Alchemy.

I have the New Testament here beside me, and I need to read through it again carefully. But, as with Judaism, much of the religion comes from the people who are followers, as in the Talmud. With Christianity, a lot comes from the Christian Church, stemming from the New Testament. But anyway, I say this: even though I have read it, as with the Old Testament, it is a little mystical in that you aren’t sure what you’re reading. It’s a task of trying to understand the meaning and purpose of what the text actually is—the true nature of it.

But anyway, I’ve said this because I am about to put forward a critique. I don’t think Christianity is the solution to the problem of our society. I think religion and God are the answer, absolutely and always, and the good we know of from Christianity and Islam comes from human goodness—devotion and dedication.

Judaism is quite different; it doesn’t give a doctrine like the other two. To become a Jew, you must study a lot and engage in philosophy. If Judaism is the Old Testament alone, then I think it is good, and likewise with the other two, if the text is helpful. But the text of the Old Testament is much more philosophical and complex compared to the New Testament. Anyway, let’s leave Judaism alone for now and explore that later.

My drive for this critique is the suffering I see in my fellow man, and the failure to fix it, as with Shia LaBeouf. I see a man who has spent so much on Christianity, and he’s had the best money can buy. And there are countless people with a story of being saved by Christ and Christianity who also come to fail again. A positive point is that I think it has given them something, a vital thing—a lifeline, perhaps: a vague belief in God. Through Christianity, they’ve realised God exists, and it changes their lives. In Christianity, a common thing people say is that they’ve realised God is a loving God. Both these realisations are great things to discover.

But I once heard a joke by Manly P. Hall, who said that many such people who are reborn and renewed—who have found Christ, the Lord—have to be reborn again the next year and the next. That was the pun, and it was funny to hear it, but it highlights a significant problem.

As with that man I mentioned buying the best of Christianity one can buy, I mean that he had such amazing socialisation: meeting great figures in the faith, attending great teams, etc. As a rich celebrity and a genuine guy, he was met with such great and graceful open arms. And yet, not too long afterwards, he was lost and completely worse off.

You could say this is a matter of the individual, not the religion. But it isn’t so. Christianity works for the moderate person who is doing okay, and it gives that little extra dynamic of life, and hope and a vague faith. It can be the icing on the cake for many. But for the person who is lost, or the person who wants to self-develop, even from a mediocre and moderate starting point, i.e. not unwell, it isn’t the answer. And I know it isn’t the answer because I know the reality of the situation.

First of all, Christ, for the most part, is probably symbolic. Believing in Christ is a way of saying that one cannot fathom God, nor claim to know of him. In that case, it’s logical. But that is not the Christian view. In the literal understanding, there was a human—he was the Son of God, whatever that even means—and all of these things happened. It’s a story, but what does it mean? He died for our sins so that we can go to heaven and be forgiven, so it represents God’s mercy and humanity, if you like. I lose sight of it because it is so complex as a symbolic text, allegorical or esoteric. Most people do not think of it like that.

Now here is my critique, finally.

The truth will set you free. Follow Socrates and become a philosopher and a religious philosopher. What does ‘God’ actually mean? This is where to begin.

God 1: A power or force, perhaps the only power or force, supernatural, watching over and/or within everything, including us. A higher being than us. (The most basic concept of God.)

God 2: The same as God 1, but this God also controls things, or can—perhaps sometimes, perhaps absolutely everything.

God 3: The same as God 2, but ‘it’ is also moralistic, as we know morality.

God 4: Similar to God 3, but conceived as a set of laws, including physics. Not a relationship of bargaining and discourse.

God 5: Many variations, all differing in what each god likes and dislikes, approves of and disapproves of.

And so we realise that the famous question, ‘Do you believe in God?’, is actually complicated. It may have been simpler a couple of hundred years ago regarding aspects of life, with fewer variations as in God 5. For instance, Catholics in medieval times probably shared the majority of ideas about God, in the same way that people following Islam do now in countries ruled by Islam. But still, regarding small and subtle things, each man’s god may differ. Because it is the specifics of what God allows and doesn’t allow that amount to what a person believes in—their good.

God 6: The Good. It is similar to God 4, more like moral laws, but it is not necessarily tied to supernatural systems. A person can believe in Good, and this belief system can be the same as God 5, but it is framed differently, because they can both share the same principle of what is acceptable and what isn’t acceptable. The only difference is that God 4 involves believing that a supernatural system or force is enforcing those laws accordingly. God 6 doesn’t consider that.

This God 6 is a good idea to remember when we speak of these phrases:

Spiritual but not religious (God 1).

Religious but not spiritual (God 6).

My written and spoken philosophy is mostly from the position of God 6. Sometimes God 5 is cited under the Socratic premise of ‘maybe’. But, if the truth be told here, my belief and concept of God is God 5.

We’ve gone a little way off our subject, which was Christianity, and then truth, and then God.

It’s firstly important to understand or figure out what exactly you mean by the word ‘God’. In philosophical fashion, you’d have to explain why or how you believe in such a thing. We must question what we believe in. And ‘believe’ is a complex word.

I propose there are two kinds of belief. One is the furthest end of ‘I think’, a kind of guess or estimation and calculation. I think it’s about 5 km away. I think she is 5 ft 5. I think I left it in the bathroom. Belief in this sense is when we are very confident in the guess. However, it is the case that we can truly and genuinely believe that we locked a door or did something, but actually we have misremembered and did not do it.

The other kind of belief is a matter of hope and want. It isn’t quite the 99%-sure guess of the other kind. Rationally, it’s 50/50, or it can be lower or higher, but it is rounded up to 100% with our hope and want—making it a belief. It is certainly different in that it isn’t rational logic, but is instead emotional and sentimental.

We must ask ourselves what the nature of our belief is. Some people’s belief in God is rationalistic, in that it’s a matter of what they’ve seen and understood. But when the dust settles, I think it’s the case that there is always a question mark. Our minds are fragile and prone to error, and once it’s not in front of us any more—once we are relying on memory—there is room for doubt. And if you truly want to be a philosopher, you build your foundation on absolute certainty—mathematical standards of logic.

What do I believe?

Humility is a great thing and a good thing. The admission of “I don’t know” may seem like an act of lukewarmness in matters of faith, or perhaps it seems an overly negative kind of doubt, a weakness and lack of faith. But I assure you it is not, and instead it is a matter of a Godly trait: humility. And humility here aligns with truth. Humility—not knowing and knowing you don’t know—is a good thing in and of itself, but also, as Socrates said, this was his key beginning: “The only thing I know is that I don’t know anything.”

We have to develop a thinking style like that of a conversation between two people—you and me. The prosecution and the defence are always a good example too. And that should be how we think in these matters: we must argue with ourselves like we would with another.

What do you believe in? God? What does that mean exactly? If someone says that the Bible was written by God, or that Jesus was the son or some form of God, the question is: how do you know this? Perhaps you’ll say you don’t know how you know, but you know that you know. Another one was that Jesus died for our sins. And in Judaism, they say that God spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai.

There are two important things to be said here. The first is the point that you or I don’t know these things. I think all of it is hearsay, for starters, i.e. we read it or heard it. But that doesn’t make it any less or more true. The metric for that is how much sense it makes and the truth of our experience. The humble mind can accept and admit that they don’t know these things. And so don’t let a false confidence be the foundation of your belief system. Now the second thing, the second-best thing I can offer you, is the beautiful word: “Maybe.”

Maybe these things happened. Maybe that’s how it is. I called it beautiful because I have come to realise that this is a great choice and accomplishment of the person: to say maybe these things did happen. Don’t be in the group of people who are equally erroneous in saying that it didn’t happen. They don’t know it didn’t happen.

An interesting personal psychological point here is: if it didn’t happen, then what? What would that mean for me? And if it did happen, then what? What would that mean for me? And now that it is undecided, what does that mean for me?

Another direct question is: does God exist?

Well, as I’ve written elsewhere, we need to elaborate on what is meant by the word “God”. Yet regardless, the point here is that the answer to all of them is “Maybe.”

Fear not; do not lose heart. I am a man who has seen God with my very eyes—so to speak. For me, the way I say it, there is no maybe. I believe what I believe. I know what I saw and see. But the reason for the maybe is that, in conversation, we must acknowledge the technical possibility that we could be wrong, but we would put our lives on it that we are not.

And so I suppose this begs the question: what is so significant or necessary about this admission, this Socratic ridiculousness of saying, “Okay, I admit it: the sun may not rise tomorrow”? It’s a good question. The answer is: because we are establishing a mind that is logically sound amongst our peers, to the rest of the universe, and the mind must be able to follow this logic of proofs and rationale and logic.

Perhaps it is irrelevant to this particular subject, but as a reasoner, this development of the mind is key for all other matters. The mind must be able to reason objectively—aside from personal belief—and at least acknowledge the way of thinking which is in the middle space between two people.

It also highlights something to us: that the nature of our belief is individualist, and we must reckon with the problem of trying to argue the case for what we believe to someone else without personal experience. If the person has not had that, one must argue at the level of logic and rationale—objectivity.

So do not lose hope that I am in some kind of doubt. It’s difficult because I know the feeling beyond logic and rationale, proof, when we say we know that God is real. But in the quiet darkness of doubt, there is the philosophical possibility that you are somehow wrong.

Another key point of importance here comes from the fact that this admission can be a terrifying concept, and also it seems to go against your loved one, like unfaithfulness. But here is the word so important: faith. This is the nature of what faith is and how it is built, and trust, hope and devotion: the willingness and choice to believe—even when one can no longer see it. It’s a significant act in the alchemical world.

Another serious point is that it is important to overcome fear, sometimes for the sake of overcoming fear, especially intellectual fear, but also because sometimes it is the fear that stops us going beyond and deep into the meaning and reality of the thing. Meanwhile, it actually isn’t an instance of lack of faith or doubt if you are nonetheless devoted to “Good”.

As a human being, this is the situation: we don’t “know” things bigger than ourselves. My mother once said that if God is real, then he may have one important rule: that humans can never know that he’s there or that heaven exists.

Why? Because people would depend on him too much, like a weakened child, and people would run to him all too easily. And also because it is said that life is a test or a training—growing experience—and with the knowledge of God, we would not become what we need to become, which we will without the certain knowledge of God.

We must create it and establish it anyway. Why? Because we must love Good and Justice—God’s law—above all and always. Let us bring heaven upon earth.

But we don’t need to think only about these theoretical propositions. The main thing we want to do is build the foundation of our house of brick and stone: solid, nothing that can be blown away or shaken. And so we want to think about our belief in a way that there is no doubt, or, better to say, no argument against it.

Aside from arguing with a non-believer, it is also applicable that we must argue against the cynic and doubter deep down in us. By establishing the indestructible foundation, this is what creates a mind and heart with no anxiety: the security of truth, humility and righteousness. Anxiety comes from dogma.

And so what is God? What do I believe in? What do I know? Me, Adam Russell.

I, like most of us, believe in God, which is a law and order in the universe, and a God who is the creator or being or force behind that law. I believe there is no other such thing. I believe in God, a concept as the father and mother of all beings. I don’t know the nature of reality, the material or the spiritual, or how to word it.

And that’s what God is for me. I believe God and his law want us to evolve into angels: pure, true, kind. And I believe there are many ways, ethics and practices that we must do and not do to become that, i.e. no drugs, no contraception, no eating animals, no cruelty, and so on. This is my belief. I feel it in my gut and my heart. It makes sense to me. It’s like a truth I can see with my mind, with the third eye—not anything sensory—but it’s something my logic and reasoning have concluded.

If someone asked me, though, “Do I know for sure that this is the case? Is it possible none of this is so?”, my heart and my gut would say I am sure. And we should follow both. But, like I said, in the quiet darkness of night, in pure rationale, there exists a philosophical doubt. Usually this is associated with a moment of losing hope or faith, but not always. Because here’s how it goes. The question is put to me: “How do you know? Admit you don’t!”

Before I continue with this point, I want to add how I know, but which is still subject to doubt because we are human beings, relying on the soundness of our minds and systems.

For me, I began to see God internally and externally. I began to see the justice at work. I began to see that people paid the price for justice and injustice, and the reckoning as alluded to in Genesis. And like laws of physics, we see that things work a certain way, causes and effects, and in all of this is revealed life’s desire, life’s character, what it wants, what it favours and what it doesn’t like.

And with this law, I began to wonder at it with my intellect and reasoning, logic, and it made sense that it is an evolution towards the best type of beings. Of course they’d be fair; unfairness is like stupidity, the opposite of evolution. Justice and fairness aren’t simply dividing the spoils; it’s a matter of understanding who deserves what and why, according not to the reasoner but to the overall collective and unity of life.

And so it made sense. It clicked. And yet the evidence I speak of was primarily these laws occurring and working in myself. Feelings deep down worked like pain and pleasure, all to the effect of pushing me this way or that way—towards righteousness. And luckily, I was philosophical enough to deal with all the deal-breakers, all the critiques which break a person’s belief—theory of the Good God: why do children die? Why so much suffering? Etc.

And so I have perceived all this. My belief is 100% because of the sight and logic of it, and not due to faith and hope like most. But my mind and reason are all human, and let’s say, for argument’s sake, that the mind cannot be trusted, even though my sense of the truth is perhaps beyond the mind.

But anyway, it is a valid argument, though mostly from outside, i.e. another person. But like I said, we must allow the question from another, as we are a society, and in a dark moment I admit: maybe I’m wrong.

And maybe you’ll understand that, in the same breath, there is something inside me that rejects this idea of it not being true. And it isn’t through fear, my world collapsing and so on. There isn’t a fear. I am ready for a rest, and my theories about the afterlife anyway include the possibility of myself no longer existing. Perhaps my soul returns to the collective soul.

I didn’t lose faith or hope or composure in this admission. As I’ve said, I can’t unsee what I’ve seen. I can’t not understand what I now understand. But for argument’s sake, I admit my belief or knowledge is perhaps dependent on the soundness of myself, and therefore there is a possibility it is not so.

So I had to think about this, and I wanted to figure out: what do I believe in with all my heart and my mind? What can I swear to that is unquestionable, undeniable?

And I discovered it: I believe in Good. Good is something that I live for and will die for, even if it isn’t a universal law, even if there isn’t a force or higher power behind this. I know that I love this, that I’ll die for it and live for it. And this is what I believe in.

And the reason I say it isn’t actually a moment of loss of faith to admit this is because, actually, we are still, in practice and in principle, devoted to the same thing, whether it be supernatural, all-powerful, universal or not.

If God is a law or a force, and a person doesn’t believe in such a thing—the supernatural—and that person is an atheist, then an atheist can still believe in the same thing as me. We can be of the same religion, because this is the most important thing of all. This is God. This is what a humble human needs to conceive. The Good.

A person can believe and pray to a higher force, a creator, the powers that be. He can have full dialogues and receive all kinds of gifts via manifestation. This is not the God I know. Perhaps it is him, or it, but perhaps it isn’t.

Our Fellow Creatures

We haven’t done well with those who are even slightly different from ourselves. It is easily demonstrated and proven that we humans can be quite disconnected and unconcerned about things which feel far away—whether that be physical distance or psychologically as with identity. There is a long list of horrible things we have done to each other because of a difference between us. I think of the Christians who burnt and tortured each other. But there are more subtle examples among current society. It has been observed in my own experience how a local community can have difficult feelings toward that which is different—and even in people with a good nature and decency and kindness, yet they almost coil or shy away in apprehension at that which they perceive as different. What we are not saying is that this is completely irrational or illogical. And perhaps it is in some sense well-founded sometimes in some cases, but nonetheless it is without doubt it is a fault of ours. It is an inability to see the brotherhood between us, the kinship among us, and the sameness of identity between us and other beings: the living spirit.

This point is made here because it is precisely this which allows the man to hunt and kill the other animal, to subjugate it to a harsh life for our own benefit, to slaughter the cow to serve it up on our plate, and take so much pleasure in it. The man’s morality is sound yet his conceptualisation is wrong. He sees the animal as not human, which it isn’t, and he sees it as humane and not inhumane to do such things. He doesn’t identify with it—as an animal, a fellow creature, one of God’s magnificent creatures which crawl the earth, breathing—living, experiencing. It’s actually a ridiculous ask for many who would even fail to relate to the African or Asian.

The question is: Where do you want to place yourself on this spectrum of empathy and friendliness? I can promise you that there is a correct way of life which sees the similarity and shared identity between all living creatures. It doesn’t mean we want to be their friend or have them live with us, but it does mean that it is inhumane to treat them cruelly—without empathy—without respect of life. Live and let live. Yet we are the masters of the Garden, the gardeners of the master, and so we may have to impose conditions for their well-being, for others’ well-being, and for the good of the Garden, but each is entitled to a shared level of respect for their livelihood. Our friendliness and empathy need to be extended to all which are different, even if dramatically different, yet we must look past this and see a life—a person, so to speak, a being—and we ought to want the best for it, as we want it for ourselves. It is the child of our society whose compassion is limited to those whom he feels very similar to, especially physically.

You may wonder: what good is all of this supposed transformation of our mind and self? Sometimes we must consider ourselves as a small town or even a house—a family, this little planet of ours—and who knows: some other people—greater than ourselves and moreover more significant and of great consequence, perhaps even some superpower alien or God himself as some kind of force—the point is: one day they may pay us a visit or check in on our small humble home—to see how we are. And when we think of what kind of being something is and consider its nature, we can ask: is it a kind of being who will kill and consume other beings simply for its own benefit or pleasure, or even: is it a being who thinks it is okay to interrupt and damage another being’s life—for no good reason other than its own gain, to end that life even, totally unprovoked and uninvited.

A separate point here is that it is not necessary—there is another way, albeit seemingly risky to our optimal physical health, perhaps it is somewhat worse in some way, e.g. we may be less physically strong as a result. This other way is, of course, the life of a vegetarian/vegan. We point out this necessary element because there is a discussion to be had around what is right and wrong if a human being or our society as a whole, let’s say, is to be stranded on an island, let’s say, a desert island, and there is no vegetation, just our companion animal friend. Is it the right thing to do to eat the animal to continue our life? Would that animal willingly sacrifice itself for life to continue, to be food for the society—it and its generations? I think the answer seems to be yes—but it’s complicated because this morality is born in an illogical hypothetical. We know the world is blessed with vegetation, and such has not been the case that the whole society depends on one situation.

The other decision would be to say: no, we will not do this inhumane thing; we will die accordingly, especially if the entirety of existence doesn’t depend upon it, but a human being asks: does my entire life depend on it? If it does, then I am taking the life of another; such is his desire to live. But what if there is some heavenly gate upon death and directly opposite it—the gates of hell, and all rests upon this decision: is it right to kill to sustain oneself, or is it fair and respectful of rights to not do so, whatever the cognitive level of the other? A wicked and great test for all souls.

And referring back to the eye of the universe watching us—perhaps a being is good or bad depending on this one difference—this understanding and principle of fairness and objectivity—universalism of mind, as opposed to selfishness—a subjective—biased mind. It sounds so complicated and heavy when we think about this concept—a heaven or hell test, possibly the case or not, but I say this: It is all so very simple. It is a simple lesson and instruction: Eat that which is food, not that which is a living being like yourself.

The main idea to recognise here is that a chicken, or a fish, or a pig, or a cow, it is a ‘being’, a creature, something which, like ourselves, roams the world looking for food, looking for comfort, looking for a mate, looking to produce a new creature, living out its years. They poo and pee, interact with others—sometimes good, sometimes bad, and they have wants and fears like us. We are all creatures, surviving—living, and visually seeing the world with our own eyes in our own mind. There is a divine commonality between us, and a child of God in all of us.

It may be difficult to do so, but one must try to take on that old adage which says: I am reverent before all that is called life, a life force that is the light in the mass blackness of space around us, but moreover, we must look upon the life force which becomes alive in a whole different sense: the creatures of the earth. The beautiful trees and flowers, the sparkling sun and the mystical waters are beautiful in contrast to the nothingness of the empty black mass in which it is planted, but it is nothing by comparison to the miracle of the creature amongst such nature, with its intelligence and consciousness, opening its eyes, its free movement, seeing and hearing, deciding.

And yet a most striking statement is that not only can these beings acknowledge the world around them, but they can also recognise and respond to you and me, i.e. to its fellow creatures. They let us know that we are a part of something other than ourselves. Not simply a flower in its cycles, but instead a self-determining creature that thinks and chooses each moment where it will go—physically and mentally. Life is not simply happening to it, rather it is happening to life, it is imposing itself on nature.

And so: We are all creatures, the little mouse, the even smaller ant, there is something of a living soul in us—a livelihood—a so-called desire to live. We are independent of the natural world—literally, we move along on our feet—tied to nothing, separate from the soil and land, and more to the point, there is the phenomenon of the conscious presence of mind which is the experience of being alive; hence the aversion of pain and death.

A plant, it has no metaphorical mountain to climb nor desert to traverse, no forage to commence, in other words: no wins or losses, no fear and no joy, no success nor failure, a plant is a part of nature. No plant is free to go wherever it pleases, and therefore it cannot make a mistake. The plant grows from the ground and is in fact a part of the ground, it is not released or disconnected, it is fed by the earth and sky, but not us. We are born of our mother, and father, separate from nature. Our fate depends, at least in some sense—on the steps we take. We human beings are the most advanced and cleverest creatures of them all, but nonetheless we are a creature.

Again, it’s difficult to do, but we can imagine ourselves being born as any of God’s creatures, and yes that life may be grim, boring, simple, and short, but in some sense it is the same thing at a basic level—we will try to prosper, we will try to survive.

A simple little thought experiment is to imagine ourselves alone in the world or universe, nothing but ourselves. Perhaps there are trees and oceans, mountains and winds, but we are the only living creature there. And then imagine along comes a little ant or shrew. How do you think it would be for our internal world? Would there then be a society of sorts? Would there then be a companion? The answer is yes, there would, because here is the significant thing about it: this little thing is a creature, just like we are, an animated—animal—thinking thing—perhaps zero intellect, but it does indeed think—decide. The spirit of life moves within it, a soul, perhaps. It has a mind of its own, there is another mind other than our own. Science has shown us that all mammals and insects have some sort of brain.

Another point about the significance of such another creature is that this creature will validate our own sense of connection to the world, that we are a part of a multiple of things. It is the existence of ‘mind’ in the flesh before our eyes, as we cannot see our own mind.

Without such a thing—without such a being, we are simply in a dream—a picture of the senses, without realising the distinction between reality and our conjecture of reality from our physical senses. There is nothing alive about the physical reality, it is a visual of the eye, a sound of the ear, etc., but this little creature lets us know that we are not alone, that reality is not simply a projection of our own, but that we are a part of something bigger.

It’s difficult to conceptualise this significance of another life—outside of ourselves, to see ourselves in the mirror or a reflection for the first time. There ought to be a more poetic and profound description but for now this will have to suffice.

Is it not so that the correct mentality is: I want the best for this creature, not at my expense, but I want the best for it. I want the best for myself too, but not at its expense. However, we all know the alternative mentality of the normal person in today’s world. Of course, it is much different if we swap the ant for a dog in this thought experiment, but most people would not kill or exploit them anyway, but what about that shrew or a mouse? Is it not easy to see how we would create a shared identity with this other living creature? And only then do we want the best for it.

Fairness beyond Our Own Kind

When the philosopher analyses society—and the whole of the animal kingdom, one of the most profound differences between them is: there are two types of people in this world, or two types of beings: Cains and Abels. Abels being those who are willing to take advantage of those over whom they have the power to do so, to exploit them. And then there are the Cains who do not exploit others but instead get on with their own lives. This, of course, is a simplistic description which matches the animal kingdom. But if we move into the psychology of many, we can say that Cain is deliberately fair and compassionate to the extent that they would not do to others as they would not have done to themselves, even though they may have the power to do so. And yet we should emphasise it is not simply because of a compassion of emotion and therefore a logic of “I wouldn’t like it, so I shouldn’t do it”; it is more so because of a logical conclusion based on basic universal fairness and living life itself—that it simply isn’t fair or good as a universal law that one part doesn’t consider another part.

This fairness and good referred to is the notion that we should live and let live freely—an individualism alongside a rational collectivism, in the name of a Good universe, which is that all things should be in the name of the benefit and Good of all, which is the entire body of life itself, both actually and in principle—for circumstances can change, and moreover it is a principle that the individual’s life should not be detrimental to the whole. It is a reverence and appreciation for all that is called Life. It is a love for the living creations-creatures of God.

We return to this subject of there being two types of people in this world: the compassionate and the selfish. Of course the latter are compassionate too, profusely so in instances, but not to the extent that they decide to prioritise this principle of love or fairness for another. Another aspect of it is that the righteous people also value self-determination—within reason, each being’s own peaceful sovereign sanctuary. And again the other type of people value this too—but when it suits or is convenient, but not to the extent to live by it or prioritise the principle. Live and let live echoes here, yet not absolutely as we say it is within reason. The King and Queen: the greater good and wisdom must always rule.

Now, obviously there is a big difference as well: we have a conscious dialogue of morality and unconscious conscience—of right and wrong, that the rest of the creatures don’t have. It seems ridiculous to think of the ant or the fish as trying to be moral, but also we shouldn’t count ourselves as so different in some sense, because there are human beings who likewise show no regard or do not ever conceive of the moral laws.

Another point to be made in respect of equality is that every young child of ours is equally immoral and lacking in intellect, and yet they ought to be of equal value in respect of their livelihood, as much as ours. We should not disregard or devalue them in their rights. If someone were to become injured and lose their cognitive ability, they also should not be disrespected in terms of their rights, although they are currently of such a lower rank in functionality in this world.

This key point is being laid before you: We are all equally entitled to fairness and righteousness. Things are not equal in every sense, of course. The wise should lead, and the rest should be wise enough to follow, and yet if they are not, the wise must take action on their behalf, in their interest, but ultimately in the interests of the one true monarch—which is the force of life itself, the totality of the life force— which we—as humans—are the captains and prefects of. But the point and realisation of us being a family of living creatures—and caring for each other in such a way—is necessary as it guides, informs and instructs us to have a certain amount of compassion and respect for all other creatures outside of ourselves, and those we see as equal to us, whether that be equal in intellect, strength or wealth.

In other words: it is a mentality of wanting the best for each of our family members—our fellow creatures, as though they were us, and us them, considering that one day we could be in such a position—what would we want? We know what they want by their emotions and behaviour. I know what I would want in their position, it is what everyone truly wants. It’s easy because it’s the same. I’d hope for prosperity, success—in food, drink, a partner, children. I’d like no catastrophes, I’d like no diseases, I’d like no attack or threat from anyone—any being. I’d like to live as long and happily as possible. So we know that’s what they want, that’s what we want. And to say that a man doesn’t ‘want’ something because he is asleep or unaware as to what he wants or ‘would want’ is absurd.

This must also be said too: It is not for us to make the world equal, to hunt the hunters, to right the wrongs of the jungle, and yet perhaps it is, but it does not seem necessary to do that just now. If another creature is starving somewhere, it is not our duty to go to its rescue. Although there comes a point when we must look at the problems of others in how it impacts ourselves. But moreover, the point here is that it is certainly our duty to not do wrong to anyone or anything.

Yet the most important concept regarding these matters is: Justice. I will touch on this briefly, that this idea is not simply philanthropy and charity, share the spoils, to take everything and share it equally. There is an element of that in this, it is true; there will be some of that, but the most important thing to state and remember is that all such action must be done with reason, common sense and what can only be described as ‘deserve’, which is the idea that life is also about who deserves what—based on their behaviour, based on their nature, based on their mind.

A short story: ten people are given ten apples, each day. One person continuously tosses his apple in the sea, day after day. He is now starving. Not only do we not give this person food aid, but furthermore, we take his daily apple from him, and divide it between the nine.

No creature is favoured more in God’s eyes, we are all his created ones. A parent may get along with or find more joy in one child over another, but a parent wants what’s best for all their children equally. One may be the captain, and one may be ordinary, but a parent cares for them all. And yet a captain is the captain for a reason. An interesting point about life is that there ought not be a captain for the sake of it, if so then there shall be no captain. It is critical to familiarise yourself with this notion that there may be or not be a captain among us, funnily: we should hope that there is, but unfortunately so many of us hope that there is not, it is understandable to an extent because of past experience, the dark history of the tyrant. And truly, we are still somewhat in a phase of the powerful being unable to refrain from being tyrannical—in the case of veganism. But on a positive note, it is our great society which has refrained from absolute power, abolished slaves, raised the flag of human rights and so on.

Power and Exploitation

I’ll say this as a brief point. I don’t like the idea that some greater creature can and will capture me and kill me, and why? For the greater good of society? No, because it simply wants to and enjoys it. It prefers it. And let’s put the eating side of things to one side. I don’t like this idea of murder, unfair-unjust murder. Of being murdered by another creature. I only accept the invitation of death from God, from nature, from mishap. No one should be killing anyone else, unless they truly deserve it. That is my idea I have come to know and love. I value happiness and peace. I don’t accept fear and unnecessary suffering, injustice.

And another way of looking at this, which is quite hippie-ish and lovey-dovey, but it’s this: Man needs to slow down and step back, open his mind and appreciate the magnificence of all creatures. And I imagine that if I were in the world alone with any one of these creatures, it would become my little buddy, my companion. There is something familiar in all creatures when we see them going about their lives, crawling along, seemingly going somewhere, sometimes without a care in the world, sometimes they seem as tied down with work as we are, and nearly always there is a sense of innocence in their living, sometimes not with the predators who seem a bit like drug addicts. But anyway, it is a message of love, of compassion, yet mostly a message of appreciation, especially if all the grander creatures were to disappear, perhaps only then could we appreciate all of the smaller or more insignificant creatures.

Perhaps these arguments seem to be more of an emotional argument. Let me pick up on what I said before about myself not wanting to be murdered. It is a matter of logic and internal consistency to apply this law universally, meaning that if I don’t want it to happen to me, that means that I shouldn’t want it to happen to anyone.

Now you might object that all creatures aren’t entitled to the same rights, and you are right, we are not expected to treat all the same, but there are some basic rights which are absolutely universal and apply to everyone and everything. No one should be treated cruelly undeservedly—or ever, really. It’s never okay to be cruel or unfair to someone. Now, of course, someone could argue that animals deserve cruelty for being such knuckleheads, etc., but it is a grave mistake to assign this punishment for that. An animal deserves murder if it is murderous or violent against someone. Those are the key arguments in short.

Now I find it hard to accept that other people do not possess this same value, even though at 25 years old I did not myself, and I considered myself a man of God and morality from 21 onwards. The thing is, many do agree with this value, but they’re either too occupied to think it through or they’re too weak to put it into practice, and many people subconsciously and consciously have to meddle with their logic and reasoning in order that it fits with their selfish behaviour and desires.

Regarding murder, the point here is not simply a point about murder or violence in and of itself, as there are many sound reasons for killing something and there are also reasons for interfering in another thing’s life: for the better of the world, for the better of society, for the better of itself (them), and of course: for justice. Let’s say that there is a thing which kills other things, does it deserve to die? Must it be stopped? Perhaps it may be thought that the objective thereby should be to lock up this thing and prevent it from doing so, and yet it is still somewhat theoretically and quite literally possible that that thing may kill again; a stroke of genius or luck may allow it to do it. It is absolute and simple, actually, that the only prevention is that this creature doesn’t exist any more. Another great aspect of this idea is that it is paramount in preventing such things from happening. Sometimes people with all the luxuries of life fail to see the beauty and richness of simply being alive, and moreover those very same people may not realise the richness of the internal world of a person who is not interested by the external material world. The point is: There are some who will happily face the consequence of imprisonment compared with the loss of life. There is also a natural instinctive reluctance and resistance to death, whereas there is not to imprisonment.

To return to our direct point: A person may reason that it’s just for a man to kill a cow; even the rabbi preaches how it is wise and beneficial for the cow! But if we understand and accept the simple reasoning above—which can be captured in the old adage of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, it’s perfectly clear that if we were the cow, we would not want others to kill us. Alternatively, consider: as human beings, we wouldn’t like it if a larger and more sophisticated creature were to prey on us. We would pray for it not to be so, as though it were a disease or disaster on earth. “Please God,” we would say, “please make it not so that this creature seeks to kill us.” And I wonder—in this hypothetical situation, whether those same people who would pray to God asking for such help would then go about their day killing other creatures. Such is human error.

Compassion and Convenience

While writing and pondering over the notion of not killing anything—anyone, that is—I am faced with a contradiction. I am in my small room living on the coast of Egypt and there are little ants in my room, little innocent helpless ants, and if I were those ants, I’d wish for a normal life without suffering and without catastrophe—premature death. I wasn’t sure what to do. I wanted rid of them. I brushed some on the floor and swept them out but this is frustrating as it’s reoccurring. I must admit my impulse is to kill all of them—it’s the ‘convenient’ thing to do. I did kill some, some by recklessly sweeping, and even one knowingly in the beginning as I wasn’t sure what to do. I think the right thing to do is to not kill them, to be patient and not lazy, to get rid of them and block their entry or disrupt it the correct way.

Because they are so small, I am guilty of not appreciating their livelihood. It matters not to me, but it does to them, as my life matters to me. Yet, I am guilty of thinking: it is only an ant. It is certainly in my subconscious thinking. And sometimes we do something wrong even when we know it is wrong and hope for forgiveness, a naïve hope that it isn’t wrong, or it’s only very minorly wrong. Can the killer of cows and dogs use the same excuse or reasoning: “It’s just a cow, chicken, fish, etc.”? If you can do it to an ant, you can do it to a chicken. This is logical.

But there is an explanation here to help myself—the contradiction. There are levels of respect. What we must or mustn’t do for a fellow human is not the same as what we must or mustn’t do for the loveliest of cats. Sidenote: an interesting idea presents itself here which is: is there a difference in due respect then between an extremely civilised and friendly human and a somewhat dumb and unfriendly human? The logic above seems to suggest that.

The second part of the explanation in my defensive plea is that the ant shouldn’t be in my room. It doesn’t know any better, I know.

But here is the main thing to say here in my defence of the difference between this murder of mine and the common murder of a chicken. My murder was done for what? I wish I didn’t have to kill it. I wish there was a better—easier way to prevent it. I was lazy, I know, and inconsiderate. I’m guilty of that indeed. If it wasn’t in my room, I wouldn’t kill it, or even desire to do so. I wouldn’t and don’t want it dead—absolutely. I wanted rid of it because it can’t be trusted; it’s too stupid, and I couldn’t think how to control the problem. I don’t want them on me, carrying germs perhaps, etc., and so it is some form of self-defence, ridiculous but truly.

The death of the chicken is nothing of the sort. It is a pure selfish desire and completely unnecessary. It is a matter of wanting, not logistics or practicality. And there are no two ways about it, regardless of any circumstance—the person wants the chicken dead—so he can eat it.

But, but, but… my guilt clouds my reasoning. I finally accept I shouldn’t kill the ant in any case. I shouldn’t kill anything, except in actual self-defence, yes, such as my killing of a mosquito today, but the ant, no.

I did some research subsequently—in my defence, the problem was all but completely harmless. But there is some validity in that it isn’t completely harmless or at least no problem at all. I was lazy; I know it—and moreover: self-entitled.

Necessity and Choice

What does all this amount to for the reader? What is the person to make of this? We are talking of the person who is considering whether to eat meat or not, or whether it is wrong or not. However, one thing I’ve realised in my campaign is that before we get to all of the morality ideas and debate around veganism, there is one important question: Do we need to do it? Because no matter how sad something is, if it has to be done, then that changes things. And so no matter how great a person’s sympathy is, if human beings need to eat animals to survive, i.e. we will all perish, then it becomes more realistic, though it does pose the question: if we were starving with no animals to be had, would it be okay to eat certain human beings? It would seem so.

Furthermore, this information is also complicated in that we can’t easily verify it, because it says that the effects of going without meat/B12 can be years later. And it also says it’s irreversible. All off-putting information.

There is another thing to say here in relation to the idea of naturalism: it isn’t just a matter of independence. The nature idea is also a kind of mystical science in which nature tells us what to do; it is to be guided by nature, meaning that this argument carries weight because it’s as if nature is telling us to eat meat, and to not go without it, as though it’s a part of nature, a part of the great plan and system. This is how it works.

If you search on Google or ask AI a simple question, which in effect is whether we need to eat animals or not, the answer and information you will find is a resounding yes, bar the exception of heavily processed food and technology. If the person has a belief in natural living, which is basically the idea that we have all that we need in nature, and that we don’t need to rely on man-made things, then the answer seems to be that we need to consume animals. Yet, of course, we can manufacture these so-called necessary vitamins, but when it comes to man’s idea of living off the land, or situations where man is independent, it is a problem when we base our lives on some manufacturing thing, especially when it is a chemical and microscopic. Let’s say it again, but more accurately. The science tells us that we need B12, and that we can’t meet that need from ourselves. It’s in animal flesh, and can also be in water and plants, but minimally, and it’s also quite complicated to understand how to reliably get it in enough quantities, to the point that it’s impractical via normal means. In a living-off-the-land, natural-living way of life, it seems to be that the only way is to eat meat, as the other options aren’t really feasible.

But, this scientific explanation only came in the last fifty years, and prior to that we have the Bible, the Jews and the Christians and the Muslims who have dominated the moral discussion. I have spoken to all three, and they say that their holy book and their scholars confirm that it is permitted to eat meat. And so one must acknowledge that this position comes first, prior to the science, which means that it is possible and probable that biases are in place which bring the science to the personal view as opposed to the other way around.

However, there may be truth to the matter: that human beings will suffer with a lack of this vitamin from that source, especially in terms of physicality. But maybe the suffering is not so dramatic and is manageable, and maybe the suffering can cease and be resolved in some way, e.g. a new production or systematic change within. Perhaps it would take generations for the withdrawal symptoms to come to an end. Who knows?

Each man is free to live and see for himself. If he stops drinking water or hydration, he will soon see; same with food. If he sits in the sun too long, he will see. But there are, of course, other mishaps which take their toll later in life, like smoking and substances causing problems in the body. But it is usually the case that while these things may not show as an initial problem, in theory it is easy for us to understand that this thing isn’t good. These are often all such cases of: Don’t do, don’t consume, etc. There isn’t much in life of the “dos”: Consume this or that, do this or that. Life seems to be okay without any instruction, actually. Aside from the bodily urges: to drink, eat, poo, pee.

I take this position of seeing for myself, only trusting myself truly. Myself and God/Good/conscience, my emotions, my logic, my experience and memory. One must refrain from things taken for granted, so-called facts and things which are probably true. This is the Socratic method. Life tells me to eat, to drink at times, to urinate and excrete. It tells me of sexual desire. It tells me of damage through physical pain. It tells me of misfortune, fortune, and values through happiness, sadness and all other emotions.

And my logic is ever building, ever surveying a universe of laws, an understanding of a system that is Good, fair, righteous, evolutionary. My mission is to try to make sense of it all, especially in relation to my own behaviour and my place in this great system.

The next point we want to discuss is the fact that there is a world abundant in food. It is idealism and utopian to some extent to talk of the diversity of the food around the world when some people are faced with a basic and poor offering of food around them. But that does not mean that something is right or wrong, it means something must be done to improve the situation, and furthermore, our ancestors and history have shaped the difficult situation we face, as has nature perhaps, in pushing many of us too far north or too far afield. And society is such that it isn’t an organisation catering to its members, but instead we have a competitive free-for-all—to an extent. But that being said, this discussion is on the matter of what is right and wrong morally.

Think of the avocado, the banana, nuts, beans and lentils, coconut and seeds, and then the rainbow of fruit and vegetables, vibrant dragon fruit, grapes, melons, and oranges and apples, the greens, the aubergines, parsnips and potatoes, lastly the grains: oats, wheat—bread and rice. There are others I forget which prove the point further, but it is a rich and plentiful menu.

We humans are inventive and artful, making the most wonderful concoctions and masterpieces of such things and the smaller herbs and spices, not to mention the creative processing, producing oils, milks, sugars and things like chocolate (vegan).

The banana hangs from the tree, waiting to be plucked. It does not run away nor shy away. And as human beings, our essence is that we are creatures of emotion, we are limited to it, and we use this emotion to guide our very existence, and in the banana we detect no resistance nor negative emotion—that true guide inside our hearts. Whereas, when we try to kill a pig, it runs away from us, like a magnet: as we move forward, it moves back.

Moreover, it screams and cries when we inflict deathly pain on it, that very same emotion which we know ourselves. We know exactly what it is: it is a cry of resistance, a cry to the sky of “Please, no.” It’s a tragedy, for them, we know. But I say: it is a tragedy, period. A sad story.

If a person can completely get down to their mental essence and approach life like a blind man, a man wading through a mass of matter, and he is trying to understand what he should do—what seems right and what doesn’t. Everything is experimental, tentative. We can imagine and understand the sound logic of this person as he becomes hungry—approaching one thing to eat, and registering no sign that it does not want to be eaten—no problem, no sickness, and no indication that something is wrong. And yet, equally, if this man were to approach a different part to eat, and he were to take a bite, we would see that this part of that mass around us responds in a different way, a way which seems to say: no, a large indication that this thing does not want to be eaten, that it is not food.

In other words, or in short, if we approach the external world, which is everything outside of our mind, and we observe and listen to it, then we would perceive that the pig is not food, and the thing which the predator is missing is that sense of humility and fairness toward that mass in saying to himself: “Ah, this does not want to be eaten, so I shouldn’t.” But the predator thinks, or rather doesn’t think: “I don’t care. I want it.”

We said earlier: “Beware!” in the context of a person reasoning and proclaiming evidence to support that which they want to be true and that which suits. It’s relevant here because there are a lot of discussion and statements at present which declare that being vegan is unhealthy, that we must eat meat, we must eat B12. But instead of that kind of science, there is also a science of experience. There are countless vegetarians in India and Asia, as well as people throughout history in our place who have stood the test of time as vegetarians. So we won’t spend much time on arguing against the false. Instead, let us frame the argument as better vs worse.

Desire and Self Justification

We shan’t go into psychology too much here in this brief letter, but for what it’s worth, let us declare: Beware of man’s tendency to believe whatever suits his behaviour, not to mention his self-esteem.

As it goes, often, the rabbi is not a psychologist, nor a psychoanalyst, nor a very experienced person in the passions and the complexity of human nature. This specific point about it being beneficial for the cow is the epitome of a person deluding themselves. Perhaps their principles and integrity calls for such reasoning, to allow them to continue as they are, instead of shattering their view of themselves and life, or a part of it at least. Humility and bravery are needed; such is the difficulty of naming oneself as wrong. But in general, read psychology, beware of the defence mechanisms, distortions, and moreover, the best fact to stumble across is like an aphorism which says: if a man really, really wants to believe something, then he can; the reasons will follow. We believe what we want, or, better still, we believe what suits.

Let us take a step back. It was said at the beginning that the crime is not only in the act of murder for gain but also in the mentality of thinking it is okay for things to be this way. We should highlight a grey area to the dichotomy of two types of people in this world—those who think it’s okay and those who don’t. There is also a person who says, and perhaps even thinks, that it is not okay to do so, it is not okay to kill, but they do it nonetheless. Why? Because they are addicted, and also unable to muster the strength to act on their moral reasoning.

There is one thing I am dying to say. I have been in the throes of a substance, whether it be a drug or a habit or a person. It is in a way to be addicted—to want something beyond reason, and what is it at work? The deaf, blind and dumb bodily system, the very amazing fascinating beauty of life which is the human being—this very special thing—tells us to keep taking the heroin, to keep devoting ourselves to a person—when it is clear to anyone but us that it is harmful or wasteful—detrimental.

And here is something I know and something I have perceived with dumbfoundedness and disbelief, yet incredulity, but wise, truthful insight: it is the change in mind once we free ourselves from the addiction and we see it as it actually is. We can’t help but wonder: how did we think and act in such a way? And it’s clear: Our body and the chemicals affect our thinking, and not always for the good. How bonkers is it that the body screams out and does everything it can to persuade the person to continue taking a substance when it is so obviously the ruin of the person?

Another truth is: of course, if the person stops taking the drug, everything will not be right as rain, and in that sense it isn’t the drug. It is the mental health of the individual which is the problem. They know it too, and they argue as such and continue. But how much worse off are they for the drug? And while they may be terribly low and sad without the drug, there are many roads uphill, whereas on the drug, not only is there no such path, but there are many roads downhill.

Why am I dying to say this? Because it is specifically relevant and applicable to veganism. People are addicted to the eating of meat, and while in the throes of addiction, they will obstruct their moral reasoning to the best of their ability. Here is the insight I offer: Once the person stops eating the meat—they will be able to see the truth of the matter.

Some might argue here, though: why do some people become vegan then and then change back if they have seen the truth? Firstly, it allows one to see the truth; it doesn’t present itself. Secondly, many people quit meat for the wrong reasons; often it is seen as politically correct as opposed to pure morality. And thirdly, addiction is known to work like this. People relapse easily, sometimes after many years, sometimes after a few days. And one thing I have also observed thoroughly is that when a person does change—returns to the thing— their mentality and idea, their philosophy of life, etc., change instantly. Our principles and thinking change according to the situation. What’s the point of wanting something which you can’t have? What’s the point of disliking something which you do have? Etc. Why say something is wrong when you do it? You’re just going to feel bad.

Religion and Reverence for Life

People may disagree instantly, but if there were such a creature in God’s garden who had decided to go around killing other creatures and eating their flesh, this creature would be somewhat of a monster, a Dracula or demon, and whether he be technically and physically our nearest kin, he would be the furthest of kin in reality. And it is conceivable that we may well wish for this creature to cease to be. For our own safety and for the safety and fairness of others. And so it was: Cain killed Abel. You must say: “Read on. God was angry with Cain. Murder is wrong.” No one can deny that murder is wrong, but sometimes two wrongs do make a right. An eye for an eye as they say. However, it is to be noted that Cain does go on to prospect and be protected by God for his action.

Another reference from the first book of the Bible is the second story of two types of people: Jacob and Esau. It is not the hunter who prevails, instead his hunting fails him and he surrenders or comes a-begging to the other person and seeks food of lentils. The other, who is not the hunter and lives by the lentils, goes on to be God’s chosen person.

One of two people is said to be an animal eater specifically, while the other is said to be eating something other than animals, and in both cases it is the person who does not eat animals who prospers. The meat-eater prospers seemingly—physically—in the sense that they are blessed with fortune here on earth, they become strong and furthermore they have an affluence of food around them, not depending on the rain of God to yield a crop. It was said that when man ate the forbidden thing, they became Gods, when they decided to eat other living creatures, they no longer needed to pray for rain or the success of a crop. They became God-like masters of the fortune of themselves and animals—giving and taking life.

This idea that there are two types of people in this world—selfish versus collective thinkers is an interesting topic for the Jew and the Christian—who worship the Bible. The Bible may be an historical account, but it is also a means of understanding moral law. There are stories and statements which illuminate moral law, as it has played out in life. It is a simple method: to say what happened and what transpired, which allows the reader to glean from it what he can.

It begins: there is the first man God created, who was apparently a vegan, but then he ate something he shouldn’t eat, as was made clear by God. His life then took a turn for the worse. This is the first story pertaining to veganism, but the second story is quite to our point, in which this first man has two sons. There are two peoples: one of them tills the ground, a vegan by this account, and the other eats animals. One of them prevails and the other does not, and the one who prevails is protected by God. He populates the world, although the story says a third person enters the scene who also populates the world.

But out of those two people, it is an interesting fact of the story that one prevails, while the other does not. And also to our point, the story also includes that the one who ultimately does not prevail is seemingly favoured by God—by life, which I think is informative because the meat-eater does seem to prosper by their choice, the food is simple, easy and wholesome in some respects, the meat-eater becomes strong, muscular and athletic like the best of the animals, while the vegan has a firm reputation for being leaner, and their diet more complicated. But enough of this, and I apologise to those who pay no heed to those texts written thousands of years ago.

The next thing to talk about is consequence—cause and effect. It would be simple to say that if we imagine a God in the sky—so to speak, who is always watching, that we will be punished in one way or another for killing something else without a good reason to do so, as we said before, there is plenty of food to survive. But of course it’s not so simple because people think differently. The Christians and the Jews actually use God to strengthen their argument in defending their choice to eat another being, including philosophy. They say: it is meant to be this way. But we will not go into theology here.

I will say this though as a side note: it seems to be the case, and it makes sense, that a person is punished for doing something wrong, but the severity is much greater for a person who does something which they know is wrong, and much lighter for those who don’t know it is wrong, so fear not if you are in the position of a reader who completely disagrees with what you are hearing, and continuing to eat meat. Another point of defence is that the vast majority of people do not commit murder, they simply eat it once it is dead, or has been killed to be accurate. So a person can take comfort in knowing they do not know it’s wrong and also in not committing the act themselves. Furthermore, it can be added that it is the social norm of our society, and the tradition of our ancestors.

Let us now discuss the possible ideas of a negative outcome of being a person who eats animals, including animal matter, i.e. eggs and milk. I borrow an idea I heard from Asia, which is that it is possible that the eating of meat interferes with our emotional and spiritual structure, because it itself is indeed an emotional and spiritual thing or a part of such a thing, and so it is in its DNA.

We can recognise and identify a thing in as small a part as a single hair or piece of nail, a drop of blood or skin, even such things carry the essence of the being. And another part of this idea is that we must consider that our body converts that which we eat into ourselves, and therefore the digestive system is to convert the animal into ourselves, and, in other words, combine too, implying that we become animalistic.

Perhaps some of the animal spirit lives in the person if they consume it. This is a technical argument regarding the consumption of another being. The suggestion accompanying this idea is that a plant is something very different, containing no such animal emotion or spirit. Plants contain some kind of energy, but it doesn’t compete with our own, and indeed as God has made it, it is food. Such is the proper order of things. You could spend all your days trying to see the emotion in a plant and will never see it, but in an animal it can be easily seen.

The first idea or area we are touching on is what can be called technical, physiological, chemical and biological, and also psychological, meaning that we may be affected in this way by consuming the body of another being, especially a lower animal. We have touched on the first concept above, saying that perhaps it affects our emotionality or our spirituality, making us less human and more animal. Of course, the whole point above was that we are all animals, but nonetheless, we human beings are in some way a very different thing too. That which is higher should not mingle with that which is lower. Well, perhaps it should, but that which is higher should also mingle with that which is equal to continue the higher. Some of the more tangible terms which come to mind here are things like clarity and control, even humanity, pureness; such things may be worsened at a technical level.

There is also another purely physical idea which is that meat contains hardly any water, and all of its nutrition is second-hand, plentiful, yes, but new or clean, no.

The second idea is one which causes the most uneasiness. It is the idea of Karma. One of the most common and prolific aspects of our experience of God comes down to this basic concept of Karma. It is the idea that God is like a law, a judge, who gives out reward and penalty—punishment. And what does he base it on? Or what is it based on, concerned with: Right and Wrong. And what is that exactly? Fairness, Appreciation, and Intention. In essence, it is a matter of emotion, feeling and thought, and then action. All can be captured in the term ‘Good’.

A good phrase is that honesty is a state of mind, not simply an act. It matters what is going on inside, and God sees and understands everything, there is no scheming against it. But unfortunately we are not aware of this.

The merciful meet with mercy. The violent meet with violence, the unfair with unfairness, the deceiving with deception, the false with falsity.

The true with truth, the kind with kindness, the fair with fairness.

Belief and its nature

It’s firstly important to understand or figure out what you mean exactly by the word God. In the philosophy fashion you’d have to explain why or how you believe in such a thing. We must question what we believe in. And believe is a complex word. I propose there are two kinds of ‘believe’. One is the furthest end of ‘I think’, a kind of guess or estimation and calculation. I think it’s about 5km away, I think she is 5ft 5, I think I left it in the bathroom. Belief in this sense is when we are very confident in the guess. However, it is the case that we can truly and genuinely believe that we locked a door or did some thing but actually we have misremembered and did not do it. The other kind of belief is a matter of hope and want. It isn’t quite the 99% sure guess as the other one, rationally, it’s 50/50 or can be lower or higher, but it is rounded up to 100 with our hope and want – making it a belief. It is certainly different in that it isn’t rational logic, but instead emotional and sentimental.

We must ask ourselves what is the nature of our belief. Some people’s belief in God is rationalistic in that it’s a matter of what they’ve seen and understood. But when the dust settles I think it’s the case that there is always a question mark, our minds are fragile and prone to error, and once it’s not in front of you any more – once we are relying on memory, there is the room for doubt. And if you truly want to be a philosopher, you build your foundation on absolute certainty – mathematical standards of logic. What do I believe?

Different meanings of God

God 1: a power or force, perhaps the only power or force, supernatural, watching over and/or within everything, including in us. A higher being than us. (The most basic concept of God)

God 2: same as god1 but also this god controls things or can - perhaps sometimes, perhaps absolutely everything.

God 3: same as god2 but ‘it’ is also moralistic as we know morality.

God 4: similar to 3 but conceived as a set of laws including physics. Not a relationship of bargaining and discourse.

God 5: many variations, all differing in what each god likes and dislikes, approves of and disapproves of.

And so we realise that the famous question of: do you believe in God is actually complicated. It may have been more simple a couple of hundred of years ago regarding aspects of life and so fewer variations as in god5, for instance catholics in the medieval times probably shared the majority of ideas about god in the same way Islam does now in Islam ruled countries. But still, regarding small and subtle things, each man’s god may differ. Because it is the specifics of what God allows and doesn’t allow which amounts to what a person believes in – their good.

God 6: the Good. It is similar to god4, more like moral laws, but it is not necessarily tied to supernatural systems. A person can believe in Good, and this belief system can be the same as god5 but it is framed differently. Because they can both share the same principle of what is acceptable and what isn’t acceptable. The only difference is that number4 believes that a supernatural system or force is enforcing accordingly. The number 6 doesn’t consider that.

This number 6 is a good idea to remember when we speak of those phrases:

Spiritual but not religious (God 1)

Religious but not spiritual (God 6)

My written and spoken philosophy is mostly from the position of God 6, sometimes cited is God5 under the Socratic premise of: maybe. But if the truth be told here, my belief and concept of God is God 5.

Definitions

Subjective & Objective. Subjective here means that it is a person’s version of something. Whereas objective is the actual reality of a thing regardless of a person’s experience or perspective. And so in short the word objective is used here as being ‘true’ outside of a person’s limited understanding. However, a person’s truth may be aligned or be identical with an objective truth.

Atheistic. Atheism took on a new understanding for me when it was pointed out its shared nature as a word with words like amoral and asexual. These words are not something against something, i.e. the difference between immoral and amoral. The word beginning with an ‘a’ like this simply means that it doesn’t consider the thing or isn’t aware of it. And so Atheism becomes a matter of a person simply not being aware of something, he has not encountered its existence – not just intellectually but experientially. And so the definition of atheism and atheistic in this discourse mean: Without God. Without an awareness, understanding nor conception of God. This doesn’t really leave any room for another definition of atheism being a refutation or denial of God, it would seem all such claims fall under ‘a’theism – as the cause for such claims. An absence of light.

The Good

It's not what we are doing or have done - it’s how we are, this is what is important in life. We have two options, not that we can only do one, but we must choose which is the priority: To build an empire or a mansion in the world – something brilliant, or: To build something of a mansion or an empire inside – equally brilliant. One can be seen with the naked eye while the other must be perceived with understanding. The proposition is: Spend your time developing your personality – your morality and civility – mental health, at the expense of developing material wealth.

Side note: The gift of God is not energy or exuberance of any kind – happiness, joy, and it certainly isn’t any material success or gain. Although these things are good in and of themselves, and may be ‘a’ gift from god, but it must be understood that these things can be given to the wicked and the insane, and instead of being a reward gifted – they are a circumstance – situation given - imposed. The real gift of God is a quiet stability and security and peace and understanding in the knowing that you are not at odds nor are offensive to him or to yourself, knowing that you are not ignorant of the voice – the law of God. The voice of reason and of conscience and compassion reigns within.

God is Good. Life is Good.

Sidenote continues: Even the man burning in hell for a very long time, the foreseeable future, knows he is in the right place, for the good of himself or maybe the good of the world. And that is what every man must serve and love – the good of the world – as true gardeners – realising our identity is the whole and not the part. Our devotion is not to ourself but to the good of the human collective spirit which I think we are all actually a part of, i.e. materially not abstractly, maybe, maybe not, maybe we are individual separate souls always. But the idea is that there is actually one spirit or soul that lives in all of us. And then there is the material understanding too, the atomist or dharma view of reality, which is that all of the material reality is one big collective of dots, like the dots on a scrambled TV screen, currently in a state of affairs as the movie of life is playing. There is no time, no to be or not to be, everything is and always will be and always has been, it is only now in this state, everything is transition. And yet perhaps that’s only the physical reality which we can conceive, perhaps it is better to understand the mental reality, the invisible, infinite, and understand that the true nature of reality is a mental reality and is like that of a dream – happening no where – bound by no limits of space and time, no physical basis at all, it is the reality of thought and feeling. It’s complex stuff. A philosophical tangent. Lastly though in terms of the idea of a collective, without the idea that there is one soul in all of us, or that actually we are all a collective entity of physical matter, without all that, according to the human’s perception of things, one should identify with all his other creatures out of principle.

Socrates

I’ve dived as deep as I can go into philosophy of god, so called theology maybe or ontology, and I’ve abided by the philosophical way of Socrates. And at this moment when I speak of the world being like this or that, or of God, I realise I am making the mistake of stating something is true yet I don’t actually know, e.g. Life is Good, and of the gift of God.

But if believing is knowing, and not a matter of faith. Let me say what I do know. I have a faith, that which I don’t actually know, that God is all powerful and that all is working for good. That is my religion, the meaning of life – for me. But I am a man of conviction because I am sure of one thing which I believe in and know – where there are no doubts or questions unanswered.

I believe in Good. I will live my life by it. I would die for it. I don’t need to know any proofs or explanation as to the actual nature of the thing. A fellow philosopher Francis Bacon said we must admit that we can only know human psychology and human perception of God, everything is the human beings version of it, just as the world is as according to a dog for a dog. But we can observe and come to some understanding of the laws of this life, the laws of physics and the laws of morality.

And so it doesn’t matter whether God is all powerful or there is only one God etc., even if a thunderous mighty voice came to me from the heavens and said look: I am God. And he split the sea, raised the dead, or whatever, I would still not go against my own God, the God of conscience. In other words – this seemingly unique power of such a force is not enough to reveal itself as God, God’s essence is not power but justice. That is the God/Good I worship.

Compassion and truth are the two principles of justice that we must never lose sight of or neglect. Truth is a tricky one, it means to see things truthfully as they are and not biased and selfish. We are an animal and we can know the nature of an animal’s life and know what is right and wrong, but the challenge is: can we overcome self-interest and the desire to get what we want. Even more tricky is the fact that a man will tell himself all kinds of lies and reasoning to support and justify that which he can’t resist from because of weakness of will power and sacrifice.

Let us return to the gift of God. A man who is rewarded by God is not anxious or down-cast, not cruel nor unfair. He is good spirited and kind, in the likeness of the God he knows.

You may wonder what is this understanding the man has. He wonders: what’s going on here. Here is a story, a narrative called life. Is the narrator Good or Bad, or as some may suggest amoral, neutral. The man doesn’t see some life as soft and affectionate. The man sees evolution, an advancement of life, a people that are fair and objective as opposed to selfish and un-fair. A civilisation free from despotism, selfishness and violence. Our world has many violent messed up people but equally bad is the ultra normal person who is ignorant of the suffering of those closest including his very self and yet doesn’t do anything about it, too busy, too disinterested, too weak).

Universal values

The last point, which all has been building towards - is the concept of something greater and infinitely more significant than the first two layers we’ve highlighted, which are: the opinion and morals-values of the individual, and the opinions – values – social norms of society. Who else’s opinion or values are there you might wonder. I say: Open your mind and wonder for a moment. We have established that for the individual there are collective values around him, albeit of people. But what if there are objective – universal values-truths around him – perhaps even inside him in some sense, opinions – values and morals of what is acceptable and not acceptable, of good and bad. The best example draw on here is mathematical truths and logic – are they of humans or are they in and of themselves. Another example is the law of physics – these laws as we know them are the way of the universe – outside of us, we are subject to them, not them subject to us, we perceive of them what we can indeed, but as we know them – they are universal – no person is subject to different laws of physics – the concept is that there is one law – one reality – and all variation falls under it. There is nothing at the end of infinity. Arguing against this – and other like conclusions of the materials or the atheist etc., are what we call illogical – false.

One might protest that this is impossible because such things must stem from a person - and that person’s wants and needs, feelings, experiences, etc., but that isn’t the case in our concept. What if these values consist of universal logic and rationale, but who’s logic and who’s rationale one might object.

There is reason involved in these values, but that is not to say that they are necessarily of a human or a creature. Suppose these ideas are simply: better is better than worse, sophistication is greater than simplicity, fairness better than unfairness. That more is always more. That three and four are more than one and two. Who can fathom an alternative or question the value of improvement versus detriment. Are the universal laws of gravity, velocity, and other such things, are they dependent or connected to us creatures in any way, or are we subject to them. There is a value system here which is not derived from a human being but instead it is a value that could be said to be of life itself – on the whole. It is always better for things to get better than it is for things to get worse, the one is always wanted over the other, it needs no experiencing-creature or any form of life for that matter for it to be so.

The other point about this is that it is similar to numerical logic. Two plus two is four, that is not a human construct, nor a truth of humans. We could look beyond the big bang and to a universe of pure black without the slightest trace of movement, and still: two plus two will always be four, or better still: four will always be more than three. So it’s interesting to think that some things are universal, objective – regardless of us.

The right thing to do is always the right thing to do. Life on earth wants to continue, it doesn’t want to not exist. One may object here that life doesn’t care whether it continues or not, but the answer is: is four greater than three? It is always the case that it is better for something to improve or stay the same compared to getting worse. You might say that sometimes something must get worse before it gets better, therefore, sometimes worse is the better option, but this is a gimmick of language, in any case the option of worse would therefore be improvement albeit unbeknown.

Now we make a big leap here to propose one such value without much elaboration or illustration. We say that a universe with fairness is better than one without it, the more fairness – the better. At this point we are not motioning toward an existence of the familiar concept of God – some thing, we are simply saying that within the Human-sphere, we have found that there are some universal truths. And here is a value which is universal: along these lines: the more fair a person is - the better. Now fair isn’t simply equality - he who divides everything, but rather he who judges correctly, based on what is the right thing to do - not for himself or any one or group in particular, but for life on earth, and including who deserves what and why.

And so the point is – in short: Let us propose that there are universal values and morals around us and within. And let us reiterate the foremost step we mentioned in the beginning concerning values, which is: We must try to become aware of what these are, although the necessity is different here. It isn’t so that we can challenge them. Such values are universal and not subject to any person or thing, i.e. right or wrong. They are abstract – objective morals around fairness, correctness, guided by one concept at the very least which is: Better versus Worse. Or neutral versus Worse. Worse is always worse than both.

The false gods

There is One God, One Good in life.

Don’t say that there are other good things in life too, such as beauty, wealth, health and talent or skill, because all of these things can be so yet corrupt and evil, which is why they are not good in and of themselves, only in the accompaniment of true Good.

One good means that there is one thing which is the important thing in life, to be prioritised above all others, always. That Good is difficult to describe in a single word or phrase. The thing we can do for now, without a precise definition and example, is to name a few words: true justice, truth, compassion – for all, benevolence, mercy, understanding, fairness (justice), gentleness, consideration, righteousness (justice), and: The Law, conscience, strength, clarity.

But what is justice other than a vague universal sense of fairness. I’ve said many times that it isn’t simply blind equality, dividing the spoils equally. Justice is reasoning in accordance with understanding and a hierarchy of righteousness between people and ideas. What is righteousness: the notion and understanding of the right thing to do. It’s vague because it’s person specific, righteousness is the quality and ability to not only want and desire to do the right thing, i.e. the drive, but also the ability to assess the situation – including ourselves, and to decide what is the right thing: what is the best thing for the situation, not for himself – and these things are mutually exclusive. This isn’t a matter of kindness or equality, however, ‘the best thing’ is to always be of kindness and equality, though the decision is solely devoted to the best thing for the situation, and the situation is life. All minor – everyday – mundane and political, each specific social situation, all falls under the situation of life – the classroom, the group, the house – which we call the world and life, everything is in the best interests of this. And righteousness as a quality amongst us can easily be captured as we think of this task of a manager, if we imagine the job of managing the world, making the rules, deciding the punishments, the education system, the laws, the order. It is easy to fathom that people will vary in their approach and the carrying out of such a job. And so it is: Each person’s level of righteousness is measured in how he would fare in such a job. And yet in a completely realistic version of this idea, a person’s level is similarly measured in how each person lives his or her actual life right now. How does he treat people, how does he approach his lot in life and life itself, how does he think and reason, how does he react, etc. The old adage here is central in judging such things: don’t do to others which you would not want and would not like if it was done to yourself, especially so in the case whereby you feel it is wrong and unfair – and moreover especially if it is unnecessary – i.e. ‘you didn’t have to do that – my suffering wasn’t necessary, nor for the good of every one’ that which is avoidable and not in the interest of everyone and everything but instead is in your interest, and it is possible simply because you have the power to do so, and not the right. Is it what God wants?

And yet there are some other ‘Gods’ and good’s which people often admire or worship in some way, meaning that it’s what they live by and pray for, even invoking the name of God. It is what they value most – think about most. It can be seen in their actions and subtleties in their discourse or thought, what they think is the most important and are working towards and for. Things admired are things such as cleverness, fastness, strength, power - whether it be violent or social or circumstantial, and of course wealth – status, social fame and renown.

It is important to understand that the ‘Law’ of life applies to both the circumstantial life - the material world – external physical reality – the reality of the senses, and also it applies to the inner system of reality, the invisible, immaterial, infinite, including the state of mind, state of heart, our emotion, self-esteem, contentment, and all other states of mind relating to peace and clarity. And so one must take up religion – which can be said to be a Re-Allegiance or Re-alignment to a Life with the Law or by The Law, in order to attain and establish such things. This is the ancient philosophy, how to be happier, and moreover forgetting happiness, how to be of a more sound mind and strong heart, how to see better, listen better, how to do the right thing, namely: how to know what is right, and consequentially, and we are forgiven for thinking like this as there is nothing bad in it – in and of itself: How to know that which brings about the best results – to be rewarded with a good life, yet I hasten to add that is not riches alone – but riches with goodness is a gift, i.e. material wealth is a good gift, though the point is, everyone who is given it may not be good, such is the workings of God, complicated and contrived.

Life, luck and the problem of suffering

The other consequence, and we’ve saved the best or worst until last, is: The proposition that the element of luck may swing in our favour or against us as a result of such things: consuming other beings. A quick digression necessary for this concept is that when speaking of God and morality in a philosophical discussion, it can be put like this: At any given moment in time, there is the element of luck. Therefore we are subject to luck always. There is always the possibility of good luck and bad luck, even if that good luck consists of merely staying the same, a great blessing in some way. But anyway, the idea is quite simple, although the physicalist-atheist thinks otherwise, it is a question of wonder, which is: What if there is a connection between our morality in the fullest sense of the word: our inner workings as well as our acting on the stage of life, what if this morality is connected to luck. The atheist – we won’t spend any time here debating the word atheist, but let’s just take it as the opposition for now, the atheist objects immediately to this idea of the connection between morality and luck, they say no! defiantly and vehemently. We will say two things regarding psychology, the same psychological point can be used in any case to question someone’s ideas, the same which is commonly used to critique and doubt Religion, it is: why are they saying that, how does it serve them, or how is it caused by them, their indirect and sometimes confused reasoning. And so: The atheist objects so adamantly because: 1) The sound logic is that if something is not presented to the mind, but rather hearsay, then it shouldn’t be admitted as being a real thing, in other words: they don’t see it, and they are working from a reductive philosophy of admitting only that which is undeniable – via their perception. They don’t see this connection, in the same way they don’t see sound or smell, but they do ‘see’ those other things in a different way, and that’s their point. I would argue that they see this other thing with their heart, with their conscience, but that is not an official sense as of yet. But to summarise this first reason it’s this: They don’t understand it, they don’t perceive such a law – mechanism in place, and therefore they deny it. 2) Not quite logic, more of an emotional reasoning, which is simply this: a very common psychological phenomenon dilemma of: A matter of what to think - two options: true or false, it did happen or it didn’t, the person’s conclusion of whether it was good or it was bad, and the person is often faced with a dilemma as such: If I believe-say one thing – I’ll feel like this: bad. If I believe-say the other thing – I’ll feel like this: Good. It’s worth mentioning that there are material benefits of feeling good: energy levels, confidence and superficial happiness, and equally there are detriments to feeling bad: low energy, self-esteem, guilt, etc. And so the point here of this second causality is that a person is often pushed to denying The Law – the so-called connection between morality and luck because it will make him feel a certain way. The first things that come to mind are that the person may be scared or anxious but that is a matter of believing in the future – even beyond life as we know it, but I suppose the actual problem here is that it puts a big impediment and caution on all action, for instance the person’s current life and living would need to be examined and altered according to morality. It also gives a person’s conduct a great deal of significance, meaning that the person can no longer dismiss their misconduct. It places a great deal of accountability on life. And of course retrospectively it seems to offer a great deal of guilt and responsibility for one’s own suffering, it places such things on the world as a whole.

The problem with this concept is outstanding and not a matter of joke or sarcastic commentary. It has been a bane of religious philosophy. The above idea implies that a person’s life is caused by or connected with their own conduct and/or the way they are: them as a person. The innocent child suffering seems to be blamed and responsible – deserving. Also, the bad person who has great luck seemingly then believes in his vice and sin, reinforcing a morality of evil. And for all of these reasons, the concept of the connection between our living and our luck is complicated and put to one side. They say it gets very complicated when we begin to speculate and postulate around who deserves what.

It is a bane of philosophy because it seems to contradict the Good God Law, that there is fairness in the universe. The person sees the helpless deer being torn apart by wolves, the innocent child dying on its first day, or the angelic youthful child afflicted with tremendous suffering and death, and the list goes on. The upset individual says: Look at these things, how can God let these things happen, if it existed, then these things wouldn’t happen. How sour a read is the book which preaches that Life is good, that all is good, God is all-powerful and loving. And where is thy fairness and thy mercy. It must be admitted that this aspect of life calls into question one’s understanding that everything is okay, everything will be okay, and that there is a loving – fair hand of God holding us. How to make sense of it? According to the book of Law, it seems to say that everyone deserves what they get.

The first thing to put forward is the idea that we don’t know the nature of life, we don’t know whether this physical life and world that we know is all that there is. There is a great analogous idea of electricity which can be put into a body and used to move that thing, operate in all kinds of ways, and yet we don’t really know the life existence of electricity, it’s put into a battery, then into an action, the action is in the world, but does the electricity ever die, or was it ever born, or does it simply go from one thing to another. And the analogy is that our spirit or soul is like such electricity and our body including our brain is some big toy or machine, and so when we die, the body indeed dies, but that electricity transpires, moves on, into the world, dispersed – who knows, or perhaps into some other creature. And then there are other ideas which state that all of our physical existence is similar to a projection or a hologram, the true mental reality being behind it or underneath it. These are all great ideas because they are logically and rationally sound, and moreover they can do a great deal for the morale and mentality of a human being. And that is the point which is relevant here in our present discussion. There is one divulges and elaborates on some of these profound so-called meta-physical arguments, or even arguments at the nuclear and atom level, we can begin to see that perhaps a death in this life is not so significant as it seems. Of course it isn’t if there is a greater raw life beyond the one we now know of. This life can be seen as some kind of computer game, and the bigger picture is like real life in that computer game analogy. Or perhaps it isn’t a matter of quality but quantity and there are hundreds or thousands of games/lives. The person may object: But what if it isn’t, and this is everything, then its tremendously tragic and unfair. It’s a valid point, but it is indeed a point and not a fact, and it’s important in the philosophical discussion when we are trying to make sense of our religious philosophy, how to reconcile the law of God with these tragic events.

Three connected subjects

There are three main subjects to write about which are connected to one objective. The subject of sex, the subject of drugs, and the subject of food. The object is to be like Adam, to establish heaven on earth.

The three physical commandments can be categorised into three levels according to ancient philosophy, which is: Respect God, Respect others and Respect yourself. Otherwise said as a Duty to God, a Duty to others, and a Duty to yourself. The duty to others in this context is the most significant commandment it seems, hence it is the first one: Do not abuse others. Do not approach life selfishly. However, that is not to say it is most important actually. It is only in this context that the third commandment refers to certain things which are deemed less significant than that which is referenced in the first one. The third one specifically touches on creation and refers to all forms of contraception and what I like to call Adultery, which is hereby defined as anything sexual other than reproduction / procreation. So let us explain this in more detail.

A man masturbating or having contraception with his wife is seen in our present context as less ‘criminal’ than when a person violates another person, such as using force or attacking them – when it is unnecessary and moreover unfair, i.e not deserved, though the man may fully believe that it is deserved but unfortunately for him it is nonetheless criminal. Whereas the other man who is engaging in sexual misconduct can be said to be not harming anyone, minding his own business. They say live and let live. And that is how we deem one thing as more severe and criminal than the other. However, the point which can be made is this: The man is violating and harming himself – a person, and to go further: he is corrupting himself, which impacts the social group in a less obvious and less immediate way. And so it is that both things are equally criminal in a nuanced sense.

I suppose it begs the question though: How does such a thing corrupt a man in such a way that it impacts others and himself going forward. The answer would be that it makes the man more accustomed to putting his own gratification before objective reason, and before righteousness, and we thereby create a man who by habit chooses selfishness over righteousness, that being that one act or decision bleeds into other decision-making and actions. The man is becoming a pleasure seeker, and it is the wrong kind of pleasure, ungodly. This is a complex answer and the concept of wrong pleasure is deep. But so it is that what seemed to be a matter of harmless action within a man’s own private life, is also actually an act at the social level. But it is less direct, and it is without intention or knowing.

This so-called sin is classified under an abuse of God, because it is seen as the obvious wrong use of the sexual organ and natural desire in man. It is against the evolution of man. That desire is to spur us on in creating human beings and continuing our magical civilisation. Abuse of that desire is an affront to God.

We also touched on the idea of a man violating himself, which is what the second commandment refers to directly in its meaning of abstaining from all substances and incident which alter the person in an abnormal and unnecessary way, e.g. drugs, but also sexual activity. If you search on google or ask AI a simple question, which in effect is whether we need to eat animals or not, the answer and information you will find is a resounding yes, bar the exception of heavily processed food and technology. If the person has a belief in natural living, which is basically the idea that we have all that we need in nature, and that we don’t need to rely on man-made things, then the answer seems to be that we needs to consume animals. Yet of course we can manufacture these so-called necessary vitamins but when it comes to man’s idea of living off the land, or situations where man is independent, it is a problem when we base our lives on some manufacturing thing, especially when it is a chemical and microscopic. Let’s say it again but more accurately. The science tells us that we need B12, and that we can’t meet that need from ourselves, it’s in animal flesh, and can also be in water and plants but minimally and it’s also quite complicated to understand how to reliably get it in enough quantities, to the point that it’s impractical via normal means. In a living off the land natural living way of life, it seems to be that the only way is to eat meat, as the other options aren’t really feasible.

Heal-Thy Self

There is one thing I am dying to say. I have been under the throes of a substance, whether it be a drug or a habit or a person. It is in a way to be addictive – to want something beyond reason, and what is it at work – the deaf, blind and dumb bodily system, the very amazing fascinating beauty of life which is the human being – this very special thing – tells us to keep taking the heroin, to keep devoting ourself to a person – when it is clear to anyone but us that it is harmful or wasteful – detrimental. And here is something I know and something I have perceived with dumbfoundedness and disbelief yet incredulity but wise truthful insight – it is the change in mind once we free ourselves from the addiction and we see it as it actually is. We can’t help but wonder how did we think and act in such a way. And it’s clear: Our body and the chemicals affect our thinking, and not always for the good. How bonkers is it that the body screams out and does everything it can to persuade the person to continue taking a substance when it is so obviously the ruin of the person. Another truth is: Of course if the person stops taking the drug, everything will not be right as rain, and in that sense it isn’t the drug. It is the mental health of the individual which is the problem, they know it too, and they argue as such and continue. But how much worse off are they for the drug, and while they may be terribly low and sad without the drug, there is many roads uphill, whereas on the drug not only is there no such path but there is many roads downhill.

Why am I dying to say this? Because it is specifically relevant and applicable to Veganism. People are addicted to the eating of meat, and while under the throes of addiction, they will obstruct their moral reasoning to the best of their ability. Here is the insight I offer: Once the person stops eating the meat – they will be able to see the truth of the matter.

Some might argue here though that why do some people become vegan then and then change back if they have seen the truth. Firstly, it allows one to see the truth, it doesn’t present itself. Secondly, many people quit meat for the wrong reasons, often it is seen as politically correct as opposed to pure morality. And thirdly, addiction is known to work like this. People relapse easily, sometimes after many years, sometimes after a few days. And one thing I have also observed thoroughly is that when a person does change – returns to the thing, their mentality and idea, their philosophy of life, etc., changes instantly, our principles and thinking change according to the situation. What’s the point of wanting something which you can’t have? What’s the point of disliking something which you do have?, etc. Why say something is wrong when you do it? You’re just going to feel bad.

Another significant thing to consider, especially in relation to drugs but also in relation to contraception and eating other animals: This isn’t quite naturalism, it is moreso a point of independence and authenticity: Cocaine is the perfect example, the person must think: would I ever have thought to find this plant, to boil it, mix it with some other chemical, a certain process, etc., I think not, and so the point is: This is someone else’s idea, and it is very likely we would never be doing such a thing if we weren’t being influenced by someone else. Even alcohol is a bizarre thing. This applies to contraception too, though a person may reason that if they were faced with the predicament then they would naturally conceive of the idea of contraception, yet is not certainly the case. Lastly, the question can also be put to us about killing an animal and eating. We do it because someone else did it for us and someone else does it, and indirectly society tells us it is okay to do it. But if we were thinking of an authentic life with no influence hypothetically, would we reason ourself that it’s okay and do it. Who knows.

Feeling good and being good

And so here it is: We embark on a journey of self-improvement: as a being of reason and righteousness. And we look at the factors and system at play which allow us to do that. Let’s begin with a matter that is tangible and relevant. A man wishes to feel good, well? how should he go about it. Religion of course – all that we’ve spoken about, but what if he has found another means of feeling good. It is slightly different, more immediate and palpable, more intense perhaps, and the system is more definite seemingly, and also more accessible, i.e. not so intellectually demanding. What if he has found such a way. We are talking here about the personal pleasure, i.e. that which is primarily concerned with ‘feeling’ good - consciously, whether it be sensual or self-esteem – feelings generation for our evaluation of ourself. A key distinction to note here is between ‘feeling’ good and ‘being’ good, a conscious feeling or self-assessment of feeling good, compared to objectively being good – sound – balanced - just.

It should also be said that in relation to levels of just being a matter of sophistication, a person can also be just with equal measure of humility, and so it is that there are or were many individuals with low intelligence yet this golden trait of humility and Socratic dialogue in stating that they don’t know, or the additional statement of ‘it seems’ or ‘I think’, it is a style which seeks to not be wrong, to not state that which we, the person, are very unsure of, or hasn’t reasoned through in depth – relatively so. One must ask themselves, am I a person who has spent time studying my own mind and understanding how I work, and also have I taken the time to try to understand the nature of situations, in history, and in general – am I a person who is particularly perceptive and insightful in matters of investigation, because if I’m not – I should firstly declare and realise this.

Desire and its use

A quick side-note here from the study of human nature including psychology. I say this because it is not just a general observation. Our society has analysed far and wide across our population at large, and delved deep into the actual body, the wiring, the fumes and so on, and they have observed and concluded that there is a natural inherent driving force within us, a force which pushes us to continue – to live, to continue life, and this drive can be separated into two streams or it can be said there’s two drives. One drive to survive/live – the desire and call to eat-drink, which makes itself known as feelings of hunger and thirst. It is also evident in the natural aversion and avoidance of pain and threats to life. The other drive is to reproduce, known as a feeling of sexual desire. I’m sure there are exceptional cases of asexuality as they say or loss of appetite, yet in general these drives are present in man-kind as well as the rest of the animal kingdom.

It is this fact of a drive which we will discuss as to what not to do, i.e. that which is wrong, and right. The religious or so-called self-development principle is to not ab-use this drive – following the same principle that we shouldn’t abuse any part of life – meaning that we should show appreciation and care, nurture, as opposed to lack of appreciation and destruction, however in the case of sexuality the word abuse also denotes a meaning of the wrong use, to use something in the wrong way – for the wrong thing: pleasure or some other indirect gratification.

Don’t eat for pleasure alone. Don’t have sex for pleasure alone. Eating is to sustain us and give us energy to live, albeit enjoying it is good too. Sex is for reproduction, and likewise. Those are two simple and obvious facts that a reasonable person can understand, the problem is: it requires a person who is disciplined and in control of his mind, and when we say control and discipline we are simply talking about the ability to make decisions which are in our best interests overall – for the future and for the whole of us – our inner feelings, as opposed to immediate gratification which deters and is detrimental for our development and inner-deeper feelings. So the reality is clear, and any other reasoning is wrong and simply a matter of a person trying to propose a philosophy that fits with this weakness. Meanwhile the problem of this is: there will be a consequence.

A famous Asian proverb says: cheat life and life will cheat you back. Every action has a reaction as conceived in the classic idea of The law of Karma. Lastly another idea is the metaphorical wise old man in the sky - God, watching everything, even your thought, and a heaven or hell awaiting you. All of these ideas are saying what: Do the right thing. But what is the right thing! The guilt-filled man will say there is no right thing, morality is subjective. But to be religious, or to be a true man of God is to work under the theory and eventually the observation which is: that there is an objective morality, AKA: The one true God. The one true Good.

However, Religion is a matter of doing and not doing - refraining. A matter of lifestyle, behaviours and choices. Not merely ideas and so-called belief in this or that. Yes it is those things but only in so far as they are actionable principles. It doesn’t matter whether you believe God has two heads or three heads, whether he sent his only son or a load of his sons, whether you believe in miracles or not, whether God is all-powerful or powerful to an extent. How will any of that help me understand what you’re going to do, whether I can trust you or not – to do the right thing – that you’re a fair and just person? I can’t stress enough in todays society that fair and just isn’t simply a matter of emotion and wanting to do the right thing, it is a mature and well-rounded sophistication of consideration, i.e. self-aware and understanding of others, of psychology, of philosophy.

Here is the interesting answer to the question: but why not, why is it wrong, why is this type of abuse wrong, is it not as neutral as the use of a spoon for various other things, a shoe-horn, eating that which is usually ate with a fork and so on, i.e. things are limited to one use. The answer is not a dogmatic and empty statement along the lines of: our body is God’s sacred vessel, and we need to keep it natural etc, this is God’s design, etc., because still the question persists and is actually relevant: but why? And furthermore: how do you know he wants or intends it to be this way.

Another famous quote in our relatively modern battle with religion is that: psychology is the new religion, this was said around the same time that God is dead, we have killed him. Now this is completely wrong if you are referring to the modern collective of psychological treatment in the world today, modern medicine and cathartic methods - behaviourism. Instead the saying rings true here in that it is now incumbent upon man to understand the truth and nature of religious instruction and principles, which is a matter of psychology, including philosophical psychology and spiritual psychology. Such is the nature of Religion and it always has been, it is the improvement and more so the cure of the self – the fallen self, namely law and order of the mind: the culprit behind everything if we are to include all of our inner workings under the title of the mind (not just the vocal, linguistic, reasoning mind. Rather the emotions, feelings, gut instinct, and all that is unconscious as well as conscious).

And so we move away from dogmatic empty statements, i.e. the arbitrary ‘will of God’, at least in that sense - arbitrary, because in another sense it is the will of God which we seek to follow, or our creator - more specifically, the creator of our conscience, our sense of right and wrong, because when we look down to the bottom of our perception and understanding where we can see no further, at that last stop of I don’t know - that’s just the way it is, there is where we say: such is the nature of Life, such is the nature of God. What are we talking about here? Aside from the logical understanding of actions and ethics - which we are discussing here, there is also an ontological-epistemological point that is important because when we discuss the logic and validity of how we arrive at our principles and values and the nature of life - for instance I will say: I feel guilty about it, or a little sad about it, or I feel good, or bad - about it, and this may be conscious or an observation of unconscious mechanisms, and then the question is: why, and the answer is I don’t know – we are just built like that, of course there is a lot of human understanding before we get to that point because there are many layers which we can understand as to why we feel or act the way we do, which are circumstantial and personal, our inner values and desires and so on, and yet the point we are trying to explain here is that there are some things which simply are and that’s just how it works. And interestingly these facts are tied to morality. And these facts aren’t only a matter of our feelings, they are also resulting cognitive states of mind. With these types of causes and effects there are no psychological explanations, it’s human nature – life.

Let’s try to put this abstract point into real terms. A human being feels bad about something he did, and yet he may feel bad even if there are no concrete or practical consequences, which would normally be the social-psychological explanation, i.e. he feels bad because of this or that, but often we see that a person feels bad simply because he thinks it’s wrong, and the question is: why is he programmed like that. And even if one can offer various explanations, it’s still the fact of the matter that he is built that way, and we must look at that build to see the nature of reality. The opposite argument would be, just because a person feels like having a poo in the street, doesn’t mean he should follow his feelings. But a man should poo, but he has learned to do it in a better place. Let’s try one more time. Humans feel disgust or sadness, frustration and sympathy for something bad happening, something unjust, and social psychologists may try to say it’s a simple understanding because the person doesn’t like these things, and so that’s why they feel this emotion at seeing them, but like we said – the blunt question persists: But why doesn’t he like them? Why doesn’t he like unjust things, even to himself, a human being could easily be unbothered or inattentive of just and unjust. Why do we have a conscience at all? The idea here that we are trying to convey is that this existence of a conscience is the fingerprint or footprint of God inside us.

Okay so we can now discuss the subject matter of the abuse of sexuality, which is all forms of contraception, anything other than a use for reproduction, including all forms of masturbation. The question was: why is it wrong at the practical-demonstrable level. And the answer is not that it is to do with the sacred nature of the body or of intimacy, or because someone wrote it and said it’s so, or because God says so without explanation. God does say so but he says so through the law and with it an explanation - a psychological-spiritual explanation. Let us re-state the one True God, aka the one true good. Justice.

Reason, practice and precedent

What people often miss when it comes to religion, I’m specifically thinking here about Christianity, and all modern teachings, which basically say: be this or be that: be kind, be fair, etc., or try to be this or try to be that – love thy neighbour, yet they are referring to sheer will, try to be a good person, try to be just, etc., but what about when you don’t feel like – you’re tired or peeved, and moreover: what about when you don’t understand correctly whether you’re being unfair or not, then of course there is no chance of justice prevailing or injustice being overturned because it’s not known or even suspected to be wrong. You see the problem with this system. Another great example comes to mind when we think of a young woman or girl, or any person for that matter but it works particularly well with a woman who is bothered by what her peers or colleagues think of her, and this example is captured in a situation whereby a person says: just don’t be bothered, don’t care about what they think. The person understands the advice perfectly, but its not as simple as that. Also captured in the classic phrase: It’s easier said than done.

Sidenote: The world today is so obsessed with (the proclamation of) fairness and equality without the factor of quality and without hierarchy, they think fairness is an idea or concept or a vision even that all see equally, not realising one person’s fairness is another’s unfairness. But the hard truth is: some people are a lot more sophisticated and mature in their reasoning of what’s fair and what isn’t. The basic proof of this albeit in the extreme – but that is where we must go sometimes just to find the basic proof of something – if we look at children or young people, ourselves for examples when we were ten or twelve, even fifteen or sixteen, then we know that there are people in this world who don’t get or understand a lot of things, they don’t consider some of the nuances or nature of the problem – of the situation, of life, human psychology and nature, indeed philosophy, and so their opinion is immature, limited and all too often over-zealous, over-simplified, based on an emotion and based an understanding that is limited compared to someone who has more experience, more study and more knowledge of the situation. And such is the case with fairness - with justice. Some people who know the history, the aims, the psychology and diverse and complicated nature of reality more than others do, and moreover another thing is that there are some who are less affected by their personal experiences, their personal traumas or circumstances, who can see the picture a little clearer or more balanced. This isn’t a skit of such people by the way, its an unfortunate thing, but the humble and correct thing to do is to be aware, to say: hey, I’m probably a bit skewed here because I’ve had a life with certain challenges, whether they be circumstantial or psychological shortcomings. Some are fortunate to have not had that, or to have been able to overcome that. The problem we have is: we need leaders, what we’d like is perfect people like Jesus Christ, for people like him to be the leader, but instead our leaders are flawed like we are, and only slightly better reasoners in some cases. The other problem we have is the age-old divide, still existent explicitly now in the two ancient religions: Judaism and Hinduism. It is only the man-made religions of Christianity and Islam which don’t have this, and it’s probably not coincidental, those both religions were made to capture and include the masses, whereas the other two are organic.

So, how does justice relate to this aspect of life: sex, it certainly isn’t a matter of being just to ourselves – to God or to others. It’s deeper and more complicated than that. To be just, or to improve your level of righteousness unfortunately requires practice and the nurturing – alchemically - of a mentality and the establishing of integrity of principles, at least as far as I’m aware – unless there is some miracle that a baby is born this way. Because the individual is naturally childish – selfish, to different extents as he gets older, but it is so. And so he must seek and create this state of improved righteousness, another phrase is the purification of reason. I am sure there are other terms in the spiritual, religious and all the other self-development domains, such as enlightenment, etc., However the meaning in our discourse is that the person evolves into someone who reasons according to reason alone - intelligence and logic including human feelings - our nature, guilt, happiness and so on, as opposed to a notion of reason alone being pure logic and rationale which excludes or neglects our human nature – compassion, etc. The opposite of pure reason in our discourse is when the pure reason is affected and clouded by the person’s biases and personal desire-will to either feel good illegitimately or to gain something material which is still a matter of feeling good in some way or other illegitimately. This illegitimate idea is born in the field of psychology which we mentioned earlier which is our understanding of why a person feels or acts in a certain way – and it becomes illegitimate when we manipulate or abuse that understanding to affect how we feel. The nature of such things is that they are indirect. This is where the pollution and adulteration of the mind can and does happen, it resonates with the metaphorical idea of the forbidden fruit in genesis. For example, a person is feeling angry about failing a test, so they smash something. Now this is complicated but the point is: it’s when we fix something by not fixing it but doing something which covers it up or distracts us to relieve the problem without actually resolving it. And moreover, it’s things which don’t include morality – does not abide by the moral law of justice – excellency: The questioning process of whether it’s right or good. A person’s relationship may end so they go sleep with a woman – why? To feel better. A person might feel sad so they eat a load of ice cream, why? To feel better. A person may be feeling a little low after failing a test, so they make their friend believe they failed a test too, or they convince their friend who did well that the test doesn’t actually matter – why? To make themselves feel better. A person may engage in photography or some type of publicity, why? To make themselves feel better. A person may give someone a bad deal, why? To make themselves feel better. These are all manipulations of certain psychological mechanisms to make themselves feel better. However, it must also be said here that there are two systems of self-esteem: Atheistic & Theistic – Godly. All of the manipulations above fall under a selfish God-good, a system of self-esteem and feeling good which is atheistic truly. Nearly all of it does not apply to a man of God. But some of it does as he is progressing, and I suppose for all it is a spectrum as opposed to a black and white divide, i.e. different gods. But because the contrast is so large it is similar to say that it is two different Gods in effect. But it should be said once and for all, and for old times’ sake: There is no devil or other Good, only the absence of God.

Being just is to be led by reason – pure reason. A man knows that sex is for reproduction. And so going against that is a precedent of going against reason. But let’s say a man doesn’t know that. Let’s say a man reasons instead: I want to do it because what? It feels good, and we can say it’s about connection and intimacy but nonetheless we want those things or to give them, create them, because it feels good. Not because it is good, but because it feels good for you personally, and you alone, or both of you alone, no one else or nothing else is benefitted from it. And this sets a precedent of your approach to life. It’s a matter of reason versus ‘feeling’ good, a personal feeling. We are talking here about contraception and masturbation, not simply sex. Because let us not mistake that it is good and acceptable for a man to have sex with a woman, regardless of the child and reproduction, it feels good – it is good, therefore he wants to do it, and perhaps it may be unwise or untimely but it is not a sin. The desire to do it is fair. The problem is when the man also thinks: But I don’t want a child. I don’t want to reproduce. Reason therefore dictates: Then don’t have sex. But man says: But I want to. “I want to!”. And this is the mentality which is set as a precedent. A man defies reason and nature – why? Because he wants to! This desire and carnal lust is of the animals – the dinosaur, the absence of God, the lack of reverence for the nature of things. And it also is an instance of man being unable to control himself according to reason. He gives in to the sensual and selfish desire of personal pleasure. It feels good because it is the result of reproduction – something absolutely good, yet we are manipulating this fact, and feeling good without having done any good. And yet the innocent intellectual might ask: But seriously what is so wrong about it, what harm or problem will it actually cause? That you can prove. Who will it harm? The answer is: it will harm no one, at least not directly or demonstrably, but it will corrupt the person. And that is the cause of harm further down the line. Because a corrupt person can collect mass like a rolling ball, and moreover a corrupt person may not go on to harm someone but they may neglect to notice the harm or injustice committed to another, either by themselves or by someone else. But let us go further, this same intellectual asks: But how? How does it corrupt them. Man is systematic – his mind is systematic, which means it has principles and rules of thought, patterns – it works a certain way, he reasons a certain way. So this is the idea of precedent, a man either dismisses reason or he doesn’t, he considers reason or he doesn’t, and lastly: He follows reason or he doesn’t. And any act sets precedent, so an instance of following reason means he sometimes does, and an instance of going against reason means he sometimes does go against it, and therefore it breeds the possibility of doing so in future situations. Whereas a man who works on the pattern and integrity of principles opts to not go against reason to set precedent. The second point to explain is that this is an instance of choosing self-gratification of a meaningless – Goodless pleasure over a positive developmental option, i.e. practising discipline, adhering to reason – to nature. And as we laid out earlier – the hypothetical task which we judge every man by – how would he rule the world, and such is his level of righteousness, then this decision to follow selfish pleasure as opposed to the Good is a bad sign of things to come for a man in that task. A question may be: Why is this other option deemed to be ‘the good’, restraint? But it is not the restraint that is the sole purpose of this choice, it is the right usage of sex in the right way – for reproduction, and let’s say that isn’t possible, then there are other usages of energy and efforts which are more productive which are the good.

Another point though is the illegitimacy of it. This is the wrong means to create love and intimacy, physical affection is best as a hug, a bringing together and holding together of bodies, but much deeper than that is the intimacy of mind and life shared – commitment and exclusivity. As we know any two strangers can have sex, passionately, lovingly, many times over many days – dare I say months and years, and still they are nothing to each other, it counts for nothing. And so the point is that sex is not the means – it might be a means – but it’s not the means nor proper way to become intimate or to show love.

Back to the mentality precedent point. We have here a creature who follows his personal sensual desire, paraded under the guise of love for another. We have here a lustful carnal person, which might seem like an isolated aspect of life but no aspect is isolated, this person’s selfishness will be apparent perhaps in a very subtle way, but every being is a system, which works a certain way according to its principles. Principles must be nurtured over time by practice and abstinence, to change the nature of the beast.

Drugs and naturalism

Let us bring in the use of drug substances in this subject of The good versus Abuse.

The idea is: Do not take any drug, unless it’s largely necessary, for example, anaesthetic for an operation, but even then question the necessity of the operation.

Drugs include alcohol and caffeine. These are legal yet they are lesser forms of the stronger stuff, only lower in scale. For example caffeine is very much akin to cocaine, it is as though someone were to say: give me cocaine but just a tiny amount to liven me up yet to still function normally, coffee is that product. Likewise alcohol in relation to a stronger drug.

There are two opposing questions which spring to mind first. The first is: What is so wrong or even wrong at all with having a little coffee which improves so-called alertness, and improves mood. The second question is a much more complicated one for the natural philosopher, it is: What is a drug? What’s the difference actually between some leaves – black tea, and other leaves, mint tea. What about sugar compared with caffeine, and a heavy meal with alcohol, i.e. the effect of a food coma.

It would seem this second question would be the place to start. I say it is complicated for the philosopher because often we take the position that we can dismiss the scientists in a naturalist philosopher approach, we can say that truth and all the truth we need, we can perceive and know without the telescope or microscope, without the experiments, without the scanners, etc. Man was always able to follow the path and always will be, without machinery. Truth does not depend on anything other than God’s creation – not man’s. And we must stick by this epistemological principle. And so given that, how does one define that which is a drug and that which isn’t. Because the regular way to do this is to say that drugs are psychoactive substances, whereas food etc, isn’t. But how do we know that one leaf has a psychoactive substance and the other doesn’t. And yet as I write this for the first time I realise that the scientist’s truth is actually a confirmation of what experience tells us, that there is something different about these things: coffee bean, cannabis leaves, etc., they affect the psyche, not in an objective observed way but in a phenomenological subjective way, and one can actually see that it is categorically different than eating sugar or heavy food. The psyche is the mood of the person – the state, not a bodily feeling of tired or jittery or energetic, but rather the mood of the person – their attitude – the psyche. Their self-esteem perhaps or something which is connected to it. In the world of science we have discovered this thing dopamine, and other such things, which again are objective findings which confirm and correspond to the subjective experience, i.e.: the ‘feel good’ feeling. And so whether we focus on the natural-material science of the body, or the subjective experience of man, we can easily and clearly discern two categories, consumption of things which do not affect the psyche and those which do: rightly called those which contain psychoactive matter. There are chemicals in these products, whereas in the others – the whole world of food – there isn’t. One might conclude: Okay, these are special food, medicines. And perhaps they are: The cannabis and heroin products to calm the sick person. The caffeine to stimulate the weary, depressed. (And mushrooms and other such things to help the closed minded to become open, though this is hardly plausible).

But like we said before – we are to consider the illegitimate and correct way of fixing a problem. Are these drugs the solution, and do they actually fix it or do they distract from it and obscure it.

Within the philosophy of naturalism, which is a big part of our natural religion - understanding natural law, we can see the logic in a person thinking: there are magic mushrooms and cannabis plants in nature, it is perfectly natural for a person to stumble upon them, and to consume them as food, and their effects are a natural consequence. And I suppose likewise with a coffee bean or tea leaves, let’s just say people did consume them as food even though they don’t. And so by naturalism there is nothing inherently wrong in this. So far in this first encounter with such things in the natural world it’s correct or better to say: sinless. But then we move into the effects and our attitude towards the thing thereafter. The cannabis relaxes the person, makes them sleepy, light-hearted, etc., a variety of positive effects depending on the person. And similar with all other such substances, some more extreme and some more subtle. However, it seems that there are also negative effects too, perhaps not according to the individual, and perhaps not in terms of emotionality or even comfort of mind, but as a functioning member of society, and as a man tasked with his own evolution, evolution of awareness and reasoning, clarity and perceptiveness, not only of himself but of all which is around him including people and the minds of people – and hearts, including his own. Do these drugs have a negative effect in this way. My observed fact is that it does, and in theory as well, though of course there are those who will protest and disagree.

And so one level of sin lies in our duty to strive for excellence – in doing that which isn’t productive nor for the best. But there are of course many instances of this in life, I should have gone for a walk this morning, I shouldn’t have eaten so many dried fruits this morning, etc., which is a sin also, but there is a difference between these examples of course, very much so. However this sin of being not as perfect as we could be is not the only level of sin. The other level of sin which is the largest, is the one we spoke of during the discussion of sexuality and the abuse of it. Namely, it corrupts the mind – it corrupts the law, this is a sin against God – against the law of Good. As we said, a choice and instance such as this affects the mentality which is systematic in what we do and don’t do, how we work. It is an instance of doing that which we know worsens us – perhaps not according to our own experience but as a team player indeed. Someone could argue that a calmer and more joyful person is a better member, but it isn’t the case as we are looking for people who reason better – more closely aligned with truth – with God, who are more intelligent and intellectual in such matters – and not merely in an atheistic fashion but in a way that is focused on and perceptive of truth, of justice, of the Good – God. And all such drugs go against this. To summarise this complex statement. We will follow the literature found in Freemasonry which states there are three levels of duty: To God, to others and to ourself. And drug use corrupts our perception and development toward our understanding of what’s good – of God. It is also neglectful and offensive in relation to our society, the best example is the drunk who feels more snug within himself yet makes for the worst conversationalist, and moreover less of a joke is the fact that their reason is altered for the worse. Lastly, it is a sin against ourselves to not strive for excellence, to not be in need of a medicine or supplement. And to do something which is not productive, to go against reason.

We have talked about drugs and sexuality. We will now discuss an example in life of sexuality. The matter of homosexuality and transgender. In some sense we have said everything which is explicit enough to cover the subject of sexuality. It is wrong for a man and woman to engage in anal or oral sex if they are using sex for an orgasm. As a foreplay oral sex seems somewhat permissible as a tentative act but not as a sexual replication of friction, because the question is: Why. And anal take on a more stark picture. How do we justify with reason our strong aversion toward it. I, as a man can only say that the idea of anything going up my bum-hole produces a similar feeling, completely unconnected to anything homosexual or sexual. It is difficult to not simply state: it’s unnatural – things aren’t meant to go in there. An idea from natural is that if something doesn’t seem to want to go in somewhere, or something doesn’t want to be eaten! Then it shouldn’t. But let’s get back to our subject matter. We mention oral and anal sex because we are trying to say that these things are wrong regardless of the gender of people. So what about kissing? Kissing is an aspect of sexuality, not a friendly kiss but an intimate kiss is, and so kisses are wrong because the main idea here is that sex is for reproduction and a man doesn’t reproduce with another man. Some may say: so is it wrong for a man and woman to kiss if they are not going to have sex? The answer is yes and no, because yes it’s wrong if they aren’t going to, but I suppose the reality of life allows to see that perhaps the kiss doesn’t have to be now, perhaps these kisses are small tokens leading up to it.

A skewed naturalism. A gay person might say: according to naturalism I am doing what I feel like doing, I wanted to kiss and have sex, my body desired it and so I did it. My relationship and sex life is all an act of nature. But here the opposition, again we are looking at illegitimacy and the indirect mechanisms of desires and mind. We would say: Your body wants sex yes, you want to kiss someone yes, you want intimacy, those desires are real and natural, but you are satisfying them incorrectly. They would protest here: How do you know! Or perhaps more calmly: Can you prove this is incorrect? They could say: I can still have children and populate the world, yet there is no reason why I can’t do this too, the esteemed Greeks understood this too. I will say: It is the Jews and not the Greeks who are the Godly people. The sexual organ and act is not for pleasure, it is to reproduce. And when you use the pleasure of such a thing for your own enjoyment without the product which is the conception, then you are shaping your own mind and desires which opts for your enjoyment over the good of life. And they will say: No, I am completely dedicated to the good of life, but I am doing this also, and there is good to be had here, it is warming me, improving my strength, glee, etc. The Godly man must say: All strength and glee should be in the name of God, not some physical sensation. The physical sensation is the essence of selfishness.

Contraception and the discipline of desire

It’s simple for now – how I want it to be. A control over sexual desire and action. A sexual kiss and touch is the foreplay to sex, and a person ought to be intending to reproduce – to attempt to do so – when they make such an action.

The question is: Why can’t we just have sex if we want to make love and connect, and feel good, without the reproduction because perhaps there’s a substantial reason as to why reproduction is not a good idea, and I know you’re going to say: Well, just don’t do it then if its not wanted right now, but why not, we’re not stupid animals – we don’t have to eat a hard bean, we cook it. Why not enjoy life.

The answer is: It’s about how we view some things, such as sex, as we look at what it actually is – reproduction, and ask ourselves is it an abuse? And for what, what purpose are we trying to satisfy and does it really need to be satisfied in this way – is it the correct solution or not. Furthermore, as an act of mentality, there is a serious battle that the human being faces – to do what we want – whatever we feel like doing versus what is right – in accord with the principles we know to be good. And so this act of sex is simply a decision of: I want to do it because I feel like it. Albeit there can be a more selfless reason of wanting to commit and cement a relationship, but this can be done in many other ways more correctly, as sex does not cement anything in and of itself really. And some things are difficult to understand never mind explain but there is an old quote which says that if you cheat life then life will cheat you back, and this kind of cheating is an abuse of pleasure – sexual desire feels good for a reason, and it isn’t the joy of life. Another point is that this kind of lifestyle of sex promotes individualistic pleasure – and not in the ordinary way of pleasures like music and eating, activity, etc., it’s more of an abuse of something. And even though it sounds unreasonable, there ought to be a proper consideration of the proposition of: If we don’t want a reproduction – for whatever reason, then don’t do it, that’s the obvious and simple truth when we take ourselves out of it.

We need to change our mentality of viewing sex as something separate from reproducing. And we must forget that it’s a pleasure. And it’s the same for alcohol and other drugs, we must view it as a medication for something, not simply a pastime as is the case with sex.

And so at 33, I am in the process of shutting the gate of disciplined action and never viewing sex as anything other than a means of reproduction. That doesn’t mean it can’t be as horny or passionate as in other cases, but it must be done in the name of reproduction, and the biggest thing about this is that when reproduction is not wanted then sexual activity should not be done. This causes a problem in a relationship situation but it also helps the person guide themselves to the right situation. Now you might say that a person can be in a variety of situations whereby he simply doesn’t want to reproduce but he wants sex. This is the problem of ideas we are corrupted with and must seek to change. Sex should be a glorious incident, more precious with less frequency. Sex should be seen as use of energy – intense energy and it should not be wasted in vain. Needless to say there should be no masturbation at any time, this is another instance of worsening our battle with the carnal lust – which is a difficult battle as it is.

Eating, coping and resilience

We have another instance of this battling which I am currently in the thick of battling also in this moment of 33. And that is an abuse of eating, the other prime desire we have, I am eating sometimes not for energy but for occupation and distraction, as a medication of sorts. But this is far less harmful and more natural, it can be a good thing to feast, but it must be an exception and even then it’s a good thing which in its nature is bad – unhealthy and unhelpful – unless reasonable, i.e. necessary due to circumstance. My plan is to make sure I eat enough, around 1500 cals on slow days, and 2000 regularly, in the afternoon, between 2 – 5, giving a lot of time for sleep, perhaps around 4pm is better, giving 6 hours before 10pm bedtime.

What’s so wrong with eating for pleasure alone, over-eating etc,. and also using sex as a pleasure - making life more bearable. And likewise what’s wrong with a little alcohol if it helps and allows to proceed with a positive moment.

All of these things are coping mechanisms of a sort, and there is an alternative coping mechanism that we neglect in this case, which gets weaker because of that lack of use. The natural coping mechanism is our mental strength to persevere – to ride out these emotions and moreover to develop the ability to bounce back. This latter also develops a sense of confidence whereas the other does the opposite and develops a sense of anxiety. Because we depend on some substance or external entity – another person, and the fact is always there – what if I don’t have that or can’t get it. Internally this creates anxiety – subconsciously as well as consciously.

Is it a sin though? We can classify sins broadly into crimes against others – which are the worst kind generally, and crimes against ourselves, the latter don’t carry that element of unfairness and cruelness but they do carry an element of disrespect and a lack of gratitude toward life – toward God. And they even are somewhat a slight against humanity in worsening ourselves. And so if a person masturbates or intoxicates at home – interacting with no one, it’s not such a crime that deserves a punishment as there is no victim – except for themselves. But it is a sin, it’s wrong. Because even though we mostly think about correcting society in a religious kind of way, organising and politicising etc, another approach – albeit unrealistic – would be that if every person just took care of themselves then the world would be fine – we’d need no organising or religion or anything, if every person perfected themselves then we wouldn’t need such a big social operation. And even though this is somewhat unrealistic, there is some truth in it, that each individual has a duty to be taking care of themselves and trying their best, which will certainly go some way in achieving our aims of heaven on earth, but it does seem that we will require some leaders and aspirants, etc., such as myself!

One thing I can say live from this process is that in theory it’s all good and easily conceived but the problem is the pain, it’s a funny subtle thing this pain, some people bend it into an anxiety, but its essence is a feeling of pain, of loss, of loneliness, of sadness, of regret, of fear – worry – so easily named as anxiety – it’s a negative feeling. The opposite to happiness, joy, peace and contentment. And when you feel it coming on or looming above – sitting uncomfortable – queasy inside tickling you almost with a tear. It is then that the best solution is to eat. It is then that it is ideal to engage in the affection of love and sexual activity, all good things – abuse for this sadness-pain. The best path is to grow strong – develop a sense of confidence and ability to take blows – not only wincingly but calmly – seamlessly, and why? For the sake of knighthood, no. For the sake of being brave going forward – important decisions and very small ones – which bear a possibility of pain, and so many times the right path will bear such a possibility and we must develop ourselves that we can choose the right path even though there may be little and big pains along the way.

Put succinctly and simply: This is the objective of the man of the path – to follow the path of the good. The principles and laws – not arbitrarily but because that is where the gold and diamonds are: Clear vision, contentment, fearlessness.

The purpose of the work

People may step back from all of us and ask what’s the point or the big deal here. Is it really necessary to think about all of this and then try to do it. Why not just enjoy your life – try to be a decent person – try not to harm anyone else and get on with life. I say that we ought to do exactly this of course. There is joy to be had on the other side I assure you, a much quieter yet much more pure and true joy. And of course it is paramount to prioritise the actions which affect another person unfairly and not in the name of the Good. But I’ll tell you the real reason, and we must also consider the factor of children. What is the greatest thing we can do, the most loving thing of this life and of ourself. We can cherish and love life itself, and like it was a child or a lover – we want the best for it, we care for it. We want to improve it, we want to fix it, fix its problems, cure its disease etc. And perhaps we can stay in the natural realm as opposed to the supernatural – but there is that idea that if we continue to be corrupt that life might opt to start again, or to dismiss and eradicate us on earth, perhaps there’s a better more grateful population somewhere else in the universe, perhaps they’ll be chosen to further populate the universe or reach a state of infinite space travellers – bound to no sun or moon. The point is, perhaps it’s like a test or mission for us that we must straighten ourselves out – to be worthy of continuation. It’s easy to conceive of some wipe out like an ice age – with a new race or a new being to arise in our stead. But aside from all that theory, we can stay in the natural realm and say that we want to make heaven on earth – as much as possible for ourselves but for our children, and our family as a race continuing down the generations of people. We want to be active and progressive in creating heaven on earth, and there is only one sure way to do it: That each individual is jesus-like, or buddha-like, perhaps those are not correct examples, perhaps the best of us was Moses, or some Hermes or Plato, and perhaps even they weren’t perfect as we try to convey in the jesus example. Perhaps they had flaws too – I think so more than likely. But short of the ideal, imagine a world full of Plato’s, jesus’s, Buddha’s, and so on. What a world that would be. Whatever the problems we face – the issue is whether the people are fair and self-aware enough to act decently – Godly. And yet at the moment – even the smallest of problems can be catastrophic here because the people are problematic, selfish and immature in self-awareness, and inept in their development as a Godly person.

And so in short I’ll say this: It’s to make heaven on earth, for ourselves and for the generations to come, by simply mastering ourselves.

Many people think of conquering the world, but hardly any think of conquering themselves.

He who conquers others is powerful, but he who conquers himself is mighty.

Why don’t I drink?

Why not even a small amount, and very rarely?

There is a thing called momentum, and there is a thing called mentality. Doubt breeds doubt and confidence breeds confidence. Moreover, the mind is like a machine or a system, which operates according to rules.

The inner life

It's not what we are doing or have done - it’s how we are, this is what is important in life. We have two options, not that we can only do one, but we must choose which is the priority: To build an empire or a mansion in the world – something brilliant, or: To build something of a mansion or an empire inside – equally brilliant. One can be seen with the naked eye while the other must be perceived with understanding. The proposition is: Spend your time developing your personality – your morality and civility – mental health, at the expense of developing material wealth.

Side note: The gift of God is not energy or exuberance of any kind – happiness, joy, and it certainly isn’t any material success or gain. Although these things are good in and of themselves, and may be ‘a’ gift from god, but it must be understood that these things can be given to the wicked and the insane, and instead of being a reward gifted – they are a circumstance – situation given - imposed. The real gift of God is a quiet stability and security and peace and understanding in the knowing that you are not at odds nor are offensive to him or to yourself, knowing that you are not ignorant of the voice – the law of God. The voice of reason and of conscience and compassion reigns within.

God is Good. Life is Good.

Sidenote continues: Even the man burning in hell for a very long time, the foreseeable future, knows he is in the right place, for the good of himself or maybe the good of the world. And that is what every man must serve and love – the good of the world – as true gardeners – realising our identity is the whole and not the part. Our devotion is not to ourself but to the good of the human collective spirit which I think we are all actually a part of, i.e. materially not abstractly, maybe, maybe not, maybe we are individual separate souls always. But the idea is that there is actually one spirit or soul that lives in all of us. And then there is the material understanding too, the atomist or dharma view of reality, which is that all of the material reality is one big collective of dots, like the dots on a scrambled TV screen, currently in a state of affairs as the movie of life is playing. There is no time, no to be or not to be, everything is and always will be and always has been, it is only now in this state, everything is transition. And yet perhaps that’s only the physical reality which we can conceive, perhaps it is better to understand the mental reality, the invisible, infinite, and understand that the true nature of reality is a mental reality and is like that of a dream – happening no where – bound by no limits of space and time, no physical basis at all, it is the reality of thought and feeling. It’s complex stuff. A philosophical tangent. Lastly though in terms of the idea of a collective, without the idea that there is one soul in all of us, or that actually we are all a collective entity of physical matter, without all that, according to the human’s perception of things, one should identify with all his other creatures out of principle.

Let us return to the gift of God. A man who is rewarded by God is not anxious or down-cast, not cruel nor unfair. He is good spirited and kind, in the likeness of the God he knows.

Heaven and hell

What if we were told that if we change our behaviour and the way we think – our ideas, that this will have a significant affect on our experiencing of life, to be more content and such things. What if there is a list of things to do or not to do, how to be and not to be, how to think and not to think, what would we make of it? How would we approach it. I suppose in reality the biggest factor would be just how much we believed it. In any case it seems that an obvious thing would be to consider these suggestions, to consider the idea, see if it makes sense, understand where it’s coming from, understand where we are coming from, if we are opposed to it, and why, and why might someone else might propose it. A great deal of speculation and investigation would be necessary. And a key thing to remember with all of this would be that we ought to acknowledge the possibility of multiple theories and possibilities until there is a proven winner, i.e. it could be this, or, it could be this, a person then has to try to work out which is true, or more likely to be true.

Just how might it affect us in a significant way. The classic idea is that it may determine whether we go to heaven or hell once we die. That is a fascinating idea, whether that be heaven-hell is after life or during life. It became a little far-fetched, not altogether improbable or unrealistic, but far-fetched when we imagine some type of terminal at death and the person being escorted or perhaps floating in either direction, to heaven or hell, and these places being like a vast space of darkness and fire, or light and cloud, etc. Yet the idea at it’s basic level is less far-fetched and purely philosophical-psychology, which is that a person is always somewhere and he can or is always able to go somewhere else, up or down, so to speak. And the idea is that the worse a person becomes, the worse their reality becomes for them, and the better they become, the better their reality. But it isn’t so simple as being based on a singular action or even multiple actions, but rather the state of that person’s soul, how much love or hate is in it: cruelty, ignorance, arrogance or lack of compassion, compared with awareness, kindness, humility and a presence of compassion (of course actions usually signify such things). A person’s reasoning and deeply set logic on such things is what determines a person’s level – their state, not simply how a person reasons in the moment – mistakenly, rashly, etc. Such things are subject to practice, circumstance and strength. The person is his actual philosophy, his principles and integrity of mind and behaviour which determines it. People are unpredictable, this is the most complicated bit, we can never be sure. And nevertheless, we are to be aware of the difference between a person who mistakenly goes against his principles and a person who merely speaks and reasons in a just way but acts in an unjust way in general or repeatedly, whereby a person utilises justice for ulterior motives: self-esteem and social gain.

The nature of values

Definition of subjective and objective. Subjective here means that it is a person’s version of something. Whereas objective is the actual reality of a thing regardless of a person’s experience or perspective. And so in short the word objective is used here as being ‘true’ outside of a person’s limited understanding. That’s not to say that a person’s truth may not align or be identical with an objective truth.

Whether a person’s experience of life is good or bad depends on how we feel about ourselves. Some might think it depends on the amount of material success and wealth that we acquire, including the activities and events - the experiences we have - material, in short: worldly affairs. But a person lives on the inside while all this is going on, not on the outside, and so it is his internal state that determines the quality of his life at that level. There are plenty of examples of people who have an abundance of material things yet are still miserable to the extent that they wish to end their life and they do so.

(A third factor before we go on to discuss the internal reality as opposed to the material reality is the social factor and the challenge of loneliness. Some may say that it is loneliness which can be deadly and a person’s life quality depends on social connections as opposed to both inner and material factors, but I would argue that a person who is absolutely lonely yet feels good about themselves is safe from mental illness, whereas a person who has a doting partner and even doting friends, such a person can still feel a severe degree of misery, and perhaps a deadly amount. Yet it is true that all of our meaning in life is based on the fact of being a social creature, all such ideas become invalid without the concept of being a social creature, however not necessarily if there remains the possibility of another creature.

Another thing to insert here before we go on is that there is another significant thing which our mental health depends upon, which is equally important alongside how we feel about ourselves, albeit not mutually exclusive, it is: how we feel about life. Is life good or bad, scary or safe, fair or unfair. There is a connection between these two things: How we feel about our self, and how we feel about life. But let us pursue our subject of how one feels about them-self before we delve into how one feels about life. Because in some sense we are included in life.)

So let us begin, and let us discuss things at the psychological level – first hand experience. We will begin by recognising the importance of the difference between whether we consciously think something which we do or have done is good/acceptable compared with thinking it isn’t: It’s bad/not acceptable. And furthermore it is not only what we do or what have done but also a general sense how we are. Are we good or bad, clever or stupid. The point being that this can make us feel negative emotions and good emotions.

In addition to our opinion: feelings-thoughts of ourself, there is also another factor in our mind, which is so-called social-norms, coming from outside of our mind. And it gets complicated as they may be different from own opinion - view of something. An interesting thing to consider is that these social-norms around what is good and what is not can also be something unconscious - which is at the back of our mind so to speak, meaning that we are not consciously aware of it, or in other words: it is something which we do not intellectually discuss with ourself. It should also be pointed out that this phenomenon of subconscious social norms - opinions also applies to our own opinions and feelings, e.g. our silent or subdued conscience at times.

This concept of things in the background is an interesting thing to ponder on. It has of course had notoriety in psychology: underlying-hidden agendas, social and primitive desires and drives, etc. But I say this: Seemingly, it is indeed a matter of speculation – all theory and deduction, but nevertheless there is fruit from the investigation.

But to return to our topic, sometimes even though we tell ourselves that something is okay or good, there can also be an opposing-contradicting social-norm in the background of our minds or in our conscious discourse, norms which say that this something isn’t good or okay, and vice versa. And so sometimes a person is in a situation of trying to argue and convince themselves that their opinion of themselves or of something is correct. Influential factors are emotions, such as sadness, guilt, pleasure, self-esteem – elation, pride, etc.

There is the notion and process of becoming aware of acknowledging social norms. First and foremost because: how can we challenge or question something without knowing what it is they are saying or what their point is. And on the other hand, how can we accept it and come to terms with it or embrace it even if we don’t know what it is. It is a beneficial process to recognise that a lot of our norms around what is acceptable and what is good and bad may be social products and possibly changeable, as opposed to something universal and fixed. For example, a person may see things a certain way, or have an idea about what is right or wrong, and it could be a social norm, or it could be an organic personal conclusion, either way it’s beneficial to know the nature of the belief, its origin and its validity. Yet it is an interesting point to mention that a lot of modern philosophy fails to recognise that some things are social constructs while others are not, whether it is a social norm or not, it could be organic and objective or it could be subjective. Anyhow, the fact that social norms may be at the back of our mind subconsciously as well as in our mentality – unquestioned – it is good to begin an investigation and inspection of such right and wrongs – to lay out what society deems good and bad. And to label that which is a social norm, and that which is your norm.

Also, it is important to consider the dynamic or relationship between social-norms and our minds, i.e. how influential and consequential can they be or are, how over-ridable are they, are they subject to bias and flawed as is the individual’s reasoning.

In any case, it is proposed that our standards and morals about what is right and wrong, good or bad, and also what society thinks about these things, can be significant in how we feel about our self, which can be called ‘self-esteem’. In other words it is important for our well-being, which includes physical and mental health.

Social constructs and the individual

There is a very significant term in psychology which is: ‘social construct’. It is the idea that some ideas are not necessarily based on truth or objective reality, but instead are things which have been constructed by our society – for whatever reason, and moreover somewhat arbitrarily, not that there isn’t a reason but that they could have easily been constructed a different way. For example in our language there is a social construct, we have paired the sound of ‘one’ with the number - concept of ‘one’, but we could have easily paired the sound: ‘two’ with the number and concept of ‘one’, and there’s no objective reason why not. Now the notion of ‘one’, and ‘two’ are not a social construct, it is a fact of life. Another example of the social construct is that the concept of ‘one’ is named ‘uno’ by another population of people – who have no reference or association of the word: ‘one’ with the concept of one. And so social constructs become apparent in comparing and contrasting things amongst the different societies within the whole. Meanwhile a key idea in our discussion is the difference between the view that a person’s morals are subjective, that all morals are subjective – social constructs, and the view that there is a morality which is not subjective.

But to continue, let us consider that the society which a person is part of may collectively agree and believe that some things are good and some things are bad. The society might think that violence is okay if the person is provoked or disrespected in a certain way. The society might think that contraception is a good invention. And yet it may be the case that a person disagrees with some of these things. The interesting thing to consider here is that there are various effects that this disagreement can have. It can make a person feel guilty if they are doing something which society proclaims to be wrong, or if they are not doing something which society says they should be doing. It can make a person feel frustrated if they think that something is wrong but society does not. And so it is that when a person is trying to investigate how they feel inside, they must examine how they feel about themselves – genuinely, yet bearing in mind the influence of social norms and how they affect how they feel about themselves.

We asked earlier if our thoughts and social-norms can be dismissed, altered and changed. In relation to our own opinions, it is very common that in therapy and other means of help: a person can begin with various negative criticisms of themselves, harsh and even unfair opinions about themselves, and they can transform these matters and adopt new opinions and thoughts, for instance: I’m not a good person, I’m not a likeable person, no one likes me – they don’t like me, I’m a mess. The person can over-ride these thoughts. One of the main strategies of doing this is to prove that these thoughts are actually not valid or not accurate moreso, and even if they are somewhat valid, we can look at the benefit of having such thoughts, and opt to replace them, sometimes by sheer will, by ordering that we say something else, as it will be more beneficial overall. And I suppose a darker and more juicy example is that we can adapt new morals and principles according to our behaviour. We can say it is right to do something, formerly or alternatively deemed wrong. And vice versa, we can feel something is right, yet then state to ourselves that it’s wrong – for some reason or other, society perhaps or pure error perhaps, or pure benefit.

It is probably the most popular and liked form of therapy happening around the world today: People learning to think more positively about themselves, simply through rationalising the matter and a desire to feel better.

The dynamic or layer of our own thinking is populated by no other than ourself, and so it is easier to win this argument-discourse as it is within our complete control. But in relation to social norms, it is the difference between having the capacity to alter the script and dictate the narrative as it is simply and solely our own voice, versus a collective of all kinds of people and opinions not in our control. And yet: All must take place on the stage of our mind. And so it follows that whatever the volume and pressure of the external input, it is still ultimately subject to our self. We can choose to do what we want with it to some extent. But it is more difficult at the outset – this is easy to see.

A very complicated concept is that we can attach whatever meaning we wish to, from ourselves or others. We can paint it and shine any light on it we wish, look through it with whichever lens we choose. This of course applies to both our own thoughts and the social norms of society. We can over-ride it with logic, rationale, counter-argument and delusion, and with that all-important ingredient of will-power and sometimes emotional necessity.

It is a phenomenon: To simply will something to be the case, which is not the case, or vice versa. It is important to mention here something significant regarding the nature of rationale and reasoning, which is that something can be over-ruled if the logic and reasoning are obvious and victorious, the less victorious - the less the thing can be silenced and over-ruled. And yet, It is easy to argue with oneself when sheer will power is a factor, and additionally emotional necessity or pleasantness. But when arguing with society – social norms, the opponent is relentless in that it isn’t affected or swayed at all by our emotional needs or our will. However, the finishing point here is that both our own mind and the social norms of society can be challenged, and successfully, via two routes, sheer will, and pure reason. But again, I reiterate the deadly yet fascinating truth about man: which is that he can ignore the truth if he so wishes, He can deny the sun and moon if his ego and fear demands it.

Another thing to consider is the nature of society, or our phenomenological relationship with it. If a man lives on an island and there are two other people on that island with him, then those two other people are ‘society’ – and there is the nature of society, and if it’s one person, then that is the society. This unrealistic situation can actually reflect a common situation whereby a person who is in an intense relationship with someone, or in a very limited social circle-system, whether that be a partner or a relative-friend, it can be the case that those few people seem to amount to the entirety of their ‘society’ because of the lack of presence of anyone else, especially when combined with a degree of importance attached to those person’s opinion. Of course it isn’t as absolute as our man on the island but it can be a similar situation. Another - more realistic - scenario is a person born and raised in a limited-lacking environment and culture, the people in their neighbourhood, city, TV, etc. In psychology this is called the near and wider social circles and social systems of the person. Such a person may mentally operate in line with the beliefs of that limited society, the social norms of those social circles etc., and then suddenly one day they may discover a wider social circle or an alternative one, a person may expand into their country or the world. Now it is worth stating that it is extremely complicated for a person to question and work out what the culture and social norms of the world are but it can happen. The more likely scenario is that a person becomes aware of an alternative society or a part of the larger society, a different country maybe or sect within his country, and it transpires that this person evolves out of their local mentality and ideology – yet this can all be done haphazardly – mindlessly. Another possibility to this dynamic is that a person can look backwards and see or read the social-norms of times-gone-by, various time periods, which is even more of an unusual comprehension in coming to a conclusion of social norms, i.e. throughout time. The point could then be made by such a person: some things are merely of this time, or of this place.

Now it’s worth pondering over this concept of social norms throughout the world and throughout time. It leads us onto our next topic, which is the entire purpose of this short essay. But before that, we must finish with a point about society. The above analogy proves the fallibility – human-like nature of what society is when it is taken down to the extreme of simply being another person. It is merely another person’s opinion. Nonetheless let us highlight it’s true worth which is a matter of likelihood. Let’s look at likelihood. If there are 10 billion people in the world and all but one believes the sky to be blue, while this one person believes it is green, this person is so-called colour blind it seems, a problem with his vision of some sort. Do we take it as a fact that the sky is actually blue? Or if all but one person says that Jim did do it, while that one person says he didn’t, what do we make of it? The philosopher must do two things: acknowledge that it is very, very likely Jim did it, and that the sky is in fact blue, extremely likely, but he must also acknowledge that there is a possibility that Jim did not do it, and that the sky is in fact green. Of course, if we have to pick one, and stake our life on it, it’s obvious which one we will go with. But if we are not forced to stake our life on it, then it is wise to not bet on it. See elsewhere for the Socratic approach to truth and likelihood.

Universal values

The last point, which all has been building towards - is the concept of something greater and infinitely more significant than the first two layers we’ve highlighted, which are: the opinion and morals-values of the individual, and the opinions – values – social norms of society. Who else’s opinion or values are there you might wonder. I say: Open your mind and wonder for a moment. We have established that for the individual there are collective values around him, albeit of people. But what if there are objective – universal values-truths around him – perhaps even inside him in some sense, opinions – values and morals of what is acceptable and not acceptable, of good and bad. The best example draw on here is mathematical truths and logic – are they of humans or are they in and of themselves. Another example is the law of physics – these laws as we know them are the way of the universe – outside of us, we are subject to them, not them subject to us, we perceive of them what we can indeed, but as we know them – they are universal – no person is subject to different laws of physics – the concept is that there is one law – one reality – and all variation falls under it. There is nothing at the end of infinity. Arguing against this – and other like conclusions of the materials or the atheist etc., are what we call illogical – false.

One might protest that this is impossible because such things must stem from a person - and that person’s wants and needs, feelings, experiences, etc., but that isn’t the case in our concept. What if these values consist of universal logic and rationale, but who’s logic and who’s rationale one might object.

There is reason involved in these values, but that is not to say that they are necessarily of a human or a creature. Suppose these ideas are simply: better is better than worse, sophistication is greater than simplicity, fairness better than unfairness. That more is always more. That three and four are more than one and two. Who can fathom an alternative or question the value of improvement versus detriment. Are the universal laws of gravity, velocity, and other such things, are they dependent or connected to us creatures in any way, or are we subject to them. There is a value system here which is not derived from a human being but instead it is a value that could be said to be of life itself – on the whole. It is always better for things to get better than it is for things to get worse, the one is always wanted over the other, it needs no experiencing-creature or any form of life for that matter for it to be so.

The other point about this is that it is similar to numerical logic. Two plus two is four, that is not a human construct, nor a truth of humans. We could look beyond the big bang and to a universe of pure black without the slightest trace of movement, and still: two plus two will always be four, or better still: four will always be more than three. So it’s interesting to think that some things are universal, objective – regardless of us.

The right thing to do is always the right thing to do. Life on earth wants to continue, it doesn’t want to not exist. One may object here that life doesn’t care whether it continues or not, but the answer is: is four greater than three? It is always the case that it is better for something to improve or stay the same compared to getting worse. You might say that sometimes something must get worse before it gets better, therefore, sometimes worse is the better option, but this is a gimmick of language, in any case the option of worse would therefore be improvement albeit unbeknown.

Now we make a big leap here to propose one such value without much elaboration or illustration. We say that a universe with fairness is better than one without it, the more fairness – the better. At this point we are not motioning toward an existence of the familiar concept of God – some thing, we are simply saying that within the Human-sphere, we have found that there are some universal truths. And here is a value which is universal: along these lines: the more fair a person is - the better. Now fair isn’t simply equality - he who divides everything, but rather he who judges correctly, based on what is the right thing to do - not for himself or any one or group in particular, but for life on earth, and including who deserves what and why.

And so the point is – in short: Let us propose that there are universal values and morals around us and within. And let us reiterate the foremost step we mentioned in the beginning concerning values, which is: We must try to become aware of what these are, although the necessity is different here. It isn’t so that we can challenge them. Such values are universal and not subject to any person or thing, i.e. right or wrong. They are abstract – objective morals around fairness, correctness, guided by one concept at the very least which is: Better versus Worse. Or neutral versus Worse. Worse is always worse than both.

Rank, humanity and integrity

Unfortunately, a historical problem we have faced as a society is precisely because of this idea of better versus worse, the notion of rank – of persons. Yet it is more correct to say that ideas live in persons. We have not been dynamic enough to separate ideas from person, and such is how we must re-enter the pyramid. Some ideas are better than others, and yes some people are better than others – at certain things, including reasoning, including managing emotions, including behaving in certain situations – perhaps even in general. And yet a person who reasons well once or always – is not guaranteed to reason well tomorrow.

The key thing to remember is that every ‘person’ is like a car - being driven by a soul. And no soul is better than another soul. It may seem a digression but we have wandered down this narrow street of what can be called: Good versus Evil. It is true that in some artful way of speaking there is a force of evil in life, but it is not an actual force, it is simply a mishap, a broken person, a person sick, or a person or being underdeveloped, without the capacity of moral reasoning – or very limited, minimal.

This is not to say that we should be any more lenient in how we deal with such things. But it is important in keeping our humanity, our love and reverence for all life. In other words: Sentence a man to death, or a severe punishment, but do it with kindness, with decency, with love and compassion, and above all: Fairly.

Let us return to the main point stated, which is consistent throughout, which is an emphasis on becoming aware and learning about values. It is worth saying for the first time that our own values are something which ought to be studied, we must put effort into familiarising ourselves with what our values and principles are, then integrity can be established. In regards to the need or reason for doing so, one can think of regret and mishap, all such regret can be a result of acting in a way that isn’t in keeping with our values. I am sure there are other essays on why one ought to become aware and understand their own values – opinions on what is good and bad.

Deep feeling and present feeling

Secondly, we looked at the social norms, and stated that it is important to become aware of them in order to challenge them or inspect them, if they are criticisms or praise, we will benefit by understanding them. Finally, the subject of this matter is: Why must we think about this outer layer we’ve highlighted, which is: objective – universal values. It begs the question: why ought one figure them out, uncover them, become aware of them and understand them? There is a two-fold answer. It is the most provocative part of the essay, as it is steeped in history, history of complications and strife, as well as beauty and glory. Let’s put it brief and simply: The proposition is this: there are consequences when we are opposed and not aligned with universal values. Our behaviour and thinking may or may not be aligned with universal values. What consequences are there one asks: Like we said in the beginning, life can be boiled down to how one feels. Most things that people think and say are important because of how it makes us feel. And like we said, a person can have all the good material things but if they feel awful – that is what is important. And vice versa, a person can have little of such material things and yet feel very good. A philosophical point is that we are creatures of feeling – it’s the essence or mode of being, even this very topic of morality can be said to revolve around how one feels. And as such: The first consequence we will speak of is the consequence of how a person feels. The way we feel can be broken down into two concepts, or two layers: We say things like how do you feel deep down, and this refers to an unconscious ‘state’, it’s long term, and can’t be changed instantly – consciously, or it is rare and phenomenal. The other ‘state’ is our present conscious feelings, we can watch some entertainment or have a pleasing interaction and feel happy, joy, etc., likewise we can watch or hear something sad and feel sadness, etc. Our deep state is an overall level of feeling about life, whereas the state on the surface is how we feel about the present – in the present. Both affect one another. There could be a perfect analogy of this dynamic but the important thing to note from a psychology understanding is that a person has more permanent – long-term feeling - state, which can also be characterised as being of truth, perhaps not objective truth, but of the individual’s honest truth – an accumulation of their facts, as opposed to their conscious workings – characterised by will power. There is an interesting saying which is that the body keeps the score, and it is so in this regard that there is a sub-conscious natural true part of us which feels what it feels truly, without our own influence determining whether we will be strong or positive, stoic or upbeat in the face of adversity.

To return to our discussion of whether a person is aligned with universal values or not – that this determines how they feel – about themselves, so-called self-esteem, which is a matter at both states, but it being at both levels explains why a person can believe their self-esteem is good or decent, when in truth it is not, likewise with a person’s own assessment of how happy or sad they are.

Luck, suffering and the limits of our knowledge

The other consequence, and we’ve saved the best or worst until last, is: The proposition that the element of luck may swing in our favour or against us as a result of such things: consuming other beings. A quick digression necessary for this concept is that when speaking of God and morality in a philosophical discussion, it can be put like this: At any given moment in time, there is the element of luck. Therefore we are subject to luck always. There is always the possibility of good luck and bad luck, even if that good luck consists of merely staying the same, a great blessing in some way. But anyway, the idea is quite simple, although the physicalist-atheist thinks otherwise, it is a question of wonder, which is: What if there is a connection between our morality in the fullest sense of the word: our inner workings as well as our acting on the stage of life, what if this morality is connected to luck. The atheist – we won’t spend any time here debating the word atheist, but let’s just take it as the opposition for now, the atheist objects immediately to this idea of the connection between morality and luck, they say no! defiantly and vehemently. We will say two things regarding psychology, the same psychological point can be used in any case to question someone’s ideas, the same which is commonly used to critique and doubt Religion, it is: why are they saying that, how does it serve them, or how is it caused by them, their indirect and sometimes confused reasoning. And so: The atheist objects so adamantly because: 1) The sound logic is that if something is not presented to the mind, but rather hearsay, then it shouldn’t be admitted as being a real thing, in other words: they don’t see it, and they are working from a reductive philosophy of admitting only that which is undeniable – via their perception. They don’t see this connection, in the same way they don’t see sound or smell, but they do ‘see’ those other things in a different way, and that’s their point. I would argue that they see this other thing with their heart, with their conscience, but that is not an official sense as of yet. But to summarise this first reason it’s this: They don’t understand it, they don’t perceive such a law – mechanism in place, and therefore they deny it. 2) Not quite logic, more of an emotional reasoning, which is simply this: a very common psychological phenomenon dilemma of: A matter of what to think - two options: true or false, it did happen or it didn’t, the person’s conclusion of whether it was good or it was bad, and the person is often faced with a dilemma as such: If I believe-say one thing – I’ll feel like this: bad. If I believe-say the other thing – I’ll feel like this: Good. It’s worth mentioning that there are material benefits of feeling good: energy levels, confidence and superficial happiness, and equally there are detriments to feeling bad: low energy, self-esteem, guilt, etc. And so the point here of this second causality is that a person is often pushed to denying The Law – the so-called connection between morality and luck because it will make him feel a certain way. The first things that come to mind are that the person may be scared or anxious but that is a matter of believing in the future – even beyond life as we know it, but I suppose the actual problem here is that it puts a big impediment and caution on all action, for instance the person’s current life and living would need to be examined and altered according to morality. It also gives a person’s conduct a great deal of significance, meaning that the person can no longer dismiss their misconduct. It places a great deal of accountability on life. And of course retrospectively it seems to offer a great deal of guilt and responsibility for one’s own suffering, it places such things on the world as a whole.

The problem with this concept is outstanding and not a matter of joke or sarcastic commentary. It has been a bane of religious philosophy. The above idea implies that a person’s life is caused by or connected with their own conduct and/or the way they are: them as a person. The innocent child suffering seems to be blamed and responsible – deserving. Also, the bad person who has great luck seemingly then believes in his vice and sin, reinforcing a morality of evil. And for all of these reasons, the concept of the connection between our living and our luck is complicated and put to one side. They say it gets very complicated when we begin to speculate and postulate around who deserves what.

It is a bane of philosophy because it seems to contradict the Good God Law, that there is fairness in the universe. The person sees the helpless deer being torn apart by wolves, the innocent child dying on its first day, or the angelic youthful child afflicted with tremendous suffering and death, and the list goes on. The upset individual says: Look at these things, how can God let these things happen, if it existed, then these things wouldn’t happen. How sour a read is the book which preaches that Life is good, that all is good, God is all-powerful and loving. And where is thy fairness and thy mercy. It must be admitted that this aspect of life calls into question one’s understanding that everything is okay, everything will be okay, and that there is a loving – fair hand of God holding us. How to make sense of it? According to the book of Law, it seems to say that everyone deserves what they get.

The first thing to put forward is the idea that we don’t know the nature of life, we don’t know whether this physical life and world that we know is all that there is. There is a great analogous idea of electricity which can be put into a body and used to move that thing, operate in all kinds of ways, and yet we don’t really know the life existence of electricity, it’s put into a battery, then into an action, the action is in the world, but does the electricity ever die, or was it ever born, or does it simply go from one thing to another. And the analogy is that our spirit or soul is like such electricity and our body including our brain is some big toy or machine, and so when we die, the body indeed dies, but that electricity transpires, moves on, into the world, dispersed – who knows, or perhaps into some other creature. And then there are other ideas which state that all of our physical existence is similar to a projection or a hologram, the true mental reality being behind it or underneath it. These are all great ideas because they are logically and rationally sound, and moreover they can do a great deal for the morale and mentality of a human being. And that is the point which is relevant here in our present discussion. There is one divulges and elaborates on some of these profound so-called meta-physical arguments, or even arguments at the nuclear and atom level, we can begin to see that perhaps a death in this life is not so significant as it seems. Of course it isn’t if there is a greater raw life beyond the one we now know of. This life can be seen as some kind of computer game, and the bigger picture is like real life in that computer game analogy. Or perhaps it isn’t a matter of quality but quantity and there are hundreds or thousands of games/lives. The person may object: But what if it isn’t, and this is everything, then its tremendously tragic and unfair. It’s a valid point, but it is indeed a point and not a fact, and it’s important in the philosophical discussion when we are trying to make sense of our religious philosophy, how to reconcile the law of God with these tragic events.

A digression postscript: A person hits someone because that person made them feel a certain way, yet they have to ask themselves: why did it make me feel that way, would it make anyone or everyone else that way – why not? What is a fair response objectively – an eye for an eye? If a person made me feel a certain way, shall I make them feel a certain way. Unpleasantness for unpleasantness they might reason. But they must consider the degree, similar degree is fair. Two and two are the same. For the scales to be even, neutral and fair, there must be equal amounts on both sides. And in such a case actually, it may be so that we may have imbalances on the scales with other people. It is a mistake to classify the scale as I versus the world, my external reality versus me. It is a useful concept in other regards, but a severely illogical concept in the reality of the world as we know it.

Toughness and the early value system

Values – I know that in my early environment, a precarious, misleading and deadly environment, that there was a value system in relation to people. Some form of hierarchical system was at play, in our minds and in the matereality – Matter reality (new word find). Spirit-reality / Spirituality.

It mattered who was tough – the value system was of toughness. He who was toughest was best. Toughness was admired and rewarded. And an insight into the reality of that society and the individual’s psychology was: it matters how tough you are, in terms of your status and prospects. To be not tough – was catastrophic. But perhaps we can play with other words, because it was not simply toughness. It was aggressiveness and assertiveness. In a world of competitiveness it was assertiveness and aggressiveness over passivity. It was a wild jungle dynamic, survival of the fittest. Violence ruled. And yet, though it is extreme. It is a dynamic the world over. The factor of violence and aggression, the possibility of attack.

What do we admire?

The position of this therapy is that a person must reconcile with the true way. Our concept of what that is can be exemplified in this short speech: What do you want to be when you’re older, we ask the young person, but also to the middle aged person we ask what do you wish to happen. To the young adult in society we ask what is the most desirable success, what do you want to become? The answer is usually success in material things: money, career, status – fame, renowned whether rightfully so or not. Another way of asking the question is to look at the person who you envy the most, a top sportsman or actor or singer, and also the typical successful entrepreneur, the investor or business owner who has millions of money. This is what most people look to when they make a wish of what they want in their hearts. And the point of our concept is: this value system first and foremost isn’t about personality: mind - heart. Because these things are about what a person has, not how a person is. Furthermore, when we think of how a person is – people often value strength, confidence, speed of thought, breadth of knowledge, wit. These are all good things, but in and of themselves they are not the important thing. All of these things without justice are not ‘good’, They are not Godly. Now it’s also worth saying that it’s harmless to want wealth and even renown but the problem – as with those good traits – is when it is separate from ‘Good’ - Godliness. The position of this therapy is that there are not many of us who in the same way desire and envy to be Godly – to be wise in this sense, as they do those other things. This therapy is to introduce this concept and to implement it. Do not focus your mind on being a person who has material wealth, focus your mind on being a good person, and becoming a better person.

And yet there are some other ‘Gods’ and good’s which people often admire or worship in some way, meaning that it’s what they live by and pray for, even invoking the name of God. It is what they value most – think about most. It can be seen in their actions and subtleties in their discourse or thought, what they think is the most important and are working towards and for. Things admired are things such as cleverness, fastness, strength, power - whether it be violent or social or circumstantial, and of course wealth – status, social fame and renown.

Justice and the ability to reason

But what is justice other than a vague universal sense of fairness. I’ve said many times that it isn’t simply blind equality, dividing the spoils equally. Justice is reasoning in accordance with understanding and a hierarchy of righteousness between people and ideas. What is righteousness: the notion and understanding of the right thing to do. It’s vague because it’s person specific, righteousness is the quality and ability to not only want and desire to do the right thing, i.e. the drive, but also the ability to assess the situation – including ourselves, and to decide what is the right thing: what is the best thing for the situation, not for himself – and these things are mutually exclusive. This isn’t a matter of kindness or equality, however, ‘the best thing’ is to always be of kindness and equality, though the decision is solely devoted to the best thing for the situation, and the situation is life. All minor – everyday – mundane and political, each specific social situation, all falls under the situation of life – the classroom, the group, the house – which we call the world and life, everything is in the best interests of this. And righteousness as a quality amongst us can easily be captured as we think of this task of a manager, if we imagine the job of managing the world, making the rules, deciding the punishments, the education system, the laws, the order. It is easy to fathom that people will vary in their approach and the carrying out of such a job. And so it is: Each person’s level of righteousness is measured in how he would fare in such a job. And yet in a completely realistic version of this idea, a person’s level is similarly measured in how each person lives his or her actual life right now. How does he treat people, how does he approach his lot in life and life itself, how does he think and reason, how does he react, etc. The old adage here is central in judging such things: don’t do to others which you would not want and would not like if it was done to yourself, especially so in the case whereby you feel it is wrong and unfair – and moreover especially if it is unnecessary – i.e. ‘you didn’t have to do that – my suffering wasn’t necessary, nor for the good of every one’ that which is avoidable and not in the interest of everyone and everything but instead is in your interest, and it is possible simply because you have the power to do so, and not the right. Is it what God wants?

It should also be said that in relation to levels of just being a matter of sophistication, a person can also be just with equal measure of humility, and so it is that there are or were many individuals with low intelligence yet this golden trait of humility and Socratic dialogue in stating that they don’t know, or the additional statement of ‘it seems’ or ‘I think’, it is a style which seeks to not be wrong, to not state that which we, the person, are very unsure of, or hasn’t reasoned through in depth – relatively so. One must ask themselves, am I a person who has spent time studying my own mind and understanding how I work, and also have I taken the time to try to understand the nature of situations, in history, and in general – am I a person who is particularly perceptive and insightful in matters of investigation, because if I’m not – I should firstly declare and realise this.

What people often miss when it comes to religion, I’m specifically thinking here about Christianity, and all modern teachings, which basically say: be this or be that: be kind, be fair, etc., or try to be this or try to be that – love thy neighbour, yet they are referring to sheer will, try to be a good person, try to be just, etc., but what about when you don’t feel like – you’re tired or peeved, and moreover: what about when you don’t understand correctly whether you’re being unfair or not, then of course there is no chance of justice prevailing or injustice being overturned because it’s not known or even suspected to be wrong. You see the problem with this system. Another great example comes to mind when we think of a young woman or girl, or any person for that matter but it works particularly well with a woman who is bothered by what her peers or colleagues think of her, and this example is captured in a situation whereby a person says: just don’t be bothered, don’t care about what they think. The person understands the advice perfectly, but its not as simple as that. Also captured in the classic phrase: It’s easier said than done.

Sidenote: The world today is so obsessed with (the proclamation of) fairness and equality without the factor of quality and without hierarchy, they think fairness is an idea or concept or a vision even that all see equally, not realising one person’s fairness is another’s unfairness. But the hard truth is: some people are a lot more sophisticated and mature in their reasoning of what’s fair and what isn’t. The basic proof of this albeit in the extreme – but that is where we must go sometimes just to find the basic proof of something – if we look at children or young people, ourselves for examples when we were ten or twelve, even fifteen or sixteen, then we know that there are people in this world who don’t get or understand a lot of things, they don’t consider some of the nuances or nature of the problem – of the situation, of life, human psychology and nature, indeed philosophy, and so their opinion is immature, limited and all too often over-zealous, over-simplified, based on an emotion and based an understanding that is limited compared to someone who has more experience, more study and more knowledge of the situation. And such is the case with fairness - with justice. Some people who know the history, the aims, the psychology and diverse and complicated nature of reality more than others do, and moreover another thing is that there are some who are less affected by their personal experiences, their personal traumas or circumstances, who can see the picture a little clearer or more balanced. This isn’t a skit of such people by the way, its an unfortunate thing, but the humble and correct thing to do is to be aware, to say: hey, I’m probably a bit skewed here because I’ve had a life with certain challenges, whether they be circumstantial or psychological shortcomings. Some are fortunate to have not had that, or to have been able to overcome that. The problem we have is: we need leaders, what we’d like is perfect people like Jesus Christ, for people like him to be the leader, but instead our leaders are flawed like we are, and only slightly better reasoners in some cases. The other problem we have is the age-old divide, still existent explicitly now in the two ancient religions: Judaism and Hinduism. It is only the man-made religions of Christianity and Islam which don’t have this, and it’s probably not coincidental, those both religions were made to capture and include the masses, whereas the other two are organic.

Rank and the person

Unfortunately, a historical problem we have faced as a society is precisely because of this idea of better versus worse, the notion of rank – of persons. Yet it is more correct to say that ideas live in persons. We have not been dynamic enough to separate ideas from person, and such is how we must re-enter the pyramid. Some ideas are better than others, and yes some people are better than others – at certain things, including reasoning, including managing emotions, including behaving in certain situations – perhaps even in general. And yet a person who reasons well once or always – is not guaranteed to reason well tomorrow.

The key thing to remember is that every ‘person’ is like a car - being driven by a soul. And no soul is better than another soul. It may seem a digression but we have wandered down this narrow street of what can be called: Good versus Evil. It is true that in some artful way of speaking there is a force of evil in life, but it is not an actual force, it is simply a mishap, a broken person, a person sick, or a person or being underdeveloped, without the capacity of moral reasoning – or very limited, minimal.

This is not to say that we should be any more lenient in how we deal with such things. But it is important in keeping our humanity, our love and reverence for all life. In other words: Sentence a man to death, or a severe punishment, but do it with kindness, with decency, with love and compassion, and above all: Fairly.

Let us return to the main point stated, which is consistent throughout, which is an emphasis on becoming aware and learning about values. It is worth saying for the first time that our own values are something which ought to be studied, we must put effort into familiarising ourselves with what our values and principles are, then integrity can be established. In regards to the need or reason for doing so, one can think of regret and mishap, all such regret can be a result of acting in a way that isn’t in keeping with our values. I am sure there are other essays on why one ought to become aware and understand their own values – opinions on what is good and bad.

Fairness and response

A digression postscript: A person hits someone because that person made them feel a certain way, yet they have to ask themselves: why did it make me feel that way, would it make anyone or everyone else that way – why not? What is a fair response objectively – an eye for an eye? If a person made me feel a certain way, shall I make them feel a certain way. Unpleasantness for unpleasantness they might reason. But they must consider the degree, similar degree is fair. Two and two are the same. For the scales to be even, neutral and fair, there must be equal amounts on both sides. And in such a case actually, it may be so that we may have imbalances on the scales with other people. It is a mistake to classify the scale as I versus the world, my external reality versus me. It is a useful concept in other regards, but a severely illogical concept in the reality of the world as we know it.

The gardener and the good of life

There is a sentence underlined above “There is only one system and reality of morality”. This is a philosophical conclusion which is a foundational idea to explore. Many people can have different morals but there is only one law. It is rather simple in its basic essence and yet vague in directing us in and of itself. It is the morality of collectivism. Justice is the reasoning which reasons on behalf of everything – all of life, which is: every living thing. Our human perception and understanding can acknowledge that in the universe now - this vast mass of lifeless black - there is this beautiful thing called ‘life’ - living things, and our value system is based on the appreciation of these living things. We would like more life in the universe, we would like life to continue. This is programmed into us. No one sane can deny this. Secondly, we like excellence, better is good, the more a thing can be conscious and reason the better, with consciousness and reason comes deliberate justice or at least the potential and ability for it. It is another thing to value the excellence of ability alone, as excellence is to understand justice – to acknowledge that it is a part of a family – a team, a cause. The health of ‘life’ must be the objective, not the health of an individual or part of life only. And so it is that justice which is a self-awareness of the collective identity is the key universal morality. The best Gardener is the Gardener who knows that he is a Gardener and what that means. Not he who is fastest or strongest or cleverest. Because he who is strongest and cleverest and fastest but forgets that he is a Gardener is the best person but not the best Gardener. This is key to remember when evaluating the best of us. Morality is the key ingredient. Guardener.

There is a provocative aspect to this idea of justice, which is hierarchy and value based thinking. A human being is worth more than a tree. His gardening skills are more. He can be a guardener whereas the tree can’t. He is capable of great morality, being a gardener, a person who manages and cares for the whole world, as opposed to the tree. And so it is for the better of the world or ‘Life’ for him to be chosen to live over the tree. And it is better that he makes decisions, etc. But, what if he is immoral and not amoral like the tree, with the possibility to cause damage, who then is better to remain alive? The tree.

The important thing here to remember is that rank is not always important nor relevant, the failure of our society is the abuse of rank, and moreover the lack of fairness and care for the lower from the higher, but that certainly is changing in the west, the light of the world. And in that idea of the person living over the tree, we must emphasise that there is usually no need to chose one life over another. The evil we have in our society is that often a person chooses to prioritise their life or wealth over that of another – at the expense of another, not realising that the very same life-spirit which is in him, which we appreciate: like and want to continue, is also in the other, it must be cherished and looked after, helping it maintain and live, but at the very least and even without expending our own energy, we must not be detrimental to it – a cause of harm, a cause of death. We must always ask: Imagine each living thing had a mind like ours, God’s mind – on God’s behalf the collective mind of the spirit and force of life, and ask: what would they want. What would life want. The problem is unfortunately for us in our early development or our fall from grace, we are polluted and corrupted by selfishness, or perhaps in a less dark tone, we are disabled and blind of just reasoning in our immaturity and animalistic mind, more akin to the onion than we imagined, i.e. thoughtless. Because the so obvious answer is: This other vessel of life wants to live, wants to not suffer – needlessly.

Conquering ourselves

Many people think of conquering the world, but hardly any think of conquering themselves.

He who conquers others is powerful, but he who conquers himself is mighty.

Love

Love is in different things, love for one’s mother or child, even love for a friend or a thing. But what is this other unique thing – often called love in its own right: a partner, marriage, and physical-spiritual intimacy. This kind of love is something different is it not.

What is to be in life. To find a soul mate, to bond together forever, and what about commitments and exclusivity. I see love as meeting the person and creating a bond, a relationship that is eternal, we are replicating the love and nature of things as in our close family, our parent and sibling, such is how they become to each other, but even more in some sense. The question is why, and the question is, why this way, comparing it to other ways of being. The matter of loneliness can be conquered in this way. To have someone always, even when separate and even when being in a different state: Life and Death, to know and think of that person as your partner, your mate. There is something significant in the existence of another, perhaps it could be said that it verifies our own existence, perhaps it verifies the world, the collective soul, and many other psychological effects, the effect of another. One might wonder: but there are millions around us, doesn’t this suffice, why not?

What is the point of Life? This is worth answering from time to time. To enjoy. To experience – being alive. To ponder on the stars above and the morals within. To create and develop the exquisite thing: our self, our society, our world. And then, to feel good, to explore and meddle and work with feelings, like alchemy – to make the finest and best material, it is to make the finest and best feelings, and not only conscious present feelings but the deep and depths of the ocean, long-lasting, slow to change. And so, where does the Woman or the man come into this, and how. Let us not forget the other thing, the fact that it is we who have to continue our species on and on. To create it in the best way possible.

They say we all need connection, and quality and quantity matter. It’s deep in our being they say, a need for connection. And then there is attraction. Attraction plus connection = the feeling of love. Our investigation of why we are attracted to someone is interesting, there are various theories and ideas.

Intimacy and the question of sexuality

It’s simple for now – how I want it to be. A control over sexual desire and action. A sexual kiss and touch is the foreplay to sex, and a person ought to be intending to reproduce – to attempt to do so – when they make such an action.

The question is: Why can’t we just have sex if we want to make love and connect, and feel good, without the reproduction because perhaps there’s a substantial reason as to why reproduction is not a good idea, and I know you’re going to say: Well, just don’t do it then if its not wanted right now, but why not, we’re not stupid animals – we don’t have to eat a hard bean, we cook it. Why not enjoy life.

The answer is: It’s about how we view some things, such as sex, as we look at what it actually is – reproduction, and ask ourselves is it an abuse? And for what, what purpose are we trying to satisfy and does it really need to be satisfied in this way – is it the correct solution or not. Furthermore, as an act of mentality, there is a serious battle that the human being faces – to do what we want – whatever we feel like doing versus what is right – in accord with the principles we know to be good. And so this act of sex is simply a decision of: I want to do it because I feel like it. Albeit there can be a more selfless reason of wanting to commit and cement a relationship, but this can be done in many other ways more correctly, as sex does not cement anything in and of itself really. And some things are difficult to understand never mind explain but there is an old quote which says that if you cheat life then life will cheat you back, and this kind of cheating is an abuse of pleasure – sexual desire feels good for a reason, and it isn’t the joy of life. Another point is that this kind of lifestyle of sex promotes individualistic pleasure – and not in the ordinary way of pleasures like music and eating, activity, etc., it’s more of an abuse of something. And even though it sounds unreasonable, there ought to be a proper consideration of the proposition of: If we don’t want a reproduction – for whatever reason, then don’t do it, that’s the obvious and simple truth when we take ourselves out of it.

We need to change our mentality of viewing sex as something separate from reproducing. And we must forget that it’s a pleasure. And it’s the same for alcohol and other drugs, we must view it as a medication for something, not simply a pastime as is the case with sex.

And so at 33, I am in the process of shutting the gate of disciplined action and never viewing sex as anything other than a means of reproduction. That doesn’t mean it can’t be as horny or passionate as in other cases, but it must be done in the name of reproduction, and the biggest thing about this is that when reproduction is not wanted then sexual activity should not be done. This causes a problem in a relationship situation but it also helps the person guide themselves to the right situation. Now you might say that a person can be in a variety of situations whereby he simply doesn’t want to reproduce but he wants sex. This is the problem of ideas we are corrupted with and must seek to change. Sex should be a glorious incident, more precious with less frequency. Sex should be seen as use of energy – intense energy and it should not be wasted in vain. Needless to say there should be no masturbation at any time, this is another instance of worsening our battle with the carnal lust – which is a difficult battle as it is.

Another point though is the illegitimacy of it. This is the wrong means to create love and intimacy, physical affection is best as a hug, a bringing together and holding together of bodies, but much deeper than that is the intimacy of mind and life shared – commitment and exclusivity. As we know any two strangers can have sex, passionately, lovingly, many times over many days – dare I say months and years, and still they are nothing to each other, it counts for nothing. And so the point is that sex is not the means – it might be a means – but it’s not the means nor proper way to become intimate or to show love.

Influence and change

But first we have a tricky subject to discuss which has not been covered in all of the writings below. It is the subject of influence. It is very much to the point to mention Eve in the garden of Eden. It’s tricky in one way because it has a divisive tone, saying that one person is troublesome to another, to stay away from him or her, that he or she is bad or badder than you. This is all in contrast seemingly with the message of love everyone, everyone is family, let’s all be loving and friendly and together as one. But the truth is, that is the message at the moment, of being wary and acknowledging that some people are doing less and more bad than others, and individuals must try to improve themselves.

The thing I have noticed is this: people change in some sense when they become a part of a new social group. A person may start a new job or join some kind of social group and the culture of this group and of the individuals in it may influence a person. It is also true that it doesn’t have to be a group, it could be an individual person in a one-to-one situation, this person may influence you in one way or another. They have an impact on your life that is a fact, but of course it is also true that some people may change hardly at all or at all, while others may change a lot. Now we must be cautious here with the concept of change. We can say that the person changes how they behave or ideas that they have, an attitude, because in another sense a person doesn’t really change, not in this way anyway. That is another interesting subject, how does a person change or evolve if they do, which surely they do. One answer is that it happens over time, over a life time and over life times, a soul comes to understand things, sometimes this can take a life, or 10, 20 years, a specific lesson or a full story played out. And so a person changing a style of behaviour or playing with new ideas etc does not really mean a person has changed in the way we just mentioned. But the reason I write on this subject now is because in another sense a person can meaningfully change. A person can go from being quiet, reserved, respectful, humble, though all through timidness perhaps or a lack of confidence, and then they can become rather bold, more free with sinful behaviours, etc., a person can also become more bitter, more rueful, more defensive and more offensive. All of these things can happen. This can be a result of experiences, life, and it can also be through the mingling with other people. We are like sheep in some sense, in a clever way though, we see someone crossing a river and we do it because we know it is safe, we do it because it looks fun, we do it because we want to do it. And so there are types of this thing to consider, social groups, work environments, etc, and also individuals. They all rub off on us. And yes it is true a person may be super able to handle this so that it does not affect them in a negative way, it doesn’t affect their objectives, their progress and proceeding, but in my experience it is quite unlikely or rare to be this way, and a spanner in the works is that it is also often the case that we don’t realise at all that something like this is impacting us, especially if we are mentally inclined to believe it wouldn’t or doesn’t. In that case we also have the bias factor.

So what is the takeaway message from this. I suppose the first thing to say would be on this last point, to spend time considering whether we are being or have been influenced by something socially. Have we changed at all since before it. But like I said I think for most the answer would be no even when the truth is yes. But nevertheless it’s still worth trying to figure this out. My example might be with a relationship with a woman. I may consider doing things to make her happy which actually go against the principles I have established and am establishing – maintaining, perhaps they don’t directly go against a principle of contraception or something but they are a subtle detail, one which could be neglecting thinking this isn’t that bad, it’s not the main thing. It’s not that bad and it’s in the name of happiness, or a happy enjoyment, but we must be the pooper of parties and ask of the nature of that enjoyment and is it truly good. A fascinating fact of life is that there are some foods which we can eat and are good for us, and there are some foods or liquids which are bad for us and make us sick or die. And so it is with pleasures. And let me say it here: It isn’t a matter of: Oh God doesn’t like this and says we can’t do it, that is what’s bad, because that has no actual meaning at all, the reason must be that this thing contributes to making us a worser person, perhaps not in the direct or immediate sense but in a long-term sense, the ripple effect or the butterfly effect, every action is a fact to the mind, a fact which shapes mentality, and every little decision or action is a part of our philosophy of life, and that philosophy must be integrated and harmonious.

I suppose there is no second thing to say really, as in beware of this person or that person, these traits or those traits. It is better to speak in general terms. My strategy has been to stay away if possible from people who are being lower than myself in obvious ways, a general nastiness or lack of kindness. The trickier part that I am unsure of is the strategy regarding specific things, i.e. just because someone eats meat or drinks alcohol doesn’t mean I should stay away from them. A point on this is because I believe myself to be a good enough person when I was doing those things myself. And as is written about extensively below, just because a person does these things doesn’t actually make them a bad person in general – deep down, they may have simply not reached this conclusion yet and are still in motion with the thing. Sometimes something just clicks, sometimes it’s a brand new idea that dawns on us, or an old one that suddenly arises like the phoenix. Sometimes it isn’t the idea but the strength and determination in us, it changes, and suddenly we feel we can easily do something or struggling maybe but we feel it is do-able whereas before it was unimaginable or only imaginable to be more correct. We are always balancing our good will with convenience and pleasure. An interesting example comes to mind. I have about it below briefly as it happened. I was in a rented room in Egypt and there were occasional ants on the other bed in my room, none really by my side, and then I see many of them sometimes and I didn’t quite know what to do. I didn’t want them there. I swashed them with my hand attempting to knock off the bed but also killing one or two. I was thinking some people would kill them all for sure, I’m not that bad, at least I feel bad about it. But anyway other than that one occasion I was brushing them on the floor then out the room. But it was frustrating and it forced me to think. I also felt it would be a bit stupid and naïve and probably wrong to just be a dummy and let them be. I justified their killing at first. But in the end I realised no it isn’t okay to kill these, there is no threat or problem really. And if there was one, I should deal with it in a better way that doesn’t kill them. That’s the right answer but it took me a while to get there because of convenience.

Heal-Thy Self

There is one thing I am dying to say. I have been under the throes of a substance, whether it be a drug or a habit or a person. It is in a way to be addictive – to want something beyond reason, and what is it at work – the deaf, blind and dumb bodily system, the very amazing fascinating beauty of life which is the human being – this very special thing – tells us to keep taking the heroin, to keep devoting ourself to a person – when it is clear to anyone but us that it is harmful or wasteful – detrimental. And here is something I know and something I have perceived with dumbfoundedness and disbelief yet incredulity but wise truthful insight – it is the change in mind once we free ourselves from the addiction and we see it as it actually is. We can’t help but wonder how did we think and act in such a way. And it’s clear: Our body and the chemicals affect our thinking, and not always for the good. How bonkers is it that the body screams out and does everything it can to persuade the person to continue taking a substance when it is so obviously the ruin of the person. Another truth is: Of course if the person stops taking the drug, everything will not be right as rain, and in that sense it isn’t the drug. It is the mental health of the individual which is the problem, they know it too, and they argue as such and continue. But how much worse off are they for the drug, and while they may be terribly low and sad without the drug, there is many roads uphill, whereas on the drug not only is there no such path but there is many roads downhill.

Why am I dying to say this? Because it is specifically relevant and applicable to Veganism. People are addicted to the eating of meat, and while under the throes of addiction, they will obstruct their moral reasoning to the best of their ability. Here is the insight I offer: Once the person stops eating the meat – they will be able to see the truth of the matter.

Some might argue here though that why do some people become vegan then and then change back if they have seen the truth. Firstly, it allows one to see the truth, it doesn’t present itself. Secondly, many people quit meat for the wrong reasons, often it is seen as politically correct as opposed to pure morality. And thirdly, addiction is known to work like this. People relapse easily, sometimes after many years, sometimes after a few days. And one thing I have also observed thoroughly is that when a person does change – returns to the thing, their mentality and idea, their philosophy of life, etc., changes instantly, our principles and thinking change according to the situation. What’s the point of wanting something which you can’t have? What’s the point of disliking something which you do have?, etc. Why say something is wrong when you do it? You’re just going to feel bad.

Another significant thing to consider, especially in relation to drugs but also in relation to contraception and eating other animals: This isn’t quite naturalism, it is moreso a point of independence and authenticity: Cocaine is the perfect example, the person must think: would I ever have thought to find this plant, to boil it, mix it with some other chemical, a certain process, etc., I think not, and so the point is: This is someone else’s idea, and it is very likely we would never be doing such a thing if we weren’t being influenced by someone else. Even alcohol is a bizarre thing. This applies to contraception too, though a person may reason that if they were faced with the predicament then they would naturally conceive of the idea of contraception, yet is not certainly the case. Lastly, the question can also be put to us about killing an animal and eating. We do it because someone else did it for us and someone else does it, and indirectly society tells us it is okay to do it. But if we were thinking of an authentic life with no influence hypothetically, would we reason ourself that it’s okay and do it. Who knows.

Self-interest and the investigation of ideas

It is important at the outset to mention a complex barrier and obstacle on this path, which is our biases of self-interest and ego-preservation - security. As I introduce an idea your initial reaction may be very strong to reject it – not because its so obviously wrong or that it is illogical but because it goes against our self-interest – ego, etc, and moreover: our allotted amount of pleasure in this life – whether that be a feeling of being a good, righteousness or peace of mind, or our sense of competency – especially as it relates to hierarchical status – in our heads or socially. But in any case all of us are frustrated and grieved at the idea of loss – especially a loss of something pleasant or something seen as good. Yet often this pleasant thing is completely individualistic – not collective nor wholesome, or in other words: in no way connected to the good of anything or anyone else. And so I repeat: beware and bear in mind that your initial thoughts may be operating under such bias – meaning that the thoughts may not be correct or legitimate, of course there’s a possibility it may be correct but it is important to consider the matter – apply logic – follow the logic – see where it takes you, probably to a difficult decision or action, then the decision must be made whether to turn back or continue.

Attitude: my life and life

What’s the difference between conceptualising it as my life versus ‘life’. One thing I’m sure of is my life as the philosophers have figured out. Someone said: I think, therefore, I am, meaning that by means of our thinking reality is a fact. A fact being something which is the case, as Wittgenstein says it. And someone equally philosophical prior to this said: the only thing I know is that I know nothing (for sure). The former chap who came along long after said: well I do know that I think I see a tree, whether it’s there or not, whether I’m here or not, the undeniable - unarguable fact is that I think that I see it. Let’s consider the philosophical maestro or the lost fool who is curious about everything, evaluating everything at face value and with reflection: Are those around him ‘real’, for sure? Or may they be a feature of his imagination. Is his own sensory reality including his body ‘real’? One thing which can not be denied - that being that there isn’t any reasonable logic that can indicate otherwise, is his mind. Supposedly it will come to an end, and it’s come into existence unbeknown as though it came out of the sea, supposedly though it was created around 33 years ago – something from nothing. Yet, these statements around the beginning and end are hearsay. As far as the mind knows – it knows it exists, and it isn’t a fact that it was never so: non-existent. Let us clarify immediately what we mean by the mind. The mind is not merely the conscious mind we are aware of, the thinking and feeling presently, and it is not simply the other more complicated aspects too – the subconscious: memory, all which we do not see but is obvious in the conscious workings of our mind. The mind we are talking about here is the stage on which all this takes place, the reality itself of spirituality - mentalism. Many have tried to illustrate the dynamic of mental and physical but it is unknown or ineffable – incomprehensible perhaps, but I prefer to say that we are simple human beings. We are actors playing the role of a human being, and a human being doesn’t know these things. Perhaps we will become cleverer, but can a dog ever see beyond a dog’s perspective? Until it becomes not a dog. Another way to describe what we mean by the mind here in the grand scheme of things is to compare it with the physical realm, it is to say that the world isn’t simply the earth and stars, the electricity and forces of gravity, etc., the world is the entirety of that space filled with blackness and all the objects. That is the world – material reality. A famous question is: Is the spiritual reality within the material reality, or is the material reality within the spiritual reality. Is the world a feature of the imagination, or is the imagination a feature of the world. The atheist or physicalist states that the imagination, the world of logic and reason: The Mind – is a creation within the material matter, and within the human being better still. But the spiritual man and the philosopher have sought to verify which of the two is more concrete objectively and concluded that the only one which is certainly real, ever-lasting, and undeniable is that which can be called the infinite, with a meaning of that which is forever, with no beginning nor end – Infinite. There was only one which can be verified by the mind, via reason and logic. The other is possibly an illusion, and most certainly an interpretation, a perception of something.

But anyway, let us try to get to the point of this dichotomy of attitude which is: There are two realities which we must acknowledge, the subjective and objective. It is in terms of what life is, and how we should go about life based on these two things. The only problem is, in some sense they are two different realities, yet they can be brought together. We can lay it out initially as two different philosophies, two different approaches to life based on either of these perspectives.

No. 1) I am the centre of the universe, everything centres around me. I close my eyes and the world disappears, whether it has actually disappeared or not, I’m not sure – how can I be. But when I open my eyes, there it is coincidentally. What’s real? I’m real, my soul is real. My self-development is real. My survival is my job, and the salvation of my soul is the mission I have.

No. 2) I am in some random rock, somewhere randomly in the universe. There are 5 billion others just like me, and more importantly: I identify as being a part of a collective of a life-force, of human beings yes, and of creatures, and even-more: I am a part of the moving spirit amongst the apparent-nothingness. It’s difficult to say this point but it’s a common concept in which we identify with life at different levels: We identify with that which is alive, the living plant: life, and then we identify with being a creature, something beyond simply life, and then we identify with human beings, who can reason and communicate in civility, and yet even within our human race there is further still identification, it was once called class of three or four kinds, and further still some had a multitude of classes.

The point we are raising here is that an individual can consider things and see himself as a game which he is playing – about himself. Or, he can see life as a game being played by the whole. It is I versus We. Our sensory information defines us as being limited to our own body, and therefore that is who we are. But philosophy defines us as a force of life in an inanimate world.

The answer to this quandary is that it is somewhat both. We are a sovereign entity, when it comes to management of self, but in the world we are a subject of the kings: Morality, Justice, etc.

Learning from others

I will pander no longer and put forward the greatest of questions. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the wisest of them all. And what if there is someone wiser than I, wiser in the only important way, the way of the soul. How would that change life for me. Surely I’d want to seek him out, if it was possible. Think about it: There is a man out there who is wiser than you, again I reiterate that wisdom here is in how to live, how to think, right and wrong. There is a man out there who knows better ways of eating and exercise and behaving and even thinking, of course there is. And if he tells me that, what will I gain from it? Not much. We can all look on the internet and find a life coach who can list a number of things which are good. But this is not what we are saying. It is not the simple instruction but the reason for doing so, and the evidence so to why to do it. And it’s not simply a matter of doing, but instead not doing, the answers as to why it’s wrong to do such things. Meanwhile, there is a difference between diet and lifestyle improvements, and morality which concerns sexuality, relationships, occupation – purposes, socialisation. In other words, its the matter of the soul is about heaven and karma, and we are thinking about significant things here which transform our self and determine our luck: in regard to material and spiritual.

Now the reality is, from my experience, I don’t seem to seek anyone out, and neither do other people. But of course this is in relation to non-soul stuff, better lifestyle, etc. We all know these things, hearing from someone else won’t be significant, the reasons for doing so might be. But that is what is lacking in most of the life coaches industry.

One wonders shall I take on this journey by myself. I see a mountain I must travail. And I know there is a map and path, if only I were to look and ask for it. But instead I could simply traverse the mountain by my own ability. I may fail, I may die, I may take long ever so long, but I would rather that journey than to benefit from another. I will become less in the process than him who did. Of course we are referring to the person who is faced with morality from another and asks himself whether he shall ignore it and simply go about his life and see for himself what is right and wrong, to pursue wrong as long as there is a doubt or hope that it is acceptable or permissible. Let’s see what I can get away with, and let’s face the punishment when it comes. Right now I am enjoying my sin and my ignorance, let the karma come when it may. Or, should I listen to others, should I hear what they have to say and consider it.

CBT: cognitive and behavioural psychology

CBT is cognitive and behavioural psychology combined.

Cognitive psychology is a relatively modern way of understanding ourselves similarly to a machine with parts and functions, mechanisms, etc. The way of thinking is born in the dawn of technology and machinery, engines, electrics and so on. The most helpful analogy is the computer with its memory hard drive and all other necessary parts – all connected – compartmentalised, and the idea is that man’s mind or his entire system can be understood like a computer or a machine, e.g. there may be a part with an error with one part, the leg for example, and it can either be fixed or replaced, or disconnected. I suppose the real beginning of this era started around 500 years ago when man began to open up the human body and investigate, experiment and explore, and he came to realise that man is like a big machine with all it’s systems and parts. Yet of course that would all be titled cognitive physiology. Cognitive psychology is less of a natural science and more of an observation, however with some concrete – tangible observations too, that man’s mind works in a certain way, it operates under certain rules and patterns in general, certain tendencies, etc., And so this is in the grey area of dualism where we seem to be touching on the physical nature of the brain, and also the mental aspect of man too. A bit like with the body several hundred years ago – the mind becomes tangible and corporeal. The one thing which cannot be included in this is man’s soul, which begs the question firstly – what is man’s soul. We will come back to that.

The main idea in cognitive psychology as therapy is that if we can become a mechanic so to speak and meddle with certain thoughts and ways of thinking, that this can change our lives and how we feel - which is the essence of mental health. Aside from the purely theoretical understandings, the experience of life has shown us that a lot of our sadness and difficult unwanted emotions come from thought, i.e. when I think this – I feel this, if I thought the opposite or neutrally – I wouldn’t feel this – which teases the question: So what If I just changed what I think – deliberately. But the missing piece in this solution here is reality, i.e. It’s all well and good thinking: If I say I’m bad at tennis then I feel sad but If I say I’m good at tennis then I feel Good, So I might as well just think and say that I am good at it. The reality problem here is: Well, are you good at it though or not. And the person may have been coached into saying: Well, it’s all relative, so there is no objective answer anyway, and I’m better than I used to be, and I’m better than so and so, and anyway – I don’t want to be depressed, so yes I am good at it. However, there is in fact an objective reality, first of all the person must establish the definition of good at tennis, perhaps it isn’t the highest Olympic standard as before, perhaps it’s more local – amateur – relatively newly acquainted people, or something but the point is – there is a common sense acceptance of what is good – some skill, what is not good – a real lack of those essential skills, and neutral which can kind of do it but not very well at all, and we could judge this with beginners. There we will have it – a reasonable understanding of good and bad at tennis. And the person must then contend with the possibility that they either are or aren’t good at it. And the reality we mentioned to begin with is – there is the reality factor of whether your statement to yourself is false or true, albeit the person may fully well not be aware of it being false – such is the power of denial and ignorance – however! Though he may somewhat-honestly not acknowledge a truth – that truth is there deep down. Anyway – that is the reality factor which is complicated yet significant, as one of the key goals of a healthy person is to be harmonious – which is truth and honesty within himself, understanding and what be called ‘straightness’ as opposed to twistedness.

While thoughts may seem to be the culprit and cause of the problems, it must be considered that thoughts come from reality. However, the cognitive therapist has observed that while thoughts come from reality – they aren’t always accurate, e.g. Chinese whispers. They are shaped by past experiences and current circumstances. The classic example is when a person thinks they did something bad, when actually they did something okay, this is because of their previous experience, a person without this prior-experience would correctly think they did okay. And so part of cognitive therapy is to help a person become aware of this fact firstly and secondly to investigate it and alter it - fix it if it is so. However, just because this fact exists, doesn’t mean it’s always the case – perhaps you did do something bad. The more prominent and common case is that people wish to blame bad experiences for their negative thinking – when actually it is moreso because of themselves. It’s not always what happened to us – though that is the easier chair to sit in – sometimes, it is also often what we did – what we have been doing – thinking. The complication here on the other hand though is that some people genuinely blame themselves without recognising or acknowledging what happened to them and how significant that is and was. But like we have pointed out, some people are too keen to indulge in that and in contrast don’t want to acknowledge their own responsibility.

A key thing to remember though is that thoughts do come from some-thing. And that something isn’t always simply external experience. The other culprit can be found in human psychology, the cognitive understanding of the psyche – terms such as: the ego and self-esteem. These parts of us include defence mechanisms, preserving, maintaining and building self-esteem, and a sense of social hierarchy and social status – which are major factors in the complicated mind. Another aspect of the mind – internal factors – are the primitive and natural desire and will of man – to survive and continue its living. Lastly, a third aspect is the so-called divine soul or spirit in us, and/or around us. And so while there are some who try to understand human psychology and mental health as a simple equation of an experiences happening and resulting complicated ways of thinking and feeling, i.e. a thinking error such as an exaggeration in negative thinking, or persistent low moods and low self-esteem, the more complicated reality is that there is a lot of intermediary machinery – factors involved which is namely your own accountability. And further complexity is the addition of the universal and divine factor in life.

Behavioural psychology is different from cognitive psychology in that it views things externally - observationally, excluding the aspect of thought and feeling. A rather logical point is: Because the scientist cannot see nor hear nor touch those things: thought and feeling. And so in therapy this approach can also be taken. To focus on behaviour and physical matter when searching for the cause and solution of mental health issues. BP looks at the behaviours and actions of the person. And there is an experimental as well as investigatory process toward figuring out the cause and effects of mental health – the causes of positive feeling – via self-report yet also positive behaviours consequentially, i.e. the fact that a person may behave more positively as a consequence to a certain thing, e.g. the person woke up early, and ate a healthier breakfast, compared with when waking up later and eating a less healthy breakfast. There may be a tangible - practical reason, i.e. more time, less people around, or – it could be something psychological, otherwise known in the science world as hormones and chemicals – perhaps purely physiological – or perhaps also tied to meaning – tied to ego, self-esteem, and perhaps tied to morality – divinity.

Within BP there is also a lot of so-called coping mechanisms and behaviours to experiment with to solve certain problems or to produce benefits, tapping into the machinery and chemical-physiological side of the brain, and possibly the divine too but it is rare and unusual, BP is generally at the naturalistic-physicalist level. Within BP for example it could be suggested to breathe slowly and controlled for one minute before giving a speech or making a decision, or perhaps a more complex method of utilising a phone call to a loved one, or to look at a picture of someone or something beloved. This could all be done to help with an unhealthy issue or simply to improve our ability to do something. This is the nature of behaviour psychology – tapping into our understanding of the mechanisms and processes of our mind and body and utilising this understanding to solve problems and improve performance and life in general for ourselves.

But again like with cognitive psychology, there is the factor of reality, which is debatable. For instance, let’s say a man says: I have fear about this situation I am in but I don’t want to have fear. Because I will gain something material-worldly by not having fear and also because it’s an unpleasant experience. The reality factor here is whether it’s right and beneficial in some other way to be experiencing fear in that situation. Another example would be a person feeling sad about something, the reality factor is: Should that person be feeling sad, and the second question is: is it beneficial, is it detrimental, and also: does the question of whether something is beneficial overrule whether something is deserved and right. Imagine a guy loses his mum, he loves her very very much. She dies in the morning. He is so devastated, and later in the morning he is visited by a fairy who offers him to remove all of his sadness, now and for the rest of his life, his emotions will be otherwise normal but he simply won’t feel any of the sadness, the loss nor the pain of losing his mother. What do we make of this proposition. In some sense it seems ridiculous, as though offensive and something alien and wrong. But on the other hand, grief is like pain, and in other examples of people losing children or partners – multiple people, the person often wishes away the pain, and actually many people kill themselves to escape the pain - seemingly. The point here is about whether it’s always a priority – the matter of how we feel – joy and sadness. Is the aim always to feel pleasant. Is the aim always to feel ‘good’, the differentiation here is that the word good has a connection with the word God, and this kind of ‘good’ is being at one with yourself and with God, as opposed to the common usage of the phrase: ‘feeling good’ which can be said to be pleasantness – aesthetic. In the same way CBT in the modern world is said to not involve Morality, to be atheistic. However there is the notion of exploring values, and some minority strands of CBT including faith but this seems to be more of inclusivity, rather than actually being what it says on the tin.

Philosophy and self-development

Philosophy is the process of analytic thinking and trying to understand things. Psychology is a form of philosophy. Yet it is psychology within the confines of thinking, and not testing and experimenting, researching, etc., which makes up the modern science of psychology. Self-reflection is philosophy. Philosophy gets a bad rep because aside from psychological philosophy, many other things fall under philosophy: The nature and reality of God, of life itself, namely the physical reality of matter - this falls under philosophy, and various deep complicated understandings of ethics and morality, these fall under philosophy. But it is good to point out that there is only one system of ethics and morality, and reality too, and so philosophy has a bad rep because it can be a library of reading and trying to understand a list of theories, which the majority are wrong, because if the majority were right then it would all be the same but it’s not. There are various understandings, a lot of misunderstanding, miscommunication or lack of ability to articulate, and so on. And so philosophy as a study of literature can be awful. But philosophy as a skill and science is the greatest of things. However, it can be useful to read other people’s writings or listen to what they say, because sometimes it can be helpful, but for the most part in the modern world it is not. There is some good stuff in Ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, the modern classic literature includes Dostoyevsky, Dantè, Dumas, and so on, and then there is religious literature, St Augustine and St Teresa, and the Old Testament, the new, and one area which I have not explored much at all is Jewish philosophy: the kaballah, and other mysticism writing in Judaism and Christianity. Another area is the Indian philosophy of Hinduism and Buddhism. There is no doubt there is some very good thinkers, excellent even in this list but the problem is that a great thinker may not have produced great writing, i.e. communicated perfectly or even close, and then there is the factor of other hands being involved, translation or the work of theirs being recorded through the memory or interpretation of someone else. Nonetheless it can be great to read these works and it can help you understand an idea, perhaps even conceive it but I’m not sure, there is an idea that an idea can not be conceived in this way but on the other hand perhaps it doesn’t matter because all ideas are within us anyway, and people’s works can help us discover and realise. Another way reading or hearing others can help is in the form of support, emotional and intellectual, the Old Testament is a great example of this.

Self-development is about putting philosophy into practice, it is the results and action of philosophy. However, as a separate notion, the term SD here is used regarding modern and non-moralistic aspect of life, namely health and lifestyle, quality of life. Here we are referring to diet, health, exercise, success versus failure in terms of what a person wants, goals, etc. However, self-development here can also be a general over-arching term for all of the above, improving how we are: Cognitively, Behaviourally, Religiously, and Philosophically.

Narrative analysis — Deep CBT

Why does a person feel the way they do. The usual ideas are circumstances and previous circumstances-experiences. The thing we want to look at here is their narrative, or better to say their narration. A person’s mental health depends on their inner reality, not their outer reality, though it is a superficial factor. How does a person see things, as is said: It’s not what they’re looking at but how they see it. What is the nature of the movie they are in. Life is a story or a movie according to the person, and the way a person feels depends on the nature and narrative of that movie. Is it a horror movie? A movie with a happy ending, a tragedy, thriller? Is it a great story, or a sad one, a meaningless-nihilistic one, or a movie with light and hope.

To begin to understand a person’s reality, what matters is: how does a person see themselves, how do they understand themselves, i.e. what is their opinion of themselves. How do they see society, and how do they see life on the whole. Do they see God, how do they feel about it. What is happening – this life? Within these answers is the cause of a person's mental health. These beliefs about things are underneath thoughts and actions.

Objectivity

The position of this therapy is that a person must reconcile with the true way. Our concept of what that is can be exemplified in this short speech: What do you want to be when you’re older, we ask the young person, but also to the middle aged person we ask what do you wish to happen. To the young adult in society we ask what is the most desirable success, what do you want to become? The answer is usually success in material things: money, career, status – fame, renowned whether rightfully so or not. Another way of asking the question is to look at the person who you envy the most, a top sportsman or actor or singer, and also the typical successful entrepreneur, the investor or business owner who has millions of money. This is what most people look to when they make a wish of what they want in their hearts. And the point of our concept is: this value system first and foremost isn’t about personality: mind - heart. Because these things are about what a person has, not how a person is. Furthermore, when we think of how a person is – people often value strength, confidence, speed of thought, breadth of knowledge, wit. These are all good things, but in and of themselves they are not the important thing. All of these things without justice are not ‘good’, They are not Godly. Now it’s also worth saying that it’s harmless to want wealth and even renown but the problem – as with those good traits – is when it is separate from ‘Good’ - Godliness. The position of this therapy is that there are not many of us who in the same way desire and envy to be Godly – to be wise in this sense, as they do those other things. This therapy is to introduce this concept and to implement it. Do not focus your mind on being a person who has material wealth, focus your mind on being a good person, and becoming a better person.

CBT in practice

Deal with sadness and anxiety, panic, trauma, complicated things like OCD.

How? We firstly set out to understand it properly. There is a lot of research and data, experience and ideas on these things, from around the world and millions of people. And so we look at your understanding and then begin our research.

Understanding the symptoms, the nature of the issue exactly, and the cause.

The next stage is to alter it. We look at what you’ve tried or come up with, look at what worked, what hasn’t, why it hasn’t been tried – carried out. Then again we turn to the data, the wide field of experience on this. And we look at suggestions of ways to alter it and begin experiments and discussing the possibility of trying these activities, any obstacles etc.

Often it involves doing things differently, thinking differently, challenging your thinking, looking for errors, using rationale.

A lot of healing and benefit comes from the process of talking and understanding the problem. A lot can happen during the process of analysing thoughts and putting them under the microscope, challenging the validity and logic of them. This is a key role for the outsider – the therapist.

Sometimes encouragement and positivity is a helpful aspect.

Someone listening and caring is also a healing process. Imagine it like this, I’ll pay you to help me with this problem. Helping involves becoming involved, listening and understanding, reflecting and suggesting. Imagine having a math problem or a puzzle, it’s like asking someone to take a look, try to help solve it.

So you want someone with a lot of knowledge on these matters, but equally important is someone who’s going to actually put the effort in.

The art of self-awareness

There’s something I haven’t mentioned much yet, here or else, which is the art of self-awareness, it’s often a bit of a gimmick in modern spiritualism, it’s the ability to observe or feel, perceive and know, sense: thought and feeling, thought on various levels, and feeling on various levels. I mention it here because in study and science of ourselves the task is sometimes a matter of sitting and utilising this skill which is honed over time, becoming quiet and still as they say but more so it’s a matter of acute and honest perception, and having a clean and pure, true, mindset, an honest scientist, free from bias and ulterior agenda, etc., and it’s important here because in the alchemical science one must conceive an idea, sit with it and watch how it makes us feel. Herein lies the truth of the matter. This ability also requires bravery, we are programmed to avoid pain, and a lot of our thoughts and inner reality produces pain, most of us spend our lives avoiding difficult truths.

Action and mentality

1. Do not abuse others.

2. Do not abuse yourself.

3. Do not abuse creation.

Mentality.

1. Be honest and open.

2. Be righteous and fair.

3. Be kind and friendly.

Logic of religion

What is self-development – or religion for that matter, what is it in the literal sense, what’s actually happening - what are we trying to do, what is the purpose of it, or what is it an expression of?

There is a concept that religion is a matter of devotion and service - to something.

However, for the most part, even devotion I suppose, all is an action or notion of making our life better. Or perhaps to make life better is the deeper concept. In religion especially, there is the reasoning of trying to do the right thing - selflessly, but the deeper question is: what is actually going on here - do the right thing? – why? What causes you to do this. The answer is commonly empty: Just because it’s the right thing to do – so we do it, because it’s right! But at the psychological level this doesn’t explain anything, and it isn’t because there is no psychological level to it, there is, it’s because the person is unaware of it. Psychological level here means some type of system or drive, some type of mechanism, cause and effect. (It is discussed in much more depth elsewhere but there is that finite end whereby we do hit an ‘I don’t know’, in this case it would be that certain feelings and the effects of causes drive us towards things – and we don’t know why it is that we were built to feel those feelings.)

There is such a thing as the ineffable – that which is beyond human comprehension, why are things – the laws - the way they are. Why do I feel that way, or better said as why does it work like that. We can spend all of our time wondering and investigating as to how it works, but we can’t really get anywhere with why it is that way, especially when we are talking about the nature of our reality. A person may object here and say that there are many instances of science and philosophy and psychology in which we can ask why something is the way it is and then we discover why and can explain it’s cause, but the point is: the annoying philosopher – the true philosopher can always ask: but why? There is always that ‘why’ as to why are things that way, and even if there is a reason, there is always a: but why does it do that. And the answer at the bottom level of things is: I don’t know, that’s just the way it is. Of course we can spend a lot of time figuring things out before we get to that. And often we think we’ve got to the bottom of it when we haven’t, and we learn more. But nonetheless – for the last time – there will always be a why at the end. This little speech is in relation to the matter of conscience. Our true aim is to perceive and understand our human conscience, but the point is: we don’t know why or how it is the way it is, we can just observe how it is. Humility is key. A more mystical statement is to say that when we perceive the true nature of our conscience – we see God.

The nature of being a human being is that we do not know everything, the nature of being an individual is that we are a part of the collective entity of life – as a cell is a part of our body, and this collective is as we are – the person.

And so let us return to the nature of ‘religion’ and all such self-development and devotion. What is the individual trying to do, what do they want is the better question. For the most part it’s to feel better – and rightfully so, other reasonings are to be more happy, to be more calm, secure and safe etc., and lastly for hope – hope of life. Which brings us to the classic – which isn’t spoke about much these days: the ticket to heaven or hell, i.e. they want to go to heaven and not to hell – hence religion - hence self-development, and so it is similar to the other wishes in that its to aim for a better outcome but it’s post-life/post-earth as opposed to now or the remainder of our life on earth., although it could be both. I think it’s not unreasonable to say you’d be a fool to dismiss both of them. There’s every possibility of a consequence or dimension-terminal at death, and it is a very significant prospect. The idea of heaven or hell on earth is somewhat equally intangible as it is indirect and theoretical because the means are supernatural, not a simple directly observable cause and effect. Karma is a matter of consequence of our way of being, it involves a mysterious force of values existent in the present as opposed to a bill we may or may not receive at death. The tangible aspect of the idea is that certain conduct including our thinking – results in certain states, certain mental occurrences as well as good and bad luck occurring in our lives – yet the intangible – mystical aspect is the causes connected to those effects, i.e. the sceptical philosopher can always wonder: did that wrongdoing bring about that negative effect though. And so this is the main gist of some notions toward religion and self-development – to reap the benefit, to avoid the punishment.

There is another reason for self-development which isn’t solely about self-benefit. Moreover it isn’t tied to unbeknown consequences of heaven or hell - on earth or after earth. However, the truth is – it is still somewhat a way of benefitting ourselves, which isn’t a bad thing in any case by the way. The reason I am going to propose is that a person may engage with philosophy and moral practice so that they can become more truthful – truth-seeing and correct in how they see and understand life. Albeit I suppose the question is: Why do they want that? To benefit from it? But anyway, so it is that various practices can be cultivated and certain ideas contended with in the name of curing one’s self from a blindness, a skewed vision and personal psychological biases – resulting in misunderstanding, and all in the name of being able to reason objectively, to purify reason. And I suppose it could be said that the person isn’t necessarily wanting a benefit, but instead it is simply an inherent drive to see things as they are – akin to the desire to live.

At the psychological level of a person’s thinking once he becomes aware that there are laws in the universe - the existence of God if you will, a definite objective morality of right and wrong, then of course it becomes necessary that he ought to know what that law is if he wants to live, to fare well and manage life – to function properly. A person can love the Law and a devout love of God, yet it can amount to nothing if the person does not see and understand clearly - truly, otherwise, one can have all the passion and dedication but if it is directed in the wrong direction then one can attempt to love yet offend. Imagine a person who loves their wife very much, yet they don’t know what their wife likes and dislikes, no matter how much they love them – they may not be able to please them and on contrary do things which upset them. They need to know them, understand them: To Love him is to Know him.

And so then the next thing then that a person who discovers that there are laws – that God is real, he must seek to perceive what that law is, and he must have or begin to develop the clarity and clear vision to see it correctly.

Definition of religion

Firstly: when we say religion we don’t mean any one or an officially recognised religion, we are using the word in a general-literal sense – selecting our own definition. The noun religion seems to be a belief system and in that case everyone has their own religion – whether be a universe of randomness or absolute naturalism, or involving the supernatural and the objective morality. However the adjective ‘religious’ seems to be a matter of re-alignment or re-allegiance – re-legionce – with something other than before, the before is an allegiance to self-centredness, it could also be framed as a primitive God. And so religion is about transforming our life – evolving and dedicating our life into a life of morality – doing the right thing – whatever that may be, but in general it is usually things like controlling selfishness and recklessness, charity and kindness.

(Side note: There is a general evolution we see from younger people to older people, becoming more decent and fair, less cruel, less obnoxious, not always of course, and often the old ways can resurface in moments, but it’s an interesting observation that people generally become more civil and decent. The question is: why. Do they perceive the law, is it a social status cause, or does the person become more understanding as a result of suffering and other experience, increasing his understanding of diversity. Is it simply emulation through exposure. An adult hangs around with adults more than does a child. And a greater diversity of people.)

Logic of morality

Morality does not simply consist of what we do for others and how we treat others, it is also primarily about how we treat ourselves - how we manage ourselves: it’s how we are as a being – how we function both internally and behaviourally – our principles – how we think and assess. And then there is another aspect of morality which is a respect and reverence for Life other than ourselves (everyone). Morality is also a matter of acknowledging the existence of morality. We can debate about what is right and wrong – but we must bow down to the very thing of morality itself – that it exists outside of ourselves. Morality is King. In ancient writings – there are duties that all of us are said to have, the three levels of morality: To God, To others and To ourself.

The idea of there being no objective morality is worth considering, it is interesting because there is some truth and ingenuity in it and yet it is also false. All things are absolutely good and right universally – no exceptions, and likewise with wrong things, but it isn’t always as ‘criminal’ for a person to do something wrong when they don’t really understand it yet, even more so another creature, for example a dog. It’s completely wrong for a person to do something they fully well know is wrong, it is less a crime for a person to do something which is wrong – yet they don’t understand it is as wrong or even consider it so. And so in this sense there isn’t an objective standard of morality that all are held to equally. Also compare an adult to a child, how wrong is it for the child to be selfish and mindless, compared to an adult – it’s different. And in this sense there is no objective standard. Moreover, it certainly is a factor when we consider punishment, just how much should that child be punished compared to the adult. However, let’s also not lose sight of objective reality and morality, nevertheless it is wrong for any being to do something wrong, even a child or a dog, it is for us to try to help that child not commit anything wrong and to reduce any significance and consequence. There is no doubt about it – there is an objective morality.

We will look at the philosophy of this conclusion elsewhere.

This position of religion: an objective morality - is very different to modern society. Religion has no problem with showing us the objective morality – pointing towards where we want to go. Whereas modern society would rather keep the person’s self-esteem well, and say that morality is relative.

It is important at the outset to mention a complex barrier and obstacle on this path, which is our biases of self-interest and ego-preservation - security. As I introduce an idea your initial reaction may be very strong to reject it – not because its so obviously wrong or that it is illogical but because it goes against our self-interest – ego, etc, and moreover: our allotted amount of pleasure in this life – whether that be a feeling of being a good, righteousness or peace of mind, or our sense of competency – especially as it relates to hierarchical status – in our heads or socially. But in any case all of us are frustrated and grieved at the idea of loss – especially a loss of something pleasant or something seen as good. Yet often this pleasant thing is completely individualistic – not collective nor wholesome, or in other words: in no way connected to the good of anything or anyone else. And so I repeat: beware and bear in mind that your initial thoughts may be operating under such bias – meaning that the thoughts may not be correct or legitimate, of course there’s a possibility it may be correct but it is important to consider the matter – apply logic – follow the logic – see where it takes you, probably to a difficult decision or action, then the decision must be made whether to turn back or continue.

Three commandments

1)Don’t violate another creature. (The rights every one of us has – all beings/creatures)

i.e. Don’t kill/abuse anyone. Don’t be cruel – physical-emotional suffering – without good cause.

2)Don’t use mental substances.

3)Don’t do contraception/masturbation.

There are 3 simple yet fundamental commandments which are practical and specific – not ambiguous nor abstract, i.e. respect one’s parents. These lifestyle choices change a lot: chemically, physically, socially and most importantly it concerns our soul.

It is more important why we do something rather than simply what we do.

Although, what we do is important in the grand scheme of thingss. At some level it doesn’t matter why we do it – just that we do it. But in our personal scheme of things, it is important why we do it.

Following such commandments, regardless of the reason, it changes us chemically, physically, socially. But in relation to our soul, the action alone is not enough. The important thing is: Why do we do what we do or what we don’t do. For example: Veganism.

The first commandment is the most significant, it is at the social level directly – this is the essence of fairness and justice, the value system we ought to cherish, endorse and promote in the universe. The second and third are also relating to the level of society yet indirectly because they are in the form of the individual level – meaning they are behaviour and action concerning yourself and not anyone else.

1 = what you do to others.

2 & 3 = what you do to yourself.

These latter two are significant in relation to the nature and management of the individual – affecting his mind and his behaviour, affecting his feelings and emotions – which indirectly are important at the social level. Of course they only don’t affect society if man is on an island – having no impact whatsoever on the world around him.

If a person is to pursue the path of becoming a truly Godly person then they must purify themselves – their minds and conduct in establishing order and harmony with truth. Both the second and third commandments are in relation to that. We are trying to create a heavenly person, a person with no darkness, truth is light. And to see truth one must shake off his selfishness, Godliness is an awareness of the fact that we are a collective and a perception of righteousness – of nobility. A person fit for heaven. Both these latter things are key battles in the war against carnal lust, individualistic pleasure – the so-called worship of a selfish God, not the true God – true Good, which is universal justice, the God of the collective soul and collective force of life in the whole universe – external and internal. Justice is not to be confused with blind equality.

These three commandments help the person become a fair person: clear-minded and pure-hearted – a truly-consistently kind person, which is what we are aiming for. You may argue a person can be fair, kind, etc, and still use contraception and drink – as it isn’t unfair or unkind to anyone, and perhaps even the odd bit of consumption of an animal, especially if it is not at his hand – the being is already dead, again there is no act of unkindness or unfairness directly or intentionally.

The answer is complicated: Let us first observe the fact that most people, probably all but a few, consider themselves a kind and fair person, and in some sense we are right, if there is a list of things which are acknowledged as being unfair and unkind, this list might be quite significant things, i.e. things which are obviously unfair and unkind, yet the idea here is that there is another list of much more subtle things, some are simply smaller in scale but others are more complicated and it certainly isn’t obvious as to what’s the fair thing to do – which also be tied in with kindness. Another truth we could say about society in general is that most of us are trying to be kind and fair. The point here is that there is a difference between a persons perception and understanding of fairness and niceness, concerning their own conduct as well that of others, and an objective notion of fairness and kindness. Or we could say – instead of the objective standard, there is difference between one person and another, one might be much more miniscule – microscopic, and yet telescopic - considerate of a variety of factors and context, whereas the other may have a less detailed and broad picture and understanding of things. A good example of this is the two detectives who turn up to a crime scene. The inexperienced or even simply the less clever may have some theories and ideas about what happened, whereas the more experienced or the more clever reasoner may have more theories and more ideas about what happened.

The question is: How does this relate to the question at hand, which is: What’s a person’s personal conduct: drinking, sexual habits – got to do with a person’s level of kindness and fairness. The answer is that these two actions do something to the person, they distort and corrupt him, so that while his will – his good will – may remain intact and ever the same, yet his ability to be fair and kind will deteriorate – and certainly be affected by these two actions.

If again the question is: But how?

The answer is: the mind and mentality is a machine of habit, patterns and so on. And these behaviours, these choices, are the essence and precedent for our mentality. And what is it they represent: Sexuality: Selfish desire over reason. A value system of physical sensation – with no good, with no cause, a corrupted form of trying to feel good as opposed to the true system. Drugs: Again there is a corrupted form of trying to manipulate our feelings and our situation instead of working within the laws of nature, not just a naturalistic mindset but a mindset what is deserved and what isn’t, facing the consequence, paying the price, and seeking the solution – instead of ignoring and distraction. If we say: Heaven is a state-place we are all trying to reach. The use of a substance distracts us from the path to that state-place. A drug is a way to feel better. The questions are: Do you deserve to feel better? Why do you want to feel better, what’s wrong, in other words: Why do you feel bad – maybe that is how you are meant to feel. If something bad happened but you feel fine – on the drug, then something is wrong with that. If something sad happened then you should be sad, and if you shouldn’t be sad then you must realise this and fix this yourself.

Lastly, We can discuss how these commandments benefit us and society, how they evolve us into more civilised and truthful human beings, and we can also discuss the notion of Karma and God, or in other words: circumstance, a law in the world as well as our inner reality within us, which likewise on both levels punishes and rewards based on the nature of our conduct, i.e. it is out of our control – other than our conduct, i.e. effects can’t be controlled. So those are two different reasons:

Supernatural system: So-called ‘luck’ – what happens in our life – out of our control, namely: God and Karma.

Natural system: Firstly, the state and functioning of the person – by their own workings, and also the consequence and connection to society, which is the tangible result of the state of the person.

Fairness/Justice. This is what it all comes down to – this principle, this Good – God – the true Good, once we worship this – the commandments transpire.

Fairness is a vague term but there is a phrase popular around the world: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Apparently the more sound version actually is: what is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. Because I am often vexed when a person says ‘I’d do it for you!’. But do not cause suffering as we do hate it. Another quote is to love your neighbour as yourself.

To be Good

If someone does almost all of the good things that we list, they don’t eat meat or take any drug, there is no abuse of sexuality i.e. contraception or masturbation, then what does this actually count for? Are they a good person or more of a good person, are they going to heaven – so to speak. And if a person does do all of those things, i.e. the opposite of the first person, are they not a good person or less so, are they going to hell – again so to speak. The answer is no and no. The first person may still well be a bad person – so to speak, and the second person may be a good person. In different ways they both may be lacking in philosophy - intellectual justice. They may also be lacking in strength and confidence – for whatever reason, in order to challenge or resist social pressures. They may be affected by circumstance and environment, emotions, etc. However, an interesting thing to note here is that we have not mentioned the act of cruelty – violation, i.e. could a person do this but still be a good person. It is not so with this. However if a person has done such a thing but it was an error and a thing which is repented in the only way something can be repented – abstaining from it – and living in remorse of it – the safest and surest solution to overcoming such a thing – then yes it is also logical that such a person can still be a good person, and also it goes without saying that a person who simply doesn’t commit violence may still well be a bad person, but the distinction here regarding this conduct is that if a person is cruel or violent by tendency and that is their current pattern and nature, or it lies dormant or restrained even, then yes this person can not be a good person – at the moment. This point highlights something about our morals – that some of them, like this one, are the crux of the matter – they are completely and absolutely unfair and criminal – the mark of good and bad, others such as drug-use and contraception are not similar to this, as they are crimes to ourselves directly and only indirectly, unintentionally affecting society.

This point seems to prompt the question of why are these self-crime things so important then or how are they so significant if they aren’t the actual defining thing of immorality, and what is the defining thing then, aside from the extremes of violence and cruelty. One answer is that it is difficult to describe and list simply how to be good, and also explain succinctly what being good actually is. In some sense it’s intangible and not objectifiable: to be just. Whereas the stuff we are focusing on is tangible, and though indirect – it is certainly significant in the grand scheme of thingss, i.e. concerning society – others. In relation to these matters of do and don’t do - The important thing here is not what we are doing, but why we are doing it, i.e why don’t we drink or use contraception, etc, the answer in short is to be led by reason and righteousness – to cultivate these principles and a mentality. To live in the name of the Good.

The explanation of ‘the good’ is difficult. The best word to define it is fair or just, but in some sense we are simply going from one empty concept to another, what is good - it’s fair, what is fair - it’s just, and what is just? It becomes tricky to define it in words alone. An interesting thing to consider is that the bible isn’t simply a religious or historical piece, it is an allegorical – illustration work of stories containing complex concepts and notions of morality which can be understood from the story, albeit often subtle – borderline mystical. The point is: it seems to be the case that the description of what is good or just is done by giving examples of Good, as opposed to a list of attributes. The bible is stories which say: This happened and then that happened, and it is for us to work out the moral lesson in that story, i.e. the connection, the cause and effect between human behaviour – the outcome, and the moral of the story, of reward and punishment. It makes no difference whether it is an historical account or fantasy account – the ideas are in and of themselves. Whether the story happened or didn’t, the effect and meaning is the same.

There was a great comment made by JP which is relevant here, which is: that there can be more truth in fiction than there is in non-fiction, a more consolidated, emblematic truth in fiction. It is probably better to say that there is equal truth in fiction as well as non-fiction, which sounds funny, but it is because the ideas are real, truths observed from patterns and stereotypes, generalities, and so: we can tell a false story with false names and a false location, and yet the narrative – the theme – the plot is all real, as real as anything, not because it happened but because it happens. Another great remark in relation to this is made by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his famous piece in which he defines materiality and non-materiality - mental-reality, and he defines a fact and truth – truth being synonymous with logical, that is: that which is illogical is false – not true, that which is logical and based on experience – facts, is true. The idea is that a unicorn is certainly true, and a crocodile with the tail of a fish is true as well, even though both creatures do not exist, to our knowledge, but they could, and they might! The idea of not-true is something which doesn’t make sense – is illogical by our minds, for example: a larger box can not fit in a smaller one, a circle can’t be a square. Perhaps these are bad examples. And it does become apparent that by this definition, hardly anything qualifies as being false – completely illogical. Let’s take a look at the other concept of true and false. Did Socrates actually live, and what colour was his hair, how tall was he. These answers can never be known. If we didn’t see it, we don’t know it. Let’s take measurement names as truth. If someone were to say that a person alive is 5ft 10 inches tall, is this true or not, then a person could measure them and see if it is correct or not, but it is only the person who has measured him who knows it for sure. Yet, this person knows how tall someone is when they see them, and not when they measure them. What they have learned by measuring is a name and a systematic count of the size, but a person knows their height when they see them, not when they measure them, and so when the person is wondering how tall the person is without having yet measured - what is this truth that they are supposed to gain from the measure. The truth is: they haven’t gained anything of truth or false in reality, they have simply discovered the point on a chart, which allows us to intellectualize it and easily share it fast. But on the other hand, it is easy to see that it would be better for someone to show us how big something is rather than tell us, especially if it was several metres long, because height is a matter of vision, not intellect.

The law and the inward life

The second idea is one which causes the most uneasiness. It is the idea of Karma. One of the most common and prolific aspects of our experience of God comes down to this basic concept of Karma. It is the idea that God is like a law, a judge, who gives out reward and penalty – punishment. And what does he base it on? Or what is it based on, concerned with: Right and Wrong, and what is that exactly? Fairness, Appreciation, and Intention. In essence it is a matter of that is emotion, feeling and thought, and then action. All can be captured in the term ‘Good’.

A good phrase is that honesty is a state of mind, not simply an act. It matter what is going on inside, and God sees and understands everything, there is no scheming against it. But unfortunately we are not aware of this.

The merciful meet with mercy. The violent meet with violence, the unfair with unfairness, the deceiving with deception, the false with falsity.

The true with truth, the kind with kindness, the fair with fairness.

It is a great quote somewhere in the book of quotes: The right thing to do is always to find your true path and walk on it, and from another angle we can say it is to check what path you’re on and make sure it’s the right one. And so religion is a matter of doing what we should be doing. And also to stop doing that which we shouldn’t be doing. However, in todays culture, people seem to think to simply advocate and sing praise about doing the right thing etc. is enough, it isn’t, religion is a matter of trying to understand and study what it is we should and shouldn’t be doing. And I’ll say this, which I also heard in the ancient Indian Religion, though the speaker was not the author: If one truly embarks on the path of religion, it is inevitable that soon enough he will become Vegan. Anyway, including emotions, we are dealing with a practice and study of logic and an evolution of reason, the purification of reason – enabled through discipline and control of selfish desire. To conceive and embrace an objective form of reasoning, i.e. reasoning not corrupted or biased because of a person's personal experience.

Religion as a way of living

Here is an interesting statement, The degree and presence of Religion is certainly no higher nor more widespread in Islamic countries, though the people proclaim it and include it in their daily life and cultural make-up. This is not a criticism of them, it can instead be a defence of the west – which states that religion is equally alive and present here, though it’s nameless, individualised and openly moderated. Perhaps what can explain this seemingly offensive comparison, is that in the west everyone is left to their own development, whereas in the east there is a classroom and order of society. In the west, there are millions of beginners, happily staying as beginners. My only critique would be that in the east, as well as here too, there are many who believe they are advanced when they are certainly beginners.

(Universal) Organic Religion: Imagine someone saying: I like sports, and someone else asks: which sport do you like? Football, basketball, tennis, etc., and the person says well: I don’t play any of those, but I do like sport. And the other person persists: but which sport do you like? If you like sports then must like a sport, which one? And the person explains: well I like to move, and I like some type of rule or score – competition and boundaries – focussing on a particular skill or skill, I like that. This is an example of trying to capture what we mean by universal or organic religion. It isn’t a study of all religions and finding the commonality, though perhaps it is that. Organic religion is for the person who has a belief in God – an interest and pull towards God, a path of philosophy to understand God. And religion is to live life and approach life by the fruit of that path. Now the word organic is key here because it means that the fruit of this path is fruit that the person has plucked themselves, with no unknown or unnatural source and input – the fruit is the fruit of his own mind, his own wandering and wondering, searching and finding. In that way it’s Organic, and it is universal because any man in any place in time can embark on this path. Any can wonder at what is ‘good’. What is God. What is the right thing to do – not only in specific situations but in general – as a principle. What is the correct, the best, set of principles for a being to follow in his decision-making and living.

Does this mean throw away all books and listen to no one, of course it doesn’t. It’s an uncanny moment to figure something out and then read it in an ancient text, e.g. the bible. And there are many people and people’s works, which can be helpful in helping the person conceive or consolidate ideas around morality. Classic literature is a good place to look. And even in the unlikely place and people we can sometimes discover a moral truth. Truths are discovered from experience, and philosophy which is the analysis of not only experiences – but experience (totality). Simple findings – laws, can be applied to generalities also. A child may discover gravity in their little room and yet understand how the whole world stands and falls.

The word Religion here means a matter of living, the meaning can be found in the usage of the word whereby we say someone does something religiously – meaning it is a strict habit of the person. It opposes a meaning of religion which is purely creed and theory: a matter of speech and opinion, which by the way is not to say that a person is lying or any kind of deliberate misrepresentation, a person in complete honesty and good will may ‘believe’ in something, and yet that belief may not be acted out or carried through into the action, perhaps simply because it requires too much will power. Religion is: morality as policy. There is a good quote somewhere which says: if you want to judge a man or know him, then look at his actions, instead of listening to words. Religion doesn’t have to be supernatural, your God or your Good can be anything, but religion is a matter of that Good dictating your life.

Philosophy is the process of analytic thinking and trying to understand things. Psychology is a form of philosophy. Yet it is psychology within the confines of thinking, and not testing and experimenting, researching, etc., which makes up the modern science of psychology. Self-reflection is philosophy. Philosophy gets a bad rep because aside from psychological philosophy, many other things fall under philosophy: The nature and reality of God, of life itself, namely the physical reality of matter - this falls under philosophy, and various deep complicated understandings of ethics and morality, these fall under philosophy. But it is good to point out that there is only one system of ethics and morality, and reality too, and so philosophy has a bad rep because it can be a library of reading and trying to understand a list of theories, which the majority are wrong, because if the majority were right then it would all be the same but it’s not. There are various understandings, a lot of misunderstanding, miscommunication or lack of ability to articulate, and so on. And so philosophy as a study of literature can be awful. But philosophy as a skill and science is the greatest of things. However, it can be useful to read other people’s writings or listen to what they say, because sometimes it can be helpful, but for the most part in the modern world it is not. There is some good stuff in Ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, the modern classic literature includes Dostoyevsky, Dantè, Dumas, and so on, and then there is religious literature, St Augustine and St Teresa, and the Old Testament, the new, and one area which I have not explored much at all is Jewish philosophy: the kaballah, and other mysticism writing in Judaism and Christianity. Another area is the Indian philosophy of Hinduism and Buddhism. There is no doubt there is some very good thinkers, excellent even in this list but the problem is that a great thinker may not have produced great writing, i.e. communicated perfectly or even close, and then there is the factor of other hands being involved, translation or the work of theirs being recorded through the memory or interpretation of someone else. Nonetheless it can be great to read these works and it can help you understand an idea, perhaps even conceive it but I’m not sure, there is an idea that an idea can not be conceived in this way but on the other hand perhaps it doesn’t matter because all ideas are within us anyway, and people’s works can help us discover and realise. Another way reading or hearing others can help is in the form of support, emotional and intellectual, the Old Testament is a great example of this.

Self-development is about putting philosophy into practice, it is the results and action of philosophy. However, as a separate notion, the term SD here is used regarding modern and non-moralistic aspect of life, namely health and lifestyle, quality of life. Here we are referring to diet, health, exercise, success versus failure in terms of what a person wants, goals, etc. However, self-development here can also be a general over-arching term for all of the above, improving how we are: Cognitively, Behaviourally, Religiously, and Philosophically.

Socratic religion

I don’t want to attack Christianity because it is a great thing, the most amazing thing in some sense. But that is mostly about its essence. The reason we must talk about Christianity now – in the name of discussing our therapy and position is because many people turn to Christianity to help with their mental health. And while it can help in some way, sometimes seemingly brilliant, the position here is that Christianity doesn’t really fix things. It’s worth sharing a little bit of history that Christianity and the bible for the majority of history was a matter for the clergy and rabbis, who studied extensively and then tried to help others with their skills. One take from that is that it seems that it is a very complicated thing, not simple, and sometimes inaccessible to the lay person. Sometimes it’s difficult to know how to use something correctly.

Our position is that an organic-universal Alchemy is the answer to helping us get better. And perhaps Christianity can be and is that at some level, there is Christian mysticism and the Gnostics, the saints. Alchemy involves discipline and will power coupled with philosophy-introspection and mysticism. Mysticism is the relationship with the invisible, the infinite, ancient ideas - forever ideas, and it is a matter of faith, faith in the following and allegiance to the invisible (law), allegiance to an invisible king. I’ll say this about Christianity, putting to one side the probable symbolic understanding of it which most are not aware of, (I suppose the idea is that they don’t need to be), but anyway, in looking at explicitly and philosophically – psychologically, My perspective is that there is no man on earth from above, no man talking to God nor God talking to man - knowingly. We are all as much the son of God as each other. Jesus may have understood the law of Good and preached it. But as an organic alchemist - I must say that it is an error of mind – a mis-step to frame things as worshipping a man who lived here on earth, there’s just something off about it. And here is the problem: to rely on some supposed words a man said – without originating nor being verified by our own reason and by reason itself. It’s a problem because the seeker must reason from himself, and as people we can try to help each other that is it.

Regarding Moses, he may have been chosen by God, and Jesus too, because apparently God made miracles happen on their side - in their favour, he protected them or fought for him, and the story that lives on is that it was all but obvious God was with them. All this may be the case. But reason for yourself and know no other God-Good than the god you have access to only in your conscience. Don’t witness with your mouth what your eyes have not seen – as they say. However, there may be wiser and more righteous people among us, in your life, but only you can decide whether they are or aren’t. Only you can choose wisdom to either know or to follow. The wise must try to take the power to act on behalf and in the best interest of everyone, yet the problem we have is that the leaders have fallen short, and the wrong people have chosen themselves as leaders.

I love Christ and his message if I understand it correctly, his message is still completely valid today toward the rabbis and the clergyman of Christianity and Islam. And toward us the masses, it is a message to be kind and understanding, be like God, show mercy, show benevolence, and actually mean it, and I think he also speaks of sincerity and seriousness in being a man of God, take vows, make vows, defeat lust, meet it head on, and I think I just read in James: opt to face temptation and not banish it, allow it in and defeat it of your own merit, then you will gain the crown. And so I think I love Jesus Christ – The new testament, but I am not a Christian and I don’t think Jesus would want you to be either. The man we should be is Socrates – Socratisians. This is a creed and devotion to being philosophical. To being organic and universal. With the caveat that it is wise and good to discern and recognise truth and good, it is bad to not see it. This pertains to: The problem of the Socratisian who decides to start from scratch – a person who is not naturally good, and as a result ignores minimum standards of morality, in the name of not knowing yet.

Another problem with christianity in terms of establishing this socratic position and beginning the alchemy are the ambiguous concepts of: he died for my sins, god gave his only son etc, and the miracles performed by him, water into wine, multiplying food, rising from the dead. I don’t doubt that miracles happened, but they are miracles of God, just like the plague was for Moses, I do not agree that Joshua commanded God, the concept is not comprehensible to me. Perhaps he did genius things, and healed with his presence and so on. But the point is: I don’t know if these things are so, so it would be an error to claim them and build upon them.

However, my position is: perhaps these things did happen, imagine an ocean now like the Atlantic suddenly parted, and a path appeared through the ocean. Perhaps that could happen. As a philosopher we don’t know, and, we pay homage to the mystery and power of God, the mystery of life, the point is that we simply don’t know, that’s the Socratic position, likewise we don’t know if Jesus did perform supernatural things. It is best to build our foundation on logical knowledge.

Now you may want to believe as I want to believe in the goodness of life, but your want to believe is misconstrued, believe in the possibility of miracles, believe in the power and goodness of God – all which are inferred in the typical beliefs of the Christian. But don’t claim to know something which I know you don’t know, because somewhere inside you - you know you are speaking or thinking falsely and this is bad for the integrity of your mind, and also your willingness to do so is a bad sign.

And so my message to the Christians: let’s love the story and person of Jesus Christ, let’s read the works of the New Testament, let’s try to understand his philosophy - ideas and the guidance. Let’s debate and agree on what we think is good and true. Let’s try to apply the results of that process to our life, but let us all resonate in the same logically sound foundation of philosophy. My whole religion its core and essence is the choice to believe and to have faith - so I completely relate to the will and desire of Christians who wish to simply believe in christianity from their own good will and nature, but I say alter it slightly to step out of dogma and into genuine beliefs, believe in the possibility, believe in the concept of Good, believe in everything which the story of Jesus represents.

Do not worship a man. Worship the force of Good, Worship God. And do not speak with conviction on matters of God, be humble.

You may still decide to be a follower of Christ, or a follower of some other guru, but refrain from stating what’s what concerning God and the higher forces above us, e.g. Jesus was God, God sent his son to die for us and so on. We don’t know that.

But what I think is very probable, Jesus was a very special person, perhaps the most excellent and advanced person, perhaps protected and rewarded, guided, by God. And so perhaps he is the wisest foremost prophet or person who spoke the word of God, or something - perhaps. It’s impossible to know.

I have said this elsewhere, but I say it here slightly different. If I was alive 2000 years ago and I met Jesus, and I saw with my own eyes he turned water into wine, he walked on water and parted the sea even at this beckoning which I know isn’t a miracle attributed to him, but let’s say he did perform such a thing, and even if he said God will confirm I am he, and a booming thunderous voice came from the clouds, and said I am God, this is my son, myself in human form. Let’s say all this happened, and this God or Jesus commanded me to do something or not do something, which I believed was wrong, I still wouldn’t do it. How do I know it’s my God – the God. Imagine I obeyed and later when I died and was at the gates of heaven and hell I said I did what God commanded, and his little clerk says to me: and how did you know it was God actually? Because of its power and grandeur? Is that the nature of God? You will know God by his nature, the greatness of his mercy and kindness, that which makes humans feel filthy, his infinite fairness which makes humans feel thoughtless and cruel, and lastly his endless breadth of understanding and intelligence of all things related to the heart and mind, his superior rationale and logic, again making human beings feel like small children. Your conscience and sense of right and wrong deep down in your heart is your one inheritance and mark of the one true God, and if you are an honest and clear scientist and your conscience is free from corruption and it works correctly as a beacon of truth, and not the conscience of a child or of the twisted fallen man, anyway if your conscience is healthy then your God will always surpass your conscience with illumination, and so this thing I meet with in life, no matter how powerful, but which was not able to answer and satisfy my conscience, then it is not God, it would be my mistake to follow it.

This change can allow Jews and Christians to become closer and connected more, because through their philosophy they must deny this proclamation, not simply specifically to do with Jesus but because this word idolatry means it is a philosophical error to misplace power and worship to anything worldly. And so the great objective would be that all Christians can become Jews, and all Jews can become Christians. Both believing in each other’s religious truths.

Texts, inheritance and practice

My message to the Jews is different, whether Moses existed or not doesn’t really matter, the text is the sacred thing because it is a physical body of the idea of God. But the covenant and some of the literal interpretation or understanding of the text is where the error is. Or perhaps it’s better to say that there are some things in the text which are viewed as sacred and authoritative when actually it is not – and the importance of being of a philosophically sound school is shown to be necessary here because it is so obvious to the philosophically-free person that something isn’t right, but because of this strategy of following blindly – great ignorance occurs. I am referring to ritual and the significance attached to ritual. I have often heard Jewish people talk about the importance of an event in keeping Judaism alive, and in general the importance of the text, as though if it was lost or destroyed it would mean the loss of Judaism. This is impossible and an incorrect position. Judaism cannot be destroyed or lost in the soul of the Jew and the generations. There is an atheist comedian celebrity who says quite confidently that if all the books - the bible, and all the people who remember it were eventually over generations no longer in existence, so that in effect it was forgotten from memory and physical form - recorded, or in other words a society without the former message of the bible and such, then it would never be reproduced, or it would only be reproduced differently. He has a point which is my point, the book could be somewhat different in a re-make, but his actual point is completely wrong, and his thinking is the same as most jews. But my point is this: The message of the bible would never be lost as long there is a Jew alive. And my belief is that even if all the Jews died, the soul never can be and it would appear in some other person. By this definition the Jew is the person who has evolved in a way where he is able to perceive the moral law of this life – correctly. There are physical laws, and there are moral laws, the Jew can see this. And his generations do also. There is no need for a book or even a passed-down oral Torah. Not all jews are jews in this sense. Though the spirit may live in them. A corrupted or sleeping Jew is not a Jew. Because a Jew must be defined by what he does and how he thinks. There are many lost so-called Jews. On the other hand I acknowledge that another definition Jewish pertains to all such people who do have a Jewish nature, and are Jewish deep down, overpowered by the world. It’s easier to say there are non-jews, dormant-jews, and active-jews.

For the Jew the bible is sacred because it contains the idea of God, and it speaks of the Jew, the man who understood God, not completely, better to say that he understood some of the laws, and that there is a god, although many understand there is a higher power and karmaic law, they often misunderstand and are swayed by their own desire. The main thing understood about God is the characteristic of justice, not benevolence or charity. It is fairness yet merit. And merit is Sophistication of righteousness.

One of the main reasons I must speak to the Jews is their blind belief akin to Christian’s proclamations of Jesus as God, it is the covenant. No man should be circumcised. No man should be under any pretence that he has a special relationship with God because of this physical act, the relationship is centred on one thing alone, a love of righteousness. There are also many things in relation to the killing of animals and eating animals, and the Jew is entangled in his blind belief so that he is not able to conceive that this is wrong, the Jew is falling behind many of the gentiles and the rest of the world who have figured this out for themselves. The Jew isn’t stupid but he is prevented because of this lack of self-determination, a sworn allegiance to a man’s word, not Gods. Because no Jew can say it comes from God just because it’s written in the Torah, it doesn’t mean it’s from God. The Torah was a text written by Moses supposedly and it’s so clear that the first thing he writes about man is that he ate something he shouldn’t, as did Abel, as did Esau, and then message goes on to decry the evil of the world, violent and murderous, so much so that God has the idea to destroy everyone except one good family, and God did destroy and saved Noah but even then God realised even Noah’s family was evil yet somewhat innocently so, or better to say they didn’t know any better, God give up trying in some sense it is written, he give up punishing and admonishing them for being violent. The point is: God wishes we weren’t violent. And a different point in that story is that God does not say it is okay to be violent or to eat other animals, he says there will be a reckoning. So perhaps it is a mistake to say he will not punish anymore – with an intent to reprimand, instead there will be a consequence and God won’t get angry over it anymore – so to speak. Another point comes from the other ancient religion – Hinduism, it is decided to accept that some people are built lower classed and of their own volition they will happily kill and be violent, so we must accept that’s how they are. In the bible it’s said this is God’s position too. But here’s the thing. It’s written in genesis and it’s written on the wall as they say: There will be a reckoning. And rather than wonder what that reckoning is, let us avoid it and instead receive the reward of peace in our hearts.

But back to our understanding of being Jewish, just because you are Jewish by blood and a follower of Moses or a follower of Abraham, this doesn’t mean you are like Moses or Abraham, rather the situation is that a person is trying to be like that, perhaps they are doing it successfully and perhaps not, meaning you are not like them, and in some sense thereby not Jewish. It is written in the bible how some of the Jewish nation didn’t follow their leader or his principles, how certain individuals completely disobeyed – went the other way and were cut off. So don’t be content you are in the society of Jewish people when in fact you may be cut off or one of those non-followers. The obscurity is: As in Christianity throughout time, a person thinks if they go to church every Sunday or Shul every Saturday, follows certain practices, lives in a certain way, etc., celebrates certain things, is circumcised, that they are followers of Moses, and in reality they are heathens, atheistic, and corrupt – worshipping false Gods, false Gods are ‘Goods’ in life, worshipped, lived for, focussed on, as opposed to the Good which is God – righteousness.

I began this subject of critiquing religion as the answer for self-development – for health improvement, firstly Christianity and then Judaism - as we were beginning to talk about the purpose of this therapy which is to help the person take on the approach of trying to be a good person – which as the theory goes: improves the person’s mental health, and a thought which troubles me is that Christianity is believed by many to be the answer but doesn’t actually help much with this. So how does one go about trying to be a good person – in the name of improving our health. The idea is that it isn’t simply a matter of wanting and willing to be good, we must do some inner engineering, we must transform and evolve our mind, yet not just by evolved ideas but behaviours and lifestyle that stem from such ideas, and yet which also produce or allow for ideas. It is a matter of training too, like training a muscle to flex in a certain way or react in a certain way, which without training it wouldn’t do, and that’s why it’s not simply a matter of thinking and emotion, theory. A key difference is asking a person not what they believe but how they live.

Religious practice

There are some things we do because there is that inner feeling that it is right, or there is direct or obvious effect, but at another level we must do some things in the name of practising doing what’s right, i.e. establishing mentality. Because some things aren’t obvious and immediate. To practise sacrificing instant sensational or individualistic pleasure and gain for that which is righteousness and just - for that which is ‘good’ according to everyone - everything – to God. Often these things don’t come natural – hence the need to practise. We can fight this battle in our actions - ritual so that the battle in our mind is also able to be had, in other words that means that righteous acting allows for and produces righteous thinking. Selfish acting is also noted by the self internally and is mirrored and ingrained in our mind-mentality. We start off in life as selfish as children are and as animals, the actions of righteousness are examples and demonstrations – instances of non-selfishness, and the more we do this the more able we are to think and reason that way, otherwise the person thinks and reasons selfishness including complex self-delusion. And to procure and nurture an objective reasoning mind we must exemplify it in actions, symbolic actions which ingrain in the mind. Everything is attitude.

Let’s say a person says: I don’t drink, I don’t eat animals. The question is why?

I don’t think it’s right, it’s unfair.

But another person might also think it’s wrong and unfair yet still eat and drink.

The first person doesn’t do things even when he might benefit from it, whereas the second person does things that are wrong because he benefits from it. This attitude and set of rules is then applicable to reasoning, if something benefits me even if it’s wrong, I’ll do it, and the other doesn’t.

This reasoning is complicated and can’t simply be willed into correctness, it must be practised and demonstrated – to ourself.

Fixing the world

How much do you care about the suffering of the world, the wars and tragic illnesses and disasters. The cruelty of man and other animals. The subtle as well as the louder animosity and hostility, how much do you wish it was not so? Perhaps you think the means of fixing some of it is impossible and some of it is extremely complicated - all but impossible.

What if the answer is simple. If every person walked on the path of self-development, righteousness, truth and compassion, then we would need no campaign or protest, no plans of a new world order, the problems would simply begin to fix themselves - whatever needed fixing – would be. There’d be no disagreement. This is to say that all of the problems mentioned are not being fixed now because people do not care about the problem enough – and are more concerned with their own wealth and success rather than the world as one.