When you kill someone for personal gain you may experience negative consequences (remorse, guilt). Same thing for stealing, hoarding, selfish behavior - all axioms of survival in nature suddenly with negative consequences. How would evolution permit or foster the develop of such negative responses to behavior which would otherwise seem to support individual survival so well? The reason is clearly to deter survival behavior - even though the alternative behavior actually fosters survival at a more proficient rate.

In addition, why would evolution create negative consequences to survival behavior while simultaneously creating conditions contrary to survival (like compassion, and love)?

“Phil Roberts, Jr.” had this question at the Objectivism Google Group:

Given that we are the product of 4.1 billion years of incessant honing to make us efficient survival vehicles, WHY ISN’T SELF-ESTEEM AUTOMATIC AND UNQUESTIONED?

Good question. Very good question.

I will just briefly explain my ideas concerning self-worth. Under my understanding, the existence of survival programming (built in and operating on a sub-conscious level) and the ability to turn that programming off (on a conscious level) creates internal conflict. You are already aware of many examples of this conflict represented in a symbolic fashion. Essentially the symbolism of intertwined inseparable forces acting upon one another. The Ying Yang symbol, Jesus hanging (split in two) on the cross (which actually pre-dates Catholicism), the right and left hand in Catholicism, the two pillars in Masonic lore, the star of David in Judaism - all a representations of this interconnected conflict.

The by-product of choosing the self over the selfless can result in an emotional response we like to call guilt or remorse. The ultimate result being unhappiness. However, not all of us exhibit an ability to experience these emotions. You as a human can chose to operate on either side of this conflict (via free will). It is only when you operate at or near the middle that you will be able to experience guilt and remorse. If, however, you act on the self side exclusively you can actually eliminate this guilt and remorse (i.e sociopaths and serial killers). I might add, briefly, there is a distinct difference between habitual behavior with resultant remorse and habitual behavior without remorse. The first having a distinct biological basis (imprinting via the repeated satisfaction of a biological need) and the second the result of repeated behavior (behavioral imprinting via a continued behavioral choice until that choice is actually eliminated). Satiation of biological needs (hunger, sex, etc.), therefore, also result in a form of temporary happiness.

Therefore, when you define happiness you must pay particular attention to the difference between biological satiation, behavioral satiation and happiness. On the one hand a satiation of biological or behavioral instinctual programming brings a happiness that is specifically based upon satisfaction. But true happiness (the elimination of remorse and guilt) comes from relinquishing your self for the benefit of others. Therefore, the value you place on yourself is directly related to (1) your state of moral being (that is to say are you operating at some middle point or have you decided to be just an animal) and (2) your propensity and density in choosing either the relinquishment of self or the exclusivity of self. Like a scale you tip yourself in to either side by the choices you make. You can foray in to either side to gain a sense of happiness. But lasting happiness can only come from the elimination of one or the other. If you remain strictly in the animal, ultimate happiness is defined as satiation. If you remain in the middle, happiness is defined by choices which deny self. In either case guilt and remorse are eliminated. In my opinion an elimination in the animal is possible (behavior without guilt or remorse) but not in the relinquishment of self. This is where the concept of the middle way originated - simply a need to find a place where guilt and remorse could be eliminated without totally relinquishing self (an impossibility for most).

Self esteem or self worth is accordingly a barometer of the dominance of either of these things or the conflict created by the existence of both. For example, you can have an enormous self worth if you choose to ignore morality and accomplish your material goals exclusively (even at all costs), and succeed - because you have eliminated the conflict.

In short, the value you place on yourself can be directly related to either of these two forces or both of them in their conflicting state. Self-worth is not therefore the result of evolution. But rather, it is this conflict and our consciousness (as a realization of the conflict and an ability to rationally think about our actions and our behavior in the context of our environment and others) which created the dynamic.

It’s impossible for a lot of intelligent people to believe in the biblical god. In fact the word “god” has so many definitions and so many connotations that simply saying god or writing about god makes people get defensive (one way or the other). It’s no coincidence that a lot of educated and intelligent people can’t accept a god who inflicts judgment and pain on people, or reconcile a benevolent god who could create a world filled with suffering and pain. Most rational people can not (on faith alone) take a leap in to the belief that god talked to a few people a few thousand years ago and then took off.

Personally, it’s not possible for me to take a book written thousands of years ago on personal first hand accounts of god sightings without some minuscule amount of proof without questioning and examining the book itself. I’ve done that and I find it ripe with worthwhile information for guiding people’s behavior. Since it’s currently being used as a tool of submission and not revelation, I would prefer to develop my own ethical system of behavior based upon all available sources of information. Time consuming but also (I hope) worthwhile. Nevertheless, I wonder, if I could create my own god with rational thought and logical conclusions that’s in line with the biblical god without the bible? I think I can! At least I’ll make an effort.

The first step in trying you to look outside the box will necessarily be the elimination of the word “god” itself. For the word god is a subway car spewed with vile and contradictory graffiti. It’s like a beat up word that’s been hospitalized and released and now there ain’t no way to undo the scars. What we need is a new word. A fresh word. Maybe two words? Or maybe just a letter? Yes! I’d like to call my god M!

Physicists believe that there is some point where matter is no longer divisible. They believe this for two reasons (1) division to infinity is incomprehensible and (2) a totally divisible item will ultimately divide in to nothing. So there is a scientific belief that exists (and it is not the only belief but the one I will use here) which states (follow me now) that underlying all matter and every material thing in the universe is some thing that is incomprehensible and nevertheless a part of everything. I’ll call this M! Yes M is the substance of everything! The god (or the M) of quantum physics. This actually might fit nicely in to the understanding of the everything is god  biblical concept. This of course does not automatically make M intelligent - but I think we’ve taken a first big step toward something everyone can believe in!. And we did it logically and rationally. I love you M!

Tags: god, infinity, quantum physics

I recently joined up at www.objectivistliving.com under the name AmsoKnows. I posted a number of my blog articles concerning my contrary beliefs, and was quickly permanently censored and relegated to the “Garbage Pile”. I read the Terms of Use thinking maybe I did something terribly wrong. Other than not providing my real name (which is a silly request since John Smith or Carl Rove would all be acceptable and undetectable alias names) I didn’t see any reason I was in a “Garbage Pile”. Than I realized that my contrary views might not be an acceptable use of this forum. So I diligently rechecked the Terms of Use. No, nothing there that says I need to be a following zombie to participate. So I am at a loss.

I honestly went there to explore Objectivism from my point of view and politely debate some of Ms. Rand’s beliefs. Apparently the forum is not really all about “people who are mainly interested in discussing Objectivism from all aspects” but rather about being on board.

I sent the owner Michael Stuart Kelly a message four days ago and was ignored. Maybe he’s busy? Maybe there’s an Objectivist holiday that I am unaware of? Rational Intolerance Day? Who knows - it’s his forum and the Kings always get the final say. I was accordingly inspired to examine Mr. Kelly’s hero Ayn Rand all by myself. Why not? Here’s what I think:

ON AYN RAND’S FOUNDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Nothing on this material earth is infinite. From a scientific point of view human life, our environment, and the earth itself are all subject to a final end. Not necessarily in the destruction of the universe, or even the underlying matter itself, but most likely by way of a reorganization or our universe, our solar system, our sun, or our planet. Any such reorganization could effectively eliminate the conditions which could support any life at all.

Among the scientific community it is undisputed that the purpose of biological life is reproduction toward procreation. That survival is a primary function of not only the living organism on our planet but in a sense the interconnected environment which permits life to exist and further procreate. While the system exists and life continues there is a value to a life. Which is simply to say that a life can create another life and further the functionality and existence of the entirety of human life itself. Nevertheless, in our environment this value only exists as long as the system itself continues. Other than a continuation of life and a continuation of genetic material human life itself has no other infinite valuable component. Pleasure, pain, emotion (and even condition) are all components which exist only within the environment and which therefore exhibit an identical transient nature.

Human life could only have infinite value if somehow we humans could transcend our current  environment and our eventual death. Or, within this environment, if man could evolve physically such that his death would no longer be inevitable. Any such evolution would require either evolution and a stagnant environment or evolution which evolved with the changing environment itself. While it’s possible to believe that physical evolution could create some transcendent physical being or an infinite biological life, we can probably agree that neither of these events are either likely or potentially even possible given our current knowledge. Especially given the changeability of of environment.

The grander picture, therefore, of what is valuable, can only be examined in the context of (not our environment or our reality) but in the context of the totality of our circumstance. To say that things have “value” for living creatures in an environment with a potential or certain end is to simply say that they have value now, and only now. Or that they have value so long as the chain of procreation and the continuation of life can be maintained. What’s more, within our environment itself value is similarly transient to life. Certainly an apple pie may be valuable to a living creature, but if that living creature dies, than the value automatically ceases to exist. We can accordingly say that on a macro level value is dependent on the continuation and procreation of life and the sustenance of the encompassing environment which supports life. Similarly, on a micro level we can say that the value of any object only exists while that object exists and/or while the life that values it exists. Under either of these paths value is illusionary.  The apple pie only has value until it’s eaten or until the life that values it dies or until the system which supports life no longer exists. “Value “ is therefore relative to both the existence of the object and to actually being alive. If this is the case for any life that will die there is nor real infinite value to anything. The value of everything material is accordingly transient. Seeing that all of existence and all of life has no real infinite value is essential to moving from a focus on material items and material existence and self-survival to something else that could actually have potential infinite value.

We can endlessly debate about whether there is or is not some non-biological component of you which can or will transcend your human life. But for the moment let’s simply define “spirit” or “soul” within you as all those things which encompass your consciousness. These would include your personality, your thought patterns, your feelings, you wants and desires, and your values. The things which ultimately influence your behavior. Given this definition, we can clearly see that those things which are the substance of your soul are changeable. And in fact they inevitably change over time. Consequently, what you value also changes over time. When you are a child a big red ball may have tremendous value that changes as (and when) you become and adult. In fact as an adult the same previously enormously valuable big red ball may have no value at all. Therefore, values are also dependent on your soul (as defined above). If your soul changes, so too will your values. In addition, values can change via circumstance. If I just ate a large meal and am fully satiated, the value of a big fat steak is severely diminished - and potentially eliminated. This changeability further exhibits that values are essentially illusionary. Specifically in the first instance they are finite and in the second instance they are subject to changing internal and external conditions.

In examining the philosophy of Ayn Rand, we must accordingly look first to the relative importance she places on the “value” of things in relation to behavior. If we recognize that the value of all things is both subjective and illusionary, than we must immediately question how this foundation should be the basis for how we ultimately behave? Or more importantly how we ultimately behave in a  moral fashion?  To focus singularly on the value of an object in relation to self is to act upon things which are illusionary. Yet Rand states that the achievement of one’s own happiness (based upon the values we place on objects) is the highest moral purpose. She specifically defines happiness to mean “that state of unconsciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values.”

According to Rand we can define rational thought as an ability to make a choice and act accordingly based upon our values (as opposed to actions which are taken without a thought process). However, this definition specifically contradicts her concurrent (but seemingly unbeknownst to her) idea that rational thought is as an ability to think about actions and avoid our instinctual programming (that is common in all animals). In my opinion, the only thing that separates us from animals is in fact an ability to rationally think about our potential behavior outside the confines of our otherwise instinctual behavioral programs. This ability lets us assign purely instinctual wants and desires in to categories of “good” and “bad”; of moral and immoral. Moral behavior is therefore not based upon the “value” or potential value that we assign to an object. It is instead based upon the distinction between (I) obtaining that object we value instinctually (without rational thought - often by any and all means) or (II) obtaining that object we value by adding rational thought to our decisions (which includes an examination of the consequences of obtaining that object) and or (III) the conscious forfeiture of that object we value (that we want and desire) as a result of a rational conclusion that obtaining the object would either (i) injure or harm another human being or even another life or (ii) actually help or further another human being or even another life.

Rand was specifically aware that acts which arose without rational thought were purely instinctual when she called such an origin “that embalming fluid of the mind which is an emotion exempted from thought”. She understood that these instinctual programs were the “secret underworld, whose verdict distorts the evidence”. She also realized that avoiding these programs was not “automatic” and that people who operated without reason (animals alone) could themselves not be reasoned with when she said: “Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.”. Evidence that she intuitively understood that people acting on instinctual programs alone did not use rational thought prior to behavior. And that these animals could not consequently be reasoned with themselves. Despite this understanding, she fails to recognize that man’s irrationality is not “the rejection of man’s means of survival” but rather an inability (or conscious omission) to rationally think about that survival (and wants, needs and desires) in terms of it’s consequence to the survival of other human beings (and to act accordingly). In other words, a rational human being is not acting on his values alone, but rather on his values in relation to the values and conditions of others. This examination includes an understanding that there is a difference between the value we place on an object and our actual needs and understanding that the value we place on any object is temporal. Consequently, while some of her premises are correct, her ultimate conclusions are invalid and clearly contradict some of her own foundational beliefs. Any philosophy which shifts the focus from avoiding wants and desires and self to a focus on individual wants and desires and self is actually supporting the opposite of  rational thought. This is exemplified by the fact that many actions which would further our own values or survival we intuitively deem to be immoral. These include killing, stealing, etc.

While Rand reaches the proper conclusions regarding what drives our behavior (either emotional (i.e. instinctual) influences or rational (conscious) influences, she nevertheless ultimately erroneously concludes that rationality is the basis for (not a relinquishment of our survival instincts) but rather a means of achieving one’s own individual survival. Rational thought, in fact, should be the basis for actions which are contrary to one’s survival but which either support humanity as a whole or which support other individual humans. In short. Ayn Rand was at the cliff of understanding and then suddenly jumped off.

Tags: amos, amos knows, Ayn Rand, instincts, instinctual behavior, moral, moral behavior, MORALITY, morals, Objectivism, rational thought, www.objectivistliving.com

Moral perfection is the total relinquishment of your survival instincts. It is the relinquishment of self. People who sacrifice their lives for others have therefore engaged in moral perfection. In other words, a conscious decision to totally relinquish self or your survival instincts which resulted in your death would be an “absolute” of this principle. This is exemplified by Jesus’ willingness to die for others. Or the story I read recently about a Marine who threw himself on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers.

In any action you engage in there is an opposite reaction. Your survival behavior will always have direct negative consequences on the ability of other people to survive. Even eating an apple can negatively impact the survival of other humans. Of course, no one can actually achieve this “absolute” of moral perfection and survive. Leaving us with a dilemma regarding what is expected of us as moral beings. To address this enigma. Buddha put forth the “middle way”.

The “middle way” involves avoiding self-indulgence and achieving a balance between survival and morality. There are also varying degrees of sacrifice between the “middle way” and the absolute way - for example Mother Teresa’s attempts to dedicate her life to others would push her balance toward the absolute. While most of us will be unable to achieve such a degree of morality, as a moral individual you should strive to push yourself to the absolute by eliminating self toward the unattainable goal of moral perfection.

In any attempt to guide yourself toward moral perfection you must therefore eliminate your own personal needs, wants and desires and begin to minimally think about how your actions are affecting other human beings. Most people operate in, or are tipped toward, their survival programming - allowing it to dominate their actions. When they behave what they are thinking about is themselves and not others. Certainly most of us could intentionally never lay down our lives for someone else. But what’s equally troubling about the state of humanity is that many of us will not even sacrifice excess wealth to help other people. Most who have much more than they need justify their status on the basis of “hard work”, a value system which is strongly rooted in the material world. We humans can also rationalize having ten apples and only sharing one - it’s actually a way in which most people suppress any feeling of remorse or guilt they might have. So not only are people behaving like animals, they are able to side step their moral component by rationalizing their behaviors.

Amos was a farmer and a prophet who lived within the confines of Israel and Judah from 793 BC to 753 BC - at a time when both Israel and Judah were wildly prosperous. But also at a time when the people of Israel and Judah had reached a low point in their devotion to God. The people had become greedy and had stopped following and adhering to human values. The wealthy elite become rich at the expense of the poor. Peasant farmers who once practiced subsistence farming were being forced to farm what was profitable as foreign trade. This period of time mirrors ours, and probably mirrors many periods that have come before.

God speaks to Amos and tells him that the judgment day for Israel and Judah is coming due to the decadency of it’s people and that this punishment will be inflicted by a foreign nation.

One of the central themes of the teaching of Amos is that social injustice and and a general lack of concern for the disadvantaged is ultimately punishable at God’s hand. And that punishment need not be a direct blow, but as a result of the actions of the people so effected and/or from outside sources as a result of it’s influence on other nations.

As a race of beings, it’s imperative that we begin individual self examinations. An examination of what is causing and guiding our behaviors. Only in this way can one become enlightened to the causes and control of one’s own behavior. An understanding of what is causing you to behave the way you do is essential to being able to chose the “middle way”. A focus on societal change, policy change, the change in our economic system, or our criminal justice system, will never lead to a global improvement in the human condition. Mainly because the substantive parts of our society and our civilization will remain grounded in animal survival instincts.

Think of yourself for a moment as simply a computer. For those of you familiar with a 2001: A Space Odyssey your name is Hal. You were programmed to survive. All of you actions were originally created to give you a means (without conscious thought) of surviving. You acted entirely via instincts. that is external stimuli and internal needs drove your behavior. There was no thought involved. And you were (at a certain time) simply an animal. You killed without remorse, you hoarded wealth without remorse, you stole without remorse. All of your actions were geared simply toward survival. This is the symbolic Garden of Eden in which men and women were in bliss. The kind of bliss that comes with not being aware that their actions (their behavior) could be “wrong” At some point, however, we evolved. We became more intelligent. The snake in the garden of Eden is a symbol for wisdom - and when we evolved a sufficient wisdom as humans we suddenly became self-aware. We could ascertain that we could replace sharing with stealing; we could replace self-interest with compassion; we could replace violence with peace. In a computer we would call this new self awareness artificial intelligence. But in humans we simply call this awareness consciousness.

The problem with this new consciousness is that the programming that was running all this time, the programming which permitted us to survive instinctively, has not been turned off -it’s still running. It’s running it the background. It still influences our behavior. And it does so silently. It rears it’s head in the form of greed and anger and violence and vanity and selfishness. It controls behavior in many people and they have no idea that it’s even influencing their behavior. What’s more, as humans not all of our programming is the same. There are for example dominant and submissive programs which will develop and influence behaviors according to external stimuli. There are degrees of programming at every level. And all of our programming can be influenced by external conditions such that it will develop in different individuals differently. As it is among animals, our programming develops based upon our environment. Some aspects can be strengthened through continual external stimuli. Some can even be made in to habitual behavior as a result of continual stimuli. Adding to the complexity of human behavior we have the additional component of what I like to call the varying degrees of morality. While this new consciousness permitted us to understand the difference between self-interest and selflessness, between a total lack of compassion and a sense of compassion, between hoarding toward survival and sharing toward survival, the ability to develop a true sense of right from wrong is also available to varying degrees and also developed as a result of external stimuli. That is exposure (for example) to compassion creates a greater sense and urgency of behaving compassionately.

Through out the known history of man, these competing forces upon behavior have been known and they have been expressly symbolized in various ways. It is the classic battle between dark and light and between good and evil. The greatest understanding is found in those symbols in which there is shown physically a  weaving of your programming and your moral component. Some examples include the Ying Yang Symbol (as dark and light interwoven), a man hanging (split) by a cross , the Star of David (as two inter-connected triangles of competing degrees. Understanding this duality has been available to many men and yet it often eludes humanity. There are many reasons for this variance and most often depreciation of this understanding. Central to them all is the observance and dedication of our behavior to the programming part itself. Of creating dynamics which are essentially made to satiate internal survival programming. For our need to belong to a pack or a group. Religions, fanaticism, core beliefs in the strongest god or the greatest gods are a by-product of a pre-programmed needs to belong to the strongest pack. Similarly following is a product of dominant and submissive programming. It’s difficult for many people to understand (no less admit) that the reason they belong to any group is not a choice but rather due to an uncontrollable internal need Yet to understand your true inner workings and to be able to distinguish between your programming and your moral abilities is to be enlightened.

Tags: Adam, Enlightenment, Eve, Garden of Eden, god

Ah, that thing called humanity is in trouble once again. Of course this trouble is not specific to our humanity or our civilization. This time it appears to be global, which may or may not have occurred before. But this trouble on the new and improved global-macro-scale is certainly nothing that the micro civilizations of the past failed to experience first hand. In fact, this trouble has found it’s way toward countless past civilizations, eating and eroding them away until ruins are some time later discovered. Often leaving the discoverers to wonder and ponder just what happened. But there is actually really nothing to ponder after all. There is nothing to discover in those ruins because the solution to causation is not a complicated equation at all. In fact it’s very simple. What causes civilizations to collapse, and what is causing our global civilization to erode away, is simply animal behavior. In every instance animal behavior happened - repeatedly. In every instance animal behavior took control of the power structures and like a gun slinging cowboy rode society in to the ground. The ever present propensity of men to behave like animals creates the very societal destruction that these “animals in control” are so apt to avoid on a personal level. Confucius was well aware of this fact. Jesus was well aware of this fact. Many who have strived to live an anti-animal existence can identify the root causes of the collapse of any civilization. It’s the animals that can not recognize it even as they perpetually turn the screws to their own demise. We are seeing this now as the animals in power continue to behave simply like animals. Many mask their animal behavior with a dress suit and nice tie and kind words of hope and desired help. But in reality these things are really deceptive cloaks of destruction. For civilized behavior is apparent not from the appearance nor the words of men and women, but from their actions; and from the results of these actions.

There is accordingly no lesson to be learned from the system that these animals operate within. Dictatorships, republics, democracies, monarchies, they all equally (and not coincidentally) find and claw their way to destruction. We could get historical and cite countless examples, but I have decided to make this a philosophical examination of the problem. When we fail to learn history and repeat it, we’re not failing to learn the specific events of history, we’re failing to learn the underlying and consistent modalities of behavior that causes history. The never-ending operation of animal behavior that weaves itself through-out historical collapse. We need not focus on the events themselves, but rather on this singular common thread. And if we look closely enough at societal collapse we will see that this common thread is that societies as a whole have consistently chosen to behave like animals.

The solution therefore is never to change the method, or change the concept of what drives the system, or even to change the system itself. What is required is something much more intrinsic than this. The solution is to change how we behave as human beings. A solution which is not only beyond the comprehension and understanding of most, but nearly impossible to create in any meaningful way.

In the first place, there is an ironic and macabre component of this demolition of civilization - the animals are always stronger. The animals are always the one’s in control of the means; they are the ones with the power. They are always the one’s making the decisions which drives this animal behavior toward collapse. And because their very behavior is animal in nature - it hungers for wealth and for power and for control. And then having acquired the means to dictate to the other humans what should and should not occur, they do so most often to the benefit of their own animal satisfaction. Often creating the circumstances which drive societies toward oblivion.

The United States has yet to have a President (or a congress) in my life time that was solely motivated by the needs of Americans. It’s never happened and it probably never will. However, in today’s ultra-surreal reality, self interested behavior is not only common-place, but rather blatantly common-place. The bailouts, the greed, the pork, the irrational votes - all on display for everyone to see. It’s become a system where even the appearance of doing what is right is no longer necessary. It would seem that this is a general degradation of moral behavior. While this may be true, I think it’s more involved than that.

Why is there no real outrage when millions of Americans are forced out of their homes by foreclosure while the banks are given a free lunch? What are there no mass protests? No mega-organization working for social justice? Three hundred million Americans and no real significant numerical organization of outrage? No real sense that there is any substantive desire to prevent these types of injustices from occurring. The reason that even appearances are no longer necessary is that the majority of humans (and the majority therefore of Americans) are and always have been simply (also) animals. Their varying levels of animal material existences are such that most Americans have enough of what satiates their personal desires that they can not only look the other way, but in fact actively or implicitly support the injustices they constantly see. Consequently, we can define these “animals in control” broadly to include the majority of the citizens of a collapsing society. Actual control and the means to actual control having their foundation in the citizens who stand by, even as the means of survival is sucked dry in to a sponge of despair.

As I have noted, history is chock full of examples of self-destructive behavior, motivated exclusively by animal instincts. I don’t need specifically to point my finger exclusively at modern day America. I may do so because America not only fits the mold of an animal controlled society, but also because the animals have cleverly couched animal values in to something they like to call “American Values”. And in doing so have transformed what is otherwise abhorrent to men of virtue, in to something to be desired by common men and women. A deceptive means of brainwash where America animals can (for example) relieve any latent moral guilt by turning killing, death an destruction and imperialism in to in to a just or necessary fight. Where the ruling class can dispatch inherent inequality in to a cry for hard work. These “American Values” therefore turn animal behavior in to something to be desired. They mysteriously place power, money, wealth and material possessions on a pedestal of desired abject morality. Clearly it’s not impossible to reconcile how animals would want these things to be valued above things like sharing, compassion, caring, self-sacrifice and in general the betterment of all humans. It’s certainly a means of keeping the masses of other animals (and semi-animals) on board with their own animal behavior. It is simply the replacement of truth and morality with a means of programming animals to over-come their own guilt toward submission. Nevertheless, by far, it is a general catering to comfort and convenience that turns so many Americans in to apathetic creatures of habit.

The final piece of this puzzle of societal inaction is exemplified by the minority (perhaps the super minority) of people who would prefer socialist ideas to capitalist ideas; who would prefer a fairer society (not just in wealth distribution) to an unfair society. For the most part these people may become out raged at injustice; at the unequal distribution of wealth in America; at the fact that there is social injustice being committed every day. But these people are the same people whose values are contrary to taking the necessary action to change any of these things. They’re certainly not going out and killing anyone to cause some necessary change. They’re not starting violent revolutions, Their love of people and nature and space and time is certainly not a match for the guns and jails and the general protections put in place by the “animals in control” to secure their positions and possessions. Saints have never had the moral disposition to become an animal to fight an animal. Because humans of virtue would prefer to be figuratively (and even often literally) burned at the stake in lieu of sacrificing their morals and their utter contempt for being just an animal.

So without any real resistance these “animals in control” will not cease and desist until America (and maybe the world) erodes in to self destruction. They will not voluntarily replace self with selfless. They will not be violently removed by moral and virtuous people who understand the difference. They will continue to be animals. Notwithstanding these seemingly insurmountable odds and resistance, whether we can, as human beings, survive a pre, post, or concurrent collapse is actually irrelevant. If we classify this animal behavior in to terms which (by no coincidence) mirrors the behavior of animals in nature, and then seek to behave in an opposite fashion, I believe this is the extent of what is possible for moral human beings. Our values are the only element of any material equation which could ever have any real meaning. While the animals like to hoard; the animals like to control; the animals seek power; the animals seek material accomplishment, the animals can kill to accomplish their goals; the animals don’t like to share (in any real sense of the word), the animals are takers and not givers - we can strive as individuals and as a collective to be something more. And by becoming something more perhaps influence (in whatever small way we can) the behavior of these “animals in control”. Although even this should not be our ultimate goal.

The first thought that comes to mind for a human animal is not the betterment of humanity, but rather the betterment of self. And the creation and protection of the animal needs and wants. The furtherance of these needs and wants is most often at all costs. Not by a conscious desire to create destruction, but rather by a sub-conscious program, the elimination of moral choice, which makes one simply an animal. By the relinquishment of being a human being. Of a general lack of focus on nature and humanity. Of the person whose thinking is only about (or primarily focused on) one’s own condition and existence. It’s a focus that is not easily (nor often) over come - even by a willing participant. or even in the face of or an actual or perceived collapse and destruction of a society. For in defining their own blinding short term interests as paramount, animals are oblivious to both the short term and long term betterment of society (or humanity) as a whole. So some forced change of these “animals in control” is not the answer. Nor as we have discussed is a change in the political vehicles any particular group of animals is using to drive us toward demise. We can complain, and cite references of immoral acts, all without effect to either the “animals in control” or our own conditions. What’s required instead is a concerted effort by the rest of us to be something other than animals. To defer hoarding to sharing. To defer self interest to self sacrifice. To replace accepted with acceptable. To find ways to be human among not only ourselves, but also among the “animals in control”.

Tags: amos, amos knows, animal behavior, animals, collpase, evil, god, good, love, moral, moral behavior, MORALITY, society

The Stanford Prison Experiment took place in 1971 at Stanford University. In the study psychologist Phil Zimbardo gathered 24 perfectly normal, healthy and mentally stable college students as volunteers. He randomly assigned them to the role of either “guard” or “prisoner” and confined them to a mock prison. The prisoners got work clothes and had their names replaced with numbers. The guards got billy clubs and sunglasses to obscure their faces. The guards’ only task was to maintain order among the prisoners. The experiment was supposed to last two weeks, but after six days it had to be shut down because the students quickly began acting out their roles. The “guards” becoming sadistic and the “prisoners” showing extreme passivity and depression. Prisoners and guards rapidly adapted to their roles, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted and leading to dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. One-third of the guards were judged to have exhibited “genuine” sadistic tendencies, while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized and five had to be removed from the experiment early.

Phil Zimbardo has since used the experience as a way of understanding why seemingly moral people commit horrific acts. He became especially interested in the abuse that took place in Abu Ghraib, the U.S. military-run prison in Iraq. He details his work in his latest book called The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. My personal take is Mr. Zimbardo is on the right track.

It seems to me that people often (but not always) engage in “horrific acts” for the same reason that the guards and prisoners took on dominant and submissive roles in the experiment. Despite the fact that both of these events may be the result different parts of the same innate programming. This programming deals exclusively with survival. If you image that the human being is really a programmed computer and that this programming is simply the initial program installed so that the computer could survive. Subsequent to the installation of this programming, the computer becomes aware of the program itself (consciousness). However, it’s rather significant programming and it is extremely difficult to over come behaviors that are based upon this programming,. It is even more difficult to overcome this programming when the triggers for which it relies upon (external stimulus) are added. It it the equivalent of pressing the correct keys to obtain the desired result.

Many of us have reverted to instantaneous (often uncontrollable) anger at so much as a single word of hate. This is not the result of rational thought, but rather stimulus triggering the programming that already exists. Unless you are always consciously aware that your programming is running in the background your ability (your free will) to stop the programming from running is diminished greatly. That’s why people commit manslaughter. That’s why people often steal things they don’t need.

As such, the college students in the experiment were simply given the correct stimulus to run their programming. Unabated and even encouraged the sub-programs of dominance and submission (two components of our programming necessary toward survival) automatically activated. The dominant program stimulated by the apparent authority and power and the submissive program by the lack thereof. The fact that these students did not permit their god component to surface is a testament to the fact that this experiment was controlled. It was offered as a benign version of real events. In the why that violent video games and movies permit us to entertain these programs guilt free and without any apparent repercussions.

We must additionally, in this discussion, distinguish between spontaneous “horrific acts” and those based upon rational contemplation. In the first instance stimulus is added and reaction is without rational thought. In the second instance there is a conscious choice. The choice is not morality and god but rather evil and our programming. A choice that we make to behave like an animal. This is where we make legal distinctions between things like manslaughter and murder. From a moral perspective it would seem the same distinctions need be applied. However there are numerous mitigating factors which I will discuss in various other posts.

What we can learn from the experiment is that people who are actually placed in positions of authority have a better chance of permitting their programs of dominant behavior to take control in lieu of their moral component. We see this countlessly displayed through history - the magnanimous moral rulers being few and far between.

Tags: amos, amos knows, evil, god, good, lucifer, moral, MORALITY, religion

I don’t think the definition of god makes a difference in determining whether god  could have created good and evil. Nor do I believe that any accepted concept of god automatically means that god has to be either good or evil. Good and evil can simply be defined in the context of our reality. In that understanding, we experience good and evil because we are in this reality. If god exists god could therefore be external to this reality. By way of an example, when you cook eggs, you crack the eggs, maybe beat the eggs, throw them in the pan, mix them up and then they are what they are. Oddly enough, you never get in the pan. We as humans are in the pan - god is just the cook. Does it matter who cooked the eggs? Could have been me, you or Grandma - doesn’t seem to have any bearing on what happens in the pan - while the eggs got hot Grandma never does - she’s outside the pan.

That said, let’s examine my basic definitions of good and evil…

First, there is no supernatural definition of evil. There are no floating demons. If you look at what people consider to be evil you will find that these things are nothing more than perfectly acceptable behaviors in the animal kingdom (killing, hoarding. stealing, indifference, selfishness). Animals do not get outraged when one of their kind is killed. There is no evil in the animal kingdom - it’s all about survival. Therefore, evil is simply an extension of being an animal. And what I mean by this is running or permitting to run our animal instincts and programming toward survival. When someone gets automatically angry and reacts violently, this is not a product of rational thought, but rather a program controlling behavior. When we behave instinctively we are accordingly labeled “animals”. Rational thought is really just the ability to designate consequences in relation to instinctual wants, needs and desires. It permits us an opportunity often labled “free will” in the sense that we can choose to ignore our programming and act contrary to it.

I believe humans were once just animals without a conscience. The ability to behave like animals was without consequence to the human condition. Therefore in the so called “Garden of Eden” humans were without shame, or the ability to determine that these animal instinctual programs (what you might call evil) were wrong. Why were they necessary? Because the less intelligent man needed them to survive toward evolving in to a more intelligent being. We needed to act like an animals - using instinctual programs to survive. We needed to kill without remorse. We needed to steal without guilt. At some point during his evolutionary journey, humans figuratively ate the apple (a la the serpent where the serpent is indicative of intelligence and wisdom in many creation myths). At that point we had a conscience. We could rationally think before we acted. Subsequent to this animal modalities are actually no longer necessary toward survival. Things like cooperation, self-sacrifice and love can substitute for killing, hoarding, stealing, and the like.

Subjective interpretations of what is good or evil become meaningless if we choose the associations ourselves. If I say this is the color green and we agree - than certainly there is no longer a subjective component. Similarly, I can choose to assign components associated with survival which have negative consequences on third parties to be “evil” and components which work toward survival but which do not result in negative consequences to third parties to be good. By way of example, stealing in the animal world (even of another animal’s babies) for food is perfectly acceptable - and without a moral consequence. So in the animal world stealing is not evil - even though it has a negative consequence on some third party. But by my definition, if we extrapolate that behavior to humans, if the theft has a negative consequence on a third party it is by my definition evil.

Essentially we have answered that age long question of “why would a creator create a system whereby evil exists?” And I think we have done so in a very logical manner. In order that animals could evolve in to human beings with a moral component (intelligent moral creatures with awareness). God needed all these so-called “evil” things to exist toward the survival and evolution of humans. The fact that they exist is a post conscious man is indicative of the fact that they were the building blocks toward that consciousness.

Many creation myths set forth the proposition that god inserted consciousness in to man (”breathed” it in to us as the bible says). That is one possibility. The other is that morality and your conscience are natural by products of evolution. A third is that morality and your conscience are natural by products of evolution and that this creator knew or understood that setting this creation in motion would lead to the ultimate goal of sentient beings. In other words, that a moral being would be the end product. and by a moral being I mean one with the ability (free will) to make moral choices. To choose between being an animal and being amoral human. Taking either path, it would be quite logical for god to have both created evil (animal programming) and good (an ability to comprehend animal behavior and to alter it) -all within a necessary system of chaos. We have (at this time) both animal (evil) programs and an ability to turn them off at “will’ (free will to make an alternative choice).

Most people are taught to define god and morality in terms of some supernatural being or power. And often to equate god with moral perfection. While I believe god is just another way of expressing both the fabric of all things and moral perfection. So I do not assign this perfection to some being but rather to an understanding that god is simply the ability to potentially become a morally perfect human being. Buddha, Christ, Mohammad are examples (symbolic and/or literal) of moral perfection in men.

Many contemporary religious beliefs arise from the fact that without a basic understanding of animal behavior or evolution, the primary means of explaining these things is symbolically. Unfortunately, the symbolic teaching often turns in to literal understandings and accordingly derives a divergent meaning and (in the end) a life of it’s own.

The alternative view is that it is quite possible that a moral being such as we humans could have developed without the need for an external creator. It could be that morality (like dominant genetic traits) developed in man as a means toward survival independent of the existence of any god. Atheists have every right to believe this and (as they say) until there is some proof that morality was “breathed” in to us (and not developed) there is no real discussion that can be made one way or the other. While this seems to be a logical position, it is only logical if the development of morality was an absolute necessity toward survival. And if cooperation was a better means toward survival than animal modalities like power, dominance, and submission. Or animal behaviors like killing, hoarding, and stealing. While I acknowledge that there is cooperation in animals, it does not seem that animals make this cooperation their “choice”. Nor is it the product of some involved rational thought. It does not seem to me that consciousness is an active component of cooperation and therefore does not seem to have been a necessary evolutionary conclusion in humans. Why create a conscious understanding that animal behaviors can be avoided toward survival when they could operate with out a conscious component? If nature is perfect, than this divergence would seem at best trivial and at worst incomprehensible. Humans could have cooperated without an understanding of the behavior itself. I therefore believe that it must have been a planned path toward moral behavior or an actively initiated process.

In any event, I strongly believe that the ultimate solution to all of man’s problems is individual personal responsibility toward non-animal moral behavior. This is the message that is predominant in all religions of the world, but mostly lost when this undesirable animal behavior actually replaces a real understanding of this ideal. As John Lennon said can you imagine what could happen if all the people just suddenly decided to help each other? If all the wealthy gave some of their money to the poor? If the world began to share what it had instead of hoarding it? If we just said no to killing?

CONCLUSIONS

Morality therefore requires both rational thought and a free choice based upon something other than an agreement (social contract). Many people behave morally despite a rule or law or an agreement.  Given the opportunity to steal without getting caught there are actually people who would chose to do the right thing anyway. Even when they need what it is they might steal.

Animals act on programming only. They have no sense of right and wrong and act out only on instinctual programs. They don’t rationalize killing, stealing, hoarding, etc, they just do it.

You and I are animals. It’s silly to believe that because we know right from wrong NOW and can rationalize behavior that this programming (which was required in evolution toward survival) suddenly magically disappeared. It’s still functioning and influencing our behavior.

Moral actions as those which eliminate self - or the instinctual programs of survival—> these would include those acts which do not negatively impact some third party or which positively impact some third party in his or her survival and happiness. Sacrificing one’s life for another is the ultimate denial of self and a perfectly moral act. It is ultimately the difference between selfish and selfless acts. Therefore by my definition moral acts could not include stealing, hoarding, killing, etc. as these are focuses on self improvement and also negatively impact on another person’s ability to survive. We can  call our ability to define acts as moral or immoral an “emotional response” - for example remorse, guilt, etc. We can also define this ability simply as a moral understanding. An understanding which is lacking in the animal world. True moral behavior comes from this “emotional component” (a/k/a your conscience) and not a forced choice (punishment) or an agreement to act in a mutually beneficial manner (social contract). Again, from a spiritual perspective, forcing someone to act in accordance with a moral code will lead to a totally different result than having one voluntarily follow their own conscience. Of course, these “emotional responses” are both variable and changeable from human to human. The same way the influence of your programming is variable and changeable from human to human.

Under my definition and parameters,  “do unto others” has a specific meaning - that is do unto others that which would have a negative impact on their survival or their happiness. This focus is therefore not on the subjective beliefs of the actor but rather on on the known factual elements of the person being acted upon.

We should all recognize “do unto others” as an absolute axiom of what good behavior should entail. In every instance, “doing unto others” would encompass avoiding a negative impact on some third party that we would not wish to suffer ourselves.

Tags: amos, amos Knos. rational thought, amos knows, bible, evil, god, good, moral, MORALITY, religion, spiritual