http://ping.fm/p/Yp0VO – 3ds max

http://ping.fm/p/55kND – Digital stuff

http://ping.fm/p/1WnRk – (No subject header)

http://ping.fm/tXaE3

Atheism dies with theism.

Empathy and Charity

I have lain down my universal doctrine, and for the rest of my life I consciously understand at the most basic levels who I am, and what I stand for. We come against fundamental problems with human desire when we try to push forward with productive and morally good universals, and I think Fichte says it well,” The good cause is ever the weaker, for it is simple and can be loved only for itself; the bad attracts each individual by the promise that is most seductive to him; and its adherents, always at war amongst themselves, so soon as the good makes its appearance, conclude a truce that they may unite the whole powers of their wickedness against it.” Even though the most basic universal truths seem mundane, there is a difference between consciously understanding something and being able to answer for it, and having a feeling, which is dressed in the costume of “common sense”. It is understood that it is unacceptable to not be able to explain ones motives behind an action, so when one feels a certain way in which they are not conscious of the drives of that feeling, they strip you of your “right” to ask what the drives are by calling it “common sense”. Then, just by asking you are obviously devoid of what so many others have without thinking. Ridiculous. Although I’m not a big Descartes fan, he lays it down well here, “Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have.” The fundamental universal that I am building on is: If your necessities are met, think about providing for those who cannot provide their necessities for themselves. When you gaze out into a world of hardship, charitable acts really are the frontline of good will and intention attempting to annihilate random contingency. Charitable acts are the attempt of men to alleviate the suffering of beings like themselves through their willed actions, over those who are tragic victims of chance. These actions cleansed of consequence and motives, in the objective world seem straightforward and simple; one hundred dollars to charity, is one hundred dollars for food that was not available the day before, end of story. To a homeless person who knows not where the donation was obtained, that is his truth. To the charity that accepts the donation, no questions asked, as the sum is small, this is their simple truth. In this essay, what I would like to focus on is the motivation for giving. I would like to focus on the different reasons why people would give to charities and ask the questions: Is there any real difference what a person’s motivation is when giving to charity? If the charity, and the recipient have no way to know, and the money is providing sustenance for the less fortunate, then it must be an act of good will, is it not? What are different examples of motivations in giving to charity? In the end, can we make any kind of comparison that allows us to think that one persons motivation for donating is better than any other when we know that when the money has left the hands of the donor, it becomes a meaningless object of quantitative value in the hands of charity? I have been thinking about this for years, and it really seems like there is no clear form, although, if you cleanse your means, then as an individual, you will not have to bother with the calculations inherent in slipping by with an acceptable amount of dissonance or inconsistency, because your acts will always be benevolent, but let’s play the skeptic. I feel my migraine starting already, so let’s dive into the deep end!

Empathy- the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

Sympathy- the harmony of feeling naturally existing between persons of like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions.

Pity-sympathetic or kindly sorrow evoked by the suffering, distress, or misfortune of another, often leading one to give relief or aid or to show mercy: to feel pity for a starving child.

Charity- benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need or in disfavor

Benevolent-characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings

*Dictionary.com

Now anybody that knows me knows I am no fan of Christianity. Not because of any one Christian in particular, but what I see as damage caused by the group, and other groups with the same tendencies for that matter. I do support a good portion of the teachings of Jesus Christ though, that being said, Jesus is not above justifiable criticism either. The fact remains that his ideas of charity permeate our society today as resonant positives, and when I think about charity, of course this verse comes to mind:

Luke 21:1-4

“And he looked, and saw rich men putting their donations into the treasury. And he also saw a certain poor widow donating two mites. And he said “Truly, I tell you, that this poor widow has cast in more than all of them: for they have all given but a portion of their great wealth, as an offering to God, while she, in her poverty, has given all that she had.” 

This really hits to the core of what I am discussing in this essay, and it is the idea that there is a moral qualitative value for the one who is donating the money, which is then transformed into a pure quantitative purchasing power as the money changes hands. Even though the two mites would not buy even a fraction, quantitatively and objectively of what the more rich men put in, for her, it was the same as one of those rich men giving up his entire fortune as a donation.

So, I have to burst the masturbation of the romantic types out there, but we can deconstruct this in a more scientific way, and we find out that much of the flavor is grotesquely romantic, but the fundamental qualitative, to quantitative evaluation remains the same. So here’s how it goes: 

The two mites may be all the woman had, but two mites are also easy to attain again, where as a fortune is not. So while one tends to want to equate the two that is a clear misuse of the power of intellectualism. When Jesus says that she has put in more than all of them, that would only be true in an individual qualitative sense. I do agree, that it takes more courage to give when you are suffering, but again, when you have learned to live with nothing, that relative conditioning really is a natural reaction to the momentums and social tendencies we live in as individuals. We see this when, after a stockbroker loses all their money, they may commit suicide rather than go back to a life with no money. The sad, realistic psychological fact is that it is more difficult to give up a fortune, than it is to give up a tiny bit of possessions, even if it is all you have because you have been conditioned to live with nothing, so your life has not changed much. This type of reality really destroys any kind of hope in believing that the romantic teachings of old are anything other than purposely contorted caricatures to maximize the resonance of memory through time. The fact also cannot be overlooked that Jesus became popular among the common (read: poor) people for bringing about these types of teachings that allow the poor people to escape within themselves and let go of the oppression of the terrible class struggles in the time in which they lived.

Ultimately, the rich men’s contributions will alleviate the suffering of more people than the poor women’s contribution. I am a supporter of utilitarianism, so I do think that the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people is a valuable ideal, so, the greatest amount of good will be done by those who’s little bit was much more than another’s everything. That’s the disparaging unromantic truth. But, at an individual level, the individual donor, motivations are important to that person in and of themselves.

Compare these two examples and decide which is the most benevolent:

Example #1

A homeless man spends twenty years on the streets, and finally manages to pull himself up through his own will. He goes out, gets a job, and puts his life back together. When he is sustaining his life again, he turns to the soup kitchen that he used to eat at to volunteer. He goes there, and sees all his old homeless friends who are happy to be served by him. There is a fundamental empathy because the less fortunate know that the server was less fortunate himself at one point. They see him as the example of what they might do, and they know he truly understands them. He serves them as a retroactive saving of himself.

Example #2

A television celebrity lives their whole life with no troubles with money. Their parents put them through the best schools, and their career took off and they earned their own fortune also. At some point, the celebrity feels a bit guilty because, walking around the streets of LA, there is so many homeless people that now the celebrity wants to give back to the community that they see as contributing to their wealth. When the celebrity serves the homeless people at the soup kitchen, there is no realistic connection. The celebrity has never been homeless, therefore cannot connect on a fundamental empathetic level. Only some kind of detached sympathy is possible. The celebrity has no realistic ground to stand at the level of the homeless, so, pity is all that is possible. This is insulting to what little dignity a homeless person has, to be served out of pity. The celebrity is ignorant of the situation, but the homeless person understands. Realistically, the homeless person would rather have a pity donation, than no donation but remember, this is a quantitative end evaluation. We are talking about the qualitative exchanges.

Jesus taught that one should be measured by what he gives, measured against what he has. I say that no true charitable act is actually true, unless there is a fundamental empathy shared by hard reality experiences with the recipient: Your mother died from cancer, you start a cancer foundation; You spent time on drugs, so you contribute free time to discussion groups.

So, in the end, it is about that fundamental empathy in the qualitative sense. You must feel the others pain, from your own past experience with the same situation. No fair saying, ” Well, I love my house, so I can understand what it would be like if I did not have my house anymore. So, empathy is possible for me.” Reality is different from imagination. Truth is stranger than fiction. Actually being homeless is not as simple as the exact negation of the affirmation of what you enjoy about your home. Reality has its own life, and you cannot understand that until you have been a product of contingency, completely. The further you move away from that fundamental empathy, the more you cease to identify with those you are helping, and the more your donations become simply sympathetic, patronizing and based in pity, not identity. We should be glad that we can only sympathize with the less fortunate, because that means we have escaped being the universe’s contingent plaything, but we should not believe we have made a true act of charity if we temporarily step down to alleviate the suffering.

In the end, the quantitative difference of the dollar amount is all that matters to the less fortunate after the money changes hands. I use the soup kitchen example because it brings in the dimension of servitude in person, and the implications of such a meeting.
I am not trying to stifle donations, for whatever reason, but understanding our motives as individuals is the most important search we carry on, as individuals.

Yes, the Tree Still Makes a Sound

It never ceases to amaze me how solipsistic the common person is. What amazes me even more is the arrogance of some solipsistic educated people. It is a sickness of the mind that believes that if a tree falls in the forest, but no person is there to perceive it, then it did not really happen. It is a sickness of the mind that believes the only position available in the end is subjectivity. No more of this nonsense! Where is your courage?! Where is your admittance of your own insignificance?! If I make the statement, ” All men need water to survive.” do not say to me, “That is just your point of view.” The majority of what exist, exists outside of you(!), and I will laugh aloud right now to tell you that even what exists inside of you is not yours either! When I present an inarguable fact to you, do not say back to me, “That is your opinion.” You are wrong and a coward! Ideas can be known beyond question. Not all viewpoints are subjective. Some things just are, whether you believe they are or not. So, let us ask the questions: If a person can only perceive something subjectively, how can something objective exist? What are some of the negative side affects of refusing to affirm concepts and ideas of an objective nature? I would like to close the essay on the subject of weakness of mind, and how lack of education, and a will to try, leads people to the nebulousness of “unquestionable” subjectivity, and how they sanction madness to perpetuate their masturbatory delusions, all in the hope to hide from the real truth, the specter of their insignificance.

Subjectivity- Proceeding from or taking place within an individual’s mind such as to be unaffected by the external world.

Objectivity- Having to do with a material object, as distinguished from a mental concept.

Material- Of or concerned with the physical, as distinct from the intellectual or the spiritual.

Mental- Of or pertaining to the mind; Existing in the mind.

Universal- Of, pertaining to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world.

Particular- Of, belonging to, or associated with, a single person, group, thing or category; not general or universal.

*The American Heritage Dictionary

When I make the statement, ” Any single person on this planet who is deprived of water will die.” that is a universally objective statement. You may not have the luxury of arguing against it without rightfully being labeled as a madman, or woman. This is not debatable, either you agree to this, or you are crazy. Send me an email; I’ll try to get some phone numbers for you.

All men need water to survive, whether your god thinks so, whether you are an Indian Yogi, or maybe you think we only need water because we believe we do. Wrong. As a biological mechanism, men emerged in certain ways, which are universal and beyond their choice. Face it, there is knowledge to be known universally, with an objective basis.

If I take a man, and cleanse him off all his perception, but keep his body alive, this man has no idea what men are, what water is, what objects are or what he himself is, nevertheless, he is surrounded by billions of creatures that need water to survive. In his mind he does not perceive that men drink water, but the world he exists in, exists in itself in the way that it is whether he perceives it or not. You may ask, “Does it exist for him?”. The system cares not whether it is perceived or not perceived. Your perception of it is your perception, but what it is in itself is not contingent upon your perception or your belief. You may become mad, and perceive that men actually thirst for blood, not water, and you would be labeled a madman rightfully.

The major problem with people believing everything is contingent upon what they believe they perceive, as opposed to what is, and what is believed is they gradually become mad, and they have no idea. If life becomes whatever you believe it is, then you have no ground to stand and will tend opportunistically to a self reifying masturbation. When someone presents the person with objective facts one will be inclined to think, making no distinction, that the facts are perceived by the person presenting them in subjectivity, therefore automatically giving the other subjective viewer the right to discount them on the same standards. This means no attempt is ever made by the second party at an objective evaluation, because the “belief” in objectivity is never on the table. This is madness at its most rampant.

I will say this: it is only the most basic concepts that are completely objective. As viewpoints move to more complicated ideas such as politics, philosophy or religion, certainly agenda and subjectivity do get mixed in the formula, but if one has no criteria for siphoning out the objective, one is relegated to a certain portion of madness outright.

It is my subjective particular belief that this delusional madness of ” If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything.” mentality is a symptom of a larger problem, not the problem itself. The problem is the fundamental clash of interests where the human being desperately desires recognition in a cold world of anonymity where one is surrounded by thousands of people, but each one might as well be a cold stone wall. A clash of interest where the human being hides from objectivity, because the human being knows instinctively that to understand the truth of ones insignificance in reality is too painful to endure physically(!), so one just “forgets” conveniently about objective truth, or they just make more convenient constructs to explain it away. They do it for their survival, and the survival of others, and this mentality worked for thousands of years, but now, when the global community is dependent on rational people to be diplomatic as they drum their fingers around a key, and button which decide the fate of the entire world, it is time we took a step forward out of the realm of the animals, and into the realm of the Gods.

It is the Universe’s Fault Also

When we travel on the road of philosophical inquiry, we become perplexed by situations that seem to us to be incalculable. Our limitations put us in situations which the right, true and correct path is not clear to us, and we are not able to see into the future to the ends which would help us know if we are right or wrong. Men can make choices such as the choice to live in immediacy, and to cleanse their means, making their ends into their means and therefore limiting their subject to their own control, limiting risks into the transcendent realm of the unknown, and putting ones self on the line for being responsible for monumental mistakes, or being praised as meritorious for making a lucky guess at a roll of dice. In this writing I would like to highlight some examples of incalculable situations, and compare them to easily calculated decisions. We derive our ideas of justice from a social contract of limited economy where what is viewed as transgression is qualitatively evaluated, and matched against a sort of equitable revenge to deter future transgression and to discourage the idea in others that they could freely transgress also. So, in this type of system, how does one punish a person who commits a transcendent transgression when not only the consequences cannot be calculated or understood, but evaluating the qualitative deterrent becomes nebulous and muddled, making axiomatic justice impossible? It seems obvious to me that if the system you are part of inherently has limitations beyond your control that may cause you to err, then, the onus of guilt for destructive outcomes falls on the one who created the conditions for those outcomes. Whereas, if a person has the correct view and information, but from within their vision is clouded by their own prejudices, beliefs and drives, then the err is immediate and though every contingency cannot be calculated at this time, if a majority judgment can be made, then our immediate judicial contract can be maintained. I am not religious in anyway, but I would like to discuss the idea that the universe itself as a whole, in its own form is to blame for many of the woes we suffer. I would like to blast those who negate mankind as a whole. I desire to give them the name “human traitors”, and to talk about their personal self-interest in that negation. To finish, I would like to discuss the fact that the full responsibility, if there really is a productive and destructive equilibrium in the universe, is shared between those with limited vision and education, and that essence which begins at the edge of those limitations. Fuel up your vehicle, and let us go for a drive.

Situation #1

A strange man comes running at you with a knife. Saying nothing, he attacks. You happen to be trained ninja, so you take him down, disarm him, and hold him prisoner until the recognized authorities arrive.

Any civilized person would agree, this is the correct course of action in a civilized society where law rules, and fair judgment is expected.

Situation #2

A strange man comes running at you with a knife, screaming, “I’m going to kill you!”. You happen to be a trained ninja, so you take him down, and disarm him, and hold him prisoner. While you are holding the man, he says “If you do not kill me, when I am released from jail I will hunt your daughter and kill her. Then I will hunt your wife and kill her. Then I’ll come back for you!” To make matters worse, the jails are overcrowded and the local authorities are known for turning away criminals where no physical damage is shown on the victims.

Now one is faced with the dilemma of self-preservation and duty to family, or ones devotion to authority. Now, given this situation it would be nice to be able to test future outcomes. Is the threat sincere? Is he just angry? What happens if I end it here? What will happen if I let him go?

Some would say it is always wrong to take authority into your hands. But, if the authority which rules cannot be trusted to be fair and just, then you are in a state of war, are you not? In a state of war, each man is his own sovereign. In the end, unless we can test the outcomes, all we are doing is leaping into the unknown in an endless state of becoming, and a hope that our immediate value system coincidentally and simultaneously intentionally leads us to the best outcome. There are no winners in a situation like this, nor is there a defined right and wrong. Suppose one outcome has the killer live, escape, and kill the family. Is that right? Suppose one outcome has you kill the killer, who in the future would have never carried out the action anyway. Is that right?

Real situations are much more nebulous than this, and one is also effected by the irrationality of fight or flight situations, accidents, prejudices, making calculation very utopian. Given this is the system we reside in, beyond our own choice, to blame men for the errors in a fashion which holds them completely accountable is unrealistic, and unexamined. Usually people who blame men so readily, are interested in negating men in the belief that they themselves are above men. 

The limitations we live by were thrust upon us as a given. We who are alive today did not chose to not be able to see, and in fact progress, growth and development toward an order for everyone, is an exhibition of the conscious drives in which man himself desires to bring about that balance of peace and tranquility.

Human suffering is inherent in the universal system, as is human bliss. We are shown early on what it is to be vital, then we are left wanting for the majority of our lives. While our lives are partially determined at a universal level, we are afforded some room to move to get ahead of the mechanism and alleviate our own suffering, through our own suffering. The mechanism follows predictable laws which cannot be broken yet, and it is up to us here and now, as a team to bring the levels of human suffering down.

People who negate mankind as inherently flawed are correct in some form. Mankind emerged in his way beyond his own conscious choice. His conscious choice was a possibility before, not by his conscious choice the possibility of choice became. His ability to choose was a determined possibility before he became conscious. Everything is discovered, not created. True possibility is determined, but discovery is contingent on freedom, will and external contingency. To blame men for inadequacy in a system based on qualitative growth is to hide from ones own duty to make positive, and productive affirmations for ones self. Instead of attaining substance for ones self, one spends their time negating the substance of others in a parasitic recess. In that inversion one makes themselves justifiably negated by those who they negate by the very rules in which they negate them. They set the standard by which they judge others, and become the actual men who are to be negated as inherently “evil” or flawed. In the end, they negate mankind as a whole to bring the masturbation to a pinnacle of no duty to payment for understanding, and ultimate ego inflation, and an unconditional, irrational, untouchable social space. While we did not chose to chose, we can chose to base our choices on no information which is next to rolling the dice in chance all the time. In a romantic sense you may say, “I leave it to God.” The problem is: real people suffer the consequences of leaving things to God. The assumption is that leaving it to “God” is always the right choice, when it clearly is not. My point is, those that I refer to as “human traitors” deserve to be negated themselves from the rest of humanity, by the rules in which they set up for themselves as justice. The world of human affirmation does not justify such ideas, but should that other world of human affirmation decide to negate those who negate, the world of human affirmation would be fully justified in forcing pressure to disintegrate those who negate.

I would not argue against the idea that these systems were created in a first cause. I have been known to say, “There may be a creator, but there is no God.”, and if you know me you know I throw off the Atheist imposition. I am only an atheist when I decide I want to negate the theist. The onus is on the theist to prove his God exists, before he can expect you to answer the question, “Do you believe in God?” But, the essence that is referred to as “God” is indefinable, by definition. There is that which is known, and that which is unknown. Of that which is unknown there is that which can be known in current realistic possibility, and that which can never be known by current realistic possibility. Since we cannot see the future, we make the assumption that that which cannot be known in our current realistic possibility, and that which we assume can never be known is the space in which the essence resides. In that incalculable unknown resides some of the accountability and responsibility for human suffering. While we are given enough space to moderate human suffering, some suffering is a priori inherent in the system. While we may be lead to believe that it is for our own good, that really is an oversimplification, and it would not be too crazy to theorize that there is some kind of transcendental bank account, that we pay into as a species, but some of us take loans from it also.

Never make blanket negations of mankind. Regardless of what you believe about yourself, you negate yourself in actuality.

Realism, Pessimism and Optimism

When we try to be, we never will be until we stop trying. When we try to be positive, we never really are positive until we stop trying. It seems very fashionable to be positive, and to look at the bright side of every scenario. A person who seems “happy” to others, whether they truly are or not is often called “well adjusted”, or a “good person”, while a person who seems disappointed, or pessimistic is “negative”, or a “douche bag”, “prick”, or “asshole”. So, how can one be pragmatic, realistic and reactive to the reality of a situation when the majority of the people surrounding any one person are pressuring so heavily for that person not to disturb the phantasmal masturbation of the ones who are perpetuating the sacred gem of positivity? In reality, life is elusive enough without those who avoid inconvenient truths to perpetuate the sacred object of their group, and projecting their fantasy as the real. In this essay, I want to informally explore some reasons why optimism is extremely destructive and masturbatory. I would like to highlight and explain my favored and most important position, the realist. What is the problem with an optimistic masturbation? Is it not true that pessimism is an opportunistic and masturbatory position also? If being a realist makes me unhappy, it seems counter productive to not delude myself. What is the reasoning behind the drive to stick to realism? Let us start off with this:

Realism

1. Interest or concern in the actual or the real as distinguished from the abstract or the speculative.
2. The tendency to view or represent things as they really are.

Pessimism

1. The tendency to see, anticipate, or emphasize only bad or undesirable outcomes, results, conditions, problems, etc.

Optimism

1. The disposition or tendency to look on the more favorable side of events or conditions, and to expect the most favorable outcomes.

Opportunism

1. The policy or practice, as in one’s business, politics or personal affairs of adapting actions, decisions, etc. to expediency, or effectiveness regardless of the sacrifice of ethical principles.

*Dictionary.com

In the world we live in today where 25,000 children a day die of poverty, where 2.6 billion people lack basic sanitation, where nearly a billion people cannot read or write I definitely understand the desire to be optimistic where one finds the opportunity. I also clearly understand why one would be pessimistic. We as a people have been slated with the most impossible task, of all things, controlling masses of people. We are making positive advances in healthcare, communications, ecology, and whether you want to believe it or not, the people are growing more productive ethically. These are reasons to be realistically positive. So let me paint a couple basic scenarios:

Two men are on the edge of a ledge, and one of them has slipped over and is hanging on to a branch over a one hundred foot drop. His friend is overcome by a sense of natural urgency to rein his friend back in, as his very life depends on the success of the task at hand. This urgency is created by the most simple of instinctual drives, a quantitative one for one loss of human life. We have an instinctual drive to save life, in this situation.

Let us imagine a similar scenario where the same two friends are walking close to the ledge, and one of them simply stumbles over an impression in the ground. The other friend reacts instinctively, but can tell his friend will not fall over the ledge, so the sense of urgency is lessened.

The urgency levels in both situations are completely real and natural. As I said before, this scenario is a simple quantitative one for one scenario where the urgency is easily defined as it is always better to have your friend alive, than not.

So, how about that begging begging begging question? What if you did not really consider the person a friend? Would you pull him back? Say you were play fighting, and you pushed a little too hard causing the other to fall to his death. Was that unconsciously intentional? When we start to move into the qualitative evaluations, personal value systems come into play, and answers start to vary into as many diverse positions as there are people to have them. This is where we start to see delusion, optimism, pessimism and opportunism emerge. But make no mistake, when alliances are formed (friends and family), and it is understood as productive support to ally for survival at the trivial and the urgent, reality will dictate the unconscious instinctual reactions one will have, and one will be in their natural state of realism.

I want to make a distinct ethical point, and I would like to point out that I am writing my own ethical doctrines, and I myself am definitely a humanist. I am not a humanist follower, but consider myself a humanist creator. I do not consider myself a humanist leader, as that would destroy the truth as it is in its own indirect essence. That being said, I would like to lay a fundamental crystalline truth down that I hope will eternally brand itself into your neural pathways:

We should not make distinctions between our family, our friends, and a stranger when it comes to human suffering.

Of course no one would expect you to help a stranger, while you let somebody in your own family suffer. This is based on the trust that help is guaranteed to you from family, where as, in our modern world there is no guarantee a friend or stranger will reciprocate. This is perfectly understandable, as the social systems of the past have rewarded greed and selfishness time and time again as they continue to do today. But, the social systems are growing better. Communications are getting better, and one can see the ground for a realistic optimism in this. So, if we are affected by a realistic optimism that social systems are moving in a more positive direction, then we can begin to imagine those changes taking place down to the individual’s daily life. When people have taken care of themselves, and their necessities, they will think about giving to family, friends and strangers with no thought of return. The sense of urgency that one feels, in a one for one quantitative saving of the life of another, who one is in an alliance with will be carried over, in a natural urgency to every human being, and even to one’s own enemies as Jesus Christ would have you do.

It was necessary for me to go off on a rather long tangent in order to bring significance to reality, and instinctual urgency in survival alliances, in order to explain clearly the destructive nature of an unconditional optimism. Positivity is in its real state of power when it is the bi-product of a positive situation. I would also like to carry this idea over to happiness. Happiness is in its real state of power when it is a bi-product of a situation that causes happiness. When a situation is realistically happy, or positive, the realist cannot help but be happy or positive; the optimist was already happy and positive, and therefore makes no distinction between the real effect and the perpetuated delusion; the pessimist remains unmoved by the reality of the situation. When a situation is realistically destructively negative, the realist is negative; the pessimist was already negative therefore cannot distinguish between the real negative effects and the pessimistic delusion; and the optimist, if at all possible will use tactics to avoid the severity of the situation by outright negating it, or drowning the situation with similar scenarios to make it seem like an every day occurrence, all with the agenda of protecting their gem from disturbance. There is one scenario left, the scenario of indeterminate evaluation. The realist will remain undetermined, undecided and agnostic, as this is the actual position of the lack in reality; the optimist will try to use what they can to paint a positive outlook; the pessimist of course will paint a negative outlook.

Now, in two of the scenarios it is clearly better to be the realist, because when the situation is positive, then one is there in the right state of mind to feel the upsurge of positivity in its own natural state of power. When the situation is negative the realist has his instinctual state of urgency to turn to, without the addition of agenda to muddle, positive or negative. But the third scenario, where the situation is indeterminate, one should remain optimistic. If nature is not offering you a gift, or you are not in an urgent survival situation, it is better to be optimistic than agnostic. I think if you are an optimist you disagreed with me all the way to this point, if you are a pessimist than you disagreed with me on every point, and if you are a realist, then you agreed with me on every point.

We live in a world with daunting ideological divisions. These deviations that grew out of natural divisions and barriers are being torn down by modern communications, and, the modern desire for coexistence. Those who want war, whether it be unconscious or conscious are going to find themselves exposed before the rest of the world very soon. I find it astounding that those who live optimistic lives in their daily routines, in a lot of cases are the same people who support mass carnage to protect their gem as the particular universal. The only solid givens are the axioms of math and science, and that fundamental quantitative evaluation of one human life lived, is better than one human life killed. People often act in oppositions, so, that negative pessimist that annoys you at work all the time, may just be conspiring at high stress levels in his basement late at night to make some contribution to seemingly unattainable world peace.

Think about it.

Selfishness, Justice and Natural Truth

It seems to me that mankind is in a battle of power to dictate self serving laws, to understand an innate moral justice in its social mathematics, and while doing so mankind is trying to reconcile nature, free-will, and determinism. Is it possible authoritarianism can actually support a rational, reasonable, universal egalitarian system? And, finally, when we conceive of justice, are our ideas polluted by authoritarianism, hindered by social calculus, or relatively tainted by the paradigm that inundates all our senses at the time in which we live? In this short essay, I will explore this pre-defined space.

I find it fascinating how alike humans really are. Every one of us, who functions properly has the ability to walk, talk, eat, sleep, breath, drink, and has the capacity to love, hate, kill, dream, learn, suffer and cry. In every way that matters in a survival sense, we are universally alike, and we had no choice in the matter. We emerged universally alike, and what is amazing, in all this universality there is still enough room for every single person on the face of planet earth to be deterministically different from the one next to them. Even further than that, every tree, rock, cloud, star, waterfall, apple, blade of grass, bird feather, mountain peak and organism big and small is different from any organism or structure that exists similar to it. Believe it or not, your relativity is determined. So how can one derive an idea of justice from such diversity?

I spoke of the universalities in which we share, and this is where justice is to be found. If there is to be a law, for all the people on our planet it should be legislated from the ground of the universal, not the particular. Every law that is written should facilitate the supply of food, water, and air, and provide shelter for every person on planet earth to sleep. If our goals are anything less than these, then we not only sell short those who are like ourselves, we negate ourselves in universality as we are universally like the ones we negate. Now, we should start seeing the symmetrical justice system emerging out of the beautiful diversity of nature. If we create systems with a universal utility as the core, then authoritarianism can be justified. If our systems truly are universal, then those who stand against them are self-centered, self-motivated, self-serving, and in the end will kill others in order to legislate their particular. The universal adherent is justified in segregating the recalcitrant autonomous essence that is at war with the greater good. In this sense, authoritarianism can work in concert with rational naturalistic sociological, and philosophical moral calculus, and logic. When we know the natural truth, then we are justified in standing against those who oppose it. If they understand its universal goals, then to stand against it, is to stand for legislating your own particular as a universal. If the person stands against it due to ignorance, then they need to be educated until the frictionless system is apparent to them.

When one reads ideas like those I have presented in the previous paragraphs, the first inclination is one to violence. If one is ignorant of the universality, or has been standing against it unconsciously, then that person would have to have the strength to admit that they were wrong, or they would have to admit they were intellectually inadequate to have understood it before it was presented to them. Make no mistake, to overcome these paramount humiliations is the apex of wisdom in the mind of a remarkable man. To accept the devastation of ego that has to happen in order to admit that you were wrong, or ignorant takes incredible strength. Understand that the initial move to violence, is a move to hide failure, and is an unjust and irrational action based on ignorance, previous self-aggrandizement or both.

There seems to be a minority idea that education, calculation, and prudent planning are only for weak minds who do not “know” already. It seems there is an undercurrent of anti-intellectualism, and this undercurrent has also been present throughout history. So, are we to believe that a true moral justice can be attained, just by “feeling” like justice? Actually, basic justice can be understood at a simple level. We all understand, in a state where private property is conceptualized, that there is an act called “theft” in which a person takes something which does not belong to them. We do not have to be taught that directly, because it is indirectly taught to us in the everyday ways in which we live our lives. What everybody should understand, whether they be anti-intellectual or intellectual is that even that which we “feel” is that which is learned. You owe everything that makes up your existence to learning. There may be an arbitrary social equilibrium that anti-intellectuals pick as a cut off point, and a marker for over enrichment. They may choose to stop learning at the point in which they view the majority of people have stopped their learning also. They may decide to stop their learning at the path of least resistance. When they have learned enough to earn their survival rations, they will turn to carnal pleasure. Actually, there is no problem with that. They can still be good people, but where we run into a problem is when these same people stop their educations, then they continue on into complex ambitions, such as running a state, only they do not have the complexity of mind to make prudent decisions. Since it takes more education to know that you are not educated enough to handle a particular situation, the unprepared individual marches blindly and boldly into oblivion taking their constituents with them. International history, religion, sociology, economics, diplomacy, and trade are all issues that need to be understood clearly by a person who wants to immerse themselves in a leadership role. Just because a person “feels” like a president, does not mean it would be responsible for that person to be president. Studying the statistics and mathematics of the systems we live by can only help facilitate good decision making. There can be no arguing the truth of that point.

In order to understand justice completely, it seems like we have to be able to become a being that is something other than human, just for a short time, so we can overcome our biases, and be more objective. Each one of us is a product of the people that surround us, and our education and experience. This is why education is so important. As a common person, there is only going to be so much interaction afforded you in a lifetime. As a common person you will only meet a limited number of people. You will only see a limited number of scenarios, and all this information will make up who you are as person. The only way to break this limited feed, is to read about past people, past cultures, cultures and people around the world in the time you live. The mathematics of chemistry may help you make a decision about social morality. While tending a difficult social situation, you may come up with a mechanical polling gadget that can help you gather information. All aspects of education are supplemental and are tied together in an interwoven matrix of understanding. The time in which you live radiates the flavor of the matrix in which you reside, and which you derive your values of justice from. What is clear, the more you move toward universal morality, the more timeless the values you are upholding become. Though we are moving ahead at a rate that amazes the human mind, regardless of where we go, it will never be justified for a reasonable person to build a surplus of goods far outweighing his necessity, without concern for another who does not have his necessities met.

In conclusion, we should all be concerned about everybody on the entire planet. Suffering is being perpetuated because of greed, and lack of education. People all around the world are having children they cannot afford, passing disease they refuse to believe they have, killing innocent people for quantitative personal gain, collecting huge sums of wealth while others starve to death. The goal has to be control over wealth distribution, and we have to educate the poor. We have to take care of those who are suffering victims of tragic chance, but we have to educate those who are suffering by their own failures. What we clearly cannot do is go on thinking, “It is not my problem, it is their problem.” This selfish ethic cannot be allowed to go on.

A Fundamental Doctrine of Universal Humanism

1. Provide 4 necessities for yourself- Eat, Drink, Breath, Sleep 2. One man may not take the life of the other, unless in defense of his own. 3. Provide 4 necessities for the less fortunate other. Humans all need the four basic necessities of food, water, air and sleep. What argument can one make against this point, without resorting to absurd, useless and desperate tangents? Every single human cannot survive with any single one of these needs deprived. If you deprive yourself of your necessities by your choice, then it is tantamount to ending your own life. If another person or state deprives you of your necessities, then it is tantamount to murder, oppression or torture. It seems to me that this simple ideal has to be agreed upon, in and of itself. What objection could there be to this idea? None. Once we move past this fundamental ideal, we can move forward with some basic inferences. When a person is able, it is the person’s duty to do what they have to do, for themselves to provide these basic necessities for themselves. When the person is not able, for instance, due to incapacitating illness, it is up to the people, in general to help out. The situations for examination multiply greatly with this implication, but our examination is at first and second levels at this point. Every functioning human being has the capability to end the lives of others, and to end their own life. I have not met a person yet who could argue convincingly that any person has a right to take the life of another, without a reasonable defensive cause. It is widely accepted that the #2 axiom in my doctrine is reasonably indisputable. To deny this is to deny civilization. Once every person has the opportunity to provide for their four basic necessities, and it is agreed by a majority of people on the planet that there is no justifiable reason one person can take the life of another with no defensive cause, then we are free to move to the third axiom in which it is our moral duty to provide for those who do not have their basic four necessities met in the first axiom. Now, the #2 axiom is more disputable than #1, and #3 is more disputable than #2, and this leads to some important patterns I am soon to point out. At a universal level, if everyone is provided for in #1, then there is no need for #3. But realistically, though not impossible, it will not happen in my lifetime. Therefore, After we have control of law and order, then we should turn our attention to providing for, the sick and less fortunate. We should never turn that gaze away until we are sure it has been handled entirely. Complacency is a killer, so do not be an accomplice in this most deplorable inaction. Now looking over the system generally, we can make a few observations. First, the #1 necessities are personal, and individual. The second axiom steps up another level, and ads the gaze of the other. Now we have a clash of governed wills. Now you know you can kill that person, and you know you can be killed by that person. As long as there is more than one person on planet Earth, the #2 axiom will always be relevant. When the people agree to the social contract implicated in the #2 action, then as individuals they can hear the call to provide for the #1 necessities of those less fortunate. I will not try to say that the #3 axiom is indisputable. It is the most disputable of the three, but I would not dare to take possession of the heart that would truly stand against its implications. In a final glance, we see this succession as: #1 Individual necessity #2 Group necessity #3 Individual, and group ideology When we realize that clarity is the essence to a frictionless system, sometimes the most mundane generalities end up being profound. This system is an observation of one human, not a creation of one human. I have simply thrown sand over an invisible complex universal system to explain what already is. So do not discount the universal observations based on my simple human inferiorities. Understand clearly for yourself.