We can now deal with the rules of ethics properly speaking, that is, what is usually treated by moral books.
However, because of the volume or the specific importance of certain themes, we will devote specific chapters to them: love and sexuality (chapter VI-5), unions and families (chapter VI-6), ecology (Chapter VI-7), economy (chapter VI-8), culture, (chapter VI-9), and politics (chapter VI-10, chapter VI-11, chapter VI-12, chapter VI- 13). The rest of this part will be devoted to describing a better society, and how to build it.
As seen in chapter VI-3 above, the law can only be based on ethics. We will therefore talk about law and ethics all together. However, problems specific to the law proper will only be dealt with in the second section on transitional ethics, since the law is necessary only in primitive non-psychoeducated societies.
() The purpose of life found in chapter V-5, and the foundations of ethics of chapter VI-2, are very general, whereas ethics has to answer very concrete, and often complex problems. Chapter VI-3 gave us some general tools to understand some of these situations, such as the concept of dependency. But now we have to justify all the precise rules we need to manage our lives.
Of course, the rules we shall find in this chapter (and the following ones) are deduced from the three (four) foundations, by more or less direct reasoning. For example, the very fact that consciousness has a purpose is reflected in ethics by an absolute right to exist, that is, to live. Hence the very general rule «do not kill». (The rare exceptions, such as self-defence, are of course managed by the third compensation basis). But simply surviving is not enough: we must be able to achieve our goals, that is to say enjoy freedom, respect, nature, access to information, and finally resources. The second foundation even requires an equitable sharing of these resources among all (a condition which remains to be understood today, chapter VI-8 the economy)
However it would be very heavy styled to repeat all the time «according to the foundation x of ethics» or «according to the purpose of life». I will therefore not explain these reasoning or justification each time. Anyway they are generally obvious. If it is not indicated, it is implicit.
() A scientific ethic is necessarily independent of the concepts of any culture. Hence the name I give it, of Absolute Ethics, which does not refer to any artificial concepts, as for example the nobility of the feudal system of the Middle Ages, or the money of the current feudal system. The first obvious reason is that traditional cultures, or even modern cultures, are not all based on ethics, but often on unjustified personal opinions, of the like/dislike kind, which were imposed on all. Therefore they cannot serve as a basis for any ethics. The second reason is more subtle, although well known to jurists: it is the law which must be based on ethics, never the opposite.
But people often ask for explanations according to the concepts of their culture. For this reason, this chapter includes a second section: transitional ethics. For example, the need for housing (the first foundation of ethics) is treated in the first part, regardless of culture, as a dependency which require compensation (third foundation). But in transition it will be treated using the concepts of property and social minima, specific to the current capitalist ethnic groups.
Oh, and why not treat it too according to the concepts of tribal societies. Although the latter are no longer the majority, they still are able to support their members in a more egalitarian way than our complex social programs. We will therefore discuss some of these customs, if necessary in the first section.
However, to live without laws or concepts requires well-known spiritual realizations: psychoeducation (chapter V-12) and non-conceptual thought (chapter I-9). People choosing to develop these qualities can then dump the law codes and all their boring and constraining concepts. But if people choose not to move in this direction, then they will have to do with these concepts and laws, such as courts, contracts, work, money, property, and so on. That is with the second section «transitionnal ethics».
() To exist is probably the very first purpose of life, which appeared with the first forms of consciousness. To definitively lose consciousness is therefore the most absolute evil. Living is so precious that it is a fundamental right of all conscious beings, from fertilization to natural death. We could even add before and after this life:
-Any union with at least one man and at least one woman has the right to procreate (For same-sex unions, see chapter VI-5)
-Any child is entitled to a welcoming birth, to a loving father and mother (chapter VI-6) a normal social environment and a natural environment.
-Any child is entitled to a good reception and a fair economic endowment in his new life
-Any person has the right to adequate food and housing, without conditions.
-Everyone has the right to be in good health and to enjoy all the capabilities of medicine, without conditions.
-Everyone has the right to a good preparation for the afterlife, through objective information, appropriate spiritual teachings and the necessary recollection when death becomes inevitable.
-Any person has the right to respect his reputation, his creations and his last wishes after death.
This respect for life leads to the criminalization of homicide. This logically leads to also criminalize social violence (crime, dictatorship) and war, which culprits will therefore be subject to the same prohibitions and sanctions as for villainous crimes. It also leads to the criminalization of other notions such as:
-Non-assistance to person in danger (crimes, accidents, maltreatment, various dangers)
-The endangering of others (pollution, make workers work in dangerous conditions, risky driving, drug trafficking, stupid bets, political repression, etc.)
However, many exceptions have been discussed, and our basic reasoning allows to bring clear answers, new or already known:
-Abortion is examined in chapter VI-5 on love and sexuality, concluding that it is a homicide to be avoided like the other homicides. However, the legal prohibition also poses major problems, so the solution is rather to urgently develop forms of «default» 100% effective contraception, which would render abortion useless.
-The death penalty has been a topic of many debates and «in case». However, two pragmatic reasons lead to its abolition in all the cases: it is irreversible in case of an error, and above all it is actually an encouragement to crime: if society can kill, then «why not me». The same arguments also prohibit mutilations, markings, etc.
-Threat and blackmail (hostages, etc.) are of course crimes, even if the death is not effective. This is of course true for gangsters and terrorists, but also for any organization and administration which would create such blackmail, for example polluting, blackmail to resources, to home, etc.
-Euthanasia, see the next subchapter
-Self-defence must be precisely defined: a proportionate action, rendered necessary by a serious threat. There is often confusion, particularly in English with the expression, which also refers to a political claim to the right to arms, or even to organize militias. Weapons and militias which are of course immediately used to crimes, often racist. French language brings a better distinction between «légitime défense» (right to defend oneself against an attacker) and «autodéfense» (fascist militias attacking people)
-The Muslim concept of Jihad roughly matches the notion of self-defence, in a historical context where there was no rule of law (no police). However, the modern rule of law makes this traditional armed Jihad useless. The religious duty can then be fulfilled in other forms: non-violence, humanitarian, social struggles. Terrorist nutters, of course, use this word in an inverted newspeak meaning, to justify their idiotic crimes. The media use the same newspeak in order to discredit the Arabs.
-Exceptional situations, such as disasters or terrorist attacks, sometimes require choices. The choices actually made are not always right, because they are made in an emergency or with partial information. We then must not be mistaken about the real responsible: they are the ones who created the situation, not the ones who tried to stop it.
There are many cases where police have killed hostages by mistake. The responsibility lies with the terrorists alone.
There also are cases of clear faults in these situations. For example, in an hostages taking in a theatre in Moscow in 2002, the authorities used an anaesthetic to neutralize the madmen without giving them time to kill the hostages. This was not a fault by itself, as it effectively stopped the situation while limiting the losses of lives. However, the heavy and inexcusable fault of the authorities was to refuse to tell the doctors which gas was used. This refusal caused the death of 16% of the hostages (130 persons), by lack of providing them with an appropriate antidote.
There are cases in which the media have helped the criminals, such as in the hostage-taking of the Munich Olympics in 1972, where television informed the madmen of police actions. Such media should be forbidden and condemned as accomplices. If this had been done at the time, we would not have again, on January 9, 2015, during the attack of a supermarket in Paris, the media telling the nutter where the hostages were hidden.
This right to life is of course the same for all humans, regardless of race, religion, age, sex, nationality, sexual fantasies, nose length or any other natural or hallucinated criteria we would like to consider. It however has a consequence that many are not really prepared to... swallow:
-As conscious beings, animals have the same right to life as humans. Well, it's more complicated, because animals also kill each other, or they can attack humans. In addition we do not know from which level of evolution a creature is conscious. Hence a pragmatic approach (practised for example by Buddhists): do not kill animals, unless immediate danger for the most advanced, or against poisonous animals or parasites (worms, insects) which can threaten our health or our livelihood (cultivations).
-But above all, we have no excuse to kill animals for food. For dietetics this is absurd, and economically it is a considerable source of poverty, famine and suffering (chapter VI-7 and chapter VI-8). We shall go further to chapter VI-7 on ecology: to wish the abolition of all predation and parasitism.
() This very word is tricky, and even newspeak. Indeed, it is often used only as a euphemism for the homicide (Passive or active), deliberately ignoring what euthanasia truly is: methods of spiritual approach of death. On the contrary, the proponents of homicide seek unconsciousness!! This criminal lie is a direct consequence of the official atheistic religion: the dying person is no longer profitable, so he is thrown out, he is hidden, and above all he is silenced, so as not to think that one day we shall be like him.
I will not say euthanasia in this case, but homicide. Because it's nothing more than a homicide, and even an assassination. After, this death can be «non-painful», but even the nazis already had this pretence.
The basis of ethics allow to find a clear and detailed reply in all the cases: the dearest desire of consciousness is to enjoy its own existence. This justifies life as the dearest good, and condemns homicide. However, if this life is painful or no longer offers any perspective, then we can no longer enjoy it, and this argument is no longer valid. The only thing to do is then to prepare the after-life in the best possible conditions, with palliative cares and with appropriate meditations. Hence the conclusion, neat and without «debate»:
The homicide of a dying person, active or passive, can only be justified if EVEN PALLIATIVE CARE do not allow to escape a suffering which makes life unbearable. This homicide must then prepare and allow accessing the after-life in the best conditions.
But, just as with the death penalty, legalizing the homicide in this case deliberately opens the door to legal assassinations: it is enough to pretend to act «for the interest of the victim» to justify decisions against his will, as is already done routinely with «the interests of the child» (chapter VI-6). This is why the only solution is the legal prohibition, but after careful consideration of the sub-chapter on informal morality and formal rules (law). A recommendation already known and followed for long by the courts, which condemn the abuses but forgive the suffering. The legalization of homicide deprives the courts of the possibility of condemning the abuses. The consequences are clear:
The old, the handicapped, the comatose, the locked-in, can then be murdered legally, simply to get rid of them. So why not political opponents, if we consider that they are incurable depressive. This is not joking: they already kill depressives, and even Aspergers (November 2017, see examples below). So for «social misfits», political opponents, or even races, this could happen before 2030 or even 2020.
Example: The Christine Malèvre case shows how things can quickly go wrong: this nurse had killed six person, whom she said «wanted to die». In fact, she heavily interpreted pseudo «clues» such as sighs, etc. She finally spent only four years in prison, which amounts to an approval of her assassinations of non-consenting people. One of the big lessons in this case is that such decisions must be made collegiately, in consultation with doctors, caregivers, families, and of course the persons themselves. Justice would have to intervene only in case of complaint or problem, not each time.
Example: the case of Chantal Sébire shows how the debate can be twisted and ideologically polarized, in one way as in the other. Chantal was presented by the media and by the «associations» as a victim of «doctors' refusal to help her die». In fact, according to the ethicist Axel Kahn (Wikipedia, November 2017) and Dr. Béal (article in Le Parisien») of the palliative care unit in Dijon, she was opposed to «official medicine», refused an operation which had a good chance of curing her, and even refused palliative cares and pain relief. In these circumstances, her final suicide is more like a blackmail than any sense of the word «euthanasia». Well, having already met such complicated persons, I am not surprised. But what to do?
At a minimum, do not base our reasoning on such cases, and especially not make a hype of them.
Example: Belgium is the country which went the furthest in assisted suicide. With predictable consequences: according to an article in the Seattle Times, Dr. Lieve Thienpont would have killed more people than all the other Belgian doctors together. Especially he would have killed Tine Nys, for... Asperger's syndrome, that is to say a non-painful and non-disabling disorder (I know several who have an active social life), and which disadvantages can be managed with psychological or spiritual methods. Several depressives have also been killed, while depression can also be managed with spiritual methods (I know something of it, having to learn to do it, and in more alone, without any guide). Moreover, to die while being depressed particularly exposes to the risk of horrible NDE (Scientific Studies of the IANDS). In the small world of the approach of death, everybody knows very well the IANDS, and so this way of sending a depressive «to hell» can be considered as a deliberate cruelty.
Example: Still according to this article, Jean-Jacques De Gucht (who extended the possibility of homicide to children) rejects any criticism as «misguided», which amounts to accusing us of being idiots. So we really have this «slippery slope effect», predicted by the opponents since 1930, or as it happened with abortion (to abort to be able to go skying, etc. chapter VI-5). And there are only two safeties left to reach a «democratic advanced Shoah»: killing a non-consenting person, while pretending it is «his interest» (for example a child, since the law allows it already ), or that he can not bring informed consent (a rebel, an intellectually deficient). The last lock would be to consider political views or social orientations as «troubles».
In the case of children, it would already be possible for parents to legally kill one of their children, for the sole purpose of getting rid of him (revenge after divorce, or when he costs more than he brings in family allowances). 1) humiliate and harass the child until he is depressed. 2) It is then easy to find a doctor who would diagnose a «disease» without looking for the cause. 3) The parents can then ask for a «euthanasia» of the child, for «unbearable and incurable trouble» (Since this was already done for depression). 4) In court, it is common to invoke «the interests of the child» to justify any decision against him. Am I exaggerating? I hope so. But wait for some years to be sure... (written in 2017).
Palliative sedation (in the strict sense) pushes hypocrisy even further: it replaces the homicide by definitive unconsciousness. Which, for the victim, means exactly the same... but allows the perpetrator to escape the qualification of homicide! A simple play of words, therefore, to circumvent the law. I say here that putting terminally asleep and homicide are exactly the same thing, since a final unconsciousness results in both cases. In addition, «deep sedation», that is putting a person's finally asleep, is probably a much more serious problem than homicide: we do not know why only 12% of people have a NDE (and, presumably, access the afterlife). We do not know the processes (chapter V-9) which allow consciousness to emerge from the brain and function autonomously after death. We do not even know why there is no consciousness during sleep or anaesthesia, despite the brain is functioning. The danger then is to send the person into a state of eternal unconsciousness, to bar him access to the afterlife, which would certainly be the most heinous crime imaginable. Not to mention the torture of waking the person to «make sure he is still agreeing», which could actually kill him in his afterlife world (from severing the information path linking his consciousness to that world).
Coma and Locked-in. We saw in chapter V-8 the most reliable methods known to distinguish a comatose (unconscious person) from a locked-in (conscious but paralysed person), and treat them accordingly. For a hopeless comatose, there is no sense, and especially no spiritual sense, to keep this body alive. Moreover, such a person is probably already in the afterlife, and any manipulation of his body may unnecessarily recall him, or even kill him in his afterlife. As far as locked-in is concerned, one might think that they want to die, and this would also be a legitimate reason for leaving a life devoid of meaning. But not all of them ask for it. For example Steven Hawking, the most famous locked-in, has a rich emotional and intellectual life, and he has never published any wish of this kind. However ALL locked-in are entitled to the same level of assistance that Hawking enjoys, to enable them to communicate, to see their families and friends, and to have recreational or creative activities. In particular virtual worlds also allow all disabled people to have a normal social life. And also an appearance of their choice, free of the horrible marks of their disease.
Palliative care are, of course, once again ignored, whereas it should be the first approach. If there was something to legalize, it would be precisely the mandatory access for all to palliative care. Palliative care makes possible to go much further than simply to die without suffering: accomplished in the right spiritual perspective, they allow to control the process of death and rebirth in the spiritual world, even without knowing how it works. Palliative care can, if necessary, use the most powerful painkillers. Indeed, the problem of addiction does not arise in this case. But in general, they exclude homicide: the person must be able to remain lucid as long as possible, in order to prepare the passage at best. If, by impossibility of avoiding the suffering, one still resorts to the homicide, then the person must be able to decide himself the opportune moment, in order to engage the passage in full consciousness, according to the course of his meditation. This requires a fast and non-invasive means: nitrogen, a switch for stopping a pacemaker, etc. These methods produce no sensations, and the neat cessation of brain irrigation offers the best chance of producing an NDE, that is, probably accessing a pleasant afterlife.
However, these palliative cares are useful only if we actually prepare for the afterlife (discussions, exchanges of energy, visualizations of paradise, Phowa, etc.) If we spend them in front of the television, then it is useless, it could even be counterproductive: to send people into a state of unconsciousness, or worse of animal submission.
Assisted suicide seems oddly escaping the definition of euthanasia, and thus legalization. Yet it is, in the case of truly incurable suffering (see discussion above), a more elegant solution than homicide: the patient decides himself when to leave, without dependence (always invasive), at the precise moment when he feels ready to take the leap. And in all intimacy, instead of being surrounded by nurses.
But if we are there, then there is much better:
The Phowa. Well, of course we are talking of it for about thirty years, so that everyone knows what it is, so I shall not remind you here (and whoever attributes me the newspeak meaning will go straight to defamation). Phowa is taught in every free country, and we can learn to do it on ourself. It is therefore pertinent to explore the question: the Phowa would be the method of choice to move towards a positive after-life. Ideally this requires a propitious spiritual context, or at least a context of respectful palliative care, without ideological harassment.
Can we actually suicide with the Phowa? Of course in the training nobody tries. But it is said that some masters did it, for example to escape a suffering like a concentration camp. For a condemned sick person, it would certainly be the best method: everyone chooses the moment, depending on his meditation, to project himself towards a paradise. So far that the very word «death» is no longer appropriate for this case: it is a guaranteed positive outcome to death, a transition, an abandonment of a chrysalis, a birth in a paradise. I would add that only the Phowa deserves the name of «beautiful death» (eu-thanasia).
The scientific study and practice of the Phowa are therefore one of the main emergencies of today's society.
According to the teaching, the most extraordinary advantage of the Phowa would be that a bad person is cured of his evil. This point seems verified in the NDE, which content does not depend on the morality of the person. Our theory of free will (chapter V-3) explains this well. Indeed, the brain, as a physical object, does not have access to ethics: only the consciousness has access to it. Then the desire to harm can only come from the brain (the neuronal ego, chapter V-10). And it would disappear when the brain is shut down, as seen in the NDE. It seems logical that this happens also when we reach a paradise with the Phowa (or with any other way). Thus the Phowa represents the ultimate justice and apotheosis of spirituality, well beyond all those sinister stories of eternal damnation, that no truly spiritual person can wish for anyone.
I do not know any direct scientific validation of the Phowa. However it is in line with the scientific knowledge acquired on NDEs, especially the experiences of heavenly worlds. The theory of the logical self-generation of consciousness offers a scientifically valid explanatory framework linking all these things together. Especially, it implies that if the brain stops at the precise moment when we have the visualization of the Phowa in mind, then this could actually provide the «special nib» establishing an information path between our consciousness and the target paradise. This would therefore produce the «incarnation» in this paradise, as soon as information stops reaching us from our brain.
This scientific validation of Phowa is only indirect, but is this an argument not to propose it in palliative care? I would say that we must still propose it (and to everybody). Even if we think it is Pascal's wager, we must do it if it works, and we have nothing to lose if it does not work.
To propose the Phowa (or any other similar technique) remains the best test of the sincerity of those who speak of euthanasia or who pretend to make death less painful. Otherwise, useless to go further: they only seek to get rid of the dying.
In fact, I recently realized that in the courses it would miss an essential element. I can even name somebody who may have involuntarily killed himself in this way. But we understand that such a dangerous knowledge cannot be published, and is transmitted only by word of mouth between people of confidence. I therefore reserve it to the correct spiritual context of accessing a pleasant afterlife, when nothing else matters anymore. Not to those who want to escape life just to avoid the effort of learning. And especially not to those who just want to get rid of others.
However, it is only recently that the scientific study of the NDEs gives substance to this hope of a paradise afterlife. Hence the crucial importance of studying NDEs, how to produce them, and how to navigate in the afterlife. And especially to reserve the biggest «tin foil hat» to the NDEskeptics, especially when they claim to be scientists. This study is commented throughout this book, from the theoretical bases (Part Three) to studies on the nature of consciousness (Part Five).
However, recent scientific data on NDEs (chapter V-9) show that the «paradise destination» described in the first books is not automatic. First of all, the NDEs themselves only reach a minority (statistically, more often to spiritually alive people). Worse, some people report very unpleasant experiences: feeling of emptiness, negative judgement by the «light», and even visions of hell (yes, the theory of the logical self-generation of consciousness predicts that this can happen, even if it is «religious»). The studies of the IANDS show that these terrifying experiences happen more to people in great doubt with themselves, but this is only an average.
The conclusion is unstoppable: our destination in the afterlife, and even our very access to this after-life, depends heavily on our state of mind during our life. It is therefore necessary to prepare oneself for death, while respecting specific ethical rules:
-Inform everybody about scientific studies on the afterlife, and criminalize NDEskeptic discourses or pseudosciences which deny consciousness, such as materialism or behaviourism.
-Always behave ethically. In the «life review» of the NDEs, everything is counted, down to the slightest peccadillo.
-Everybody must have access to spiritual methods of preparation for the afterlife (ethics, visualizations of paradise, Phowa, palliative cares, etc.). We can even have groups preparing for this or that world specifically. What do I say, it has been around for a long time, but it is called «religion» to denigrate it.
-The terrible effects of bad vibrations must be taught (rap, scatology, tags, violent video games, halloween, horror movies, etc. chapter VI-9)
-At the approach of death, everybody must be able to devote himself to the preparation of the transfer (Tranquillity, palliative cares, Phowa, visualisations, meetings, etc.)
-With the possibility of an after-life, one would be tempted to consider the murder as «less serious». It is not so: firstly, nothing yet proves that everyone is fine in a paradise, or even just continue to be conscious. Second, people have life plans, families, activities, which alone justify the seriousness of convictions for murder.
() This is an original prediction, which will seem incredible to some. Yet I think it is useful to prepare for it: the possibility of technical devices which would allow dead persons to express themselves here. I describe such devices, and how they work, in my novel «Why Daddy he not comes», or in my novel «Lokouten». They are of course based on the theories of consciousness that I develop in this book. Basically, such a device is an artificial neural network (a «brain», homologous to the natural brain), capable of more or less complex actions, from delivering simple messages to control a robotic body or a virtual body. We are not there yet, but this could appear before the end of the 21st century. Such devices, of course, require a specific and entirely original ethic, that it is better to know before engaging in «experiments»:
-A lokouten (literally «electric bodily receptacle» of a consciousness, in Tibetan) enjoys the same legal status and protections as a person's body (basically, destroying it is murder, disconnecting it is imprisonment).
-Everybody has the same right to have one.
-A deceased person speaking through a Lokouten has the same rights to be listened to, as when he was alive, especially to look out for his interests.
-Mitigating the previous point, a person who no longer has a biological body does not have so many needs, nor so much involvement in this world. It is therefore conceivable that his economic rights may be reduced, for example, in the benefit of his spouses, associates, heirs, employees, tenants, etc. who in turn should be able to enjoy these goods, or simply who need them for a living.
-But even a person who no longer has a biological body retains his full rights to his identity, to his freedom of expression (including publication of his intellectual property, even if his heirs refuse), his reputation, the attribution of his creations, maintaining his Internet identity, virtual identity, websites, etc.
-A deceased person will generally live in another world, where living conditions and interests are totally different (especially neuroses and ego are no longer valid in the spiritual worlds). Thus, if he wishes to, he must be able to disconnect from this material world, temporarily or permanently, or even to be protected from contact attempts by neurotic people. This can go as far as physically deactivating the lokouten, by a command accessible from the spiritual world.
-If a marriage is dissolved by death, or if it continues through a lokouten or in the afterlife, is a point that people must be able to decide themselves, normally at the time of entering into the marriage.
-The titles, statutes, nationality, caste, nobility, etc. no longer make sense in the afterlife. It is easy to know why: they don't make sense here either.
Lokoutens are a problem to classical law: a person is defined by his body, whereas in reality we are consciousnesses. Lokouten allow a dead consciousness to express itself, and even to do so in several places, for example in the physical world (dead husband or parent coming to visit his family), in a virtual world, or even on Pluto, as soon as a lokouten can make the trip (which would produce observable superluminal interactions). The law must therefore recognize a lokouten as a body, even if it exists only in software form.
A second problem is to ensure that a given lokouten is really the one of the deceased, which could be the main obstacle to the development and legal recognition of lokouten. The solution here would be to consider that, just as a consciousness is attached to a single brain, it would attach itself to a single lokouten, provided that it trains to do so during its lifetime. What then identifies a lokouten is the connectome of the neural network, which, after this training, would be unique for each person, and therefore not piratable. Then nothing forbids the law to identify the person to this connectome, or technicians to download this connectome in any physical machine or virtual world.
However, this connectome may only work in one copy at a time. If there are several, the person must have a way to activate the one of his choice. For example, each connectome would have a specific mental image coded in the synapses. Activation of this image by consciousness would then activate the other functions: meaning, thought, etc. and thus electronically activate the selected lokouten.
mutilations, including «religious» (which are only
customs, without spiritual justification)
other than strictly for health or increase of capacities.
misinformation, threats, etc.
of the brain (electrodes, waves, etc.)
-The right to health care for all
-A normal dietary and organic diet for all.
This also includes the right not to suffer, by specific approaches, including painkillers. At present there is not enough research on effective ways to eliminate pain without diminishing consciousness or essential faculties like meditation (I tested...).
Anti-pain and medical care must also be accessible to all, without conditions or preferences. This also applies to pregnancy, breastfeeding, assistance to the disabled, assistance to the elderly, palliative care.
Only non-essential aesthetic changes may be less priority, but without going as far as hypocrisy, as in France the Social Security which does not reimburse the front teeth prosthesis, under the pretext that they would be «aesthetic»...
It is obvious that such a health system accounts for a large part of a society's activity. This is the price to accept, and to give full heartedly, to allow everyone to enjoy the best possible health.
The only effective way to reduce this is prevention: organic farming, vegetarianism, absence of hazardous products in homes, pollution control, giving up drugs, nuclear ban, hygiene in public places, cautiousness at work and by car, etc.
() It is totally hypocritical to write things like human rights, if we do not give people the means to exercise them. A second important part of the activity of a society is thus to establish the means for a living. And to assure them for all, without distinction of «merit»! Indeed, not doing it is equivalent to pronouncing the death penalty for the unlucky! This activity is also the price to pay, and to give full heartedly, to allow everyone to benefit from a food which is:
-Of quality (organic, with enough vitamins)
As well as a place of life which satisfies our essential needs:
-Calme, without idiotic sounds (shouting, televisions, disco «music», motor rakes, etc.)
-Hygienic and comfortable enough
-Close to nature
-Near nice people
-Allowing to engage in an activity: artistic creation, workshop, Internet connection, garden, children's rooms, etc.
-Adapted to disability if needed
Today, meeting these criteria requires:
-Regulation of the world population (ideally bring it back to a sustainable value)
-Abandoning meat (waste of food)
-The energy transition: isolated dwellings, local energy production
-Better placement of factories, stores, etc. to avoid having to run tens of kilometres every day
-To make cars, trucks, motorcycles, etc. quieter, and give up motor rakes and other useless dangling gadgets.
Some will pretend that the idea of providing these needs for free would be «revolutionary» or «utopian». Yet these needs MUST be satisfied for everyone, and anyway. So removing the blackmail on basic resources saves the countless sadistic officials who control, send threats, spread children's toys and family memories on the sidewalk, and so on. Moreover, the means are already well known and currently being implemented: the minimum resource allocations.
() Drugs are any substance or process which causes a change in the functioning of the human mind. «process» may include future things such as, for example, electrical stimulations of the brain, or desire manipulation techniques used in some dishonest video games.
Of course, drugs have all sorts of deleterious effects: impaired consciousness or judgement, hallucinations, and so on. However, the effect which usually leads to the ban is addiction, which tortures people in a way to force them to take the drug again. But the idea of «drugs» does not include substances which are administered intelligently to treat psychiatric disorders (There is an ambiguity in English, since it is the same word, and sometimes the same substances. French has two different words: «drogue» for the unhealthy use, and «médicament» for the medical use).
Since the 1960s many «seemingly» independent people and schools of thought have tried to legitimize drugs (strikethrough, to show it is not what I am saying):
would be a legitimate right, called «recreational».
ban on drugs would be the feat of an authoritarian or reactionary
«war on drugs» would be a pretext for «the West»
oppressing the Third World (Marxist propaganda, or propaganda from
governments of former Marxist countries)
«war on drugs» would be impossible to win, so we must
submit to the dark side by legalizing drugs («Saruman»
legalization would eliminate the delinquency linked to the traffic
prohibition of drugs would have religious motives (implied: arbitrary
drugs would produce experiences similar to those of high
In fact, these poor arguments can all be easily debunked, and in details. But it is useless, because as in any bad faith discussion, a thousand other lies will appear immediately. We have seen this with tobacco, which traffickers invested considerable sums to falsify scientific studies and corrupt politicians. Exactly the same thing is happening again for marijuana, and it will happen immediately after for all the other drugs.
However, I want to settle a particularly pernicious point, because it is in some way my speciality: That the drugs would produce spiritual experiences. It is total hogwash, that only those who never had such experiences can swallow. Directed imagination can already produce fantastic scenes, under perfect control and with strictly zero danger. The true high consciousness states result from a take-over of free will (chap V-3), while the drug kidnaps the course of our thoughts and our inner visions.
In these conditions, asking for the legalization of drugs is reactionary, because it goes to the exact opposite of our most basic freedom, and more generally of our evolution.
This fundamental argument goes even before the public health arguments, already considerable and very sufficient for the ban:
-In the 20th century, tobacco and alcohol together killed as much as wars.
-Tobacco remains the main obstacle to free will, including those who breathe smoke (try meditating in a smoky room, and you'll see). This is the reason why totalitarian regimes impose it, and formerly the army offered free cigarettes to soldiers.
- In addition to being a major killer, alcohol remains one of the main factors of violence, accidents, low vibrations, etc.
-Marijuana, despite its reputation of a «soft» drug, is just as much a tobacco a thief of free will, notoriously leading its users to disputes, separation, etc. Spirituality produced people like Gandhi and Mandela, saints and miracles, the drug produced only conflicts and ruins. To begin with, the ruin of the hippie movement.
My only personal experience with drugs was precisely with marijuana, at a time when «we had to» smoke it to be «in». Let us pass over the malaise and poor distortions of vision: what was remarkable, is that the drug brought no vibration. The total flop. While a few days earlier a «Yes» party (Close to the Edge) had created a fantastic vibration, with wonderful imaginations... under perfect control, and without any physical discomfort. This complete absence of vibration explains why marijuana can be used as well by warriors and assassins, to put themselves in the corresponding state of mind. This also explains that everywhere we hear apologia for marijuana, while the beautiful music remains under the bushel, circulating only by word of mouth.
Ok if you want hallucinations with high vibes, I give you a very simple plan, 100% legal, 100% free, 100% without dependence and 100% without any danger (except for epileptics): sit in front of the sun or a strong lamp (be careful never to look at the sun directly, you risk becoming blind before understanding what is happening). Close your eyes and pay attention to the red or orange light which filters through your eyelids. Quickly move your hand (or an object) between your eyes and the light source. The alternation of light and dark, with no discernible image, excites the neurons of pattern recognition, which then produce kaleidoscopic images of a great beauty and high vibration. Blocking the light completely also produces a background of a fantastic indigo. And when you stop, you are again perfectly normal, healthy and master of yourself. Two minutes are enough to understand at which point drugs are a scam.
-All the other drugs produce various dangers: health, dependence, loss of control, accidents, disputes, economic ruin, etc. It will be remembered that opium alone could bring the ruin of a powerful country like imperial China. As for the unidentified cocktails which are sold on the sidewalk, absorbing them amounts to human experimentation. Useless to oppose vivisection, in this case ...
In these circumstances, the only solution to drugs is a clear, strong and unambiguous prohibition (if we allow «soft» or «traditional» drugs, this automatically weakens the ban on other drugs). Such a prohibition is effective only if the traffickers receive heavy penalties, as for blood crimes (it is).
As for the war on drugs, it is like terrorism: it is not us who are in a position of stopping it, it is the stinkers who exploit our suffering. We all know too well what will happen if we stop defending ourselves, see in China.
However, we must realize that the main battleground of the war on drugs is not so much the jungles of Colombia nor the deserts of Afghanistan: it is the schools playgrounds, the streets of our cities, the «social networks» internet sites, and even in some cases our parliaments. In fact, it is there that diligent propagandists whisper their lies to teenagers in search of new values, or ideologically weakened adults, so that they can in turn convert others and perpetuate this horrible slavery.
The best defence against drugs, therefore, is to teach the basics of spirituality (chapter V-7) at school, so that adolescents understand how drug crooks manipulate them.
-The need for the person to have a stable living place or working place (which inspired Human Rights)
-The arbitrary right of the nobility, today «liberalized» in «individual property» by capitalism: anyone can grab a piece of land, a house, a music, a factory ... even against the previous point, for example by expelling the inhabitants.
(We shall not distinguish in this sub-chapter the fact of being owner in the strict sense, from being usufructuary or tenant, because the rules are roughly the same)
This anarchic situation explains the complexity of traditional laws governing property, the many disagreements, and especially why these laws can be so easily diverted from their generous goals, to make privileges. These laws explain in detail the modes of transmission of the property, but without ever referring to why a person would have the right to be the owner of something. According to these laws, it is enough to have money, or an inheritance... whereas we know very well that not everybody have them. So that the right cannot be exerted by all, and thus we wade in total irrationality.
First of all, property is not something which exists naturally: it is a concept, that we create in our minds, and which exists only there. It is the obedience of the people to the laws and rulers which makes this property respected or not. Thus the system will decide to protect the home of a family with children, or to throw them out in the street, if the money or the courts have designated another owner. This system does not even protect the «legal» owners: idiots can still evict them to build nuclear power plants or airports in the countryside.
Fortunately, the fundamental principles of ethics, chapter VI-2, can give a clear definition of who can dispose of this or that thing. Especially, the first principle directly implies that a person must have what he needs to live and to express his aspirations. The way in which the general principle is demultiplied in many particular cases has been seen in chapter VI-3, with the notion of dependence: everyone is dependent on a dwelling, so everyone must be guaranteed the enjoyment of this dwelling.
Once this principle is recognized, then saying that the person is the «owner» does not make any sense: it is his home, and this is enough to left him at peace. Well, in transition, we can fall down on the concept of ownership, and say that the person is the owner of the house (or usufructuary, this would be enough).
There are other forms of dependence, more collective, or of nature itself towards a place, which will lead similarly to other forms of relationship between beings and objects. This is not «property» as it is understood in the ancient laws of the beginning of the 21st century, and strictly speaking it is needed to invent another word. But all the languages say «my», or mark the possession in one way or another. Despite this lack of a formal «ownership», each time the rules are clearly defined, based on the vital needs of the concerned people, and they never appeal nor to the arbitrariness of the «positive» law nor the power of the money or strength.
The goods of the individual are the objects he needs to live: a quiet house (even if he is nomadic, he must always be able to find a dignified and welcoming shelter), furniture, clothes, food, heating, hygiene, health, a corner of greenery, a garden, etc.
But an individual also needs various objects or goods to express an activity: tools, instruments, computer, natural space, travel, communication, games, etc. This is why even things like the Internet are increasingly seen as fundamental rights.
These objects can therefore be considered to belong to the person and can in no case be removed by someone else.
The properties of the family are similar to the previous ones, but it is not possible to say to which member they belong personally. Some specific elements are here: educational material, toys for children or adults, souvenirs, etc. At one time or another, these goods must be distributed among the members, because the separation of children is inevitable (and that of the parents is evitable).
Public goods are defined similarly to the previous ones. However, they are used for activities which cannot be accomplished alone: agricultural or industrial production, cultural activities, etc. The relationship of dependency is thus here of an individual towards a group, or more generally of several individuals (independent or associated) towards a group and the goods this group uses. The existence of such collective goods is what justified the collectivist regimes, with their collective structures. Democratic collective structures like the Social Security also obey this principle. The capitalist companies also reply to this need, save that their owners do not have serving the users as primary purpose, precisely.
The principle is the same as with the individual property: if people depend on a collective good, then this good is their collective property: land, factory, knowledge... This translates into economy by the notion of Activity Circle, see chapter VI-8, which therefore possesses the goods it uses. Basically, an Activity Circle is what will happen to capitalist companies, when they will be owned by their customers, who will then work there for free to satisfy their own needs.
Expression goods will be what enables individuals or groups to pursue the basic goals of their consciousness (other than life or economic needs). So these will be expression means, cultural goods (including buildings), arts, games, and of course nature itself. Thus nature is not «vacant» or «virgin space to develop»: it is a collective patrimony, as precious to spare as our houses. This is the world we live in. It cannot be grabbed or destroyed by a minority. Even activities like hunting can not take place there: would you like someone to hunt in your living room?
At a limit, the largest cultural good is what is called a country, a geographical area where a culture can express itself freely, without having to make concessions to other cultures. This is different from a state, which is a method of organization. Cultures may have to share the same places because History has often built multi-cultural countries. This works if none of these cultures seeks to impose itself on the others. This multi-culturism itself is then... part of the culture.
Productive goods do not directly serve the individuals who use them, but they allow the survival and expression of all. These are fields, factories and workshops, technical knowledge, materials and resources, hospitals, hotels, transportation and communication means, etc.
Finally, nature owns itself. This is a novelty compared to the previous systems: instead of being considered empty space which can be exploited at will, nature defines itself, and it can exist without us. And as it is formed of conscious beings (or even unconscious beings, but still interesting, like plants, rocks...) the principles of consciousness also apply to it. Thus, animals are in a sense the true owners of nature. This does not prevent humans from building their dear development, but in limited quantities, and in such a way that nature can be restored when these facilities have completed their life cycle. Even lifeless nature, even in the space of deserts, nature is a collective heritage, an exhaustible resource which destruction is irremediable.
Limitations appear, however: the production of goods requires labour, and limited resources, such as land. It can happen that the economy cannot meet all the demands, collective or individual. The general answer is then to establish priorities. Usually, survival goods have priority: health, food, housing.
In these conditions of shortage, then games and arts seem a lesser priority.
See. The expression being one of the fundamental motivations of consciousness, it cannot pass in last. If it does, then survival would simply make no sense. The savings will therefore be on intermediate needs: smaller houses, more modest clothing, fewer trips, birth control, etc.
These limitations will also be met by sharing. This word can have two meanings: the goods are distributed among individuals who will then have an exclusive use of their share, such as food. Well, if you have to share the food, you're in a famine, and it's an urgent problem. Most often, we will have to share secondary goods such as furniture, building materials, means of transport, etc.
The other meaning of the word shared is that many people will use a good simultaneously. This will generally be the case of a living place (collective houses, common services), means of production (fields, factories, tools, knowledge...) and especially of nature: it is not conceivable that one billion Earthlings each have a castle park. On the other hand we can very well enjoy the contact with nature in the presence of other people. The recipe is then mutual respect: our activities should not disturb others (noise, agitation, dirt, paranoia on nudity, etc.). In the case of a production means or transport means, avoiding to monopolize it. In the case of housing or nature, being quiet and discreet, so as not to interfere with others.
() If the meaning of life can be presented as being the same for all, each person will choose a different aspect, that it will decline according to its own vibration or life project (V-17), in a huge number of combinations. Which will result in different activities, styles, meeting choices, etc.
However, nowhere does it appear that any person has to give up his own choices, to adopt those of others. The most basic and profound form of respect for the people will therefore be the freedom for everyone to choose their interests, their activities, their culture, their vibration, without being imposed others, nor actively (dictatorship, slavery-job blackmail, mind control) neither passively (invasion, noise, mandatory use of places with imposed vibration, passive smoking, etc.)
On the contrary, the second basis of ethics requires that everyone, even a young child, has the inalienable right to choose his goals in life, his activities, his vibration, without being imposed others. The only conceivable limitation is that at one time or another, everyone will have to more or less contribute to the economy, or to society in general. But even this must never be an occasion for being imposed a vibration (horrible music, sadomasochistic suit and tie, etc.)
It is remarkable that such a fundamental right is not mentioned in Human Rights. It is certainly a mistake to correct.
Indeed, the more classical forms of respect of the person appear subordinate, facing such a fundamental and imperative right. They are nonetheless ways of exercising this right:
-The freedom to choose our goals implies freedom in the usual sense: to travel, to express oneself, to meet, to communicate, to inform oneself, to associate oneself (family, work, spirituality, organization of the society...) and the absence of «powers» imposing their own goals, limitations, vibrations, etc.
-The right to life, health, longevity stems directly from the desire of the consciousness to exist. See life and death.
-The freedom to choose and to apply our goals implies the absence of influences, pressures, lies, disinformation or manipulations. In the capitalist and materialistic ethnic groups of the modern world, these things are considered as «traditional» or «games» without consequences. However, these are crimes as serious as torture or murder, because they result in many years of life lost, or severe suffering (depression, feeling of having missed our life, etc.)
-The right for the means to satisfy our goals, which can be extremely varied: access to nature, to information, to resources, to the work of other people. Of course the «quantities» depend enormously on the pursued goal. For example a farmer is obviously entitled to fields, even if space is restricted. But limited availability will prevent luxury leisure such as golf, which require precisely a lot of room for few people. Close habitat will involve more rules of respect and privacy, and so on.
-The right to tranquillity: absence of blackmail on resources (blackmail on employment, blackmail on allocations, etc.) no unnecessary worries (incomprehensible and threatening administrative paperwork), disputes, harassment, hazing, sociopathy, etc. The people who create all these things will have to follow the psychological or psychiatric care required by their condition.
-The right to reputation, by the absence of lies or slander, the possibility of rectifying any inappropriate quotations or assertion (including on wikipedia). Forgetting past mistakes is also an integral part of people's reputation: most of them evolve, even by little, and end up regretting their past mistakes. Evolving is one of the deepest capacities of the human mind. In these conditions, to equate a person with his past mistakes is the most radical way of denying our entire human condition.
-The right to psychoeducation, methods to control our own mind and stop doing silly or harmful things.
-The right to spirituality, especially the right to the preparation of the afterlife, by appropriate teachings and the necessary tranquillity during meditation sessions and the approach of death. Today these things are still rare, by lack of scientific knowledge on the afterlife. But it is conceivable that groups prepare specifically for this or that paradise, starting from the moment where a communication is really established with one of these paradises.
-Freedom of expression, non-dual with respect for others. Forgetting this non-duality has been a serious mistake in the formation of modern democratic states: we went from authoritarian censorship to censorship by conspiracy theories, fake news and blah-blah. A specific example of this manipulation is explained in detail in chapter VII-2. But let us see more in detail:
() Current societies hold the freedom of opinion and the freedom of expression in high esteem. There is a definite reason for this: in a world where it is difficult to access absolute and perfect knowledge, what appears to be an «obvious truth» (for instance «flat earth») can be an error (the Earth is round) sometimes difficult to demonstrate (you have to go into space). Hence the idea that a minority opinion or apparently absurd opinion can ultimately prove accurate. This is especially true in the political, social and spiritual spheres, so much that the expression of a diversity of opinions is considered as a factor of progress, if not an indispensable element of a process of selection of opinions by trial and error. We even find that censoring opinions is indeed a factor of stagnation or regression. Even science, though supposedly exact, does not escape this necessity. Although the debates are much more friendly there than in politics.
The problem, however, as we saw in Chapter V-12, is that an opinion, neurologically, is a neurosis: our neurons of pleasure make us feel «right» a pleasant opinion, or one which serves us. This means that almost everyone is attached to a junk of often conflicting or absurd opinions, which make us argue and commit negative or painful acts. Worse, even a true opinion can be dangerous: if, for example, a person «believes» something (for example, the Earth is round) because he was told at school (trust in society), but without knowing to demonstrate it oneself, then the belief can be reversed abruptly, following a reading, or a political encounter (conspiracy theories claiming that society censors the flat Earth). Such a person can then be easily infected with the «payload» of conspiracy theories (racism, extreme right) and become a threat to society (white terrorism)
This means that defending the freedom of opinion becomes in turn an opinion... which can end up playing tricks too. And it is already doing so, with the deleterious influence of conspiracy theories and denial theories on elections. Real progress therefore requires an inflection: to recognize the dangers of unbalanced freedom. And fix it, as follows:
-Combat neurotic or egotistical attachment to opinions. This is a matter of education to spirituality, see chapter V-7.
-Recognize that freedom of opinion is not intrinsically good, nor inherently bad, but non-dual with concrete truth and respect for others. The evil appears only when one of the terms is out of balance: repressive censorship, or «libertarian censorship» (fake news, conspiracy theories, denigration in the media and social networks) This is why we must certainly promote freedom of expression, but that it must also be limited, when it promotes errors, or even punished, when it calls for hatred or violence:
-Promote science and scientific investigation methods (transparency, inquiries, investigation journalism, fact check)
-Promote access to information for all, especially free Internet access, in both directions. We can add a certified identity for everybody, a specific URL for everybody, and heavily penalize hackers.
-Hunt down lead pollution, which we can seriously consider that it would be the main cause of the waves of fascism of the 20th and 21st century.
-Impose psychological and psychiatric tests to all political candidates, senior civil servants, magistrates, agents in contact with the public or persons in charge, etc. to exclude the discriminatory, stubborn, hateful, sociopathic, etc.
Freedom of expression, of course, includes the freedom to express our opinions in public, as seen above. But it also includes other freedom, such as how to dress, wearing the colours of our choice, listening to music that we want, etc. This is further studied in chapter VI-9, but we find the same non-duality between personal freedom and respect for others: not showing unpleasant things: dirty vibrations, violence, etc. Especially noise, which some people call «freedom of expression», is in fact the ultimate form of censorship: to prevent people from thinking about what they want.
() This part says the same thing as the previous one, but using the customs of today's capitalist ethnicities: democracy and the rule of law. But instead of redoing all the above analysis, I am going to talk about the differences: the concepts used.
Ultimately, concepts such as legal ownership or money should disappear, because, like all concepts, they are imperfect and sources of error, or even recoverable and returnable against their very purpose. However, most people are attached to them, so that they cannot be easily removed. Then the transition uses them, but in a controlled manner. This control is done by constantly referring to the three (four) foundations of ethics, or absolute ethics, whenever ambiguity or disagreement arises.
For example, the Soviet regime tried to eradicate private property, which in Russia in 1917 was a source of serious social inequality. But people remained attached to their homes and land, feeling spoiled and passively resisting the Soviet system. The exact opposite occurred during the forced return to market economy: a number of Russian citizens still remained attached to the collective system, which continued to function as collective farms, even under other more «acceptable» names. This shows that some of the Russians had finally adopted the collectivist economy, but also that it would have taken several centuries for everybody to do it. This delay is similar to what is observed for religious conversions of countries, whether forced or voluntary.
Therefore we understand the principle of transition, as discussed in Chapter VI-3: speaking to people using their concepts, while proposing a «delta» of change within their reach. This delta must of course be in the right direction, and large enough to bring a real improvement to the concrete conditions. But it must also be understandable for these people, so that they can appropriate it. In the case of an economic system (Chapter VI-8), it may be relatively small (for instance not questioning private property), because what counts is the efficiency of the economy system to fairly fulfil the needs of all (taxes to finance Social Security, social housing, etc.) But in the case of ethics, the delta must be large enough to quickly end the causes of serious suffering (such as sadistic games like hunting, bullfights, wars, etc.).
This necessary tradeoff, however, should not induce the idea that the Transition Ethics would be unnecessary, optional, or at our convenience, for the lazy or the dilettante, while Absolute Ethics would serve only in electoral discourses or to decorate the top of the fireplace. The Transition Ethics is as binding as the Absolute, and even more, because it is formal and written in the law. And when the law is not correct, there is no casuistry to temper it!
() In transition, the law will bring its legal protections. Indeed, in transition, desires such as stealing, making noise, destroying nature, monopolizing resources, will still be present, and this as long as not everybody is psychoeducated. The law must then implement the ethical principles described here, and eliminate all the arbitrary principles which are still there at the beginning of the 21st century.
The disadvantage of the law is that its Aristotelian nature introduces entropy and distortions, compared to the non-dual understanding of the basic principles of scientific ethics. This is the reason why, traditionally, application is entrusted to courts which very structure is a non-duality between accusation and defence. It works, provided that the judges themselves understand this non-duality. This is why one of the main topics in law school is meditation, let us not doubt...
() The rules of morality found by our scientific study being often non-dual (or gradated), they thus require a dose of judgement for their application (chapter I-9), which brings a bit of vagueness. However, the result remains acceptable, in a society of honest and psychoeducated people, who will all work to compensate in the right direction, to compensate the differences with the optimum. However, as soon as a proportion of dishonest people get involved, or even stupid people who are unable to understand non-dualities, then these people will each pull on their own, at random. The situation will then move away from the optimum, and it can even degenerate quickly to disaster, as soon as there are not enough honest and intelligent persons to compensate.
For this reason, traditional systems of morality have been codified into Aristotelian rules, called law, about which one cannot «push a little»: cheating is clearly visible, and fully qualified.
We can suppose that the first rules of life in society appeared from the end of prehistory, with the Neolithic, then along the Chalcolithic, with the emergence of agriculture and the first cities. But it was customary law, unwritten, and moreover by "positive" law, ie produced by custom, consensus, or by force, without any reference to any ethical principle whatsoever. . One example that has come down to us is the Salic law, which attributed the succession of Frankish kings to the eldest of boys. In a general way, all these systems had to be abolished, by their flagrant injustices.
It was with the great spiritual influxes of antiquity that the notions of respect for the person, justice, etc., appeared. So we can talk about ethics or morals from that moment.
Throughout the Middle Ages, however, these notions have remained theoretical, and they have been imposed only with modern laws, the purpose of which is essentially to apply the rules of ethics seen in the first section of this chapter.
However, the modern world has also removed the spiritual reference, which considerably weakens its ethical bases: modern laws have thus reintroduced a dose of "positive" arbitrariness, such as materialism, the denial of consciousness, etc.
The Aristotelian systems suffer, however, a notorious problem: the entropy of the law (chapter V-7), which is the irreversible complication of the texts: each parry to a problem requires other texts, which in turn introduce other problems, etc. In other words, cheaters always find a way to cheat, with interpreting texts or finding loopholes: to qualify the situation otherwise («driving aids» instead of «radar detector», or «cement additive» instead of «toxic waste».) White-collar gangsters can even manipulate elections and politicians to make laws tailored to their infantile interests (polluting industries, drug lobbies, weapons, meat, etc.). Even science can be manipulated in this way, with false «scientific theories» (resistance to low doses of radiation, scandium fires in Hessdalen, behaviourism, etc.).
Faced with this situation, the forces of the good are then obliged to constantly rectify the law, which complicates it, can cause legal bugs, or can even reactivate past injustices (automatic divorce on simple slander, which reintroduces the old repudiation that marriage was supposed to suppress).
There is no legal solution to this problem, since it is inherent in the legal thing itself. It is therefore necessary to help the forces of the good (through spirituality, psychoeducation) to fight the degradation of society caused by entropy or by the forces of evil (suppress lead pollution, have psychological and psychiatric tests to all political candidates, senior civil servants, magistrates, agents in contact with the public or persons in charge, etc. in order to exclude all the discriminators, stubborn, hateful, sociopaths, etc.)
Democracy is inseparable from the rule of law. We therefore devote it chapters VI-10 and following.
() The notion of individual property is unknown in tribal societies. It is the old feudal systems which introduced it, as a privilege of the «nobles», and raised it at the level of sacred, undeniable data. The capitalist revolution recovered the property to make it a privilege of the rich and continue the oppression of the poor. This explains why marxists and communists wanted to abolish it. Human rights and modern laws recognize a right to property for all, but without calling into question the privilege of the rich to monopolize things that everyone depends on: housing, land, production means, information means. Yet scientific ethics clearly states who should control these things:
Today, in the rule of law and democracy, the formal notion of ownership must be the direct application in the law of the compensation of economic or material dependency on a place of residence, a means of economic production, or of an expression tool. However, correctly applying the third base of ethics requires that the attribution of such property be an inalienable right, and therefore automatic and without conditions. For example, houses are built and attributed to anybody, without being conditionned by any «metit».
Needless to point out that this is not the case at present: people often have to justify with considerable effort their basic right to have a home, or even a working tool, while others have immense properties, powerful factories, political parties, media, etc. which they don't do anything with. Myself currently (2017) only have a computer (paid for by my family) and an internet subscription (which I pay at the expense of my hobbies), to help make the world a better place, while fools and haters have colossal fortunes to destroy it. The only case where people can lodge without having to justify this inalienable right are the African bush (the materials of a case being picked up on the spot), certain Indian tribes (who practice the equal transfer of incomes between all the members), and monasteries (financed by donations from individuals).
This canfoignous and cracrapouillous state of affairs is usually justified by the notion of merit: by their contribution to society, people must deserve to live, to eat, to live. It would be fair if we could all have a job, but precisely the current sadomasochistic austerity measures are aimed at maintaining a high rate of unemployment. The requirement of merit is then clearly a pretext for sadistic games, pee pee poop level: the sociopaths are sure to always find victims.
The real problem of merit, and its solutions, are developed in Chapter VI-8 on economy. In short, in a society where lazy and egocentric people still exist, we may be forced to use transition methods such as private property of a house, working contracts and money to obtain this property. But on the condition precisely to ensure that it is actually done for everybody. For example, we ensure that everyone has a job, or those who can not work (parents, disabled, old...) an allowance to live normally. Well, we can understand that if there still are sloths, they will only get a container house. But at least no bureaucrat well warm between the radiator and the coffee machine can take his sadistic pleasure to torture people with eviction threats.
() The social minima are justified by the first foundation of ethics (point 1d of chapter VI-2) and also by the third foundation, aimed at compensating inequalities. They are a set of measures designed to provide the least fortunate, or the weakest, with a decent minimum of life. In the current capitalist religion, they are:
-Free health or at least with paid third party
-Guaranteed minimum income, without conditions.
-Housing allocations, allowing to effectively rent one (or free housing)
-Family allowances, allowing parents to care full time for young children.
-Retirement allowances, for people who are no longer of working age
-Disabled allowances, for those who cannot work
-Free school for all children (reading, writing, counting, ecology, contraception, psychoeducation)
-Minimum wages, maximum working time, collective agreements, workplace safety, etc.
-Decent living conditions for people deprived of their freedom for any reason.
-Not exhaustive list
-The whole granted without delay, conditions, humiliation, incomprehensible paperwork, or blackmail.
These things are made necessary to compensate for the real differences of capacity between people (age, disability), but also to compensate for the disorders and injustices produced by this capitalist society where everyone pulls the blanket at himself.
They do not prevent to also consider social maximums, lol
It should be noted that communist societies have been very innovative from this point of view. Some capitalist countries, like Switzerland, have done the same: the richest pay a lot of taxes, up to 40% of their income. In return, everyone has a roof, a school, food and care. And until proof to the contrary the rich Swiss do not complain about this situation: if they fled such a country as Switzerland, it would have been noticed.
Personally, I have never been rich, but for a few years I still managed to go beyond the threshold of becoming a contributor instead of a victim. It is therefore with pride that I paid income taxes and made significant donations, even financing the entire schooling of a child of political refugees. It was the least I could do to set an example, applying the principles I present here myself.
But there is another, more subtle justification, demonstrated by the scientific paper on economics that I published in peer referee in Physica A (econophysics section). This paper describes a classic economic simulation of agents with capitalist economic interactions. The result is arch-known from specialists: an extremely unequal repartition of wealth appears in a few rounds of simulation. However, I also introduced three forms of altruism, adjustable separately:
-A proportion of the agents are totally altruistic (thus living a life of renunciation)
-All the agents apply a certain proportion of altruism (associations, family support, humanitarian donations...)
-The richest are taxed to give to the poorest (social minimums) (We consider here a moderate taxation, not of a bolshevik type which ruins them)
The result that I noticed at the time is that the unequal distribution disappears with a relatively low proportion of altruism, something like 25%. A result which is far from being totally out of reach even today. Communist countries were close to it. The real proportion is even lower, because everyone also benefits from the altruism of others.
But I have noticed since another even more interesting result: the social minima (taxing the rich to support the poor, Swiss way) strongly reduce the threshold where the altruistic effort of the citizens is enough to ensure an egalitarian distribution.
So we are not far from the tipping point, the moment where people are sufficiently altruistic to ensure their equality, and even understand that it is their interest to do so. (like those former Soviets who continue to work in Kolkhozes). The doors of happiness for all will then be wide open.
Thus the welfare state deserves its name especially: it actually helps to express the spiritual injunctions of self-help and altruism!
An annoying consequence, however, arises if we consider that the sadomasochistic austerity policies applied in Europe and elsewhere aim at reducing the social minima. They therefore increase the citizen altruistic effort which would eliminate inequalities. What today makes sadomasochistic austerity policies the main cause of the persistence of inequalities and poverty in Europe and the USA. Worse, Europe and the USA may have already begun to change, as Switzerland and Bhutan are doing. The conclusion is then unavoidable: these sadomasochistic austerity policies, and the scam of the debt (chapter VI-8), are therefore crimes against humanity, in the same way as Nazism or climatoscepticism (In addition of opposing spiritual injunctions, which could cost a lot to these people). They can even be considered as direct attacks against the scientific data presented here. This exposes the perpetrators to sentences of... living in poverty, with inadequate allocation that sadists threaten to withdraw every three months. Sorry, but this is what I got, so if ever it is up to me to judge, this is what is awaiting for you, guys.
() The fundamental motivations of consciousness, seen in chapter V-5, indicate that psychologically normal people will spontaneously engage in hedonistic activities, in research activities (science, exploration) or in expression (art, culture). But the fourth motivation indicates that, from love, they will also engage in support activities dedicated at others: agriculture, medicine, transport, construction, industry. In the persons are enough psychoeducated, these altruistic motivations are sufficiently strong to ensure the functioning of the society, according to the analyses of chapter VI-8 on the Absolute True Economy. Indeed, the four different motivations are always found more or less in each person, and therefore everyone can adapt his proportion of «useful» activity, compared to the hedonistic or expression activities, depending on the needs, the problems, or even simply according to the demand from other people around. Moreover psychoeducated people easily master simple neuroses such as egocentrism or laziness. This easily leads to an efficient society, functioning regularly, without problems or shortages. Such a society has no need for laws, money or contracts: everyone does what he likes, and enjoys what he needs. The only «price» to pay is a little bit of psychological training. Which in the end is much cheaper than all the dreary stuff and terrible injustices we have today.
However, non-psychoeducated people have to drag along neuroses such as laziness, egocentrism, dishonesty, discrimination, etc. A society which has to carry such people must therefore force them to contribute, and often it even needs to direct their work. There are many ways of doing this, such as compulsory work, controlled by a bureaucracy. But then there is a good chance that the so-called bureaucrats are not psychoeducated either, and therefore they will at once divert this system to their sole profit (as it happened with the nomenklatura in the Socient Union). In any case, the problems posed by social castes are such, that we specifically proposed the second foundation of ethics, in order to avoid the appearance of the said problems.
Faced with this problem, current capitalist societies have developed the notion of employment: a person is paid (and therefore can lodge, eat, etc.) only if he have a job. This is brutal, and in fact employment is only an evolution of slavery: one person does what another tells him to do, without any control on the result of this work. The only difference is that the salary and the employment contract replace the whip and the ownership. And in both cases, the result of the work does not belong to the society, but to the boss. If the latter is also neurotic, then he will use his profits to exploit society. This is what causes all the social and economic disorders of capitalism. Especially, the competition between egos automatically produces the famous social inequalities which plague this system.
Nor is there any technical or legal answer to this set of problems, and the forces of the good must implement the struggle methods seen in the subsection on formal morals and informal rules.
Let us still say that the working contract implies:
-That the worker performs the required task correctly (This, it is not the purpose of the Trade Unions!).
-That there is a guaranteed minimum wage.
-What the wages are equal between all (between men and women, between Blacks and Whites, between manual workers and intellectuals... and that would be good also, between employees and executives.)
-There are guarantees against dismissal or defection.
-There are safety guarantees for tiring or dangerous activities.
-What workplaces are pleasant to live, we eat well, etc.
-That the atmosphere between colleagues is correct, without psychodrama or stalking (This, it is not to the boss that we ask!).
-If the boss uses this work for his own egocentric purposes, then paid work is a priority target of taxes, especially solidarity taxes to finance social minima.
-The profits of for-profit companies are also targets for these taxes.
-On the other hand, the humanitarian groups, service, or implementing the methods of the True Transitional Economy must be exempted from taxes on work or profits (more or less, according to the degree of True Economy).
I do not discuss here the methods and organisations of the Transition True Economy (chapter VI-8), which can be extremely varied, from a simple evolution of capitalist enterprises (begun), to much more radical methods, such as those proposed by the Communists, by humanitarians, or by spiritual groups. Some methods, for example, remove wages, but retain other aspects of the employment contract, such as safety.
() The money system and the economy are discussed in chapter VI-8. Basically, money is useless in a psychoeducated society, where its disadvantages outweigh its benefits. However, in the absence of sufficient altruism, people's spending need to be moderated, hence the use of money in transition (this is also discussed in details in chapter VI-8). Most likely, the money will disappear only gradually, as more things become free, first the essential goods, then the hedonistic or expression goods. Luxurious goods will of course be the last to be costly, before disappearing themselves.
In transition, the money system responds to the priorities and the need for sharing production, by allocating a salary to all: everybody can then define his own priorities. Some will try to use the money in transition, since people are used to it anyway. To be fair, the second fundamental principle of ethics says that such a system must obviously give comparable sums to all (it is hard to justify that some would be «rich» and others «poor», I thought I saw that, but it is so barmy that it must be an hallucination). Resources must be comparable regardless of our situation. However, since health needs are very different, highly variable and unpredictable, they must be free for all.
In practice, the third foundation of ethics modulates the second: We can allocate more free resources to certain people, in different situations: handicap, children, or if they need it to perform an activity of general interest: production, teaching, art...
In theory the food should be free too, because in any case everyone will eat about the same amount. To make pay is then a useless complication, pure sadistic stalking: to make people live in the terror of one day missing the essential. However, rather than providing free housing or free food (we imagines in some sort of «barracks for poor» with a bad smell of greasy food), the current trend is rather, for social minimas, to allocate minimum sums, which each can then use according to his priorities. (For instance organic food, or country living).
Finally, the monetary system is in a way the property of all: the amount of money in circulation must be known and controlled by a central body, in order to avoid inflation or strangulation of the economy (which the current «central banks» are not doing, instead benefit the rich from money creation, and haze the poorest with their sadomasochist austerity policies, chapter VI-8). This body must also ensure that the exchange rates between the different currencies are constant, in order to avoid any speculation. In fact, we do not need several currencies: a single currency makes it much easier to be sure than the «cost of living» and social minima are the same everywhere. My advice would be to do this now, before it is the Renminbi which becomes the single currency.
() Social peace is usually understood as the absence of disturbances or violence, whether they are villainous (gangsterism, aggression, rape ...) or political (contestation, revendication...). This view is cartoonish, and often hypocritical: we just cut everything which makes noise or hinders the powers in place, without trying to find out what is causing the problems. It does not matter who suffers, as long as he does it in silence. This has nothing to do with social peace: it is muzzling. Sometimes interrupted by violent or fascist outbursts, but illusory revolutionaries often show themselves to be even better muzzlers.
Transition ethic recognizes that there may be individuals who do not respect ethics, and therefore behave in a way which is harmful to others. In today's world, caring for these individuals is the responsibility of the police, educators, psychiatry or the judiciary, depending on the case. This will be seen in the next subsection on the treatment of litigants and complainants.
But before that, I give a more objective definition of social peace:
Social peace is the right, AND the practical possibility, for an individual or a group to live in peace, free from all forms of violence, injustice or aggression. I add: safe from any form of war, dictatorship, oppression, economic injustice, noise, ideological normalization, stalking, hazing, humiliation, segregation, etc. (non-exhaustive list)
This has an immediate practical consequence: when the «law enforcement» run after a bandit, a crook, an insane person, a fascist, etc. this is good. But when the same run after workers claiming their rights, or after defenders of nature, etc. then they are no longer the «law enforcement», but offenders in their turn, violent, aggressors, forces of entropy, servants of the nothing. And even, I have seen it many times, simple sadists with license to have fun as they wish.
So we understand that social peace begins by avoiding situations where people need to claim or defend rights. This requires the dismissal of all the corrupted politicians, industrialists, bankers, judges, etc. who create economic injustices (misery, unfair dismissals, austerity, etc.) or social problems (discrimination, fascism, social classes) or who destroy nature.
When these dysfunctions of society are organized, we call this «the system». We will see the magnitude of this problem in Chapter VI-13. More localized dysfunctions could be called social viruses© because, like a biological virus, they divert the DNA of society for their own parasitic purposes.
The news (December 2017) provides me with two typical cases: Cyntoia Brown, kidnapped at 16 by a pimp, was sentenced to life imprisonment for killing one of her rapists (in pure self-defence, therefore). This serious malfeasance, far from being unique, illustrates the social virus© of the collusion of some sexist judges with rapists or slavery of women (many examples). But there is much worse, when we touch the health of millions of people: a polluting industrialist who provides notoriously dubious studies to corrupt politicians (scandal of the glyphosate accepted by the European Union).
The guilty of social viruses or «system» divert their function of public utility, they manipulate the very DNA of the law, science and democracy, in order to serve sexist or egocentric interests to the detriment of public tranquillity. Social systems and viruses© of this type are today the main factors of disorder, anger and violence in the world.
By putting themselves at the service of «systems» or social viruses, police and justice pervert their role of maintaining social peace: they in turn become delinquents, aggressors, subversives, terrorists, troublemakers, creators of disorders, injustices, and even of diseases and death. To receive such adulterated command is for the police a legitimate case of conscientious objection, and to still obey may even engage their responsibility.
Society as a whole reacts to this perversion by creating other protections: militant associations, whistle blowers, petitioners, civil disobedience, etc. They are then the true law enforcement.
They must be protected, even if they commit certain illegal acts (proportionate to their goals, it is a form of self-defence). One protection is to denounce all the fanciful accusations (subversion, «communist plot», etc.) which sole purpose is for the dishonest managers to escape their responsibility. (Real «communist plots» also exist, as amplifying disinformation intended to discredit whose who defend society and justify the classic repression. I have seen many cases, and in 2017 we have the «antifa» in the United States, which help the white terrorism).
The appearance of defence association is the sign that we are in an abnormal society. In a normal society, people are busy living their lives in their neighbourhood, without involving in social struggles or reforms, which they do not need. Such a society is truly at peace, without the need to muzzle anyone.
() In a psychoeducated society, there is normally no dishonesty. But as soon as there are people with neuroses of egocentrism, laziness, discrimination (racism, sexism), or even dishonesty (gangsters, political manipulators or crook bosses), we need to react to their bad actions: is the role of justice. Well, a complete analysis of justice would be too long and complicated, so I just give general guidelines:
-Judicial decisions must be entrusted to the most psychoeducated people.
-The accusations must be based on scientific evidence.
-The so-called scientific proofs must be really based on science, and not on scientistist (note 92) beliefs. This is not always the case, and we still see «psychological analyses» based on pseudoscience such as behaviourism, rorschach, polygraph, psychoanalysis. Or the idiotic worship of science is such that some rely on companies providing evidence invented from scratch (false drug tests, false DNA tests, 2017).
The rorschach «test» pseudoscientific character can be easily demonstrated, from known classical neurology: the forms that we see in ink blots are automatic neural responses from the visual cortex, when it seeks to identify shapes where there are not (pareidolia). But the problems that the rorschach is supposed to detect occur in other parts of the brain, where they do not influence the visual cortex. Moreover, the interpretations are based on psychoanalytic theories which were never demonstrated. At last, scientists are quasi unanimous to say that no study ever did any practical prediction done with the test.
It is easy to cheat the rorschach «test» (I think that, to be objective, maybe try the test yourself before reading this paragraph, here on wikipedia. of course don't look at the replies before). Once this known, a cheater just needs to answer anything, but quickly enough, and always positive: it will be interpreted as your mastery of the subject. Of course seeing sexual organs will always be «plead guilty» (especially buttocks, supposed to «demonstrate» your homosexuality). The card III is also supposed to demonstrate your homosexuality, if you see two persons of the opposite gender! The IV card shows a kind of sociopath rigged with a huge penis. But if you say that (or any hesitation or negative answer), this will be interpreted as a problem with the «figure of the father» and thus as a proof that you reject the authority of the government! Well I know it is barmy, but this is what wikipedia says. At last, the resulting «personality evaluations» look true... from Barnum effect, just as with astrology. For all these reasons, it is a fault to use the rorschach test in court proceedings, or to establish our rights. In medicine, it is quackery.
The polygraph is also easy to rig, but only in the «guilty» way. For example, if you are asked, «Did you had sex with your eight years old daughter», any father will have a strong emotional reaction... which will, of course, be interpreted as an admission of guilt. Therefore, the use of the polygraph, in addition to being a quackery, is a form of falsification, blackmail or emotional torture, invalidating any «confession» obtained in this way.
-Inquiries must be entrusted to normal people, including «social inquiries».
Sorry, but I have been targeted by several social inquiries, carried out without methodology by childish persons, and they all contain grossly erroneous conclusions (arbitrarily holding statements of one party as «the truth» and the other party as «manipulation», or to say that my apartment was «poorly maintained» when I just took it as it was)
-Judicial decisions must be made after careful consideration of the evidence, in a debate between the defence and the prosecution... while clearly stating that «debate» includes the right to any party to reply do wrong statements, not just hearing them.
-Justice must intervene within a reasonable time, from a few days to a few weeks. To see guilty people free for years is an insult to the victims. These staggering delays are also an unfair torture for the innocent accused, who must live for years in the uncertainty of their future. Even a real culprit may have mended years later: punishing him then becomes an injustice, and can even make him relapse. I actually knew someone in this case, who had found an ideal. But he still had a prison sentence to serve... he came back broken.
- Confessions cannot be obtained under torture or blackmail (lesser penalties if «guilt plead» or Alford plea, which only function seems to save the face of justice when it cannot really prove the guilt of somebody)
-The sentences can not be irreversible (death, mutilation, castration, chemical treatments, brain changes, marking...) in order to be able to correct a misjudgement.
-The purposes of penalties is essentially to cause the mending of the person.
-Therefore, the sentences do not include social humiliation (No visible bracelet or «electronic pillory»)
-The sentences do not include deleterious conditions for physical or psychological health.
-The penalties may consist of work, for example reparation to the victims.
- It is totally counterproductive to put new offenders in the company of hardened offenders: this is how they constitute a «fraternity».
-On the contrary, the sentences can be social psychoeducational experiences, much more effective than prison to bring about an mending and a positive transformation of the person.
-Dangerous people can be deprived of freedom from this simple reason,, in order to protect the society. However this is not in itself a punishment: people in this case must be guaranteed a life as normal as possible under these conditions.
-It is «good tone» today to consider penalties of physical pain as «inhuman» and prison as «acceptable». This is however a total hypocrisy, when we know that the torture of prison (loneliness, boredom, ugliness of the place, years of lost life, uncertainty, broken families...) can be much worse, and especially much longer, as tell the number of suicides in prison. Responsible for this lies: pseudoscientific ideologies such as behaviourism (originally developed to justify atheism and vivisection, chapter II-7). Indeed, according to this pseudoscience, we would have no specific motives, we would only react to «stimulations». In prison, in the absence of stimulation, we would not suffer... and suicides would be a «psychological disorder» which must be «treated». Typical sophistry of fundamentalist materialist nutters, and their crazy denial of consciousness. Well, I do not promote penalties of physical pain, because they can give neurological sequelae. The solution, if people are imprisoned, would instead be that they have mandatory activities, of some interest, such as studies, or psychoeducational social interactions. In this case the jail penalty would effectively be reduced to the only deprivation of liberty.
-The «boot camps» have been proposed as a method of rehabilitation of adolescents. Removing recoverable offenders from the deleterious influence of their environment is a good idea. However, the purpose of military training is not to remotivate people in life. Hence logically a high rate of failure of these practices. Add to this the brutalities or sadistic humiliations, which reflect the true fascist motivations of whose who propose such methods. Nature camps, humanitarian aid or educational adventures produce much better results, especially if they are aimed at psychoeducation.
-The only way to actually recover a delinquent or a fascist is to give him a positive motivation in life. But this cannot happen between four walls or in the hands of sadists.
-The sadists or sociopaths must be formally excluded from any activity of justice, investigation, social support, social investigation, and especially of the guarding of prisons (or any other punishment).
-An especially worrying case, unsolved to date, is the case of a mother with young children: imprisoning her amounts to imprisoning the children too, although they are totally innocent. Yet there is a simple solution: small units in the city, where these mothers would serve their time, but from where the children could go out and have a normal social life. For them, «Mom stays at home».
-Juges and investigators must be able to pay for their faults (not the taxpayers).
-If a corporation commits a fault, then the responsibility lies on the real persons who made the decision.
-A robot is a machine. If it commits a fault, the responsibility lies on the manufacturer, the owner or the driver, according to the classic laws on machines. There is no need for new laws. At most robots will need to know the existing laws, if they need them to determine their behaviour.
() Our objective bases of ethics thus lead to a simple ethical system offering solutions to the variety of situations of life. Such a system eliminates fundamental disputes, leaving only those that could result from differences in appreciation of situations. Well, in practice, only psychoeducated people (chapter V-12) can totally avoid arguing. Non-psychoeducated people still require laws and police. This is the mandatory consequence of their choice to stay non-psychoeducated, and throwing Molotov cocktails at the cops will not solve this problem.
Moreover, this ethics is simple, so that everybody can find the solution to any problem, without the need for thick law books or complicated casuistic.
We had no need to add dogmas or articles of faith (just concepts as tools). This then leads to a univocal system, valid everywhere and in every time.
() Psychologically normal people, with a minimum of empathy, altruism and analytical mind, are able to consider the consequences of their actions, and therefore they do not really need to be reminded of morality. But people who do not have these abilities try to escape morality, either driven by their neurosis, or deliberately. For this reason, for thousands of years societies have established systems of formal rules of morality. These rules are given different names, but they all come from this same need: religious morality, secular morality, customs, customary law, modern law, rules of life, regulations, TOS, etc.
It also resulted of this all the contracts, statutes, money, property, etc. which are defined according to such rule systems.
Normally, these formal rules are designed to be applicable by everyone, without errors or interpretations. But the problem which corrupted virtually all these systems of formal rules is that the right spiritual intuition which started them is transformed into a system of intellectual rules, decoupled from this spiritual intuition. This almost always leads to play against this starting point. There are two reasons for this:
-The non-Aristotelian character of ethics, which often leads to an error of type of logic (chapter I-7), especially with people without the appropriate training. This often leads to wide gaps between the non-Aristotelian view and its reduction in Aristotelian rules (reduction in concepts, chapter I-9). Moreover, there can be an infinite number of such reductions: according to the reduction they make, or according to their personal concepts, two persons claiming to follow the same ethical rule will arrive at different or even contradictory interpretations or behaviours. This is why non-Aristotelian logic must be taught at school.
-The loss of basic intuition. When the people in charge of writing, teaching or applying the moral system do not have access to the original spiritual intuition, or even they don't have the human emotional sensitivity (compassion, empathy), then they can no longer discern which rule should be applied. These people almost always arrive at conclusions or behaviours which contradict the View. In the extreme case, people with egocentric neurosis (capitalism, privileges...) or hateful people (racism, sexism, nationalism ...), neuropaths, even sociopaths, often seize a moral system, to distort it deliberately, to the point of using it as a restrain for their activities of hazing, discrimination, dictatorship, «social norms», «rule of law», etc. And in a society in majority neurotic, people submit to them, instead of rejecting their subversive commands!
The reduction of a non-Aristotelian view into several Aristotelian conceptual systems, is the sole cause of the division of religions and political systems into different antagonistic currents. On the contrary, even simple meditation skills automatically lead to reconciliation, to ecumenism, to working together.
The reduction of a non-Aristotelian view into several Aristotelian conceptual systems is also a common cause of everyday injustices. For example, a notion such as «the interest of the child» is often intellectualized in such a way, in court, to justify conclusions which openly contradict this same interest (even when the judge is not deliberately harming this child). An example of common manipulation is for example a sexist judge saying that «the woman is more apt to take care of children», to avoid an investigation showing that the man would be more fit. My children were victims of this wrongdoing.
But the most striking example is the ownership of a house. Everyone needs a place to live, hence the ability of everyone to enjoy a home, which was intellectualised as the concept of property. However this very concept of property is also used against this fundamental right: when the owner is not the inhabitant, he can then chase the latter out. Thus the rule, which is supposed to protect us, is transformed into an instrument of serious injustice.
Dilemmas. This system of morality that we presented does not produce dilemmas either. Provided, however, to understand the non-dual between basic moral values. It takes a dose of meditation or at least of fuzzy logic. Indeed, wanting to analyse situations in detail with Aristotelian logic alone inevitably produces the entropy of the law: an exponential complexification which makes the system easy to take over by cheaters, or impossible to understand. On the contrary, to apply a transcendent logic (chapter I-9) produced by eutropia© (defined in chapter 5-7): the system simplifies itself, leaving in the end only the fundamental bases of consciousness, without any more need for rules of any kind.
Well, we must master these ways of reasoning, otherwise in the 21st century we quickly become backward, bumpkin, dododotard.
1) Mastery of meditation and non-Aristotelian logic
2) Absence of neuroses and ideologies
3) Normal empathy
4) Absence of sociopathic disorders
This is of course true for anyone commenting on my work (otherwise you will be thrown away like old panties). But religious, educators, nurses, social workers, politicians, some officials, police, magistrates, will have to provide certificates of professional aptitude demonstrating these abilities.
Moreover, these people will have to be able to discern when the formal rule is in contradiction with the Non-Aristotelian View, and, in case of divergence, to have the opportunity to act against the formal rule, in order to abide to the View. For this, they must not only have the psychological capacity (as seen above) but also the right to do so.
If we go deeper, then laws, regulations, statutes, etc. will have to refer directly to the non-Aristotelian and spiritual view of morality, and use Aristotelian rules only as tools. This is true for writing rules and laws as to applying them as well.
Well, we are not quite there. So we should consider waking up, because by the fault of these specific deficiencies, there are tens of thousands of innocent people in prison each year, hundreds of thousands of children deprived of their loving parent, millions of people without resources or housing, billions of animals killed, etc. Therefore any delay or «criticism» is criminal.
Ideas, texts, drawings and realization: Richard Trigaux (Unless indicated otherwise).
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.