Civilization and Beyond
A Metaconscious Mosaic Outline
Disappointingly, yet undeniably, "moral codes" in the past, with their concomitant "institutions," "laws," and "governments," have often been deliberate hoaxes developed for a single purpose, namely, to control the will and actions of the "many" by the "few" self-appointed "pharoahs," for the exclusive profit of the "pharoahs," at the expense of the "pyramid builders."1 In the view being developed here, this would be at once "immoral," and contrary to the interests of "pharoahs" and "pyramid builders" alike.
Standing upon the axiomatic [i.e. mythical] ground that a) all are One, and b) each is sovereign, I have made the following statements, somewhat rearanged here, about "morality."
- Any action that is not immoral is moral.
- Pre-emptive use of force, and only pre-emptive use of force, is immoral.
- Included in the deffinition of pre-emptive use of force are:
- overt pre-emptive force,
- fraud,
- deception,
- malicious nondisclosure,
- theft,
- threat of force.
- Theft, deception, slander – even if these go entirely undetected – as well as overt physical attack, are examples of pre-emptive use of force.
- Any effort to control the will and actions of anyone, other than oneself, is by nature, and by definition here, pre-emptive use of force.
- Any pre-emptive, or unprovoked hostile or malicious action (or inaction), deliberately intended to damage the interests of its recipient(s), or to profit at their expense, is here defined as immoral.
- Any being in Cosmos pre-emptively attacked or threatened by another may legitimately defend itself.
- "Morality" is not the most appropriate frame of reference..., because "morality" implies "action someone might want to take, but 'ought not' to take;" which implies in turn the presence of some sort of "authority" to adjudicate what "ought" and "ought not" be done.
- Rather, pre-emptive use of force ... is intrinsically self-destructive, because all are One, and so is universally and infallibly contrary to the interests of the one so acting.2
In sum, the thesis being developed here is that when our true relationship to our fellows, and to Cosmos at large, is deeply and thoroughly understood, what has traditionally been called "moral behavior" may be seen clearly to be indistinguishable from pursuit of one's highest self interest. This brings the individual into dynamic harmony with "All Things," and brings to an end the perpetual warlike struggle to balance the needs and desires of the individual with the seemingly competing pressures exerted by "others" – often imposed by "authorities" of doubtful authenticity, by means of pre-emptive use of force.
Statements 1. and 2., above, have been given somewhat alternative expression in some of my earlier essays, for instance as follows:
- Do only that which is in harmony with the "highest good" for "All That Is."
- Do whatever you wish.
- Allow all others the liberty to do likewise.3
...which have in turn far earlier antecedents, as for example, the following familiar passage:
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: This is the first commandment.
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.4
All these share a similar purpose and meaning, and a resonant spirit.5
Statements 3., 4., 5., and 6. flesh out and expand the meaning of pre-emptive use of force – which is to say, "immorality," or action which is universally contrary to the interests of the one so acting.
Statement 7. states the natural, universal, and legitimate response to pre-emptive use of force – which is by nature a de facto declaration of war by its perpetrator(s), against its object(s).
Statement 8. touches the fundamental problem underlying the concept of "morality," inasmuch as it implies some sort of "authority" to give it definition. If it is "True" that all are One, and each is sovereign, there can be no effective "authority," beyond the inmost "guidance" within each of us, and common to us all; i.e., the "guidance" of the One which each of us is, and all of us are. All such claims to "authority," or "priority" of one peer over another, are without foundation, for as discussed elsewhere,
...we all, everyone and everything, share a common Source. Whatever 'it' is that 'spawned' 'Life, the Universe, and Everything,' ... we all share 'it' in common. Therefore, no one and nothing is any more or less 'important' than anyone or anything else.6
And, no one posesses any intrinsic "authority" not shared by his or her peers.
Therefore, any "moral claim" that one "ought," or "ought not" do such-and-such may be met with the qustion, "Who says so?" or, "By what 'authority' do you address me?" The only "authority" with any force is just that: pre-emptive force – which is itself "immoral" by the definition given in statement 2.; which springs in turn from the "Truth" that all are One. Is this really "True?" I believe so, for it accords with my mythology. I can even say I know so7 – yet I cannot say so with any claim to "authority" not common to everyone.
_____________________________________
* Adapted from: "Dear Friends," 12/15/03.
1. Terminology borrowed from Daniel Quinn, Beyond Civilization: Humanity's Next Great Adventure, Three Rivers Press, New York, 1999. See also "Governance," 11/23/98.
2. "Dear Friends," 11/27/03 edition.
3. "New Beginnings, Part IV", 2/14/01. See also paragraph 5.3., et seq., of Prayer, and Statement of Purpose.
4. Mark 12:30-31, King James Version, quoted in "New Beginnings, Part IV".
5. They "share a similar purpose and meaning, and a resonant spirit," that is, in the context of popular interpretation. Any "commandment," however, that "thou shalt" or "shalt not" do anything is an expression of pre-emptive force; for who, or what, shall otherwise "enforce" any such "commandment," and by what means?
7. See "Knowledge," August 1997, for an in-depth analysis of what we know, and how we know that we know it.
Civilization and Beyond copyright 2004, 2005 by J. Harmon Grahn. Copying and redistribution, in whole or in part, are permitted in any medium provided this notice is included.