This chapter is intended to define a scientific ethics. However, to do this, we must start by clarifying various misconceptions on ethics, what is its use, what it is and what it is not.
This book is intended to be understood by everybody, therefore it carefully avoids to use any specific vocabulary of such or such group.
Thus, there are today (2013) no consensus or academic definition to assign a genuinely different meaning to these two words. So I use them indiscriminately. Some say that «morality» has a more religious meaning, while «ethics» would be more philosophical, or even scientific. For this reason, I chose the second for my titles. But we must never forget that what ethics is speaking about is morals. Modern ethics just use scientific means to continue the reflections of the religions, which, let us remember, were once the leading edge of the progress of human civilization, in a time where conflicts, divorce or inheritance were settled with bludgeons. And we shall not do anything else along that part, than to continue this millenary path, with just fastest vehicles.
It is fashionable these days to see morals as something of the past, hypocritical, unnecessary or arbitrary. However the need to... moralize our relationship remains, but then it is called otherwise: ethics, laws, rules, cool, TOS, politically correct... Then why change the name? To say that the elders were idiots, and that we are the only intelligent ones? This is utterly ridiculous. The problem is not changed since the redaction of the Tables of Moses, and passing from the religious context to the secular context never changed the stakes for only one letter.
Some call «morality» the arbitrary rules they impose to others, often puritan, sexist or backward conceptions. This problem is still far from being resolved, I see for instance passing by, the fate of a girl sentenced to be whipped for... having been raped by a paedophile, who is even not charged (2013).
However others make their small illusory revolution (chapter I-5) by asking for the abolition of any morality. But the noisy demonstrations asking for the recognition of this or that, are especially useful to hide the discreet clinking of big bank accounts, and the soft murmurs of director boards which organize the ruin of entire countries. These people have abolished any morality for a long time. Just they would like to be able to enjoy their privileges openly, in the face of the public, as in the ancient regime, instead of having to hide from democratic laws in their well guarded villas. From there, and only from there, come all the attacks against morals and human principles, relayed by «youngsters» and «left» parties, who should better wonder who funds the media they read.
Others go so far as saying that morality is a personal, or even a «private» matter (extreme right-wing libertarian). Oh, how convenient, these people brandish «their» morality when it serves their interests, but in the same time they forbid others to use the morality. They use a rule of morality as a tool to impose their power on others, even if it means changing tool for the next scam.
All these neurotic, ideological, or egocentric pseudo-arguments have no value whatsoever in a scientific definition of ethics. I even enjoy considering the ones who use them as much lower than the grossly immoral ones.
For most people, the word «natural» refers to something which exists independently of any human action or human will. «If we hit somebody, he suffers» is a law of nature, which we cannot create, modify, or revoke. This is called natural, to the opposite of a law such as «If we hit somebody, we get three months jail», which is enacted by someone, and may be changed or repealed.
However, in positivism, the term «natural law» or «natural right» has a totally opposite meaning from the current language: a completely arbitrary law, without any natural basis, such as the birthright, the privileges of the nobility, etc. (in fact, prior to positivism, all philosophers more or less tried to base ethics and law on objective basis such as the human consciousness, so that my general epistemology is just following their footsteps). The positivists therefore rejected these artificial «natural laws» such as birthright, and in this they are right. However just after they come to a strange distortion: what are the «objective» foundations on which is based the positive law? The consensus, or even the «established order»! Thus the «positive law», despite its pseudo-scientific justifications, has no more objective basis than the birthright or privileges of the ancient Regime... which were the «positive law» in their time!
(Apparently, Auguste Comte did not realized the error, probably thinking, in the Rousseau spirit of this time, that the human spirit would arrive spontaneously to perfection, if we withdraw the artificial powers which disturb it. However subsequent utopian attempts, from the Soviets to the Hippies, all showed this error: individuals led by their only neurotic consciousness (chapter V-12) spontaneously produce evil, and they therefore cannot build a free and happy society, if they do not have a central authority and laws. As to modern positivists, technocrats, vivisectors and other destroyers of nature, they do not really have the excuse of a Rousseau ideal...).
These discussions will look really abstruse to the citizen who never opened a book of philosophy. However, when we see large egocentric capitalist companies trying to manipulate the governments into an «international legislation» able of condemning states which protect the environment or the social, we understand that the problems of the «natural law» and ethical relativism are really far from being solved, and that if we continue to be fooled by beautiful speakers with counterfeit smiles, the consequences could be catastrophic, in the most concrete sense of the word.
For these reasons, I take a clear distance with these dishonest swindles, and in the public interest, the General Epistemology must clearly explain the objective basis of ethics or morality. These bases will replace as well the arbitrary «standards» of normative law, than the routine statements of the «positive law» or the «libertarian» claims such as the legalization of drugs. Let us the speak of scientific ethics, since, just as in physics, it discovers laws of life, while eliminating any arbitrary assertion.
A new increasingly arrogant dominant ideology describes ethics or morality as «conventions» which would be «consensus» varying depending on the epoch or on the society, or even that we would be «free» to adopt or to reject according to «personal preferences».
I allow myself to throw all these garbage together into the same trash bin than the worst ideologies of history, like nazism or the inquisition. The reason is that they are likely to produce as much suffering and injustice, and they are already doing quite a lot of damage (marital disagreements, cyber-stalking, etc.). These ideologies are just a shabby pretext to discharge the egos of ethical constraints, while posing oneself as «progressive». But this new «freedom» is just the reciprocal situation (chapter I-5) of the ancient religious prudishness, and it could quickly bring us back to the barbarity of antiquity.
Note: let us remember that the liberation movements of the years 1960-70 had for only purpose to eliminate puritan taboos and to increase freedom. However the middle way was mindlessly crossed when these movements were taken over for egocentric purposes, forgetting the nice altruistic ideals. The liberation speeches were then made New Speak, into a rejection of any moral, leading to the opposite excess of puritanism: laxity, pornography. So in this way they go precisely against the freedom ideals of the 1960-70 years.
A scientific ethics is precisely intended at cutting through all this sophistry flab, and lead to a clear, constant and culture-independent ethics.
The farther that we can honestly say about changes in ethics is that we are witnessing the elimination of arbitrary taboos (e.g. on homosexuality), but also the discovery of new rules (for example to respect ecology). But these changes are precisely the results of a more scientific approach of ethics, so that they will converge toward stable results, not alternate from a generation to the next.
We recently started to see ethics committees, gathering academics and philosophers, trying to moralize various science-related activities. This is good, but clearly the results do not meet the expectations. To think that a university degree provides an authority to speak of moral paves the way for serious disillusionment: morality is a concern of the consciousness, and to have knowledge in physics, neurology or even psychology precisely does not allow to apprehend this area. The day where there will be university degrees in science of consciousness, then they will be able to speak.
Ethics committees have had some real successes, bringing merit on them, like defining the respect for the human person against various manipulations. But even so, they give a feeling of being a weak rearguard struggling to contain hordes of moronic projects, all more terrifying than the others. And they have been unable to avoid such tall things as stem cells from embryos, vivisection, homosexual adoption, etc.
In reality, exactly as in nuclear physics, a scientific reflection on ethics is not about wearing a white blouse or a university degree, but about reasoning logically about observable facts. The only difference with physics is the definition of «observable», as seen in the second part on epistemology: in the field of consciousness, it is inner experiences, repeatable and objective, but specific to this area. So let us try the exercise.
The morals or ethics seeks to establish what are the actions which are necessary, possible or to be avoided, along our lives.
This can be about our thoughts, our words or our actions, be it towards ourselves, toward others, toward nature and other forms of life.
>Of course, this can be defined only on the basis of a purpose of life and consciousness, which only can define what is necessary, possible or to be avoided. Any other consideration being only circumstantial.
Confusion about the purpose of life has led to the current confusion on ethics, and the creation of various contradictory systems, often arbitrary, or good systems which usefulness is not understood. For this reason, a scientific ethics can only be based on a purpose of life which is also scientifically established. Only in this way we can come to a system of morality which is truly objective, indisputable, and acceptable by all. This is the reason why the previous fifth part looked for an objective and indisputable purpose of life, on which to base all our deductions in this part.
Under these conditions, statements as what we would not need ethics or morality (anarchists, Sadeans, «left» eggheads) or as what ethics or morals would be a matter of «personal choice», or even private (extreme right-wing libertarianism, new financial nobility) do appear just as coarse mind control tricks, that we can discard from a single hand wipe, without any further discussion.
We shall however see a little further in this chapter that certain ethical laws can apply differently depending on the people. But this happens on the basis of objective and precise criteria, not on the basis of artificial conventions or egotistical interests.
Science does not enact law books. It only discover the laws of nature. For instance physics found that if we try to fly from the top of a cliff, then we fall and we hurt ourselves badly. People know the physical world with enough accuracy to not attempt this kind of experiment, so that it was never necessary to prohibit flying off cliffs.
However people, trapped in their neuroses of opinions, of hatred/attachment or of egocentricity, have a much less clear vision of the relationship between people. And we constantly see them doing things like stealing, humiliating, exploit, deceive, etc. That is to say, in this area, the equivalent of jumping off a cliff and being very hurt.
The role of ethical science is then, as in physics, to understand the world of the relationships between persons, and therefore to clarify the consequences of our actions in the world of social relations, in terms of suffering for others or for ourselves. However ethics does not try to force us, it just appeals to our responsibility: it is up to us not to jump off the cliff (to not steal, to not bully our spouse, etc...)
As clearly this is not enough, the social powers use to create laws, which then come to force people to do or not to do certain things, under threat of punishment. Lawyers then speak of responsibility. However this legal responsibility is different from the previous, because this is not a choice, but a retaliation. To avoid confusion, it is better to use another word, such as «liability». In the meaning of «punishable». To avoid confusion, I shall use this word.
There are several fundamental differences between ethics and law. The first is that ethics is a science, and as such, it does not create laws, but it discover the ones which exist naturally. While the laws of the judges are conventions, created, maintained or removed by the governments. Forgetting this «detail» invariably leads to injustices. The law must therefore follow ethics, in writing and enacting laws which put ethics at work, depending on the various situations. If the law follows the ethics, it is then only a necessary protection (of ourselves against our own neurosis). But the law becomes dictatorship exactly at the moment it starts to serve arbitrary interests, or when its pollutes its ethical basis with unethical principles, such as birthright, or the droit du seigneur of the technocrats over nature.
Thus, the writing of the laws must be based on their scientific ethical basis, if we want them to give correct results. Just as the design of a radio receiver must be done according to the laws of electricity, if we want it to work. A radio receiver built according to political force balance or other childish stuff does not work, and law no more.
This mandatory foundation of law in ethics makes that I shall address ethics and law all together in this part.
Another fundamental difference is that the laws of ethics are often Non-Aristotelian, with several important quadripolar diagrams (chapter I-3) while the (current) law is Aristotelian. Today, most of the small injustices come from the confusion between these two types of logic (chapter I-7). It is to bring a partial remedy to this, that the court is itself designed as a Yin-Yang dialectic between accusation and defence, with the judge to take an Aristotelian decision suitable to the case in the debate. Thus the judge plays the role of defuzzificator (logic type changer, chapter I-3).
Today (2013), despite the lack of an ethical science, the law or democratic countries still arrived at an approximation of what we shall find in this part, allowing any honest person to lead his personal life without having to all the time read a laws book. The main differences are either individual malfeasance by judges, or perversions of the democratic system (chapter VI-11). The difference with the Middle Age is that today the egocentric powers can no longer merely enact an ideology to impose their silly ideas: they need to massively use mind control by the media and advertising. This shows all the same that people evolved in a positive way.
We saw in the fifth part on the scientific study of consciousness, especially in chapter V-5, that consciousness had specific goals: to be (a character, a species, etc), to be happy (searching for happiness or pleasure), to know and to explore, and finally to love and to share. We found no other intrinsic purpose, once cleared all the contingent necessities (food, reproduction, etc., which are not intrinsic goals of consciousness, but only means for it to exist in this world, and to accomplish its goals).
We even concluded that, by lack of any other definition or message, we could without hesitation or nuance define the good as what allows to pursue these goals, and the evil as what oppose them.
(It is remarkable that millennia of philosophy or religion on the five continents have, despite many differences of concepts or interpretation, converged to a similar result.)
We can therefore validly pose as the first foundation for Ethics:
1) the good is what brings happiness or pleasure.
With its complements and corollaries:
1 a) knowledge is a fundamental value
Science, education, freedom of information, of expression, of travelling, of meeting, etc.
1 b) we should be what we want
This point may seem inapplicable, since it is difficult to change our body in this physical world (see chapter VI-5 about transsexualism). Virtual worlds, however, show a strong demand, with many cases of sex change, or even specie change: elves, dragons, animals, «furries» or «tinies». But the most obvious is that everyone is young, thin and beautiful... a very predictable result!
There are still cases where this is relevant in the physical world.
This point fully and freely applies however in the after life. Hence the interest of Tantric practices which allow us to do so.
1 c) sharing and love are fundamental values
This is what propose the religions, but also many ideals like romanticism, humanism, naturism, social, cultural, political, etc.
But to merely recognize these principles is not enough. We need in more the ability to apply them:
1 d) are fundamental imperatives the fulfilment of the needs which enable consciousness to exist (food, housing, health, etc.) and to accomplish its basic purposes (peace, freedom, company, material means and resources, nice environment, etc.)
The Declarations of the Human Rights and of the Rights of children are close from this point in their spirit, but the capitalists who wrote them were cautious not to give clear guarantees... for the application of these declaration, pass to the cash desk first.
So that we clearly need an economy based on the three foundations of ethics, especially this 1d) point, see chapter VI-8.
The demonstrations of the chapter V-5 give a scientific value to this foundation, that is to say something that we are forced to admit, that we cannot change or discuss, like the laws of chemistry. Well, we can still discuss the details, but if someone wants to question these foundations, he must be much smarter than all the philosophers together, since in thirty centuries of philosophy and spirituality, nobody did better. And my only contribution is to recognize the objective statute of the consciousness, against the today technocratic religions.
Anyway, disputing this foundation would be totally absurd and masochist: it simply states what WE want to do or to be.
We note that we can express the same definitions in a negative mode:
1)Evil is what brings suffering and misfortune.
1a) Ignorance needs to be tackled, by education, information, travel, etc.
1b) We cannot restrict someone in his body (mutilation, forced sex, etc.) or mind (mind control, intimidation)
1c) We need to eradicate selfishness and hatred (egocentric economy, racism, sexism, intolerance, etc.)
1d) No one can be left without resources, for its basic needs, or his expression needs either.
In our study of consciousness in the fifth part, it appeared nowhere that any logical self-generation process of consciousness may be more important than any other, or has priority over any other. We even not found any meaning to these concepts! In practice, this means that no one can pass before anybody else for his only personal benefit.
As a matter of facts, we can easily observe that all the arguments for passing a person before another (everything else equal) emanates only from egocentricity, or other neurosis. Such arguments being necessarily contradictory from a person to another, they have no science truth value.
Clearly, this is a total condemnation, in bulk, of any form of egocentricity, particularism, clan mind, etc. We even saw in chapter V-10 that the ego is only a physical phenomenon which manipulates the consciousness it is wearing, producing in this consciousness the illusion that it «wants» to pass before the others. Therefore, it has no explanatory value, and especially no right over consciousness. This point is known since millennia as the basis of most religions (Compassion, universal love, non-action). More recently it inspired many philosophies (Human Rights, equality) and political doctrines, left or right as well.
So, the second foundation of ethics is:
2) the rights, protections, duties and means are the same for all human beings.
It should be noted that the various Declarations of the Human Rights or citizens rights, as well as the different constitutions, always emphasise the equality of rights and of duties, but they typically omit the equality of means... While without means, there are no rights, and little duties accomplished. At most they evoke an hypocritical «equality of chances» which brings no commitments, and in more makes the victims feel guilty! We shall discuss this in chapter VI-8 on economy.
This second foundation categorically opposes any selfishness, be it atavistic, sociopathic or neurotic, individual or from a group. It also totally opposes any arbitrary power (let alone totalitarian), at any level whatsoever (physical force, family, social group, state, religion, etc.).
Strictly, it might be argued that some consciousness may be more valuable than others, because precisely of the happiness they can bring to others (altruism, wisdom, artistic gift, precious witnesses, etc.) while we would gladly get rid of others (criminals, sociopaths, egocentrics, etc.). This could even be a direct corollary of the first foundation. However this corollary would then be in direct contradiction with the second foundation. And this problem is not theoretical: in practice, all the religious or political systems which gave different «values» to people, all degenerated into systems of arbitrary discrimination, closed communities, social castes, superior races and the like. It is a very slippery slope, on which it is very advised not to venture once again. On the contrary, positive philosophies (Christianity, Buddhism, Human Rights) all posed equal rights. They even pose that everybody has the same ability for becoming good.
This contradiction between two founding principles is not a novelty: we saw it in chapter I-2 of the Sets Theory, and we even saw in chapter III-3 that it is general, and even inevitable: any logical system contains paradoxes. In the case of ethics, this problem is known for millennia (Buddhist ethics, Christian ethics), but the proposed solutions, casuistry, too often give a feeling of opportunistic adjustments, or even to open the door to arbitrary torsion of the founding principles. Clearly, casuistry is too often shenaniganistics, in such an extent that the word is most often used in this meaning.
The (entirely original) solution I propose to solve the paradox is to pose a third foundation, which alone governs the contradictions between the two first foundations, and these contradictions only. This approach is exactly the view of chapter III-3 on the self-consistency of though systems, with also three foundations: rules 1), 2) and 3).
This third Foundation notes that we do not all have the same aspirations, nor the same capabilities. An adult, a child, a mentally retarded, do not all have the same capacity to work or to take decisions. They do not have the same appreciation of things like for example the joys of the bed. Also, an artist, a scientist, a gardener, a builder, do not have the same aspirations (it is the natural variation of the purpose of life, seen in chapter V-5, which is the basis of the different personalities).
The third foundation is therefore:
3) the first two foundations apply to beings who have different capabilities and different aspirations. If these differences bring a contradiction between the first two foundations, then modulating rights, resources, protections, duties and means must always go in the direction of restoring an equal access for all, to the first foundation of ethics.
It is this type of consideration which makes that, for example an adult has the right to watch erotic movies or driving a car, but not a child. It would be totally pointless to ignore this, and the Hippie communities which were giving the same rights to children than to adults, only harvested bitter fruits (children becoming scoundrels rejecting violently all the «Advanced» values of their parents).
However, in agreement with the second Foundation, and against the idea of value of people, the third principle proposed here does not pose any differences of value of persons or beings, but merely notes the differences in capacities which occur naturally. The concept of comparison or level is even totally absent of it. It is in a way a kind of gear box, or a voltage adapter transformer, to provide the same rights to people of different capacities.
Example: I am a 220 Volt lamp, my friend is a 12 volt lamp. If one feeds both of us in 220 Volts, my friend dies. If one feeds both of us in 12 Volts, I can't do anything. But if we both have a transformer, we both operate, regardless of the voltage of the system, and wherever we go. If this is understood, then we are unlikely to fall into any form of discrimination or closed social castes. But unfortunately many may not understand the nuance...
This third basis should not be confused with the «natural laws» of the ancient regime (birthright, privileges of the nobility, etc...), which are anything but natural. To avoid this confusion, we rather talk about laws of nature, which indicate the consequences of our actions, and which violation causes suffering. A law of nature is for instance that we need to eat. To left countries malnourished causes suffering and death, and so we can say that it is a crime. However, in a spiritual world, or in a virtual world, this law of nature does not exist, and a law forcing to feed everybody would have no object. But other laws of nature still play here, such as the need for social recognition for everybody (chapter V-17)
Therefore we can specify:
3 a) The third foundation does not endorse the inequalities or dependencies which are artificially established by our statements, by our actions or by our lack of actions. Such inequalities or dependencies must always be eliminated, without any nuance or delay.
We must be very careful that totally arbitrary inequalities, such as the privileges of the nobility or birthright, were in their time falsely considered as «natural», whereas they were customs. So let us state clearly that «natural» clearly means something which occurs without our action. For example, giving an inheritage to the elder son is an action, not something which happens alone. To obey a noble and not our neighbour is also an action, something we do. The point 3A) also aims at every racial, religious, political, social discriminations, based on birth, intelligence, health, genes, tastes, sexuality, or any other idiot criterion that one may invent.
3 b) on behalf of the second foundation, we must compensate the situations of dependency which are occurring naturally, in a way to restore equal access to the first foundation of ethics. This action is the responsibility of the people one are depending on.
Example: parents must ensure the physical and moral well being of the children who depend on them. In the case they are unable to do so, the responsibility of helping this family falls on the local society, and then on society at large. We shall discuss dependencies in a more detailed way in chapter VI-3.
Finally, to be sure that the third point is not «understood» as a more subtle form of discrimination or inequality, I provide a different form for it, non-dual with the previous:
3 bis) People of different tastes or capacities are entitled to the same human dignity.
Or still in another way:
3 ter) Persons who receive an help because of their lesser capacities, do not have to repay this help, be it concretely or morally.
We note that these three foundations comply with the same principles which define the metaphysical existence, that we saw in chapter III-3. Indeed, we also have two general rules (equally true for everybody) which bring a paradox (individual rights 1 and collective equality 2, which are often contradictory in practice) and a third point which solves the paradox, here by enriching it with additional considerations such as our capabilities and aspirations, individual by individual, in the situations where the two first foundations are in contradiction.
This is not something I did out of myself. This is the only way to solve the basic paradox which plagued nearby all morals systems in History. This is why I started this book with apparently useless logical and metaphysical concepts. But now this solid logical and metaphysical ground allows us to eliminate a lot of suffering.
These three foundations, connected according to the principle of the metaphysical existence, make ethics much more solid than a simple list of unconnected moral rules. It is a real construction, which will enable it to function. Functioning here means that each individual will be able to find or find back all the practical rules which can be inferred from the three foundations, without the need to refer to any external authority, and this including in unforeseen situations, or when mind control tricks have blurred the vision.
We also note that it is such a paradox resolution which ensures the connection of each individual with Transcendence (chapter V-6). Also, we can pose the fourth «invisible» foundation:
4) The three previous foundations are the expression of Transcendence.
In practice, this fourth principle does not change much things, hence the qualification of «invisible». We could even see this as a totally arbitrary choice, that nothing comes to justify, nor in theory neither in practice, a bit like the fourth axiom of the Sets Theory (the axiom of choice, for long a subject of debate, and finally rejected as useless). However, this fourth foundation connects our ethical construction with Transcendence. And, as seen in chapter V-6, places it on a positive evolutionary track, instead of a sidetrack dedicated to the only random physical survival.
However, this fourth foundation being a spiritual choice, we do not have the right to impose it (and we cannot, anyway). It is therefore a personal choice that to honour it or not, to stand in the course of evolution or to keep sitting on the sidelines.
On the other hand, neither the society nor anybody has the right to go against Transcendence. Thus we cannot impose, but especially we cannot prohibit.
This definitively condemns the atheistic inquisition and its ridiculous hijab hunt, mere transposition of the religious inquisition in an atheistic context. We can even say that this atheistic inquisition is a crime against mankind, just as the religious inquisition. Of course, these «violations of women's rights» in Islam (or the problems of cults) are just gross pretexts to attack any form of spirituality, and I was myself submitted to judicial pressures for motives I was never told in written form, save a text which explicitly reproves my «belonging».
To proceed in this way builds a world which enables the Transcendence to express itself. It may look pretentious to contribute to Transcendence, but it is indeed actually what It requests: it is up to us, consciousnesses with emotions and intelligence, to give a body to the subtle suggestions of the Transcendence, into our concepts, our projects and into our actions. It is the way to serve It. Indeed, as It is not an humanoid character as described in the theistic religious texts, Transcendence cannot act by Itself. It can therefore only speak through us, through our emotions, our ideas, our concepts, our personalities, our actions, our creations, our civilization. But in serving It, it is our own happiness and our own lives that we are building, because remember: Transcendence is not a power foreign to us, but a fundamental property of our own consciousnesses.
So do not expect the visit of angels or aliens... I would enjoy this very much, but it never happened. I sulk.
The following chapters develop the applications of these three foundations. Of course, we shall see first the social fundamentals (property, freedom...) and the «manners» (family, sexuality), traditional playground of the Brainy Smurfs of all orientations.
But we shall also see politics and economics, since their only legitimate purpose emerges directly from the foundation 1d): to provide the different means that the consciousnesses need to accomplish their purposes. If these goals define the good and the bad, then politics and economy must serve these purposes. If they do not serve them, then it is high hogwash. Bring your armchairs and plenty of pop-corns: there will be quite a lot of trashing.
But once the cleaning done, it will be much more interesting: what can be a better society, and even the future evolution of mankind.
Ideas, texts, drawings and realization: Richard Trigaux.
Legal notice and copyright Unless otherwise noted (© sign in the navigation bar) or legal exception (pastiches, examples, quotes...), all the texts, graphics, characters, names, animations, sounds, melodies, programming, cursors, symbols of this site are copyright of their author and right owner, Richard Trigaux. Thanks not to mirror this site, unless it disappears. Thanks not to copy the content of this site beyond private use, quotes, samples, building a link. Benevolent links welcome. No commercial use. If you desire to make a serious commercial use, please contact me. Any use, modification, overtaking of elements of this site or the presented worlds in a way deprecating my work, my philosophy or generaly recognized moral rules, may result into law suit.