I think if people truly understood the term they could agree that religion is a metaphor, because everything is a metaphor, the ultimate metaphor. Religion is a metaphor, science is a metaphor, and even the TOE is a metaphor, the ultimate metaphor. Even I am a metaphor, perhaps the ultimate one.
You say religion is a sticky issue because various people's ideas conflict about what is worthwhile. But at the heart of it, I think we really do agree on what is worthwhile. Anything that is good is worthwhile. Thus we all believe in goodness, thus we all have faith, thus we all are righteous, thus we should all agree. If we do not believe these principles, then we are lying and hiding from our natural selves. We should all be able to agree that "worthwhile" is an absolute concept. Every human should be able to agree that the TOE is worthwhile as one example.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TinyTree Because when faced with unemployment, starvation, or death frequently many people will turn away from righteous action in the interest of self preservation. Fundamentally, this fear drives many human motives, and is probably the primary reason for the failure of righteous behavior. |
I would argue that anything that comes natural is automatically righteous behavior, and I know you will argue with me on this. But it is true that the world at large can drive people to desperate measures and that their's is a righteous <i>response</i> to a desperate situation. Perhaps the way I act sometimes is only a desperate response to a desperate situation that science and society are in, but this should be viewed as righteous only. Such desperate acts only happen when the world is not in harmony, so it is a natural reaction to a world that is unharmonious. Occasionally the reaction will serve to only make things worse, but only temporarily, and eventually by begging the issue mounting disharmony will erupt and give way to harmony. This is what is known as revolution. Things must reach a breaking point before revolution can occurr. And revolution is righteous by all means, and we are on the verge of the greatest revolution mankind has ever known.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TinyTree I am interested in seeing how your TOE describes ideal human behavior (if it addresses this) and what it says to do in various hard to deal with, real life situations. I once worked on a theoretic moral framework for behavior (invested a couple months in it anyway). I found it extremely difficult to come up with a completely self consistent set of guidelines for moral behavior which encompassed successful living in a world where there is a mixture of lyers, cheats, thieves, and genuine compassion all mixed together. |
I am honored that you should be interested in the TOE. It is righteous that you have attempted to make one. The TOE does give a righteous plan for human actions. The TOE says that humans are natural creatures, so ideal human behavior is to act naturally. It can be a very hard thing to do at times, act naturally, but I make it a point to always try and do only what comes natural. As such you can never blaim me for my mistakes, you can only hope that I learn from them. Natural behavior is righteous by default. So what is natural behavior? Well, that is a question that does not have a specific answer, except that whatever is righteous must then be considered natural behavior. Righteousness is defined by the TOE as that thing which is the essence of goodness and positivity.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TinyTree I suspect you have not been "bringing home your own bacon" and thus have not been faced with the genuine moral ambiguities which arise in the give and take of surviving in our society. Once you have faced a week of no food then I think your tone may be more tempered. |
Actually I
have experienced what you have described above. I found no moral ambiguities if I understand what you mean, but I did find a stark general lack of morality in modern society. This was over a long period of time when I was rejected by society at large and wound up living as a young "homeless" person, sleeping in the forests and mountains, or in people's backyards while they lay ensconsed in their beds. I didn't believe in the word homeless because I considered the whole Earth to be my home. Thus I had the greatest home of anyone! On these lonely nights I would cry or sing to myself, or build fires to stay warm. The creatures of the wild were always my brethren, and in nature I found comfort. I was a part of the world that nobody else seemed to understand or know or appreciate. Fortunately I never had to go a full week without food, instead I would consume wild berries and onions, various roots which I didn't know could be poisonous or not (luckily they weren't) and also bark beetle grubs to ameliorate my aching stomach. When this did not suffice I would sometimes “steal” food from large chain stores, although I don’t believe steal is a proper word. I did not feel bad about the act, I knew without thinking that it was righteous natural behavior for survival. I would never take from someone else who was starving, only from corporations which are fat and do not act in natural accordance. You see, generally if someone has an excess of something it should be their natural animal behavior to share it with their friends. That's traditionally how communities work, and everyone should be friends in a civilization. If you have more than you need, you offer it so it doesn't go to waste. That should be considered natural behavior. But corporations are the opposite, they like wasting and hording things, because corporations are no one’s friends, and this should be considered unnatural and evil. Corporations are known for throwing away perfectly good things every day. The greed-based "values" of Capitalism and of money itself destroys righteous natural human behavior. So I never felt bad for “stealing” from wealthy corporations. It would not be natural to steal from someone who was starving, because they have less to offer. Corporations have a lot to offer, so you can't really steal from them, you can only relieve them of their excessive wastefullness. So to me, taking berries from a bush where they exist in abundance was no different than taking food from a shelf where it exists in abundance. According to nature there is no difference. You never take more than you need, or if there isn't enough to go around. So for example, I would always leave some berries on the bush for birds and other creatures, because they are my friends just as much as humans are. Survival is a righteous thing on all accounts, and I and my brethren have had many experiences with survival.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TinyTree This is an interesting idea, but fraught with complexity. Let us take a simple example: I have a friend who has multiple sclerosis. There is medicine which costs $600 a month above what insurance pays which will help her symptoms dramatically. How should she come up with this money? Are you going to give it to her? Should all her friends rotate on a monthly basis and give her the money? Should she live at a lower standard of living and move into a dangerous part of town to be able to pay for this? What do you think? |
Again I am truly honored that you should ask my advice. I appreciate being asked of things equally as much as I appreciate asking other people of things. My advice to you, for what it is worth, is that you and your friends should do whatever is natural. This answer may seem obvious, and such is the truth. I mean not to be too blunt about this, but in the wild, it would probably be natural for your friend with MS to die as a result of her condition. This would indeed be sad but sorrow is part of righteousness. Since we live in a society of abundance, it is probably more natural that your friend can survive and indeed prosper. If it is natural to her to work extra hard and earn the $600, she should do that. If it is natural for her to afford this by moving into a "lower standard" of living, then perhaps she should do this. Remember that as a homeless person with no income I technically had the lowest standard of living one can have. Rather than feeling demoted, I figured it must be righteous, and even though in some respects it made me very sad, in others it made me feel very happy. If instead she feels more natural somehow “stealing” from the drug company, perhaps because the drug company is evil or not righteous, then she should do that. If instead you feel natural helping her pay for her medication as her friend, then you have the right to do that. My heart goes out to your friend, as it goes out to all who suffer, and if I ever possess the resources, such as if I were to win a Nobel Prize or something, I would naturally be glad to help your friend to whatever degree I could. Right now I don't have a lot to offer monetarily, but I would be glad to offer anything I can, especially if what I have is in excess of what your friend has or is in excess of what I need. I think that would come entirely natural to me. Above all else, I offer my compassion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TinyTree And then, what about the millions of people starving in places where there is food being shipped, but the distribution does not exist due to local political factions taking control of the distribution for political purposes? What is the correct solution here? |
In this case, I would think it would only be righteous for starving people to do whatever they are naturally willing to do to meet what is necessary. Perhaps if land is naturally available and suitable, they could use agriculture to grow food. Perhaps if berries exist in abundance, they should pick them frugally. I realize it is likely that these options do not exist, so perhaps they should seriously consider taking action against any political factions that do not act upon righteous principles. It is your right as a human being to exercise whatever power you have. If this means you must use passionate violence, make sure you use violence wisely and rightfully. If this means working within the system and using political leverage instead of violence, then that should be the first thing that comes natural. However, this latter option is often less available. It is a happy thing to know that the Law of Laws says that nothing can stop you from acting righteously, especially no governmental laws.
Thank you so much again for the questions and comments. I feel honored and of the utmost privilege to share my wisdom with you and anyone else who seeks it. I hope I have spoken wisely. Is there anything else you would like to ask of me my fellow comrade? Would you like to know more about the Theory of Everything, such as more details about how it relates to morality, or perhaps something about physics, such as how the universe began or why there is a discrepency between QM and GR? Or maybe you'd like to know about the destiny of mankind? Do not be afraid. I have so much to offer it is almost unbelievable, almost.
sincerely, subversion, the destroyer of doubt and discoverer of the ultimate metaphor, the TOE
Linear Mode
