Topic: Errors and inaccuracies detected and corrected or clarified:
[As I find Errors I will post them here]:
[Errors on Caesar's deification and Roman Dictatorship] Caesar was actually declared a God (deified, but this was more as a victor or conqueror then as a religious being) during his lifetime (again by the Senate). But under Octavian the cult of his worship was actually taken up.
The Roman dictatorship usually lasted for 6 months (not a year as before said).
A note of Clarification: The part of the world now called ASIA MINOR (mostly today's Western Turkey) was at the time of Caesar called the Roman Province of ASIA. Later during the Empire the area east of Caria was called the Roman Province of ASIA MINOR (mostly today's Eastern Turkey). In the book I use the terminology of Caesar's time, not today's terminology.
[Error found in the Glossary of the book] under Cicero Brothers – I say that Quintus Cicero outlived both Caesar and Marcus – he only outlived Caesar, he was killed at about the same time as his brother Marcus. Marcus' son by the same name did survive and lived to announce Antony's death to the Senate under Augustus.
A note of Clarification on terminology in the E-Book Caius, the making of the HeroIn the E-Book I use the modern term "democracy" to refer to a constitutional republic, as the Romans had in Caesar's time. The ancients actually referred to this as a "polity", which term would probably be unfamiliar to most today. Democracy in ancient times was a corrupt form of government, that catered to rule by special interests of the masses (rule by license instead of responsible freedom; duties and rights of citizens were not laid out in a constitution, as we have in modern democracies).
[Error found in Essay on Rome and Women] A glaring error was found in this essay: Fauna not Fausta was the Good Goddess. And her husband's name was Faunus not Faustus. As an aside, the reader might find this apocryphal anecdote interesting: Faustus was the shepherd who discovered the twins Romulus and Remus. Fausta was his consort who supposedly suckeled the twins; her nickname was "Lupa" the "she wolf", since she was a voracious whore who serviced all the neighboring shepherds. Later all Roman whorehouses were called "Lupara", "the den of the she wolf", and a whore, "Lupa", "she wolf". I must have been thinking of this when I wrote the above essay, hence the error.
In The Philosophy of the GOOD E-book and Site Essays; The Formal Introduction Essay: In Paragraph 3; sentence 1: Societies build governments, which are used to both order and perpetuate their particular societies, using this societal morality as its basis to create its laws and customary mores. Should read: Societies build governments, which are used to both order and perpetuate their particular societies, using this societal morality as their basis to create their laws and customary mores.
In The Philosophy of the GOOD E-book and Site Essays; The Formal Theory of the GOOD Essay: In Paragraph 5; sentence 1: I have already mentioned the Ontological part above, which is the way he perceives his reality. The second part is the actual “stuff” of perception, that part which below I will call the “continuum”; the study of the way of obtaining knowledge of this continuum, philosophers have called Epistemology. Should read: (NOTE Should use impersonal "we" instead of "I":) We have already mentioned the Ontological part above, which is the way he perceives his reality. The second part is the actual “stuff” of perception, that part which below we will call the “continuum”; the study of the way of obtaining knowledge of this continuum, philosophers have called Epistemology.
In The Philosophy of the GOOD E-book and Site Essays; Terminology Section: Definition of Spirit, second sentence: It is what animates the body and is purely mortal and dies with the body. It is to be distinguished from “Soul” defined above. Should read: It is what animates the body and is purely mortal and dies with the body. It is to be distinguished from “Soul” defined below.
In The Philosophy of the GOOD E-book and Site Essays; Section I; Formal Statement Essay: footnote 6, last paragraph, first sentence: The Laws of Nature, or Fate, are actually the way the the mortal world is. Should read: The Laws of Nature, or Fate, are actually the way the mortal world is.
In The Philosophy of the GOOD E-book and Site Essays; Section I; A Cosmology for the Philosophy of the GOOD: footnote 6, First paragraph: We can say that the will is the soul or immortal part of man. As we use this below, we will see that it is an extension of God Himself in each of us. In the Id-Ego, which is the one Divine Will of God there are individual parts, which I call the “Ego” below. The Ego is itself immortal, as we will show, and is the “individual” free will that man exhibits. Should read: We can say that the will is the soul or immortal part of man. As we use this below, we will see that it is an extension of God Himself (or the first cause: a process or intelligence) in each of us. In the Id-Ego, which is the one Divine Will of God there are individual parts, which I call the “Ego” below. The Ego is itself both mortal (as the identity)and immortal (as the will), as we will show, and is the “individual” free will that man exhibits.
In The Philosophy of the GOOD E-book and Site Essays; Terminology Section: Definition of Morality, first sentence: Morality – Morality the adjustment of the individual will’s purpose so that its behavior is in accord with certain arbitrary standards of behavior that the GOOD, the individual or society takes as the norm. Should read: Morality – Morality is the adjustment of the individual will’s purpose so that its behavior is in accord with certain arbitrary standards of behavior that the GOOD, the individual or society takes as the norm.
In The Philosophy of the GOOD E-book and Site Essays; Survival – That's All! Essay: In Footnote 2; Paragraph 1; sentence 1: These rights are the rights of all Human beings as stated in our Declaration of Independence and cannot be denied: "We hold these truths to be self-eevident, that all men are created equal; ... ... as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safty and happiness." Should read: These rights are the rights of all Human beings as stated in our Declaration of Independence and cannot be denied: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; ... ... as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
In The Philosophy of the GOOD E-book and Site Essays; Taking Stock of Things Essay: In the Next to Last Paragraph; third sentence: Keep capitalism, but make it fare and responsible. Should read: Keep capitalism, but make it fair and responsible.
In New Series Of Essays On Love Site Essays; By What Name... God! Rephrase Ninth paragraph to: Mankind is the only species, which creates and perceives “purpose”; purpose lives in man’s minds and thoughts; and thereby through his desires, through the agency of his reason, is it created along with the actions that further it. So his hopes grow in these very things. And therefore God is indeed a part of all, since all men forge hopes.
In New Series Of Essays On Love Site Essays; Love, Normative systems, Values, Morality, Beliefs and the Future: A Closer Look Rephrase sixth paragragh third sentence to end of paragraph; seventh paragraph, last sentence to: So this “benefit”, is something more than societal potential, and at times, indeed most of the time, may not even be it at all. The reason for this is that the benefit mentioned is beneficial to both the self and society at large; while the societal potential mentioned only creates a standing in society through a socioeconomic viewpoint. In point of fact, wealth, or any social standing, often creates the exact opposite of the “harmony” mentioned, in the lives of those who receive it. Man can control his purposes directly, at least for the most part, but he can only indirectly control the actions of other perceivers. This factor of uncertainty, along with the uncertainty of fate that the continuum contains, leads him to create “hopes”.
In The Philosophy of the GOOD E-book and Site Essays; The Formal Theory of the GOOD Essay, The following Addendum to footnote 2 has been added: [The logic I speak about here is not a formal logic, as the mathematician creates, but an ordering system that ends in bringing order to the present perception, from the creation of concepts and their objects which can be stated as the objective facts of thought. Often thought takes forms that mimic perception in that it is reproduced as an imaginary type of gestalt that has no basis in sensations, but only in the will itself, although it uses a form of the modalities to produce it.]
The Philosophy of the GOOD: Essay Notes
A Series Of Essays On Love: Essay Notes
Additional Notes to the Essay on Special Preface to the Essays on Government, Resources and Society: Capitalism’s foremost problem stems from the fact that it hinges on the unknown factors of continued demand for the product or service needed, and the continued profit margin that allows the product or service to be produced. Both these factors are never assured and fluctuate with the demand for the product or service, the cost of raw materials, and the labor needed to produce the product (supply), and the competitive environment that capitalism produces through other suppliers. Because the system is totally at the mercy of chance, and the greed of wealthy financiers (see below), wild unexpected and potentially destructive waves of “meltdown” in the system can occur, known as recessions or depressions. Thus capitalism relies on chance for the production of society’s resources, and exposes societies to complete economic collapse. Further capitalism relies on a continued “capital” supply to allow constant production to occur. So it relies on preexisting “wealth” or “capital” to fund its ongoing process and growth, as also its initial start. Thus capitalism favors the wealthy, or those with a source of capital. Thus in a capitalistic society all needed resources are produced “at risk”. Also because it is a “free” system, it allows the merging of resources into “monopolies” which actually do away with the freedom it is supposed to encourage, by destroying competition, private enterprise, and allowing the manipulation of supply and demand, and subsequent price manipulation. Further the merging of these monopolies allows the entire economy to be controlled by these wealthy capitalists. This is particularly evident if this control extends over critically needed societal resources, like oil supplies and power utilities. Thus capitalism becomes a monopolistic system controlled and regulated by the wealthy few; in contradistinction to the freedom it proclaims, it is, in actuality, a tyranny controlled by wealth. One of the most important ideas of capitalism is private property or the ownership of such. In reality, because of the capitalistic idea of the creation of wealth on the basis of capital not yet owned, or credit, and the planned obsolescence of such property, the ownership of most property becomes the eternal leasing of property, and not outright ownership; coupled with the need of taxation by the societal government for the welfare of that portion of society unable or incapable of labor, the ownership of property never occurs. Thus the ownership of private property is an illusion in the capitalistic society. Labor, either physical or mental is needed to create the resources which capitalism produces. This labor is paid for by the capitalist at a value which allows the capitalist to reap his profit margin. Unfortunately for society, the needs of the society’s work force may not, and usually are not met by the capitalists who are free to hire basically at their whim. The result is unemployment in all capitalistic societies, and subsequent poverty. The leverage of the unemployed masses allows the capitalists to enforce impoverishing wages for low level jobs to further their own profits; the result is more taxation needed by society to create resources for the non-labor-capable (pensioners and the unemployed poor) portion of society. Thus the unemployment and poverty which capitalism ensures, further disrupts the trust in society, and creates disparate classes in society at odds with each other, further causing the societal government to make decisions as to where government finances will go, that alienate either one or the other segments of society. The result is a weakening of societal moral, and trust in its governmental institution, along with the detrimental effect on the family caused by the capitalistic institutions of poverty and unemployment. A newly seen detrimental effect of capitalism is the growth of crime, and the subsequent growth of law enforcement and penal institutions with it. As the previous effects of capitalism grows, especially now with the recession (or depression), these new markets are flourishing putting ever greater demands on our societal government, and increasing the likelihood of increased taxation and abandonment of governmental responsibility to the underprivileged. Thus capitalism is destroying society directly, and even making a profit doing it, while encouraging its occurrence! Why are these problems with capitalism not addressed? On the whole capitalism is a society destroying economic system, which continues to exist on this earth because of the greedy whims and aspirations of the few, and the hypocritical institutions it has nurtured to perpetuate it. Right now, economics has failed to produce a system that is capable of replacing this antiquated greedy supply system because special interests continue to control our donation-based universities and lobby-based governmental institutions over the interests of the society.
Additional Notes to the Essay on Essay on The Beautiful: The GOOD channels the love force to produce the intuitions, which produce the feelings and the feeling symbols in humans; these are the source of our sense of beauty and all artistic endeavors. The “feeling symbols” are the things that elicit these same feelings and intuitions in other humans, and reach out to their inner source of the GOOD. When at the end of this essay I say that the Bible is a feeling symbol, I mean that the Bible, if interpreted in the light of the GOOD, can become a source of this same Universal Love by bringing forth the feelings of this ancient people’s search for this same love. Unfortunately today the Bible is instead used as a moral handbook and religious rulebook, instead of the story of a people’s quest for the discovery of the unity of viewpoint of Universal Love.
Additional Comments to Footnote 1, in the Essay on Cosmology: Atheists may think of “God“ or a “Divine Will” as a process incorporated into the universe, which keeps it functioning and evolving. It is both the primal process (or first cause) that began this same process, and the process itself. The “purpose” of this process is its perpetuation and improvement through what we term “an evolution”. In my essays on love I further refine this “Divine Will” into a “tendency” with a “direction” which is basically the same idea put into a different symbolic clothing, so to speak. How do we define a first cause? Why is the first cause first? In other words, how do we avoid the infinite regress that our intelligibility always seems to bring us to? If something exists, then we are forced to conclude that something preceded it, which, in turn, gave rise to it. There is no way out! It is the bottleneck of finding the limit of how we actually conceive of things. Like Euclid we must presume that there was a primitive set of axioms that: “always was and always will be”, that is, that there was an “unexplainable”, “first” cause from which all else has arisen. We might hypothesize as follows: Perception is. It is all we can ever know. Therefore it is the first cause itself. Perception itself is this set of axioms that “always was and always will be”. From perception comes all existence. Therefore perception is the first cause itself. This line of reasoning allowed me to form my cosmology. The Id-Ego is the result. It is the One, expressed in and by the Many, therefore the purpose of anyone of the Many is the purpose of all, or the One. The evolution of anyone of the Many is the evolution of all of the Many, or the One. In other words the overall evolutionary process mentioned above, is brought about through the individual lives of all perceivers: “the purpose” of the Divine Will. Further it is this very same “Divine Will” or process (tendency and direction), which makes humans seek out a God in the quest to find a “higher power” than ourselves directing us. Yet, in a very real way, we are that God, we seek, embodied in this very process. So that is why it really doesn’t matter how we “view” or “conceive of” that God; or if we even conceive of “Him” as a “God” at all, but merely as a “process”, as some do. The relevance lies not in the “conception”, but in the effects that all of this has in providing us the harmony and unity we need to make our lives the best they can be, through minimizing the misery we experience in this world, which is essentially the overall outcome of our own actions, both individually and communally. Cosmology Essay: Question 1 In the essay, Question 1’s answer is related to the above: since the individual perceiver is in essence a part of “God”, or a part of this process (Divine Providence) itself, its own purpose is this purpose. Therefore the “individual’s” existence is meaningless as an individual (in relation to its “self”), for its real relevance is found in its contribution towards the whole.
Additional Notes to the Essay on The Concept and Primacy of Love: This “tendency” and “direction” as a description of what I term in other essays as “Divine Will” serves two purposes besides the “definition” of this special will itself. The first is that this “will”, which exhibits overall characteristics similar to the only “wills”, we are familiar with, “human wills”, is, on the contrary, quite different in nature from a human will. The most important difference is that it has no “self” tied to it. What we might term the “self” of this will is the “selves” of all humanity. This is why I believe that the ancients called it “the One in the Many”. The second purpose this definition serves is to point out that although there is no “self” tied to it, it still exhibits an overall purpose, similar to the purposes our wills create; but this purpose is one of unity, the unity of humanity. It works through the creation, and the function of the rationality in humanity. It does this not only through the individual rationalities of the many wills it influences, but also through the history of humanity these wills create, and the forces of nature that guide the course of evolution to create and further improve humanity through the gene pool which produces the individual phenotypes that exhibit this same rationality. It is a “tendency” not a force, for it only guides, and never coerces. It is a direction for it never wavers in that constant “purpose” I have described above. In seeing this, we see it is not only not human, but truly divine or perfect in its action and scope. It embodies a complete control, yet acts only through a gentle, and ever-present, and ever-consistent determination, which is irresistible. It acts, in essence, through the freedom of will humanity exhibits; and through the mistakes of humanity, it ever-improves it, and furthers it in the pursuit of its purpose. This is why I have termed the agency in the human mind which furthers it, “the GOOD”; for this very purpose it follows, is what the ancients called the “good”, that which all men sought out to create both harmony within themselves, and between themselves and the universe. Here, I think I will introduce the very fundamental question that was, and always has been the ultimate basis of philosophy and philosophers: Why? Whys, are unlike any other questions humans can pose; there are no clear cut systems, or even “mechanical laws” that answer the “hows”, “whats” or “wheres” that facts and “factual knowledge” usually answer, to answer these “whys” we ask. These “whys”, reside within the “self” or Ego of the perceiver; that part of us that language cannot symbolize. They assume a “will”; for they look for something that only the “will” or “self” can understand: a purpose, or design, or a reason. We have created “necessity” in the form of causality to really answer the “why” which intelligibility itself asks. So the answers to all whys are, at the same time, a part of each of us, and also a part of all of us. So if we cannot really answer a why, which is outside of reference to a human being’s will, should we even consider it a legitimate question; or should we just say, as the logical positivists said, “it is nonsense”; or should we just say as Wittgenstein said, ”Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”? This Divine Will I have spoken of above is the commonality that we can speak of, because it resides at the same time within each of us, and in all of us. It is the very essence of what makes us ask the question: “Why?” It is the goad to philosophy itself. It is that “hope of something better” that man finds in the belief in a God, or in the creation of a society that will provide all with justice, and prosperity. It is, indeed, what the philosophers of old called the “good” – harmony between humanity and its universe. We must not only ask the question “why” that all philosophers have asked through all the past and present ages; but we must, indeed, even find answers to these whys, because they are the parts of us that are what makes us distinctly human. And only in finding the answer to these whys, can we finally approach the harmony that the human race has so long sought in vain. There are two sides to every one of us, the logical or the practical, and the intuitive or the mystical. They are not separate and distinct, as many would argue, but an integral part of all human beings; they do not reside more in one “kind” of human than another (the mystical in those from the East, the logical in those from the West), but in all. The goal of philosophy is, indeed to bring the two sides together, and reconcile them. The logical is one part of the gestalt, and deals primarily with the continuum as such; while the intuitive is the part of the same gestalt that deals with the human will, and the very apparatus that allows perception to proceed. Since Descartes they have been irreconcilably divided from each other. Instead, they must be united, for only in their unity will humanity finally find the harmony it has sought. Humans construct their own realities; and invention through abstraction, or limiting knowledge, is the method by which this is accomplished. The construction of “forms” as Plato would call them, is not a fanciful pastime, but an integral necessity to humanity, and part of the process of perception itself. So philosophy is the essence of what we are in a way, for it allows us to bring under scrutiny the very essence of our being, so to speak; that process, which indeed provides us with reality. Even the “unknowable” will is really knowable here, for it embodies not only each of us, but also all of us. We cannot deal with what is in each of us, but we can deal with what is common between us, because we know it is common, and because intuition can be symbolized, just as the feelings themselves, although we can never really describe them, are able to be symbolized and communicated intelligibly. This is not a factual knowledge, per se, but a non-factual knowledge, in that all humans can understand it, and even communicate it, yet they cannot recreate it as cold assertion, but only as something they all “know”. I hope that what I have said here will clear up, rather than further any confusion about this matter, but in any case this is the best I can do to verbalize this difficult subject.
Additional Notes to the Essay on The Message of the Philosophy of the GOOD: In other essays I have examined two very important parts of the puzzle that is the perceptual apparatus that allows humans to perceive the world: Viewpoint or reference frame, and resolution. These two factors are both essential in creating or “defining” meaning or truth within the reality of the individual perceiver. Let’s now review how they function. Change is essentially the process which allows the perceptual process to function. Change is an indefinable something that allows time, space and the perceiver to form the gestalt or present perception. It allows the perceiver to “perceive”. Causality adds the relations between the objects that the perceiver creates, and therefore allows an element of predictability in a world of total chaos and unpredictable change. Thus change can also be ordered as the relations between the classes of “objects” created. These classes create the “forms” of the objects which allow the individual objects to be compared and through the relation of “identity” which now exists, allows the world to be ordered and a determinative future plotted by the perceiver. The facts of the continuum can now be established and symbolized as the assertion of propositions which are the assertion of the different relations holding between the objects in the gestalt. Assertion is essentially the “existence” of these objects and relations in a gestalt or an imagined gestalt. Notice that the creation of classes or concepts and the relations holding between them, allows the perceiver to create “non-existent” or imagined gestalts that allow the perceiver to hypothesize certain possible scenarios in the gestalt. Thus purposes can be formed in relation to these “hypothesized” scenarios or assembly of “probable facts”, to be used to plot a course into what the perceiver calls the “future”. Thus the future becomes a theoretical world that might be attained or held out as a goal for the perceiver (this is actually what “thought” is). But notice that in all that I have said so far there are two very important assumptions that are taken for granted: Firstly, that a gestalt (the perceiver’s gestalt) exists; and secondly, that there is a perceiver (the Dasein). Truth is that which “is” (exists) for the perceiver. It is the gestalt (the perceiver’s gestalt) at a certain point in time (the present); also all the possible resulting gestalts that can result from this gestalt (through change) in the future (of the perceiver). The gestalt and its continuum, are the viewpoint of the perceiver (the self). One cannot separate the self from the gestalt (or even the continuum, for that matter), because it is a part of the gestalt. Yet the perceiver can through creating another structure called the “personality” which allows the perceiver to separate “itself” from the perceiving process or apparatus, allow itself to be separate from itself and actually represent all of perception as something separate from it. This is accomplished through symbolization (through shared language), which allows it to share its internal states with other perceivers, or rather their personalities. But there is always something missing when language communicates a set of facts, or a set of propositions that represent those facts. The thing missing is the gestalt itself, or the original viewpoint (Dasein or self). from which, or in which the facts were formed. Remember we can communicate “facts” even very complex sets of facts, but never the whole gestalt (real or imagined) they were taken from. Therefore there is a substantial loss of data taking place even in the most thorough language communication. This is where resolution takes its place in all of this. The mind (or will), creates order in the gestalt by simplifying it, through the creation of classes of objects; but the actual result is a loss of “knowledge” of the continuum, or gestalt representing it. This cannot be helped; through the ordering process, the mind excludes data to make what’s left intelligible to the will. In creating a symbolic logic for the thought processes to communicate the gestalt it further loses data: that data that is lost is the “rest” of the gestalt itself, or the “self” part, and all the personal and private group associations linked to it. The “facts” now, communicated, or asserted, are at a resolution much lower than the original gestalt from which they came. What is missing is the very important “self” part. Because science and business, use theoretical systems that abstract and idealize knowledge even further through the use of mathematics, the resolution lost is not noticed at all in these areas. But in the areas of life where the self is supreme, in the normative, the psychological, the governing and societal and cultural areas of life, the resolution lost is tremendous, and can in fact distort the communication to the point of misunderstanding or total rejection of it. A primary example of this loss of understanding is in the definition of the most vital area which actually deals with that which the “Philosophy of the GOOD” proclaims as the universal viewpoint that harmonizes this loss: love. The definition of this vital concept, which is used in the closest relations of the self to others, is variously stated and misinterpreted by religions, into something that actually produces the opposite effect from that which it is meant to have; thus religious love, today separates humanity into irreconcilable groups, instead of uniting it into a single whole, which is its ultimate purpose. This “wrong” definition of love is itself a product of a particular “self” or set of selves, defining it from “their” interpretation of the Holy books, dogma, or Bible of "their" particular creed or belief system. Thus the “self” is causing problems in the very thing that was instituted to avert any problems from the intervention of “self”. This love was meant to essentially neutralize the viewpoint of self by allowing the self to become the common self of all humanity. Thus creating a single viewpoint which at the same time represents all, yet is not the same as any particular one. It is the “neutralizing agent of the self” and as such is the source of human society and belief in a higher power than the will which unites and represents all wills. In the reconciling of knowledge against this single backdrop, a single meaning, and the emergence of a truth relevant to all humanity is produced. Thus humanity is united, not separated, in the single purpose of unity which this love initiates. [A further note on the above later added: Some of this loss of data I mention above, which is the “personal” and “cultural” aspects of the gestalt that are lost in symbolism, is made up by the specificity of the “natural language” and its idioms and “dialects” that the perceiver uses in its thoughts and communications. This is the very reason that translations always lose something in the translation itself. One language may just not have the meanings or “shades of meaning” needed to fully translate the facts stated, into another language associated with a different culture or society. A close approximation is the closest it can come. The difficulty is matching the interpretations of a set of facts of two different gestalts (remember that a gestalt includes a viewpoint; each language picks up “some” of the different gestalts involved, but not the whole) so that they represent a single gestalt that both understand the same way. Very simply, it just cannot be done! The result is that only an approximation emerges, not an identical match. The devil lies in the differences; especially the differences where the “self” is most important; those areas of life like belief systems, morality, social institutions and government. Now having emphasized the loss between different languages, we must also see that there is an even greater loss in the jump from thought to language! Assertions duplicate only the facts that language can handle; all the facts that are related to the “viewpoint” or “self” within the original gestalt of the perceiver are totally lost in this jump to symbolization. This means that all the personal meanings, and overtones of meaning, and the associations which each of the words has for the writer are lost in the written natural language statement of the “facts” (often the writer’s reason for using certain words are based on these very same “lost” things). Now when someone else reads these facts, and must interpret them, they (the reader) must interpret them from his or her own gestalt, which now contains (especially if the reader is from another century, or different culture) a totally different set of personal meanings, overtones of meaning and life associations (personal knowledge store) than the writer had. Having said all of this, it is indeed amazing that the level of understanding there is today, actually is as good as it is! But as I have said above the devil truly lies in the difference; for that difference is the poverty, misery and needless slaughter that mankind still experiences today. The thoughts of Dante, in “De Monarchia” and the aims of Caesar, in my novel, for a world government, show that there were people who began to see the way toward a solution. But in order to achieve that world government and the resultant single language and culture this might bring about, the two greatest stumbling blocks to all this must be, first, eliminated: poverty which is due to a corrupt economic system based on greed; and the divisive effects of religious institutions based on contractual love.] An important note on objects and their perception: What seems to have never before been considered (excepts perhaps indirectly) by both Philosophers and Logicians, is the fact that causality is often bound to objects as the particular relations they exhibit. These “special attributes” of objects are often the most important attributes the object exhibits, as they determine the particular way in which an object exhibits change. And often they are “implied” in language as something the interpreter takes for granted. For instance if we say: “the baboon ran down the street”, as opposed to “the man ran down the street”; the verb “run” is the same in both propositions. But it is very different in meaning if we consider the way each animal “runs” in detail, (e.g. one uses four limbs, while the other two, etc.); run is tied to the runner as an attribute of that runner. Also certain verbs can’t be used with certain objects. For instance, we cannot say, “the bee ran down the street”; bees just don’t run. Objects often determine the way they produce change very distinctly and uniquely. These verbs that go with objects are a part of them, in that they are uniquely tied to them through perceptual existence as parts of a gestalt. Which verbs are used with objects are often a cultural and societal “working definition” created through experience. An Eskimo may say “the snow fell” differently than an English or American person in that he distinguishes different kinds of snow, while they do not. “Fell” in Eskimo may conjure up different associations according to the type of snow that is falling, while “fell” in English is the only verb used, and all know what’s meant since there is no linguistic distinguishing of different snows in English, and all snow falls the same way (linguistically that is, since there is wet snow, and dry snow, but their distinguishing way of falling is not noted often enough to affect language).
Additional Notes to the Essay on All Created Equal or All Equal?: True, people are often born physically or emotionally unequal, but, society must still create a societal potential which allows even these “special” people to become useful parts of the whole, and attain this new societal potential. Society cannot abandon those who are “special” because all people finally take up this role sooner or later in life either through misfortune or through the human aging process itself. The purpose of society was this very thing: to overcome the downside of human existence, either through age or misfortune, for all in the group. The trouble is that society has chosen the wrong societal potential through which to measure people. Wealth is not something that Capitalism rewards people with either fairly, or because of merit, but often at random or through sheer “luck”. The gambler’s mentality of Capitalism, which makes it so attractive, hides this gross unfairness through distorting the very aim of society into one where everyone is worried only for his or her own survival and sees others in society as competitors instead of allies in the war against hardship. Democracy (the ancient polity) was the way for society to overcome this “distortion” which Capitalism has presented to society through the workings of government; but alas even this has been distorted into the thinking that the “freedom” that Democracy presents is “unlimited”; not the “responsible” freedom which is Democracy, but the “license” which Capitalism turns into a type of slavery.
Additional Notes to the Essay on The One And The Many: This essay is a chronologically early essay, in which I tried to show that Evil is the outcome of man’s closing off the GOOD within him. There is much reference to Christianity and its ideas, but again, I later felt that the concept of Universal Love would extend this beyond this restrictive framework. The real essence of humanity lies in the concept of Unity or “the One”. The potential of evil is really derived from the breakdown or separation of this “One” into its various parts, the “selves or wills” that man creates through his reality. Even man’s perception follows this scheme: it begins as a single Gestalt, and is gradually broken into useful pieces by the will, which in the process forges an identity for itself. During this process of “self-individualization” the identity becomes a part of the process of perception and “separates” itself from the rest of the universe within the existence of its “Dasein”, to use Heidegger’s terminology. Thus the “One” has created the “Many” within its own reality, and has itself been transformed in the process into one (the identity of that particular individual) of the many. Here we see that the creation, or evolution of the mortal world, is a process that takes place within each of us, in the process that forges our will as an individual identity within its own reality, distinct from all other realities. Evil actually emerges when the will decides to follow the path of separation in the "greed" of the survival instinct, and thus close down the GOOD within it, and the broader view it affords. The Universal love force that is within each of us is the original link, so to speak, that keeps us tied together through the agency of the GOOD. It is the original spiritual unity that inhabits all the wills of humanity; the remnant of our original origins in the Divine, or perfection. It is this remnant that allows us to form societies, and form that wider outlook (representing all of humanity) we find through the agency of the GOOD. This might be a good time to broach the problems of mysticism and “magic”, and the paranormal we read and find so often in the beliefs of many. What I have outlined in my “Philosophy of the GOOD” shows that the self or will is an autonomous presence distinct from the reality it lives within, yet tied to it, and in fact, actually molded by it, to become this reality it experiences (at least to believe that it is this reality in the “existence” of its identity). The will, thus assumes that it is this physical mortal identity, and forges its purpose in line with the benefit of it (in line with the survival instinct I have mentioned). This leaves us seeing that the will itself is essentially different from the living thing whose identity it has assumed. Its own “characteristics” we never really come to know since its attention is continually drawn to the physical existence it has assumed. But there are some who seem to have known these “characteristics”; these people are the “mystics”, saints, holy men, and “magicians” of literature and folklore. Even science has begun to see that there is another side to man that is “beyond science”, or the logic of the human being. This “other existence” of the will, even in the extraordinarily small segment of humanity who is “in touch with it”, is shown to be interpreted by the same segment of their psyche’s, I have mentioned above; so the abilities (miracles and other paranormal phenomena) and observations (second sight etc.) shown by these people are varied and show no consensus; indeed, the only consensus is that there is no consensus. In fact, these special abilities seem to have been shown and demonstrated as often for one purpose or another, for good or bad, as any other mortal ability has. So these are really only special “gifts” haphazardly given, and just as haphazardly known by those who experience them. They appear in “good“ people, as often as they appear in “bad” ones, which only means, that there is much in this world that is still unknown. So that is why I give them no special attention, as should also religions, for the very reasons I have mentioned. We must use reason to order our world, and love without self to order our lives, and our societies; beyond this a human cannot venture with any assurance.
Additional Notes to the Essay on Religion: Is it just another Name for Bigotry?:
All mass movements, including religious movements involve the same sort of people, what Eric Hoffer, the old longshoreman philosopher and sociologist of the sixties called “True Believers”. True Believers are called to a “cause” like sports fans are called to support their favorite team. They are what I term: “feeling people”; immersed in feelings that cause a “disconnect” with the reasoning abilities of the mind. They are in a sense beyond reason, and therefore impervious to it in any way concerning their particular cause. This is the “narrow mindedness” I mention in this essay.
And that is the point I am making, religion shouldn’t be a “cause” or “mass movement”; it should be a meeting ground through which people can reach out to each other through God. Seen in this way the love between people is the path to God Himself for all. Also seen in this way, all divisions between people melt away and the solidarity of “humanness” or what I call the “joy of living” can be truly felt as a medium immersing all in this particular form of unity.
What’s the difference between these two views of religion? A very big difference, because “teams” or “causes” indicate and imply separation and rivalry, and the rules associated with “belonging”; while the “meeting ground” view emphasizes unity, and total immersion and solidarity with all humanity without exception (one view of unity between God and all humanity without judgment or any separations because of “rules of membership”).
Religions aren’t exclusive clubs, or governments, but meeting grounds open to all, and everyone has a free ticket in the form of the love he shows to others. God is no longer a judge, but the father of all, always there when we need him.
What is sad today, is that as greed takes its toll on this perverse society we have created, there is again the emergence of the “True Believer” looking for a “cause” to save him. That “cause” is becoming religion; but the motives are not the ones that will unite, but those that will once again cause discord between rival “Believers”. So we are again becoming many “closed off societies” within society, with all the dangerous consequences beginning to show. Let’s hope that religious leaders will at least begin to use some reason and see the dangerous consequences this entails. In times of economic strain such as now hold, we need people of reason not “feeling people”; and we need religions that unite not divide.
Additional Notes to the Essay on Love: Further comments on Twin Soul Love: In my “Philosophy of the GOOD” I showed that the will is a remnant of the “One”, or God, that comes to inhabit the living human mortal body. In the evolution of the perceptual process, the will becomes immerged in the Ego of the psyche of the human mind. The Ego is the physical part of the will, shaped and molded by the perceptual process itself, and the actual “identity” the will assumes through the physical memories of the mind. When the mortal body dies, the “focus” of perception is lost and regained in another will (another segment of the ID-Ego). Twin Soul love seems to show that there are connections between wills that exist outside of the identities they have assumed in mortality. They express themselves as intuitions and the “altered states of consciousness”, and de’ja vu phenomena that frequently accompany this love. That is why it is a love so close to Universal love, although quite different, in that it is tightly focused on only a single entity. This also harmonizes with the existence of “past lives” in non-Christian belief systems. This all goes to show that the will is indeed autonomous from the identity it assumes during its life here on earth; that it has a more permanent identity which can be very close if not identical with another will. (Or perhaps certain people are better able to focus the force of Universal love onto another human entity’s will?) In any case, the phenomenon is a real one, that points out how essential the love force is in the human psyche; and how the separations that men create between themselves in forging their identities here on earth are in many ways the cause of the problems they continue to create for their societies.
There is yet another way of looking at Twin Soul Love, and that is through its shared perspective. The usually non-sharable part of perception, that part of the gestalt which holds the “self”, is, at times, able to be communicated and even shared in Twin Soul Love. This is no doubt where this name “Twin Soul” comes from, this same sharing of a single “self” between two individuals. While Universal Love allows all to assume the viewpoint of all through a single empathy of sorts; Twin Soul Love goes the distance, and allows a merging of two separate Ids into a single shared one. Not only the perspective is shared, but also much of the will (not the entire will) is shared at its deepest level. This is not a continuous phenomenon, but a sporadic one, which shows itself when the “conditions” (whatever these may be) are right and conducive for producing the phenomenon.
Additional Notes to the Essay on By What Name... God!:
The point of this essay is to show that there is no “right” or “wrong” ways of speaking about God. God is more than a concept for mankind; He is a belief, or hope. He may be pictured or imagined in as many ways as there are men and women to accomplish this picturing. What is essential is that they realize that God does not alienate or separate; He is in essence the spiritual gravity for mankind. What seems to disturb many atheists is the fact that God is often pictured with a human-like will. This is part of the “exclusive-club” attribute which religion has assumed because of its grounding in sacred books and mystery rituals. God’s will, as I have said, is more a resultant will than an actual will; it is portrayed in the individual wills of His creations and the History of the human race. It is found in love, the only spiritual force which unites mankind. In practicing love we are in effect acknowledging God, and furthering humanity. My own hope is that in time religion will become the new humanism for mankind; not fettering mankind in obfuscation, but expanding its horizons into the new vistas, which a united human race will achieve through the actions of cooperation and equity. When mankind finally realizes the equality of all humanity, man will incorporate religion into his culture as its essence. Fellowship will replace religion, and God will be seen in the hearts of all where He has always lived..
Additional Notes to the Essay on Determinism from Indeterminism: Modern Chaos theory (the mathematics of non-linear systems) and fractal geometry has shown us that this determinism from indeterminism does exist. If we apply rules to random action we can make this same random input create a determined pattern. Further this has already been shown to exist in Nature as fractal geometry. This phenomenon has only recently been discovered and investigated through the use of modern computer technology.
Further: holography demonstrates that this idea of self-similarity is used by Nature to form a natural data compression technique, which might also be used in the human brain itself.
Additional Notes to the Essay on Freedom, a further comment on Ellis’s introductory quote:
Where does Freedom come from in the human will? The essay on “Will” touched on this subject; but there isn’t any real demonstrable answer to this, except that we are now finding that science has shown us, through Quantum Theory that certainty does not exist in Nature, as it was once thought to, according to the Physics of Newton. This lack of certainty, confirms our position in the Philosophy of the GOOD that fate is a definite and undeniable part of the mortal world. Also the process of learning, and its random (discovery-oriented) implementation, compels us to see freedom of action as the basic rule of living things in general. But “free purposeful action“, as such, occurs only in the human being. And this seems to follow the path, which self-awareness entails. The lower “freedoms” are freedoms within the confinement of mechanistic action, while human free-action is, at a certain stage, a purposeful freedom, a freedom of will that determines its actions in accordance with its own purposeful benefit, which it is aware of.
Therefore unlike what is implied by Ellis in the introductory quote to this essay, namely, the fictitious nature of human free will, we see free will as an undeniable axiom to our system, supported by Nature, and the human learning process itself.
As we mentioned, in the threshold physical complexity level needed for human self-awareness (footnote 2 in the essay on Will), there must be a certain level reached in the animate organism (life itself), which allows this self-aware and therefore, "willfull“, free action to occur.
So our conclusion is that although all behavior springs from, and persists in, the physical mortal world, or the continuum, as we call it; the will is something outside of this, which creates, directs and responds to behavior in this same continuum, but is also molded by it.
Further, we can appreciate how close the ancient philosophers, like Socrates, Plato, Empedocles, and Heraclitus were in their ideas about our reality and its nature. In fact, realizing that although their physical ideas about the world were totally wrong (for instance, even Aristotle’s scientific concepts), they still, through the process of deduction, came to conclusions that agree with our most modern scientific theories.
For instance, Plato’s ideas of our reality are very close to the reality I have presented, at least at the lowest level, as being a perceptual reality that lives almost like a shadow of something else, we can never really know. Of course we have progressed through our studies of Nature and reality to know more of this representation and what it entails. The free-enquiry of science allows us to progress, and build on what came before, so that our learning can be a species’ learning, not only an individual's learning.
One of the major handicaps to this is religion, which has never learned to progress beyond the confines of the dogmas which fetter it to outmoded ideas and concepts; and keep it bound down through separation instead of unity. It flies in the face of reality in that it sees God's laws as unchanging for a continually changing and learning world. As we progress so does our understanding of God and therefore His "will" or laws.
As long as religion creates God in the image of a man, and the limited and bounded concepts, which this entails, instead of the perfect totality of the Universe; it will misconstrue the force of love it is supposed to proclaim. For religion is the science of love, and must rightly define this force as a part of all, without any fetters that a human will might confer on it. Seen in this way, religion will bring harmony to the human’s reality, and allow the world to progress beyond the separations of greed, which keep it divided.
Additional Notes to the Essay What is Truth?:
Further comments on truth:
In this essay I have shown what I believe is the essence of truth and meaning according to The Philosophy of the GOOD. I continued this in the last two essays in the Series of essays on Love, namely: “Symbolism, Language and Consensus” and “The Message of the Philosophy of the GOOD”. The truth of the many worlds, I highlighted in those essays, is one of the only two truths we can ever really know; for they alone are what are real for each of us, and all of us. The hypotheses of science, of a physical world “underneath” them, is in fact just that, mere hypotheses, that can in fact never be proven, as Bishop Berkeley showed so long ago. Perception itself is one of these two real truths, and the only “real” fact upon which everything else is really only a virtual string of elaborately woven hypotheses. And given this one undeniable real fact of life, we can either continue destroying ourselves by allowing the “hypothesized” world, which caters to the “self” to rule us; or we can be guided by the other real truth that we all know: love. For in the final analysis, these two facts are our only certainty: perception and love. The straight jacket of perception which forever binds us within a very private universe of our own; and the liberation of love, which frees us to become a part of everyone else’s universe.
The tragedy of our modern world is that we have chosen the physical “hypothesized” world of science to the complete exclusion of love. And in doing this we have built up many universes even further estranged, and alienated from each other. A knowledge, devoid of the wisdom of love, has led us into the universe of the self, and the endless futility and contention that the paranoia of isolation breeds. As the ancients knew, knowledge without wisdom is more than useless, and worse than stupid; for it can only lead us to where we are now.
A note on the Golden rule, in footnot 2 of the essay: Kant’s Categorical Imperative is the Golden Rule, but he interprets this as the criteria for universal (categorical) moral laws. In other words what you would consider to be something that all humanity should consider as morally right. But the philosophy of the GOOD shows that there is no universal moral laws except love, love without exception, and that this is the very same love mentioned in the Golden Rule. For humanity, the love mentioned in the Golden Rule is the only absolute moral law that a human can really know since its world is built around its will. In taking the viewpoint of all humanity as its own, the human perceiver transcends morality and allows the situation to dictate a morally suitable solution, which any human in the same situation, would find appropriate. So circumstances are important in determining what is morally appropriate for any human in that same situation.
Additional Notes to the Essay Utopia of the GOOD:
Further comments on Utopias:
With the many questions about Religion now raised by the "Pussy Riot" Controversy, I feel that I should comment on this older essay, which can be misinterpreted to mean the opposite of what I intended it to mean. When I say that all religions should be united to force governments to eliminate wars, and the disparity that economics is bringing about in Nations today, I mean that they should do this indirectly, through resolving not only their issues between themselves, that dogma has brought about, but also, by uniting in the unity of the love that they should use to influence the minds and hearts of their followers. The charter or dogmatism of all religions must be the same love that resides in every heart of every human being on this earth. That is the one and only dogma that all religions should uphold; for in this, they uphold the only true and genuine attribute of humanity: that same love and the acceptance it fosters in all.
This is exactly where religion has failed; by not realizing this same importance in this love that has in the main been replaced by organizational details, trivial dogmatic beliefs and rituals; all of which count for nothing in relation to the firm and central belief in the one true attribute that irresistibly draws all humanity together, as opposed to these other inconsistencies that divide and draw the human race apart.
This is, in fact, what God is, in the human heart; that same irresistible tendency that acts as a magnet to bring us all together despite our differences, whatever they may be. That urge towards acceptance that is so hard to face, because it does just that: accepts! Utopias lie within the realm of the mind; they are, like God, Himself, the hope of something better. They are the hope to make humanity see its sameness, instead of its differences, and in seeing this, be drawn together.
When all understand this single, fundamental human truth, despite the organizational differences they hold, they will come together to resolve the issues, which have brought the human race so low in its esteem for itself, through the division it has bred.
Religion can and must do this; and in doing this, it will forge the minds and hearts that will repair the secular portions of the world within which it has no direct jurisdiction at all, that which Christ called the realm of Caesar.
The secular world must be brought to see the fallacies that greed and the self has brought it to accept. The truly human part of man must again resurface in a world where the glitter of matter has replaced the substance of the heart. When that happens, man will find his true worth, not in economic wealth but in the same unity that society promised him so long ago when he saw the true benefits that harmony and cooperation could reap, as he emerged from his prehistoric caves into the revolutionary utopia society had given him at that time.
The world itself will always change, bringing with that change disruption and perhaps even chaos. But the one thing that we all have that will never change is that same tendency to cooperation and unity all humans have, and will always have, which the faithful call God, and the unfaithful call love. That is the basic human truth that all faith rests upon, encompassing all, in whatever faith, or even lack of faith they hold.
Let me make one fact very plain to all readers, I am not trying to “put down” any particular faction or “side”, in any of my comments. My comments are opinions that can be freely accepted or rejected; and they criticize all points of view to some extent. My goal is a very simple one: Harmony. As difficult as it may seem to some, harmony can only be approached through constructive criticism. When all criticism is shut down we end up with what we have now: a bunch of people at odds with each other, and futility and wars. If we discuss our problems together we can work out solutions, but we must first see and agree that there are problems; and that is what I am trying to accomplish, the establishment and delineation of the problems that continue to lead the human race down the very same path it has followed for the last two thousand years.
As far as religion goes, again, we must understand that there are also problems in this area. The very fact that there are so many different beliefs is the main problem. Here, belief itself, often closes off all discussion from the very start. This is another problem: beliefs that offer only a single side. But luckily, all major belief systems today accept love as a major principle. If this is so, then they all have a point of commonality upon which to start discussions. And that is what the "Philosophy of the GOOD" relies on.
The problems I approach have no easy solutions; and no “sides” today even approach them without major difficulties. In solving both our economic and religious problems we must “go where no man or woman has gone before”. We must explore unexplored terrain; and we must do this together; for these problems affect all of us.
So put aside all your biases and face the unapproachable with an open heart and a resolve to at least try. The first step is always the hardest.
I must emphasize that the mission of this site is to address the problems we are having in today’s world because of the views that economics and religion have led us into. Both are essential to all societies; but the particular forms they have taken are destroying our societies.
Religions, in endorsing a particular set of moral beliefs and rituals as the only ones sanctioned by God, have set up an environment that can only lead to constant and unending futile contention; as it has for the last several thousand years. The solution is the very one that all religions seem to endorse but none seem to practice: the golden rule. The reason is that they too have become governments and corporations; and in becoming such, have merely gone down the very same path that greed has in fact led our economies. World unity can never be achieved if we continue in this way; in fact, because of the fact that today’s economy is creating a smaller world, through our space age communications, the threat of global holocaust looms ever closer because of the continual contention these societal institutions pose.
As the world grows ever smaller, we must find ways to settle our differences, without the bloodshed we have persisted in for the last 2000 years. We must build united societies; and that can never be, while there are haves and have-nots, or while everyone has different sets of moral beliefs all sanctioned by their own God.
The answer to this is to create societies built on trust and cooperation; not greed and elitism. The economy must be one that creates no losers; and religions must become the promoters of love and harmony through leaving law and morality to governments based on this very same love.
Originally Published:April 6, 2009
Revised:October 1, 2015