explanation of unique historical, anthropological,
and social events.
Scientific explanation is usually deductive and
reductive: explains particular events on the
basis of general laws or principles, and attempts
to explain complex events in terms of simpler
events. For instance, heat is explained in terms
of chemical reactions, and chemical reactions are
explained in terms of molecular events.
Humanistic explanation is singular, and in terms
of stories. For instance, events in the sixteenth
and seventeenth century are often correlated in
terms of the development of the "age of the
enlightenment". Also, the First World War is
explained in terms of particular events, such as
treaties, colonialism, ethnic conficts and so
forth.
In general, scientific explanation of naturalistic
events are general, and apply to recurrent events.
Whereas, humanistic explanation of the human
dimension such as social or historical events are
particular stories about unrepeatable events.

Where does human choice, if at all, fit into this
picture: can human choice be explained?

I think not. I think human choice is an
irreducible and inexplicable fact of human living.
However, there are attempts to explain human
choice naturalistically or humanistically. I
think both types of explanation must fail, in
principle.

Naturalistic explanation is deductive and
reductive: whereas human choice is unique.
Though, in general, suppose that my choice to do X
as opposed to Y, can be explained in
neuro-chemical reactions in my brain.
This explanation is retro-ductive, i.e. from the
result or consequence to the "cause". If I had
chosen Y, as opposed to X, we would need to go
backwards to find what neural events caused that
choice. Also, the "choice" is not merely
neural-chemical events in the brain, but a
constellation or complex of events. "I choose X
over Y" includes the "I", the "choosing", and how
I think and feel about X and Y. So, naturalistic
explanation cannot completely explain choice, only
the physical basis for choice.

Humanistic explanation also falls short of
explanaing choice because choice as free choice
involves me inventing various stories in my mind,
or constructing various scenarios in my mind,
which go into making up my mind to decide between
X or Y. Historical or humanistic explanation
attempts to find one story and apply it to various
events, often selected from all the events that
are going on but seem irrelevant to the
pre-selected point of view. At best, we can
invent fictions to explain retro-deductively why
one person generally chooses in a certain way
given his "character", or given his place in
"class-struggle", or given her place in a
political movement, or given her psychological
make-up...and so on. In other words, we create
"novels" with a drama to tell, and we use these
"novels" to help us find a unity or theme or story
guiding various choices that are in reality
discrete, contradictory, and unpredictable.

We always search for order and meaning regardless
of the mess. But reality is a mess, including
human reality and physical reality.

Thanks for the discussion Ivan---

*********************************


KOESTENBAUM'S WEEKLY LEADERSHIP THOUGHT


One desiderata for effective leadership is to hold your own in conversations about free will. Not in esoteric language, to be sure, but in language that suits you and suits the occasion. And in a voice that is yours -- not someone else's. A voice grounded in your own agonized and expansive experience.


I think that, when leading, it is necessary to be credible as you talk about the sense of personal free will, and the anxiety surrounding it. That is the core truth-point inside the soul where all action and all decisions, all choice and all self-starting, all sense of responsibility and accountability, all power start and from which they all emanate. If you are there, you are a person who has absorbed a sustainable leadership personality structure. Congratulations! It is now your task to teach us all how to get there ourselves. And we shall thank you for it.


June 25, 2001


Copyright © 2001, Peter Koestenbaum. All rights reserved. Protected intellectual property.


************************************
*** Click here [www.pib.net/workshop.html] to see what participants said about the March 27-28 leadership workshop facilitated by Peter Koestenbaum, Ahmed Yehia and Laurie Yehia.


E-mail us at info@pib.net if you would like to be notified when future workshop dates are scheduled. Dates will also be announced on Koestenbaum's Weekly Leadership Thought e-mail and on the http://www.pib.net/ home page.

(As first posted under "Aristotle, Creation, and Evolution", The Examined Life Journal Forum: http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html )

Hi All,

Why evolution?

It's the "why" I want to address in WJ's original post above. Why do we have evolution, or creation? I believe this is always the quintessential question in philosophy: Why?

Per force, I am obliged to avoid 'why" of the Creation question because it leads me into circular reasoning. In the Bible, God created man in His image. However, what is His Image? This I cannot know without observing the creation, Man. But in studying man, I am no closer to understanding the Image of God, except to say that man is made in God's Image, so I am back to the beginning. Either I accept God's word as it is written, or I have gained nothing, and thus desist.

In evolution theory, however, there is potential for an answer to Why. Again, I must observe what evolution has propelled forward to gain some sense of its trend. What comes up as the most evolved organ of the body, especially in man, is the brain. Most people will agree with this. But what if it were not the brain, but some other organ instead? For example, what if the eye had evolved to such a perfection that it could see down to the molecular level, or out to astronomical distances, or the invisible rays of radiation? Would that then place the eye as the most evolved organ, and from this would we then gain some sense of Why evolution happened? Of course, we would then say that evolution was to create a better eye. But in fact, that serves no real purpose as it applies to survival, so the eye evolved to a point and then stopped. The same for the liver, lungs, teeth, sexual reproductive capabilities, etc. What of a more musical ear? But those did not advance most, except as they were needed for a species' survival. This is why we have binocular vision, yet birds have articulated vision; and hearing is good but not that good, my dogs hear better. We also have two kidneys, two ovaries or testicles, two lungs, two halves of the brain; but only one heart, one liver, one stomach, one mouth. So the thesis of evolution would appear to favor duality, but not always. It is never clearly of one thing over another, except as it reverts back to the brain, that evolution favors the brain and thus adapts other parts of the body to meet the demands of a greater brain. Therefore, having binocular vision, walking erect, having articulated thumbs, all favor our survival, but mostly these can be understood as products of a brain that needed these function in order to survive better. But why not some other organ, the pituitary gland, for example? Or what some call the 'third eye'? Could it be that we are evolving something that has not yet manifested itself, and thus we are searching for an answer without having the necessary clues, because they are not yet there? Science fiction can invent many possible scenarios of our evolution, man-machine androids, amphibians, etc., even mental telepathy. Would telepathy be an advancement for mankind? If I can read another's thoughts, I would have a survival advantage, I would think. Unless the other's thoughts are lies, then the advantage is lost again. It seems to me that we are forced to gravitate back to the motivation for evolution, which is survival. We evolved a brain to survive better than animals which do not have the same brain. But this could also be overkill, since now our brain is beginning to kill us, either through pollution, wars, or even scientific overreach as raised by the Genome question. So why would the universe, or God, want to evolve a superior brain that could kill us?

Perhaps survival is not the key, that this is not why the brain evolved as a superior organ to all the others. My guess, then, is that the brain evolved to manipulate reality, which is evidenced by its ability to do so. So here is a possibility of 'God's Will', that He wants us to do his work for him. The Bible said to be fruitful and multiply, but it is silent on whether or not it is God's demand to have a 'co-pilot' who is to take over for Him. Maybe, that is not the key either, though the ability to manipulate reality, using objective reason and skills, is important work nevertheless. Then, this leaves us with, I think, the last option: 'Who' we are. Now we are reaching all the way over from survival to physical manipulation to the Subjective, our human being. I like this idea because it is all encompassing. The enhancement and evolution of our 'being' involves all the skills we have accumulated to date, even intuition, and that also involves our arts, our music, our thoughts, our history, our science and philosophy, and even our beliefs. We are who we are as extremely complex beings. And the fact that this whoness of ours seems to reside in the brain is on the surface one more piece of evidence for the survival theory, except that it surpasses it. We do not need the arts, music, literature, ballet, opera, theater, to survive. Yet, they are definitely us, if not individually, then collectively and universally as a people. And the same is true for belief; religions exist universally all over the planet. Whether or not any one of us believes in God is immaterial; the rest of humankind has and still does. Then there is one other component of human evolution that may not serve a survival instinct: Love. Think about it. An act of love, of charity, of forgiveness, of humor, joy, emotional feelings; they are all anti-survival, except maybe as 'love' in the crudest sense of sexual reproduction... but the universe had to start it somewhere. But it makes no rational, logical self-interest sense to be charitable or forgiving. Some would call it stupid. Yet, that is us, and whether we rationalize it away or not, it is our human condition. So, evolution is reaching for something more, in my opinion, than merely the better survival of its species. If that were so, then it would have stopped with the cockroach! which will no doubt survive all. (Incidentally, I also think the universe created us in order to manipulate reality, because we can do what it cannot do for itself, like build a space station, for example.) But why would it want to do so? Unless, we are being readied to assume a role for which we have not yet been told?

This brings us back to the beginning, that to understand what is the purpose of man, we have to understand God. Maybe the Creationists are not so far off after all. But by extension, given what the brain had already evolved into, and given our 'whoness', that we can know who we are in its infinitely complex ways, universally and unprompted to be so; then I am tempted to say that the purpose of evolution is to articulate 'being'. In the same way we can articulate words, our thumbs, process and manipulate matter, we can also manipulate Being. I believe this will in fact prove to be the next step, as I had posted earlier of 'belief being in the Subjective' (see "What is Intellect" July 2, 2001; also under "The Hodge-Rezendes debate: on knowing", July 1, 2001.). I also believe that we still do not know what that means, though we will learn it in time. But then what? Do we manipulate being to form new universes? I do not know, since God has not yet told me (and I do not remember being there when they wrote the Bible). Of course, from my dogs's point of view, I was evolved to take them for a walk, which I must now do... I wonder if they think that it is they who manipulate my reality, that my 'being' is only for them? I hope not unless, of course, they think of me as God.

I hope this 'fireside chat' is revealing in some way to a very important question: Why were we evolved or created?

All the best, and always a joy,

Ivan

Hi Dave, & all,

East meets West? In the quote:

"If we just allow the mind to relax and rest in that sense of knowing, in that purity of being, then there is liberation, there is freedom right at that point. At that point, the mind is aware of the sense of unity, of Suchness, there is the unifying vision which in Christian terms they call beatitude. The beatific vision is the vision of totality, of wholeness, the disappearance of any separateness. In this realisation there is no self - it's not you being with Ultimate Truth - there's just THIS … "

I instantly recognized the idea of 'interrelationship' as a Totality, as I had mentioned in earlier posts. Is this where East meets West? It's the point where 'the mind is aware of the sense of unity, of Suchness' that strikes a familiar chord. This is the same idea developed in the concept of Habeas Mentem, http://www.humancafe.com/titlepage.htm, the 'being'ness that is achieved with awareness. But it goes one step further (its evolution?) whereby that 'being' is also achieved unconsciously when we occupy our space in time in terms of who we are. And this is achieved at that moment when we are free of coercion and do things through our choices that are in agreement with others. This is definitely a western spin on Suchness, since here it is achieved not through meditation, but through a philosophical model that defines a mind's identity, a person's being, in terms of its interrelationship to the infinite, and thus to its position within this infinite, the universe. Meditation is one path to this Suchness; being true to who we are, free of coercion, is the other path. What distinguishes the two is that the latter can then be formulated into a course of future action where this Suchness is not violated. In order for a person to break the persistent cycle of coercion (abuse, violence, deceit, forced disagreement), and of being coerced, requires conscious (aware) human choices; and that social laws protect those choices as based on personal agreements, the Law of Agreements; and on social consensus, as expressed by the laws of the social contract. For all this to happen, however, requires a free and conscious human choice to make it so: to not coerce another, and to be protected from another's coercions. And that, I think, would be a great evolution. It would also reconcile the Eastern view, achieved through meditation, with the Western view, achieved through reason and belief: the two meet in the consciousness of 'being' of who we are. If ever this were to be achieved, the human mind would find a new freedom within the unity of the interrelated universe within which it was born, and within which it would have found its true identity. I think that such an achievement, once consciously chosen by the people, would have ramifications that we cannot imagine. If nothing else, it would become a more peaceful place, more aware, and with more joyful smiles, I suspect. And I sincerely think that's where we're going.

Here's to Hope,

Ivan

Hi Dave,

When you write:

"Forgive for my ignorance, but I thought Habeus
Mentum already had 'evolved' from East-West
influences. Maybe indirectly, since Alan Watts
doesn't leave one's sub/un/conscious thinking once
you've passed him on the path."

I think you are most correct, that Watts does not
leave one's mind. Indeed, I suspect that his
influence on my thinking went deep enough to
resurface on the other side as Habeas Mentem.
What makes the result exciting, at least for me,
is that there is a pragmatic application to the
ideas that resulted from this meeting of East and
West: Being who we are as a social formula
through the Law of Agreement.

Take care,

Ivan

(As posted into The Examined Life Journal Forum, 7/7/01)

Dear Anon-1, and all,

The quote below was lifted from my book: "Habeas Mentem" (Ch. 4, Each One of Us). which can be viewed, free, at: http://www.humancafe.com/Chapter-four.htm . The portion of the text below gives a succinct definition of how 'interrelationship' acts as a medium of change upon itself, which is one reason why 'evolution' happens. This is being presented as a follow up thread to the very successful page started by WJ: "Aristotle, Creation, and Evolution" which has grown to become unwieldy, at nearly 400KB. So I post this here as an answer to Anon-1's question (7/7/01):

"Ah Ivan, why evolution? How is it possible for reality to evolve? If you can explain that to me, then, and only then will I accept evolution as the eminent explanation for existence as we human beings know of it. Did the earth evolve, how about the sun, our galaxy, or the universe? Those things make up parts of reality, as we know it, yet, how is it possible for non-living things to ‘evolve’ if they are not alive?"

This quote, which I wrote more than twenty years ago (please pardon my style of that time), I think captures something of how interrelationship is able to redefine itself as it grows in totality. I superimposed this idea then into the real world, by using this mechanism as evidence of life's evolution. It does not prove evolution, merely that here is a schematic that explains it, if it is in fact true.

Ch. 4, Each One of Us:

"In interrelationship (see Ch. 3, What is the Form of Interrelationship), our beginning goes back through our parents and their parents back to the beginning where the first interrelations combined in such a way as to form life. In this beginning, this allness, this image in time, became Man.

Our image connects us with our beginning in all directions. Physically, we are the materialization of the infinity of interrelationship at that point of reality that defines our body. Through the billions of years of life's evolution, through the parentage of our ancestry going back to the formation of first life, we are connected individually to all the forces and circumstances that have created each one of us to exist today. Through time, we have been fashioned painstakingly into the form of our present being; through space, we are connected at every moment of time to the infinite image in the universe that is materialized as the definition of our physical form. Physically, the properties that are our body resemble the properties of the universe that define all things. What distinguishes us is that we live.

It is a property of interrelationship that it can become greater than itself. After all the possible interrelations have been calculated and incorporated into totality, a new image appears. The totality takes on a new value which is the value of its total interrelations plus the value of these interrelations added back as a total image. The total image is then interrelated as a new factor of interrelationship, redefining itself through all of its parts into a new image. This process results in a creative force that, in effect, causes the totality to grow continuously, through time. With each growth is a redefinition of all things within the whole. When the redefinition has been completed, the process resumes. In this manner, it is possible for the universe to evolve continuously within itself reflections of its progressively more complex image. At some point, the image becomes complex enough to describe that value we call Life. As a new image, redefining itself in reality as a living organism, in some distant part the universe changed again.

Change took time and through time the universe evolved. With each progressive evolution came a more complex redefinition of both the totality and its reality. The reality that first sustained the simple living organisms became more complex as it accommodated the existence of more complex organisms. Through interrelationship, evolution was as much a factor of the changes in the living organism as it was the reality that defined that organism. With each progressive change in the life form came a gradual redefinition from the now more complex, greater infinity. As the image of totality grew, the life forms that were that totality's most recent materializations grew with it. Each new evolution was a reflection of the newer value added within the matrix of infinity. In each new birth was added, however minutely, that new image. As reality redefined itself and the environment within which the life existed, it changed the organism to adapt itself within the new environment. At the limit, where the change itself is being defined in infinity, much is discarded in favor of that which is to remain and endure. In the end, when the compatibility between reality and the organism is assured, a new life form is born.

The more complex the organism, the more complex the definitions of its environment. With each new evolution the interactions that exist between the living organism and its environment also grew in complexity until such time that the organism would need to register data defining its relationships to its reality. In some rudimentary manner, it began to develop the ability that would enable it to recall experiences, make it more independent of a perfect set of circumstances for survival, and to register this data in its being. At some point, life developed a mind.

The development was always bi-axial in space and time and always registered in the surviving organism. Where the change in evolution was incompatible between reality and the organism, the organism perished, if not immediately, through time. Where the compatibility existed, the organism endured within the matrix of its greater image. The successful organisms passed onto their offspring the elements of their compatibility with the universe. Much was possible, but not all proved feasible. With the survival of certain life forms, the universe grew again. What was stabilized at infinity passed on this definition to their progeny; what was unstable perished.

Each one of us is a descendant of such stable interrelationships. Passed down to us have been all the successful elements of our evolution within the definitions of reality. These definitions have followed us in our development totally and infinitesimally; not a moment was lost nor an experience not registered in our being. Each one of us is the sum total of all the circumstances and experiences that have brought our being from its first living generation to the body from within which we are conscious now. In us registered not only all the characteristics that define our appearance as being human but also all the moments of reality, all the interrelations to infinity, that have brought us here into the present to where we are. We are what and where we are because of what and where was everything else through time. The universe grew with each new definition within itself until its total image created human. At infinity exists for each one of us, individually, a definition in terms of our total image that has materialized us through time into our present being. What is our definition at infinity? In part, it is that definition in us that has registered the data of our being; in part, we are our mind..."

("Habeas Mentem: the Given Word". http://www.humancafe.com/titlepage.htm)

(As posted into The Examined Life Journal Forum, 7/10/2001)

Dear G-man, Dave, Anon, WJ, Kevin, Humi, and all, Gentlemen (&Ladies),

The Gordian knot of Ethics can be simply resolved, from my point of view, by bringing it to its basic
components: How does it affect each one of us individually in terms of the fundamental philosophical formula of 'Coercion vs. Agreement'?

It is either 'might is right' or it is 'right is right'. If 'might is right', then the most coercive wins. This has been pretty much our human historical experience, where power goes to the strongest. If 'right is right', then the right to be 'who we are', our liberty, forces us to do things through agreement. With this we have had limited experience, since the idea of inalienable human rights is still new for us. However, this is not the domain of the strong man, but rather the domain of the man who is most aware in how to rightly achieve agreement. This is a philosophical evolution of morals, hence Ethics. As an aware being, each one of us has a responsibility to not coerce another against their will, their agreement. Individual agreements are then sanctioned by those laws of society we had created through another agreement, the democratic and legislative process. Agreements between individuals are preserved except where they act to force a third party into disagreement, hence to coerce another. A forced agreement, one forced upon a person against their will, not freely chosen, is then a violation of Ethics, which turns it into a coercion. So it is a 'moral duty' to structure agreements that protect individuals from coercion. The result is that individuals are then free to pursue their happiness, their goals, their inner joy and visions, as it is for their minds and souls to pursue. If they interact with one another freely and through agreements, then the results of these activities will either bring them joy or disappointment. But that is for none to judge, except for the persons involved. So this is how 'right is right' becomes a social evolution, one that simplifies Ethics to a 'on or off' human action: either it is done through agreement, or it is done through coercion. This has to be done of one's free choice, and binding only on those who are parties to these agreements. The social law then validates these agreements or not, depending upon how the laws had been legislated into what is a de facto social contract. Will people be happy with this? They will be what they make of it.

So this formula of Ethics is a philosophical choice: Either we choose coercion, or we choose agreement. Then how each individual is affected by this choice becomes their reality, which either will manifest for them their well being and happiness, or manifest what will be a hardship and disappointment. In a socially-consiously evolved society, hardship may be a call for help; but this help cannot be forced on anyone, for that too must be by agreement. Society is then a collective of these choices, as our lives will manifest it for us, when we through agreement have the right to be who we are.

My question, then, is this: If this is an evolution of Ethics, does it have a practical application in
Society at large?

I humbly submit,

Ivan Alexander

Dear Kevin, (Anon, Dave, G-man, and all)

As I see it, 'coercion vs. agreement' is an ethical formula between sentient and conscious beings able of making choices, as it applies to their interactions.

You say: 'Are humans who eat meat, allow abortions, take brain dead humans off life support, experiment with fetal stem cells, and pollute the environment then all behaving unethically toward their victims, whom they are coercing without their agreement? Or is all of this morally OK, because the objects of our actions cannot agree or disagree, and therefore cannot be said to have any ethical status because they are not moral agents? In other words, is there "third party coercion" going on in these cases or not? If not, how can any of them be wrong?"

Indeed, these are example that are odious to me too. But like pain, one of the senses (which Aristotle forgot about) which is real to me but, except as another may empathize with it, it is not really felt by another, so is it with ethical-moral conclusions I may have. They apply to me, but cannot be placed into a general Ethics content as it should apply to others. I would prefer to step outside the food chain, for example, and not eat meat, which I have at times in my life. Anthropologists believe that long ago, cannibalism was universal, though today it is largely agreed upon that eating dead people is not okay. So the agreement, socially speaking, is that cannibalism is unethical. But this is an agreement between conscious human beings. If we could talk to sheep, and they tell us that eating them is not okay, then to persist in killing them for a dish of mutton would force them against their agreement and constitute coercion. Take the example of Washo, the chimpanzee who used sign language to communicate, which she was even able to teach to her offsprings. If she were told that she would be killed in order to be eaten, what would she say, if she truly understood the question? I can't put words into Washo's fingers, but I would guess that she would be horrified. Would killing her for meat, as is done in African countries, then constitute coercion? Yes, of course. Or, let's say I need to move a large stone in my back yard, and I use levers to roll it. Am I coercing it? Well, I am applying force without consent, since the rock cannot agree or disagree with me, so I am 'coercing' it in a manner of speaking, but only as it applies to my intelligence, and to my choice of doing so, since the rock is mute. So the underlying criterion for whether or not an action is a coercion is to ask: "Am I coercing you?" In other words, am I forcing someone against their agreement? If I choose, therefore, to kill animals for meat and think of it as an act of coercion, then like the pain I mentioned above, the choice is felt only by me, and not a question of ethics at large, unless is becomes socially agreed upon that killing sentient animals is no longer okay. Then, if I persist in killing, I am breaking a social law as it had been agreed upon and am guilty of coercion as far as society is concerned. But I might not agree with this, and then as a conscious being would have to communicate that this law is coercing me and that either I am exempt from it, because I am a conscientious objector to non-killing, or the law is changed to accommodate dissenters. So, this is what I mean by the formula of 'agreement vs. coercion'. In your examples above, I personally find it unacceptable to experiment on fetuses, pollute the environment, and otherwise behave in ways I consider unethical. However, this is non binding on others, unless there is a general social agreement that these things cannot be done. I think that in the case of polluting the environment, there is a critical need to establish this as a coercion, because it affects the well being of all of us. And most important, because it is coercive to third parties, you and me, I would not object to the ethical application of the 'agreement vs. coercion' principle. Now, getting back to cannibalism, which our distant ancestors practiced. (Really, why let good meat go to waste?) But here, unlike the killing of animals, humans can communicate their wishes as regards their bodies upon death, and it seems that, with higher awareness over time, the idea of eating one's relatives or enemies became undesirable. So the agreement was to stop eating dead people. Coercion? Only if you kill another to eat him! But in all seriousness, the real test of coercion vs. agreement is on how it applies to the person who is affected: "Do you agree with this, or are you being coerced?" It is as simple as that. (Not really, since for a person to be free to agree he or she must be not guilty of coercion, or the idea is self negating.) And that, I find, is the bottom line in ethical behavior as it applies to others. Even taking 'dead' people off life support is an agreement between the family, health practitioner, and the wishes of the patient while alive, if such be known. If, for example, the patient had asked those who had the power to do so to keep the living corpse on life support for as long as the heart beat, then it would be an agreement, and it would be coercive to the patient if it were disregarded. However, the patient is no longer sentient and conscious, so this becomes an ethical judgment not as it applies to the patient, but as it applies to the subjective of the person who will pull the plug. Of course, any choice as it applies subjectively to oneself, that is between our mind and our conscience, or God. But in all cases where it applies to two or more parties, especially as it applies to third parties, then either things are done ethically, by agreement, or they are unethical, by coercion.

I hope this answers some questions, or at least casts some understanding of where I'm coming from.

All the best,

Ivan

(As posted in The Examined Life Journal Forum, 7/14/01).

Dear G-man,

I think there are too many factors in your question that confuse the Ethics issue .

You ask: "If he that kills refraineth not by mercys plea, then how can its redress be unjust though the killers plea goes unanswered?"

Indeed, the killer was deaf to pleas from his victim, and now we feel it is ethical to turn a deaf ear to his pleas for mercy as he is about to be executed. In asking for mercy, either the victim or the killer is asking for a cessation of coercion, an agreement to not coerce, or coercion in the extreme, to kill. But once the coercion had taken place, and found guilty as such, then the right to seek agreement by the murderer is negated by the coercion that had taken place, his guilty verdict. There is no agreement to be found with one who cannot be true to agreement, judged as an an unconscious mind, as one who is guilty of coercion instead. So now society assigns a punishment. In some societies, the punishment of having killed a family member necessitates payment to the bereaved family by the killer, and a judge decides with the family how much this payment should be. Alas, in the same society, if a husband kills a wife, he may be judged as having committed a justifiable act, and no punishment follows. In our society, it seems we prefer to put killers into prison and leave them there, or in extreme cases put them to death. Punishment dispensed is an agreement within the members of the family, tribe, community, and society at large. If we agree that killing people for murder is a justifiable punishment, then the question of ethics is taken from that agreement, though we each individually may not agree with this. Certainly, the murderer who is about to be executed may not agree with this, but his coercion has absolved him of the right to agreement, so he is held prisoner and, having demonstrated a level of non-consciousness, is not free to make agreements. (I must add that in the Law of Agreement as it is expressed in Habeas Mentem, all this is supported by other things to do with how the universe is structured through interrelationship, but I leave all this out here for the sake of simplicity.) So the choice society then has, if it wishes to act in an Ethical way, by agreement that is, is to offer the choice of either dying or not to the prisoner (Socrates comes to mind). If the prisoner accepts that choice, i.e. Timothy McVey style, then the execution of the killer is ethically justified as an assisted suicide. If the prisoner does not accept the choice of the assisted killing of himself, then the execution, if the judgment is such, will proceed regardless; the prisoner at this point really has no right to agreement anyway; but then it is questionable whether or not this killing is ethical, though any other punishment would be ethical. I base this, in terms of my understanding, that killing is unethical under any circumstances. So the question of Ethics here is not whether or not a prisoner should be punished, nor is it whether or not a prisoner even has a right to seek agreement after being guilty of a heinous coercion, but only as it pertains to society's desire to act ethically by offering the prisoner one last chance to agree, in this case, to agree to his own death. So it is not a question of whether or not he pleas for mercy, which at this point becomes ethically irrelevant, but does he agree to die? If he answers "yes' without duress, then it is an 'ethical' murder of the murder. If he does not, and no other punishment is found fitting, then his murder rests on our conscience.

I hope this answers your question. If not, I plead for mercy.

Ivan

WHAT IS INTELLECT?


I will try to define 'intellect' in as short a sequence as I can. I will attempt this without involving evolution or interrelationship, since these are concepts in question by some, and foreign to others, and yet will arrive at the same conclusion. Below is my proposal.

BEING = INTELLECT

My proposed schematic:

1. Being = Subjective Why? Because we exist within the framework that has imprinted existence upon us from birth, and from before us in the birth of our parents, and their parents, and so on. All this is recorded in our DNA, our birth features, our capacities, and ultimately on our subjective mind: the Who we Are. Being further breaks down into Reality as it is vs. an imaginary world.

2. Subjective = Mind Why? Because the 'Who we Are' is best represented by our mind, our brain, as opposed to any other organ in the body. This included our fears and hopes, our joy or sadness, our needs and desires, the full panorama of our emotions. The Subjective further breaks down into Belief, what we have internalised as Truth/Falsehood.

3. Mind = Objective Why? Because it is reason, the Objective mind, that can understand this. The Subjective mind is what defines us in our being, but it is powerless to understand at the rational level. Our Mind further breaks down into all the characteristics that make us live and be who we are/being someone else.

4. Objective = Reason Why? Because through reason we can identify our other traits that define our being, our existence, the identity of who we are, as we choose to define it with the mind. Reason is also how we assess what is reality. Objective further breaks down into Truth, what is definable as true/what is not consistent and questionable.

5. Reason = Intellect Why? Because this is the only part of our mind that we are in touch with to reasonably assess that we can think. To think is our Intellect. Reason further breaks down into what we choose to believe rationally/what is irrational to us.

But as shown in the mental schematic above, Intellect is more than merely to think. It is also to be both Objective and Subjective, to be our Mind and our Being. This is simpler to demonstrate with 'interrelationship' because that is the universal mechanism that ties reality, space and time, and being into one. But since this is still an unknown, unproven, and unexplored concept, then the above may serve instead. They both arrive at the same place, if not directly, then through extension: Being is Intellect. Intellect can then be further broken down into what we choose to do through Agreement vs. what we choose to do through Coercion. Agreement engages the Being of another human, whereas Coercion disengages the Being of another human. But to achieve this, it is a Conscious act, since an unconscious being does not know when he or she is in agreement or not. But even an unconscious being can feel the pain of when it is being coerced.

This is something my brain 'cooked up' while hiking today in the San Bernardino Mountains near Mt. San Jacinto, California.

Enjoy!

Ivan

Ibidem on Being = Intellect.

CONNECT the colored WORDS, leave MAN/WOMAN in center:


----------------------------------------.BEING-----------------------------------------------------



.MIND-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.REASON

................................................MAN/WOMAN..........................................................


.OBJECTIVE---------------------------------------------------------------------------.SUBJECTIVE



----------------------------------------.INTELLECT--------------------------------------------------


So here we have a visual schematic of Being = Intellect, where if you connect the dots, you get two overlapping triangles, one being represented by Being: Subjective, and Objective; the other represebted by Mind: Reason, and Intellect. Note how in this image, Being is /opposite/ Intellect, Mind/Subjective, Reason/Objective; also note that the lines connecting the dots show 'relational' connections. (You may exchange places for Mind and Intellect, and still have same effect, with a different interrelationship.)

This may be further illustrated by considering the following:

1. BEING: can be representative of any existing thing, alive or inanimate, from cosmic dust to planets to stars, to all living things.

2. SUBJECTIVE: can be any living thing, plants, single celled animals, all life, possibly life endowed planets and galaxies.

3. MIND: All living things with volition and motion: all animals that display any form of learning, recall, most animals, including man.

4. OBJECTIVE: All minds that can think, higher evolved species, those that can display forward action like building or digging shelters, making tools.

5. REASON: All minds that can formulate ideas: thinking species, of which humans are known to be one, possibly evolved animals like apes, dolphins, whales, elephants, those that can mourn their dead, even bury them.

6. INTELLECT: Reasoning minds that can understand all of the above, including philosophers, and other advanced species that can communicate with us either through sign language or sound, though they have not yet told us they can philosophize.

So these are potential 'tests' as to where in the hierarchy of Being = Intellect each animate and inanimate thing fits in. All of us are part of Being, but only some of us who had evolved more advanced brains can be part of Intellect. However, this does not mean that Intellect does not exist in the others, only that there it exists only as a latent potential that may yet evolve, as defined by Being within the existence of a much greater Intellect. I suspect that Intellect exists all through the Universal Reality, and that it has manifest in the brains of alien species we will yet have the pleasure, or horror, or discovering in the future.

This was written in response to a post in: The Examined Life Discussion Forums: Philosophy Discussion: 'Philosophy, Wisdom and Thinking': By WJ on Friday, July 20, 2001 - 09:13 am:. http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html

Dear WJ,

Thank you for the beautifully written piece above on System Builders and Wisdom. Having been a system builder myself, still am, where I sought to find a common thread that ties in the human-mind-experience with the human-physical-reality, I very much identify with your statement that system builders, like Hegel, seek to attempt 'in words to weave the final and absolute world-view, one that would forever settle all disputes and bring an end to controversy'. However, unlike Hegel, I also come to the conclusion that since we are dealing with a Subjective matter, as opposed to Objective, human beings who are endowed with a freedom of will and choice; my conclusion is that once such an absolute system is found, it is not the end but only the beginning of the journey.

When I composed the philosophy of Habeas Mentem, whereby human beings are identified by the consciousness of their mind, and where this becomes evident with whether or not they interact through coercion or agreement; I wrote this philosophy mainly as a social contract, of which self critical philosophy as such was secondary to the work. However, though the philosophy is self complete through the way it is structured, it leaves the reader, or thinker, to then come to his or her own conclusions as to whether or not this philosophy is true for them; it becomes a matter of personal choice. So in this way, the System as it was built into Habeas Mentem remained 'open ended' and not 'closed' in on itself as an absolute. What is absolute then, as a working philosophy, is whether or not human beings choose to interact through agreement, or not. In my understanding of Habeas Mentem, of which I am but another observer, only one more student, the system described works on in its own self defined mechanisms whether we then tap into it or not. The Wisdom, as a universal, then would come from how well this System works for us human beings once it is chosen.

Every time someone does an action, if he or she asks themselves the question: "Am I seeking agreement, or am I coercing?" Then this system is being applied. Or if conversely a person who is being acted upon by another asks: "Am I in agreement with this, or am I being coerced?" Then the philosophical System is at work as it is supposed to. But such a system, though it is an all inclusive philosophy which takes the basic elements of our physical reality, within which we exist and survive, and combines these elements into greater wholes that then lend meaning to their component parts, all the way to a whole that we call the Universe, and that lends meaning, definition, to All its basic components, including its conscious human beings; it is nevertheless not a dictate. Philosophy can discover how the world works, and how human beings work in it, and what is truth or not; but philosophy cannot dictate what is truth or right action. So what is shown is not Law, but only a rightful course of action, if it is chosen as such. If not, then reality will manifest what it will, and if the philosophy is correct, then what manifests under conditions of coercion will be other than what had been expected, if not immediately, then over time. This is the world as we know it.

Why is this so? In part, philosophy cannot dictate because it is a human construct, and no matter how well constructed it is, nevertheless it is a thing man-made. So even a philosophy like Habeas Mentem, which derives its existence from how reality is tied together via the mechanism of an infinite interrelationship, it is nevertheless a human construct. I do not know with certainty that at infinity, reality redefines itself; this is only a conclusion from the system built by me, a human. However, if this is true, then I will see evidence of it in reality as human beings interact with one another. This is why I spent some time on chapters examining evidence of the use of 'exchange', which means 'agreement', as opposed to the use of 'force', or 'coercion'. If the end results of the use of exchange and agreement surpass those of force and coercion, then I feel there is real life evidence that this philosophy is true. But nevertheless, because it is a philosophy for the human mind, and that mind is a conscious mind, it is not a given absolute, but only one that then must be freely chosen. So the human construct exists as a body of thought, a System, but it is powerless if not chosen, or agreed with. Now, there is one more thing that leads a thinker to not take any System as a finality, why it must remain open ended: The future is always open ended. And there is one more reason.

We construct ideas, and as such we imagine ourselves as being the only intellect in existence. This may be an illusion to which we have succumbed because 'ourselves' is all we know. We can observe animals around us, and though we have recently discovered that we can communicate with apes and dolphins, where a language of signs and symbols and sounds can be constructed by us with which they can communicate with us, only we have been able to philosophize. So we put our mind above all others, and rightly so. But this does not mean that mind, intelligence, thought, is our invention, that intelligence does not exist independent of us. When I constructed the system of 'interrelationship', I discovered that things are already in relation to the context within which they exist. So each thing in reality has some definition from its place and relationship to all that defines its existence. That definition from existence, upon closer examination, is minutely and infinitely attached to the thing it is defining, which includes us humans, as well as all living things and inanimate things. Is this a form of intelligence, I wondered? Can it be that my intelligence is already existent within the medium of reality in which I exist? This was a difficult question because I had been taught, as we all have been, that the intelligence I display comes from inside me. But to turn it around and say that intelligence is already part of the fabric of reality is disturbing to us, since it also means that there may be an intelligence greater than the one we understand in ourselves. This conclusion was one reason I was lead to writing 'Being = Intellect' on another post. Yet, this is where any System, no matter how brilliantly conceived, falls short of the Absolute: We create systems with lesser intelligence than that of the reality that defines us. Again, this is a choice. Some may continue to believe, in the Objectivist mold, that intelligence exists only in humans, and the rest of reality, with the exception of some more evolved species, is inanimate and void of intelligence. Others, and to me these are the more conscious beings, will begin to see that intelligence is a universal fact, and that we are privileged to partake in this is an infinitely invaluable gift. Once understood that such intelligence is a gift, an infinite gift, then how we view our thoughts and those of others changes: Each one of us, as is true for all living things, is now a final point of life at the end of a continuous chain of existence. We now have a new perspective from which to view human thoughts and actions: It is viewed in the context within which they exist and manifest their reality. Then, whether or not this reality is 'conscious' is chosen by them in terms of how conscious they are themselves. An unconscious mind will see none of this, whereas a conscious mind will puzzle over it. It is my opinion that such a mind then becomes more tolerant of many of the things an uncionscious mind cannot see, except when that is a damaging act: coercion.

So, in conclusion, how 'Wise' is a person? Do we stop thinking because we have found the perfect 'System'? No, never. The universe is so big, and so endowed with intelligence, that no matter how perfect we may imagine ourselves to be, or our systems to be, they are but a faltering flame within a much bigger fire. We learn, we observe, we test, we think and rethink, we believe, fall in love with our ideas, tell them to the world; and then go back and retest them again, and again. This is a never ending process. But when in our unsteady and faltering way we do stumble on something that the universe will allow us to work, then it is great. Every once in awhile the universe will allow for us to find one of the many, infinite keys of the meaning of our existence. Yet, for for us to be 'Wise', we are forced to question and examine and test, and even argue, over all the things we think we know. And when we ask ourselves: "Am I in agreement with this?", then our answer is a conscious choice.

If I may add a PostScript here: This Forum has been invaluable to me, not only because of the pleasure I received from reading the posts, the sincere thoughts of others, but because it gave me a chance to test my ideas against those of others. I have had to make some changes in my thinking, such as the Subjective/Objective valuation that I had never really seen before, and I am sure I will change again, so I learn. I also discovered that communicating ideas is hard, as hard as it is understanding ideas being communicated by others, which reinforced in me that it is not proper to judge. I must admit that though I am well read, I am not a philosopher in the traditional sense of the word, and to debate points to either create a logical proof or disproof has never been my calling. Though I am not a chess player, I find mental games a diversion, but not necessarily a path to Truth. But there are things that need to be debated so that the rough bar of iron can be refined, to find in itself the sharp blade of steel. And I see this Forum as a very good and safe place to do that.

Three more things come to mind: For those who have found the perfect Love, it is better to look no further for, in this lifetime, it can lead to a heap of troubles; those who cannot forget are doomed to remember everything, which in this life can be an unbearable burden; and for those who have found the perfect dogma, it is better to forget.

Thank you All for your fine thoughts and attention.

Kind regards,

Ivan Alexander

This post was in answer to the following quote on the Forum of The Examined Life Journal.com: http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html, under "Philosophy, Wisdom and Thinking", July 23, 2001:

"Speculation shows us that the universe, by itself, is the contradictory; that it is incapable of self-subsistency, that it can exist only cum alio, that all true and cogitable and non-contradictory existence is a synthesis of the subjective and the objective; and then we are compelled, by the most stringent necessity of thinking, to conceive a supreme intelligence as the ground and essence of the Universal Whole. Thus the postulation of the Deity is not only permissible, it is unavoidable. Every mind thinks, and must think of God (however little conscious it may be of the operation which it is performing), whenever it thinks of anything as lying beyond all human observation, or as subsisting in the absence or annihilation of all finite intelligences."

Dear WJ, and all,

Just to put you in the mood, check out this site and see where we are in the universe: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/index.html . How can we not help but think that after all is reasoned out and there is no more to say, that we are not left only with 'God'? It seems all systems gravitate to this in the end. Or, as C. Altieri says in his archived post on St. Augustine: "Quid es, Deus meus?" ("What is my God?") Why is it that God had been the topic of universal speculations of humankind for a very long time, all over the planet? I do not know what God is. We are but infinitesimal fragments within a very big universe, and yet we have a mind that rejects that smallness and we seek to find meaning in it all, even to find God. It seems irrational to do so, and yet somehow more irrational not to.

I stayed away from the idea of God in my 'System' as expressed in 'Habeas Mentem' (to have the mind), and instead focused on what that system is reduced to in terms of who we are in our human interactions. [I did touch on God in Chapter 31, "God is a Choice", http://www.humancafe.com/chapter-thirty-one.htm, but I purposefully left the topic of God for the end, where it is more an addendum than part of the main theme.] Rather, I focussed instead on a basic formula of 'agreement' versus 'coercion'. This is easily understood for a one-on-one relationship, but it becomes extremely complex when we introduce a third party, or groups, who will be affected by anyone else's agreement. Volumes can be written on this, what is an agreement or not, and whether this agreement coerces another, really keeping us busy for a hundred years. In the end, when an agreement is reached, whether it is sealed with ones signature on a piece of paper, or with spit in the palm and handshake, or merely by giving one's word (note that Habeas Mentem's subtitle is 'the given word'), then something happens in the cosmology that affects those who agreed. Even when we vote at the polling booth, we give consent to that social structure that governs us with its laws. Now we are bound to each other through this agreement; and through this our respective personal realities, the world in context within which we live, are now bound up together as well. This also happens through coercion, but that binding is done without agreement and the result, at least to a conscious mind, is hurtful. (Please note that coercion, abuse, enslavement, intimidation, all work for a short time to achieve a specific goal, but in the end it breaks down, since the universe's structure does not support these 'agreements', so they can be maintained only through more force.)

So I avoided bringing God into this picture, though it does not mean that He/She does not exist, merely that, same as I am unable to put myself a 100 million light years away, I cannot fathom the infinite mystery that is God. I cannot prove what I cannot possibly know, but this does not mean that God does not exist. Quite frankly, I find myself asking for help at times without shame of the fact that I cannot prove His/Her existence. So, how does one construct such an idea of a non-God universe in a dispassionate, detached way? The answer is that it can be constructed only as a self defining mechanism devoid of a prime mover. Then, it matters not what God had in mind for the universe, or for man, and there is no need for anyone to interpret God's Will, which I think is impossible; rather the philosophy turns its attention to the 'mechanics' of how it is constructed. This would be relatively simple, to show how things are identified or defined by their context within how the universe is interrelated into itself; but the mind of a conscious being, our humanness, gets in the way. We are able to exert influence on that otherwise perfectly ordered universe through our will and actions. Then the question arises: Are we working with it, or against it? (I might add here that coercion exists at all levels of life, as things eat each other. But they are not conscious of this, and only in humans can the choice be made to not coerce.) And this is where the concept of 'agreement' fits in. The short answer is that when we find agreement, then we work with it; when we coerce, we go against the structure of how the universe defines itself and are working against it; the end result is that agreements are agreeable to us, whereas coercion is not. Pleasure and pain? Sometimes. Because we are extremely complex beings, cosmologically speaking (Each one of us, as is true for all living things, is now a final point of life at the end of a continuous chain of existence), then the result of either working with or against the universe's own self defined structure will yield real life results which may not necessarily be what is pleasurable. This is why I think we live in an interactive universe, and from our actions manifest our reality, the physical reality within which we live, which may or may not be to our expectations. There is risk in life, and to find guarantees may be as illusive as the philosopher's stone. Yet, in the choices we make, and thoughts we have, no need to stop trying! If we finally succeed in finding pleasure, or guarantees, then it is in our mind.

Finally, my saying so does not make it real. I describe a system which I think approximates reality, but only through time and application, and only with the end results, can I ever hope of knowing if my System as described in Habeas Mentem is correct or not. So this system is 'relational': we do and to us is done. Life teaches us, though we generally give it no intelligence. Can a philosophy of non-coercion be coercive? Certainly, when a person consciously rejects coercion. However, in that event, the choice to not be coerced is a coercion only to him who would coerce, and that is self negating. So this is the final condition of being conscious: it is always our agreement, our choice. And I dare say that I suspect that this freedom to find agreement, and be free from coercion, is as passionate as the ego can be, once we become aware of it. Why should it be otherwise? But as you say: " the trick might be to carefully move to an ‘uninterested’ view or position which would somehow help produce new thoughts about a subject." Within this new cosmology of an 'interrelated' universe (not 'my' cosmology mind you, but out there, as I understand it), this is very likely the best way to seek agreement without coercion.

I hope these thoughts answer some of your questions. Ask again if you need more, and I will try to answer as correctly as I can within the framework of this new cosmology, as I understand it.

Always a pleasure,

Ivan

http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html

Dear WJ,

You write:

"But now it may be appropriate to add in the discussion:

- In terms of anything that we ever have experienced, or will experience, we have no knowledge of the existence or non-existence of:
(A) our own free will;
(B) our soul's immortality;
(C) God. "

In his Eternal Life? (Image Books, NY, 1985), Hans Kung writes:

"But does the demand for verification mean conversely that life after death is demonstrable? Perhaps by those arguments for the immortality of the soul which have been used constantly since Plato's time? Like his great master Socrates, who had gone to his death serenely and confidently, struggled to work out new arguments for the immortality of the soul, regarding the soul as the principle of life and for that very reason as immortal." -pg. 74.

This is the question I often ask myself as well: Is the infinite chain of connections that define a life, a point of life at the end of this chain: is this the soul? What is it that constitutes a definition of our being that is continuous, immortal, that is some value in us which survives us upon the death of our body? Does the concept of 'interrelationship' as a defining force of things in existence lend itself to a definition of the soul, and ultimately of God? Or does it require some higher consciousness in man to reach such an immortality, such as found in the life of the saints? I do not know, and can only offer a guess on this: I suspect the answer is 'yes'. Or in the words of the Buddhist masters: 'Thou art that.'

Kung then writes in his "Summary" at the end of the book:

"God all in all: For me it is expressed in unsurpassed and grandiose poetic form -- interweaving cosmic liturgy, nuptial celebrations and quiet happiness-- on the last pages of the New Testament at the end of the book of Revelation by the seer in statements of promise and hope, with which I would like to close this series of lectures on eternal life: 'Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; the first heaven and the first earth had disappeared now, and there was no longer any sea (the place of chaos). I saw the holy city, and the new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, as beautiful as a bride all dressed for her husband. Then I heard a loud voice call from the throne, 'You see this city? Here God lives among men. He will make his home among them: they shall be his people, and he will be their God; his name is God-with-them. He will wipe away all tears from their eyes; there will be no more death, and no more mourning or sadness. The world of the past will be gone.' It will no longer be a life in the light of the Eternal, but the light of the Eternal will be our life and his rule our rule." pp. 233-234.

Kung wrote earlier (pg. 232): "Not a human kingdom, but only God's kingdom is the kingdom of consummation: the kingdom of definitive salvation, of fulfilled justice, of perfect freedom, of unequivocal truth, of universal peace, of infinite love, of overflowing joy --in a word, of eternal life."

So eternal life is not necessarily in the physical sense, but one where that final point of life, our being, is now connected completely, consciously, and in total agreement with the universe within which it exists; and this is by choice. Think what this can mean! Imagine a world where fear is replaced with joy because of the certainty that one is part of the whole universe in such a way that the connections never end. Imagine a world where finding agreement between individual human beings is sought as passionately as a philosopher's quest for truth, or a true believer's quest for the holy places of their saviour, or lovers for each other. Imagine a world where the structure is one of agreements rather than coercions. Can such a world exist? I think it is a philosophical possibility, but to get there will take a level of awareness that I fear is not yet amongst us. Our mind, as a planet-wide- consciousness, is still too weak, and we lose sight of our goals too easily and fall back into the confusion which we so comfortably know. The answer to an eternal life is beyond birthing and dying; it is in knowing that we are part of a much bigger picture, and that this picture asserts itself here on earth when we do things through agreement rather than through coercion. And this is done of our own free will. I think this will be the path to what the seers of the book of Revelation wrote about, a perfect freedom and universal peace. The question is: If this is demanded of us as our next stage of human evolution, of our being and soul; and we who are still lost in our confusion do not know how to get there; how can it happen? I do not know, but I can venture a guess: It will happen when we realize that we can freely choose to be free of coercions. Alas, I am too pessimistic to think this can happen. But if it did happen, imagine the Joy!

Most sincerely,

Ivan Alexander
http://www.humancafe.com

Dear WJ, and all,

You write: "Be that as it may, an extraordinary force is creating this somewhat universal idea of utopia. Again, nothing really new in terms of the possibilities, but the sadness of realization will produce its own limitations. And those, of course, would relate to the so-called evil forces intrinsic to our species. Fallible systems indeed! So where is the hope? How does your system (agreement/coercion) provide for hope?

"I ask this because that is what you/we are suggesting; a hope for a grasp of perfection, on the planet. What other systems are there that provide for that hope, and why and to what extent? Are these the areas where all the religions try to address? If so, why can’t there just be one omnipotent, universal Being? There are as many of these ‘beings’ as there are platonian ideas. Indeed, all humans lack universal knowledge and wisdom. I suppose this is where Christianity comes in... ."

In response to the above and our dialogue, I would like to bring up why I have concerns that lead me to be pessimistic over the implementation of an ideal-social-contract in human society. By 'ideal' I mean a social contract that uses reason to arrive at conclusions that then define for human beings an ontological formula of their being, or of becoming 'who they are'.

I think that the past of human society, as we know it from our histories, has been dominated by a search for an ideal morality which can serve as a social template for what is correct human action. An extreme example of this is the 'just war', whereby a chaplain, or priest of mullah or monk, will call on God for victory and send soldiers into battle because they have God on their side. In fact, it may very well be a just war because of the grievance experienced by either side are due to some coercion that is happening, or had happened which now, in the absence of a third party tribunal resolution, results in combat. This moralistic attitude of justice then leads the troops to fight for a cause they deem to be the right cause, which may even impassion them into acts of cruelty and atrocities against the enemy population. I am using this example based on atrocities as they had been exemplified in past and current wars: WW II, Vietnam, Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc. Now, if the psychology of the war was instead strictly because of a need to correct abuses and coercions, then the war is more an act of soldierly duty; but if it is against 'gooks' or 'japs' or 'gerries' or 'ivans' or whatever, then the soldier is desensitized to the people he is fighting from seeing them as being 'human'. Then it is no longer a correction of some coercion, some disagreement as a result of the use of force, but rather becomes a 'moral' war of 'us' against 'them'.

Why is this moralistic attitude dangerous? And is philosophy guilty of this too?

It is dangerous because it obscures the fact that we all live in a humanly interactive environment where we either agree or disagree. This is behind all exchange activity, the principle behind all democratic governments, all courtships, the binding force of all contracts, in fact behind all formal and informal interhuman actions. We always solicit agreements and repulse trespass or coercion. When we examine how human beings act, this agreement/coercion principle is always present. The fact that we are ignorant of it or unawares of it may be the main reason why it does not work as it should. There will always be those who for personal gain will try to get around it and deceive or steal or force through violence. They are empowered by those who allow them to do this, either meekly as victims, or actively by joining in with those who will coerce, only to become victims themselves. In the company of thieves, who is safe from thievery? However, as I had said before, seeking and finding agreement is an extremely complex case, as complex as who we are as human beings.

So the 'moralistic', and generally universally acceptable, approach to this was to find correct rules of conduct, and to seek the approval of some higher force who will endorse this morality, which in the end translates into God. From this force then flows blessings as they are interpreted by the religious clerics who then interpret the sacred writings, and who ultimately tell us what is moral and what is not. Philosophers of the past have largely supported this heavy 'top-down' system. But now we can see how it hinders where it should help, since it leads people to believe that their 'just causes', which transcend merely the agreement/coercion conditions, thus gives them license to coerce another. This is the error. Rather than imposing this heavy burden of interpretation of what is morally correct, or politically correct, or justifiably coercion; why not simplify it dramatically by allowing individuals to work out their own particular inter-human conditions by allowing them to either seek agreement, or be protected from coercion? This can easily be done through social agreements that are aware of this need for a new justice where individuals are forbidden from coercing each other and third parties except in the case of either preventing or correcting coercions. Then the passions of what is morally correct is instead replaced with a colder light of reason, where the judgment of whether or not coercion is displacing agreement can be understood rationally. I ask you then, is this 'bottom-up' approach not a better way? And is it really idealistic, or simply mundanely practical? Even without the general public understanding the mental constructions that lead to this conclusion, even if they are oblivious of philosophical arguments, they know nothing and could care less of Habeas Mentem as a principle of agreement vs. coercion; but they can see it as a practical application to their daily lives: "Do not force me against agreement, and stop me if I am coercing you." It is really that simple: Agreement/coercion as a social ontology is no more than a postulate of practical reason. The ramification of a general public seeing it this way are immense.

So, why am I pessimistic about this? I fear that we will invent new ways to coerce one another using 'agreements'. Really, we as human beings are incredibly clever, and sometimes in the wrong way. Maybe this is why we have had to rely on morality, because we are clever in how we can damage each other. So, if there must be a morality, let it be this: that we do not use agreements to coerce one another.

And when we can do this, I think we will have found the Truth of 'who we are'.

Well, tootle-ooh, but I've gotta run. My wife will be coming home from Italy in a couple of days, and I have to get the house ready so as not to 'coerce' her with my sloppy, detached living habits. As always, it has been a joy. Thanks.

Adios! Ivan

Ethics: #1 of 4:

This is a four part series on Ethics, which is work in progress, and each part will be posted about a week apart. All comments or ideas are welcome. -Ivan

* * *

ETHICS FOR A NEW MIND

By Ivan Alexander


1. TOP-DOWN ETHICS

In "Burden of Dreams", the documentary film about the making of "Fitzcarraldo" in the Amazon jungle, filmmaker Werner Herzog says that the jungle is not full of joy and goodness, that this is an illusion. Instead, the beautiful sounds one hears are sounds of pain, of desperation, the screams only of survival, of eating and being eaten. There is no peace there, only constant war and killing. This is the reality of Life, or to paraphrase Herzog, there is no goodness in the wilderness, no paradise, and 'ethics' and the 'good' are human inventions which do not translate into nature. Nature is not good; it only 'is', to survive pain and death.

This caught my attention because I think it captures the reality of our human existence in a universe that merely 'is', in one that life merely 'survives', and that our human struggle to find meaning in an existence that stingily offers us some inner hope is born only of a desperation to survive death. Where is the 'joy' in this, the beauty? Is this not a fatalistic existence from which none of us will escape alive? What is this 'good' we strive for? If the function of life is merely to survive, how can there be an Ethics for moral action?

This is the Subjective question that went through my mind, watching Herzog struggle in the Amazonian jungle, where some of his native crew died: Where is the Good in this world? Why do we struggle so to realize our Dreams?

This question is of necessity a product of an advanced mind. There is something in the frontal lobes of my brain that requires I address this, and will not let me rest without an answer. I doubt our animal neighbors of the planet are much troubled by this, though they too may have good and bad dreams of their own. But their inner programming seems to have adapted well to the cruel existence of eating and being eaten which propels the living things of this world. They do not seem to display any moral judgements in their actions. They kill without remorse, and maybe die without regret, but selfless actions like sacrifice seem foreign to them. Existence as displayed by the surviving living species is inherently selfish; ethics is of no concern to them; moral ethics is a manmade thing.

Amongst the human species, however, Ethics has been a subject of debate for a very long time, possibly predating the written word. In our known recorded history, it already occupied the minds of ancient Egyptians, where in the presence of Osiris, after confessions of sins, the heart of the deceased was weighed against the weight of a feather; if it proved heavy with sin, it was eaten by a monster, thus destroying the dead man's soul so it could not enjoy paradise in the beauty of the gods. Though this was a fanciful and naive approach to Ethics, it persisted in various forms to this day in the ideas of heaven and hell. All religions of the world have some such version of what is closer to God, hence Ethical, or further from the Good, from God, and thus Evil. The ancient Greek thinkers further formalized these questions into philosophical ideas of Ethics in their search for 'what is the Good'. We have carried on this tradition to modern times, so the thinking of early Greeks, Anaximander, Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, were later carried by the Church via St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Abelard, and are now still with us into the modern thoughts of Kant, Buber, De Chardin, Kung, Levinas, amongst many others; debates that have been faithfully recorded and carried on through the university systems, and their publications; and now this debate is carried still further into academia's most modern and democratic offspring as it continues on the internet. So we actively debate this still. But is it not strange, that after so many centuries of debate, millennia, we are still no closer to the truth of what is Ethics? What is the Good? Why has it proven to be so difficult, so illusive?

One possibility is that it simply is not true. There is no Good. If so, then all Ethics are a human invention with no reference to the reality of the universe as it is. This is what Herzog implied, that there is no God to which we can turn to. Nature is an evil place, not the embodiment of the good. The idea of nature as Good is a clever lie. Of course, a cleverly structured lie can never be deciphered and will leave the thinker perpetually off balance trying to understand truth where none exists. But this answer does not satisfy us and, except for die hard pragmatists or existentialists, it is quickly rejected as a philosophical dead end. Another possibility is that we are still wrestling with a template of reality we inherited from the ancient Egyptians, Chaldeans, Zoroastrians, Hebrews, and even Greeks, whereby the universe is an imperfect, corrupt version of the perfection of God. And we are the imperfect and corrupt creations within it. Laboring under this moral template, we are then forced to build progressively greater and more complex systems of thought and structured embodiments of ethical behavior, rules of moral laws, that then dictate to us what is moral behavior, and what is not. This body of moral ethics is then embodied in our Holy Books and Scriptures. Man can never aspire, however, to approach the perfection of God, never get close enough to form that perfect union with the infinite which would allow him to become like God, and thus remain forever banished into the nether world of imperfection. Thus damned, man is forced to be punished by the morally correct laws representing our ideas of what is God's perfection, whenever we stray from this. So under this template, the one handed down to us from ancient times, we are never good enough to be Good, and never moral in our own right because we are damned with original sin, being imperfect-corrupt images of God. The only salvation, if we should accept this, is to be redeemed of this sin through some form of baptism of the holy spirit and accept our saviour, whether it be Christ or Mohammed, or Baha'u'allah, as our redeemer. This is the heavy 'top-down' structure of morality that fundamentally underlies much of the general and common thinking of the world today, that man is an impure creature that needs to be cleansed, or at least kept in check because he is wicked. For this structure of morality, great religions had been created to enforce the moral code, to reward or punish as the need may be, and to offer and even guarantee salvation for those who obey, or further damnation to hell for those who disobey. Interesting ideas, but they are fundamentally flawed themselves as self negating, since non can ever really interpret the perfection of God for us, and thus leave us no closer to understanding whether or not we are closer to the Good or not. This is a debate without end. It is not a dead end as in the prior case, but it is a debate without resolution since none can ever identify with certainty what is the Good. In the end, man does wicked and evil things, which is an historical fact, and a morality of Ethics does not seem to sway him to correct his ways. Man stays rebellious and refuses redemption, which is regrettable; or worse, he revels in his evil deeds. Why is this so? Why is this heavy moral 'top-down' structure so difficult to apply to the world?

In part, the answer to this question, it is because a super-structure of morality does not work. The Good, morally ethical behavior, is not something that can be imposed from above. Human beings are extremely complex creatures with a will, a mind, a soul, and even a little wickedness. We cannot help what we inherited from our lesser brethren. Ever watch monkeys steal? They grab and run, knowing full well they should not be doing this. I have seen monkeys do this from the rooftops of Agra, India. Would you believe I was 'mugged' by a baboon in Malaysia, who with bared teeth against my leg took my two oranges from my pocket? I have also seen it in my wolf-dogs, who habitually steal from each other, given the chance. Only I can 'morally' intervene to make sure that each gets a fair share, and not more. Does this make me their moral equivalent of a 'priest', I wonder, as I point my finger at them: "thou shalt not!..'? They slink away embarrassed with tail between legs when caught, and immediately beg for forgiveness. Sounds almost human? I suspect we are not yet so far removed, that we will not still deceive, steal, cleverly force where we can, and generally act in ways that we would judge to be amoral. There is a lack of awareness when it is convenient for us to forget what is morally good. This is our human nature with which we had been wrestling for these thousands of years. Yet, this is also our strength, the force that makes us be 'who we are' and who came to dominate the whole globe. Being morally good has not always been an asset, since we then are often destroyed; being morally bad has had its rewards in this world, but has not been an asset either, since in the end things fall apart. So where does salvation lie? How do we resolve the paradox that we cannot be totally good, nor totally bad?

* * *

Ethics: #2 of 4:

ETHICS FOR A NEW MIND contd.

2. ETHICS AS AGREEMENT VS. COERCION

The human reality is that men have been predators to one another, and thus we have ample historical evidence that man can do damage to others. A mild case of damage is infidelity, where trust is broken. An agreement of trust had existed, and now it is broken so the agreement that had existed no longer applies, and thus one or both parties are damaged and suffer. A more serious case of damage is entrapment or enslavement. Here a person is forced against their will, against their agreement, to become property, or subject to satisfying the needs of another. Again, if done through trickery, without ones agreement, then trust was broken, and now enslavement ensues. A still greater damage is violence, where a person is forced against their will with physical assault. Here, not only is trust and agreement broken, but the physical space occupied by the person is violated as well, since the fists, or whip or tire iron, used to beat the other is entering the victim's personal physical existence, his or her body. Of course, the ultimate damage is death, where all the agreements are broken, all the covenants of life disconnected, and the victim is killed. In each case, the operative word was 'broken agreement', where a person was forced against his or her will to serve the needs or passions of another. Implied in each broken agreement, by definition, was a 'coercion', whereby the perpetrator of this coercion was overstepping the boundaries of the person who was being victimized against their agreement. When a person forces another against their agreement, a coercion results. Why is this important? Is this 'agreement versus coercion' a valid Ethics question?

Each human being who is conscious and has a mind can form agreements. We naturally seek what is good for us, pleasing, pleasurable, fun, funny, satisfying, lovely, comforting, reassuring, exciting, safe, necessary, correct, dutiful, beautiful, etc. We are extremely complex as conscious human beings, and our agreements reflect that complexity. There is no simple formula for what is a 'good agreement'. It may be for mere survival, or it may be for pleasure, or esthetic beauty, or to satisfy a childhood wish, or some philosophical dream. We cannot define this, since it is as complex as the being who is seeking or accepting this agreement. But we can say that each agreement is how it is perceived as desirable by the person accepting the things agreed upon. So 'agreement' is a totally Subjective thing. For another to step into this and try to analyze it, or judge its merits, is to trespass onto that person, unless that person had first invited them to do so. So agreement is also voluntary, it is an expression of our free will. For better or worse, whether the agreements we make are smart or stupid, functional or dysfunctional, they reflect the 'who we are', our subjective selves. If this is a given, and our subjective selves are allowed to be who we are, then an agreement is always a good, since it reaches over into both our lives as we agree, and into the life of another, as the other agrees. "Are we in agreement over this?" -- just testing-- The point is that an agreement between two people is a 'good' for them.

Now what happens when this agreement is violated? Above and beyond the examples of violations given above, there is also the violation of third parties. For example, I make an agreement with another to go into someone's house and steal. The agreement between us exists and satisfies 'our' needs, but it violates the agreement of another, the owner of the house who is to be robbed. Another example is that in joining my fraternity, I must submit to the agreement that I will 'haze' the initiates on hazing night. I must agree with this, if I am to remain a fraternity brother, and I must use the paddle on the rear ends of the pledges, since that is my agreement to be part of the fraternity. On the other end, the pledges agree to bare their bottoms and be slapped with the wooden paddles. All this abuse is agreed upon, which certainly is an abuse as observed by outsiders, but not at all an abuse by the participants who are part of the ritual. This template can be translated to families, companies, governments, social clubs, religious practices, etc. We can agree even to be abused; but it is 'our' agreement, and thus is valid. The only agreement that is not valid is where we agree to coerce another; then it is a coercion and devoid of this principle of agreement. So where is the good? The good exists wherever this network of agreements functions such that it does not trespass or coerce on another third party, and meets the needs of satisfying the persons who had entered into their mutually beneficial agreement. Then, there is no jud