Anger and the Inverse of the Golden Rule

Hi Leo Volont,

Thank you for your post. It was a really interesting read! There were just some things that I was thinking while I read what you wrote which I would like to add to your discussion.

We all know the Golden Rule – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Well, the inverse of the Golden Rule would be “Expect to be treated by others as you would treat them”.

I have never actually thought of this in that way. It's interesting to think of having the 'inverse to the Golden Rule'. I have heard of both of these. The first one, the 'Golden Rule', is something we are taught from a young age. With regards to the second one, the 'inverse' as you put it, I have actually been taught that we should never expect to be treated by others as we would treat them. This is something I do not think children are taught, but as an adult I have been told this. This is because there are three types of people:

1 - Those who when you do good to them, they do good for you in return. These people are golden, and are very rare.
2 - Those who when you do good to them, they neither harm you nor benefit you. This type probably covers the majority of people, who do not mean harm but just are not as helpful or giving.
3 - Those who when you do good to them, they actually harm you in some way or do something bad. These people are toxic, but should not be unexpected.

Based on the above, we are taught that we should expect the worst, so that we are not disappointed. Instead, we will be very plesantly surprised if someone treats us well in return for good. It is just about accepting the nature of people...

That is how the Population Densities in Asia can be so crowded without the Riots and Rebellions we would probably see in the West– the uniformly polite behavior of everyone reduces friction and prevents annoyance … or perhaps the Asians simply believe that Burning and Looting would simply be too ‘low for them to go’ and that they would ‘Lose Face’, as they call it, if they were seen running down a burning street carrying a Large Screen TV.

This made me laugh. I agree with this, but I wouldn't necessarily say they believe it is 'too low for them', rather they know the difference between right and wrong, which is inherent within everyone, and stick to those rules. And they may also consider the consequences of what they do. Unlike a lot of western cultures, where it's all about live fast, party hard, seek the thrills and all of that...

We should view much of the Rudeness and even Nastiness in our Society as the result of Dysfunctions in our Culture and a Failure of our Social Institutions (Schools, Family, Government, and especially the Entertainment Media) to instill a General Sense of Uniform Proper Behavior. So we should view Rude People as being ‘handicapped’ or ‘socially challenged’. We should not take it personally. Allowing it to make us Angry is to misconstrue the situation.

Just want to say I agree with all of that. It is a good way to change a person's perspective on others and allow them to manage their anger.

Well, it is no secret that the French can be very rude (which is a surprising shift in in their Cultural History, since the French were once regarded as the Most Polite People, at least among the Europeans). Well, the Japanese are indeed a very polite people, and the rudeness of the French hit many of these travelers with severe Culture Shock – there were angry reactions, confusion (“What have I done to deserve this?”), even some complete ‘melt downs’ – incapacitating nervous breakdowns.

That's an interesting story. I also laughed at the 'people viewing French people as rude' part. Unfortunately true, and even a brief stop over in Paris when passing through Charles de Gaulle Airport a few years ago reinforced that for me. But having said that, I have met some very nice French individuals on different occasions who are all lovely people!

You see, a Society committed to being Polite develops over time a Polite Way of doing Everything – how to drink tea, how to drink wine, how to eat, how to walk, how to ride a bicycle (never stand up on the pedals… “the seat is meant to sit on”), how to maintain an umbrella, what brand of cigarettes a person of your social status is allowed to smoke (seriously!)… I could go on indefinitely, but there was a Right Way and a Wrong Way for Everything you could imagine, and it was difficult to not be ‘wrong’ a great deal of the time.

I can actually relate to that in some ways. Having a religious background, specifically one which encompasses all aspects of life, we are taught that there are certain ways to do things correctly. For example, how to interact with others, how to eat, how to sleep, etc. This is not a bad thing I do not think, based on the fact that the teachings come from the most reliable source, i.e The Creator, therefore there has to be wisdom behind everything. It is just sometimes difficult to stick to everything, especially depending on the environment you are in. And it can also sometimes feel restrictive.

Also, to move on, we should think about the notion that if people do Expect to be treated in the way they treat others, and if one wants to fit seamlessly into whatever Social Milieu one wonder into, then one should take a little time to discern the level of Behavior in the place or party one is visiting, and try to assimilate to about that Same Level of Social Conduct. Of course, it would be Rude or Boorish to act much lower than the Crowd you are among, but it would also be kind of snotty and pretentious to act too far above it.

I disagree with this. This is completely opposite to what I have been taught. We are taught to have the best of characteristics regardless of how the people around you act. This is what having morals is about. I guess it is called being on the 'morally higher ground' if someone behaves in a more acceptable way, but I do not think this should be seen as "snotty and pretentious". I have no doubt that there are some people who would think this - especially the ones who cannot/do not behave in a morally acceptable way, either because they do not want to or just because they have been exposed to cultures and environments that promote bad behaviour of sorts. They would look down on or try to alienate an individual who does have higher morals perhaps because they actually feel bad internally (back to inherent knowlegde of right vs. wrong) but do not want to accept that, so they normalise what they are doing and denigrate the more respectful individual. A person should always stick to their morals, and be good to others, even when the others around them are not nice people and even if they treat the person badly. If a person can accomplish that, I think it shows that the person has an excellent character and puts them on a better standing, especially if they are alone in what they are doing, as they can prove that they do not conform blindly, like a sheep.

Anyway, so while it is good to generally be Polite, Courteous and Dignified, one should never crank it up so far as to be offensively overbearing in what might be a very casual and relaxed Scene.

I do know what you mean as not being "too overbearing" in a casual setting, but I think that no one should 'lower their standards' of behaviour, act in way that makes them feel uncomfortable or do things that they do not think is right. This is where knowing how to overcome peer pressure comes in, coupled with overcoming self-esteem issues and being confident in oneself. Just like in the example you gave, the older people may not want to join in on the silly things young people are doing, so they just politely stand aside and let them get on with it. I think this can be applied to many different situations in life.

I would hope that people do try to do what is right and are considerate of others, though unfortunately there are just too many examples where this obviously is not the case...

Anyway, those were just some of my thoughts. I hope you are having a nice day!

Dear Popcorn,

Thank you so much for reading my Post so attentively. And I found your reply was surprisingly informative, especially when you mentioned that in Culture children are explicitly taught NOT to expect the Inverse of the Golden Rule, that while they should Do Good unto Others, they should strictly focus on NOT expecting to ever be treated good themselves. Expect the worst and never be disappointed. But I would think that this would be Socially Crippling. Anthropologists have studied many Societies and they have discovered that it is almost Universal that people grow to expect Approximately Equal Reciprocity regarding Gifts and Good Will Gestures. This means that you can throw a Big Party because you can expect those who attend to also throw Big Parties to which you will be invited. You can give out Birthday Presents, because you will Get Birthday Presents. You can pay the tab at a restaurant this time because the tab will be picked up by somebody else next time. It goes on and on. We behave Socially in a Freely Giving Manner because we EXPECT to not get drained by a steady one-sidedness to it all. If you Really Do expect the worst from People, well, you couldn’t possibly invite them over for dinner, or invite them to a fine restaurant where the Management appreciates your discretion regarding the guests you invite in. Essentially you have to think well of people in order to trust them. And Society is built on trust.

I was stunned when you said that people have the inherent knowledge of the distinction between Good and Evil (“they know the difference between right and wrong, which is inherent within everyone”). Really? I believe you take 4000 years of Civilized Moral Development quite for granted. Children are little devils, aren’t they? Apparently this Moral Discernment does not descend from the womb. Even adults can demonstrate an almost complete lack of Moral Responsibility. For instance, I read in the paper just today that Business People believe that the Cost of New Government Regulations should not exceed the cost of Paying Out Lawsuits to those who are Hurt or Killed by their Dangerous Practices. Isn’t this a Totally Amoral Way of looking at it? Of course I must recognize that you said “KNOW” and you never suggested that just because they KNOW that they would DO. But you don’t strike me as that cynical. But back to Civilization. Remember, before the Persians came out of the North and East with their First Moral Insights (a God of Light and Goodness, opposed to a Satan of Evil) there WAS NO Idea of Morality anywhere in the World (although Confucius in China did for the East what Zoroastrianism did for the West, but I would have to look at the Dates). What is the Moral Sense? It is that Every Action had a Moral Character, and that part of our Decision Making Process should be to choose the Most Moral Action. Before Morality we had Laws. People would be expected to Do Anything, and so Laws were Created to fence certain behaviours off, and to set limits. That is NOT Morality. This is just Social Traffic Regulations – Speed Limits for Life. Rule by Law is a confession of Moral Failure. I could talk more about the Civilized Development of Morality, and the opposition to it, but that would require speaking about Religion and that is frowned upon on this Forum (and I just deleted a few wonderful paragraphs, when I realized they were real rule breakers).
Now, about Always Doing Right and Never Letting Your Hair Down, and all of that. Well, I can appreciate that. BUT you were awfully quick to say you disagreed with me. Did you count the number of “ifs” in that large sentence I wrote. If this and if that, Then… Well, I myself have to choose my company carefully, because I realize that I have limitations on my ability to bend and merge. But I write for not just myself, but for the Generality of People, and especially Young People who are starting out Socially and with their Careers. Some of these people, well, Their Lives Depend on being about to succeed Socially. We can Judge them for the Compromises they make – pretending to like Rap Music at a Club which their Boss drags them to, and stuff like that. But, on the other hand, we can See It as a Kind of a Virtue, to be able to Love Others So Much that they are willing to Act like them. It is a Form of Giving. Where look at your own strict standards and defensiveness. I can appreciate protecting your Cultural Values. I can especially appreciate your Strict Social Code if you are sure of a Community of Like Minded People who will support you in all of this. But Remember, for Most People out there, all they got is the World with Society as they find it. These People cannot afford to pick and choose. Think about it for a second and decide whether you could Go It Alone. You can’t close yourself off from others if those others, however they might be, are your only hope. But, Like in anything else, there has to be some perfect means between the two extremes.

Hi Leo,

Thank you for your thought provoking reply!

Expect the worst and never be disappointed. But I would think that this would be Socially Crippling. Anthropologists have studied many Societies and they have discovered that it is almost Universal that people grow to expect Approximately Equal Reciprocity regarding Gifts and Good Will Gestures. This means that you can throw a Big Party because you can expect those who attend to also throw Big Parties to which you will be invited.... Essentially you have to think well of people in order to trust them. And Society is built on trust.

I agree with you that society is built on trust in some ways. But perhaps you did not understand what I meant when I said "expect the worst of others". I was not suggesting that if a person believes that people are all in it for themselves and they only take without giving, then the person should stop giving. It's about not becoming disappointed if the person encounters individuals who take without giving. I know that it is difficult for people to constantly give without expecting anything in return. I realise that I myself am reluctant to give when I know that someone is just using me to take something and will not benefit me in any way. However, I see this as a flaw and am trying to increase my capacity to give without expecting to receive. Generosity is a noble trait. I do not think that it is "socially crippling". It could actually help improve one's standing in society - people think highly of altruists. And it may even benefit society - someone needs to be the one to take the first step to give or do good. I remember when there was the phase of spreading 'random acts of kindness'. My brother once received an envelope which had some money in it and a note that said do what you like with the money - use it or pass it on - because it was a random act of kindness trying to increase good within society by hopefully triggering a chain reaction of benevolent acts. There are also stories of people paying forward restaurant bills for people who may not be able to afford it themselves. These examples show that selfless acts can have a good impact in society. But yes, people need to get over their reluctance to give even though they know they are not going to receive. It's just about accepting the inherent nature of man...

I was stunned when you said that people have the inherent knowledge of the distinction between Good and Evil (“they know the difference between right and wrong, which is inherent within everyone”). Really? I believe you take 4000 years of Civilized Moral Development quite for granted. Children are little devils, aren’t they? .... Of course I must recognize that you said “KNOW” and you never suggested that just because they KNOW that they would DO. But you don’t strike me as that cynical.

I am sorry that what I said shocked you! I thought that was one of the less shocking things... It's just what I have always been taught. Children can be little devils (haha) but often we find that they find it difficult to lie or feel uncomfortable with 'bad things' e.g. violence, killing, nudity, etc. Everyone is born with an internal moral compass that can differentiate between wrong and right. This is why when people commit a serious crime (murder for example...) they often are left feeling distraught. Yes, they may be afraid that they will be imprisoned, etc, but they oftentimes also experience feelings of deep-seated sadness. Now I used the word "often" because I know that there are people who feel next to nothing when they commit a crime - sociopaths, psychopaths, however they are categorised - and sometimes even children find it so very easy to lie and do bad things (I have seen this with my own niece - she finds it very easy to lie... but this is in contrast with her siblings...). Before laws were introduced and enforced, how did societies govern themselves? Who told them that is is wrong to kill/steal? You're right, we could go into a whole religious discussion here, but we shouldn't, and also I am not the best at explaining and debating unfortunately... Anyway, I did say that people "know" right vs. wrong, but they do not always choose to "do" what is right. Is that a cynical view? I just think that it is realistic based on what we know of the world. Your example of the business people - do you think they are not aware that the stance they have chosen to take on government regulations is immoral? They are surely well aware, but they have vested self-interests - in short they are greedy. We can see examples of immorality everywhere we look - whether it is with business people or even our own politicians in government. It's just the way the world works unfortunately...

Now, about Always Doing Right and Never Letting Your Hair Down, and all of that. Well, I can appreciate that. BUT you were awfully quick to say you disagreed with me. Did you count the number of “ifs” in that large sentence I wrote. If this and if that, Then…

Haha, no we must never let our hair down! And sorry, I have reread that paragraph with emphasis on the "if"s and I now understand better what you mean. If a person wants to fully assimilate, they must also adopt the moral code and practices of the people they are with. Like a chameleon adapting to its environment. But there is always a choice.

Young People who are starting out Socially and with their Careers. Some of these people, well, Their Lives Depend on being about to succeed Socially. We can Judge them for the Compromises they make – pretending to like Rap Music at a Club which their Boss drags them to, and stuff like that. But, on the other hand, we can See It as a Kind of a Virtue, to be able to Love Others So Much that they are willing to Act like them. It is a Form of Giving. .... Think about it for a second and decide whether you could Go It Alone. You can’t close yourself off from others if those others, however they might be, are your only hope. But, Like in anything else, there has to be some perfect means between the two extremes.

Hmm, I see what you mean about some people needing to completely conform to be successful. For some, their happiness also depends on it. I think I actually take it for granted that I live in a society that is accepting and tolerant of everyone, regardless of race, gender, religion, etc. In fact, there are laws that prevent discrimination, although we can never fully get away from those individuals who, for whatever reason, hold prejudiced views. I like your idea that it can actually be a sort of virtue to try and be like others, or even an act of love. We know that when someone loves a person, they try to emulate that person. The thing is, this is just different to the way I am trying to lead my life and the choices I am making. I am trying to become fully comfortable with myself, be more confident in what I believe in and establish what I stand for. I want my values to be independent of the people around me and independent of society. The rules and laws in society are subjective - they are based on the ideas of the people in power at the time, and going back to what we said before, we know that people have self-interests and are often in it just for themselves/their close-knit group of whoever. It is rare to find people in power who stand up and say they are acting "for the many and not for the few". But, yes, I agree - there should always be a balance, a middle path...

Good Morning Popcorn,

Well, we seem to have a good ‘give and take’ dialogue going on here. I had to Laugh when you said you were “not the best at explaining and debating”. I had to wonder with whom you were comparing yourself to! To me you seem to be doing a good enough job.

Anyway, back to Substance. Yes, regarding Morality and Innate Moral Insight, well, what you said made me remember something I had recently read, that ‘Mirror Neurons’ in the Brain automatically make us inclined to Imitate and ‘Mirror’ the behaviour of others. This can most easily be seen in the Contagion of Laughter or Crying, but you can also see it in rooms full of people as some people begin to assume the posture and positioning of others. We also have the phenomena of people raising their voices Together (when one person shouts, the other person shouts back, in most cases). Well, this Mirror Neuron Activity may lead to Empathy between People – feeling how other people must feel. THAT would be a Moral Incentive. Indeed, the Moral Insight must have come from Somewhere. You know in many Primitive Tribes, during the Acculturating Process of teaching Boys to be Men, it was drilled into them that Empathy was a Disgraceful Girl Thing, and that Men would Show No Mercy and Glory in the Pain of their Enemies, and Laugh when their Victims cried because of Theft or Rape. Across All Known Primitive and Nomadic Societies this Male Ethos, or Non-Ethos, was in force. One would think that the Moral Impulse would come out of a Civilization where it would be most Useful, as Civilizations cannot develop, fully, without a strong popular trend to Cooperate (which morality makes possible). But the Persians who First Voiced the Moral Insight where from Out of the Hills. BUT from the scant Historical Record, it would seem that they were beginning to put down Root and Settle in the Kiva Area South of the Aral Sea. This Morality probably reinforced Social Cooperation and this is why Persian Culture became so Successful and Dominant in just several hundred years of the Moral Insight (they were indeed able to toss out the Babylonians and free the Captive Jews (who were not really that ‘Captive’. They had been in Babylon for 70 years and quite had the run of the place, and became a vibrant element in the population. They learned the Language and were given access to Education and the Libraries. The Jews came to Babylon as barbarian hillsmen, and left as Cosmopolitan Sophisticates).

You can see one of the most striking instances of Moral Development in the Inability to Define Exactly What the Moral Compass is. Morality is so Broad in its way that it defies any Limiting Definition. The Best that Moral Proponents can do is come up with Instance after Instance of what IS Moral, so that the Listener can begin to See the Moral Thread that holds all Moral Acts together – the Moral Insight. Confucius in China where Civilization was already on its way to firmly taking root, had the same Problem with Defining Morality. And so we have his Thousands of Instances of Moral Acts. Indeed, the Primary Problem with the LAW is exactly the matter that one has to make a Law to cover Everything that is Immoral. Laws would go on endlessly, wouldn’t they? And then there is the matter of Enforcement. Police or Village Councils intervening in people’s lives to Punish them because of sometimes very vague Interpretations of some Law or other. Laws make no Account of Circumstances. Samuel Johnson once made the argument that it is against the law to kill anybody, but what if a Rich Man tosses a Gold Guinea to a Beggar and it strikes him on the head and kills him dead. The Law would have One Thing, but Morality would have another – a Tragedy but certainly no Crime. Indeed, it always makes me wonder about Manslaughter Laws, which seem totally Amoral and Vindictive. If you did not Intend to Murder Somebody then Why the Big Deal. For instance, to go 35 in a 25 zone will get you a fine of $50 and maybe you have to go to Driving Safety Classes for a couple of nights. BUT if a pedestrian jumps out and you hit him going 35 in a 25 Zone, then you are looking at “3 to 5 in the Big House”. Essentially the Law is there to Punish People for Having Rotten Luck.

Oh and about young children, and even toddlers seeming to show Moral Sense. Well, at the Same Time that Infants are beginning to learn Grammar and Words (they Master Grammar long before they have much vocabulary) they will pick up by Body Language and Situational Modelling what the Adults think of as Right and Wrong. They see when naked people cover up! They see when their older siblings are being ‘yelled at’ and they learn to guess What For. SO your instances of Innate Morality in infants are, I believe, a bit presumptuous. This is Learned Behaviour. Again, we can refer to Families where ALL of the Behavioural Modelling by the Adults and Older Siblings is Low Life and Crude. The Infants will Learn to Be Just Like The Others. “Good” will seem to be the Ability to make other People cry by taking their stuff and not giving it back. Honestly, it is possible to Teach People ALL Wrong.

Oh, more about what I meant about the Idea of Expecting the Worst being Morally Crippling. You see, whatever the Ideals in the Situation may be, Small Sub-Societies of People who have a Significantly Higher Moral Threshold, and more Stringent Behavioural Guidelines than the Greater Society nearly always end up Self Isolating. They Wall themselves off. The most Interesting Group I have heard about are the Gypsies, the Roma People. They mix with the Rest of the World, but it is like Oil and Water. They become Masters at being able to Imitate the Behaviour of the “Others”, but only so that they can Make a Living off of them (somewhat parasitically). But when they close their doors and are alone, they become Themselves. Really, outside the House they will NOT use their real name (it is said that No Outsider knows the Real Name of any Gypsy. The Gypsies will even put a ‘Cover Name’ on a birth certificate. Nobody knows who the Boss is. Gypsies will get some New Person in their Community, somebody who perhaps Married into the Gypsy Community, and foist them onto the Greater Society as their Leader and Spokesman, and you can be sure everything that is said is some incredible invention). Anyway, that is an Extreme Case, but we both know of many instances of Social Sub Groups who have simply withdrawn and isolated themselves. As you get Older you might find yourself, simply from following the Path of Least Resistance, also beginning to Socially Isolate yourself.

Oh, I wonder how you got into the Argument about Unlimited Charity. Let’s see if I can figure it out from here. I said Expecting the Worst is Socially Crippling and therefore you suggest that People who Expect the Worst often engage in Unlimited Charitable Giving, which certainly is NOT Socially Crippling. Okay, I got it. BUT let’s look at all this Giving. In many Societies it is the Social Norm, even the Expectation, that one will Give in Charity, and when the Need is within reasonable Bounds, then it works Perfectly. But what happens when the NEED expands beyond the Ability of Society to fill it? For instance, in Medieval Catholic Europe every Monastery had to show Hospitality. But soon the Tradition developed of expecting the Poor and the Pilgrims to not Abuse the Privilege for more than 3 Nights, or even for more than a day. On the other hand, I read of Italian Communities who made efforts to Zone Out New Monasteries because the Monasteries essentially live by Community Support, where one or two Monasteries are viable but a third would become a burden and break the Communities Economic back. We also probably both know about some very Enthusiastic People who GAVE EVERYTHING to the Poor and are now destitute. The Literature of Sainthood is Full of such people, but the vast majority of such people who Give It All Away will never be recorded as Saints, but instead become miserably poor and die of malnutrition in total obscurity, or become a burden on others who must Give Up of their Own Wealth to support them. It’s a kind of Ponzi Scheme, or Pyramid Scam for Religious Zealots – one gives IN and then GETS for the rest of their lives.

Yes, Charity is good, but it must be Balanced. Too Little is Bad. Too Much is Bad.

Oh, I as far as Anger Management goes, I find it significant that nothing I said was able to ‘tick you off’. Not yet.

Good afternoon Leo,

Sorry I know this is a day later, but I was feeling very ill yesterday and we are most certainly in different parts of the world.

Well, we seem to have a good ‘give and take’ dialogue going on here. I had to Laugh when you said you were “not the best at explaining and debating”. I had to wonder with whom you were comparing yourself to! To me you seem to be doing a good enough job.

Thank you for the compliment! Haha. In terms of comparators, well for one I may have been comparing myself to you. I don't know who you are, but I will openly admit that I am in awe of your ability to reason and discuss. There are also a multitude of teachers and scholars out there whom I marvel at.

One would think that the Moral Impulse would come out of a Civilization where it would be most Useful, as Civilizations cannot develop, fully, without a strong popular trend to Cooperate (which morality makes possible). But the Persians who First Voiced the Moral Insight where from Out of the Hills. BUT from the scant Historical Record, it would seem that they were beginning to put down Root and Settle in the Kiva Area South of the Aral Sea.

Perhaps you will allow me to say that the point you made here may actually reinforce the theory that people are born with a moral compass. You're suggesting that the people who came "out of the hills" were the ones who first proposed this moral insight. They did not come from a large civilisation as you would have expected, so perhaps they were almost 'kept pure' you could say. They were not tainted by the evils (if you will allow the use of this strong word) of large cities where there is a much greater population density. If we think about our own times, we know that there are much higher crime rates in cities. But, you might say that this is because there are more people, so you will automatically have higher crime rates as the probability of crime increases simply because there are more people there to commit the crimes. Also, perhaps because of the type of people who live in inner city areas - lower economic class - which also leads to crime, but more of the petty crime usually. Anyway, going back to ancient times, you are saying that the "incentive" to be moral and to conform to laws in a society are simply for social cohesion - everyone needs to get along or there would be chaos. Now, that is a fair point to make. No one wants a Mad Max style world and it does lead to success and of course a higher population happiness index. But is this really all there is to it? Without going into any deep religious debate here, could there perhaps be some divine inspiration involved? The Jews, where did their civilisation stem from? What was upholding it? They had laws and teachings, and I dare not say they made it all up themselves... And you seem to have chosen that time period to say that morality began, what about before then even? Just some food for thought...

You can see one of the most striking instances of Moral Development in the Inability to Define Exactly What the Moral Compass is. Morality is so Broad in its way that it defies any Limiting Definition. The Best that Moral Proponents can do is come up with Instance after Instance of what IS Moral, so that the Listener can begin to See the Moral Thread that holds all Moral Acts together – the Moral Insight.

Yes very true. Many philosophers for centuries have tried to define morality and ethics. From the little I know - Immanuel Kant's theory of Deontology, Utilitarianism as defined by John Stuart Mill, related to Consequentialism, and something called Virture Ethics first postulated by Aristotle. All of these define different ethical views, with ideas on how to demonstrate morality. Like you said, defining and categorising different acts. But they are theories, just ideas thought of by people. Going back to what I said in my previous post - we know people have self-interests. They act for what is best for themselves, most of the time. We can't help this, it's just human nature. But not only do we have this, but we also have unfortunately those vile individuals out there who, for one reason or another, do worse and actually aim to stir up trouble. Therefore people cannot be trusted. Laws created by people are subjective - they are actually constantly changing. A few years ago it was illegal for women to vote and gay marriage was illegal (in the West this is). They even tried to make alcohol illegal in America for a few years (very brief period in the 1920s or so) because it caused so many other problems, but there ended up being a huge black market and a whole host of other things so they just thought it best to leave it legal. Anyhow, I already stated that I do not want my moral code to be dictated by society and that I want to establish my values. This is where I would ask you, how do you believe morality should be defined?

Samuel Johnson once made the argument that it is against the law to kill anybody, but what if a Rich Man tosses a Gold Guinea to a Beggar and it strikes him on the head and kills him dead. The Law would have One Thing, but Morality would have another – a Tragedy but certainly no Crime... Essentially the Law is there to Punish People for Having Rotten Luck.

Oh yes, that is quite rotten luck. But I would be of the opinion that intention defines the nature of the action. The rich man did not intend to kill with that coin. In fact, he just wanted to help. But I suppose this is where doubt comes into play - because we can put this man on trial and if he tells us the truth of what happened, we cannot know if he is lying or not. So, I guess that's where the manslaughter law comes up. But with such matters, who are we to define what is right and wrong? OK, I think basically everyone in the world will agree that killing people is not a good thing (even some people who actually do the killing will admit to this, but continue anyway...). But what about other matters? Even in our own respective countries of residence, the laws would surely be somewhat different. Which is right/wrong? Everyone has their own opinions and we could argue all day. So surely it is best to have a completely objective code of law that everyone must abide by - preferably from a reliable source...

Oh and about young children, and even toddlers seeming to show Moral Sense. Well, at the Same Time that Infants are beginning to learn Grammar and Words (they Master Grammar long before they have much vocabulary) they will pick up by Body Language and Situational Modelling what the Adults think of as Right and Wrong... Honestly, it is possible to Teach People ALL Wrong.

I did think about this and wish I had mentioned it to pre-empt your response. Haha. But never mind. I agree that children are taught right from wrong. "Don't hit your brother!" "Don't steal the sweets!" etc. And that relates to what we said earlier. That we know there are cultures where being respectful is much more ingrained, as people are taught from a young age how to behave and are disciplined if they do not act in the 'right' way. But all of what you say is about people interacting with other people. What happens if there is no interaction? This might be a bit far of a stretch to start thinking of, because we might say that without interaction a person cannot raise themselves and that we know people become somewhat deranged becasue humans are social beings and need interaction to thrive. But all I am trying to get at is that innate nature comes naturally, from birth, so how can we measure it? There is too much debate on nature vs. nurture nowadays, but that is because people are the result of their environment as well as genetics.

Oh, more about what I meant about the Idea of Expecting the Worst being Morally Crippling. You see, whatever the Ideals in the Situation may be, Small Sub-Societies of People who have a Significantly Higher Moral Threshold, and more Stringent Behavioural Guidelines than the Greater Society nearly always end up Self Isolating. They Wall themselves off. The most Interesting Group I have heard about are the Gypsies, the Roma People.... As you get Older you might find yourself, simply from following the Path of Least Resistance, also beginning to Socially Isolate yourself.

Interesting what you say about the Gypsies. In our society the Gypsies are seen as a 'closed off' society. Certainly not because of higher moral standards, but because it is just ingrained in their culture to live within their own communities. And the Gypsies are often looked down upon because they are associated with crime. There are even documentaries about them I have seen on TV - one of which my sister sometimes liked to watch called "My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding". People are interested in other people's cultures. Anyway, what I would like to say to your point about socially isolating oneself is that I am taught that isolating oneself from bad things is not a bad thing. If one has a moral code, and the society or the environment in which they live violates that code, then distancing oneself is actually good. One can remain true to themselves and avoid bad acts. For example, if there is a young person who lives in an area where there is a lot of gang crime, and they do not want to get involved in that, then they would avoid going out and meeting/joining one of those gangs. You might say they would end up with no friends, and unfortunately that is the view of a lot of young people - they just want to fit in. But as adults we begin to learn what is important. And so we can avoid those sorts of people and places and instead, do what we know is best and is right (I hope). Again, you might say that some people have no choice - some kids need to join gangs and end up dealing drugs or going into prostitution just to make a living - but those are unfortunate cases, and they make me sad to see. We could also say that if there were enough people out there who would help and who would give, then those individuals who might once have had no choice but to turn to crime may be given a way out. You must have heard about President Trump and his infamous wall dividing US and Mexico - one of his claims is that there is a lot of drug trade from that end. He is perhaps right, but is walling people off really the right thing to do? Now, I don't mean that one who has a higher moral code should become like the hermit in society. I know monks/nuns used to (maybe still do in some parts of the world) go into monasteries and live completely separate lives. No, that's not the way to do it. People of higher moral standards could perhaps teach others if they join in with society and lead by example. Unfortunately though, often if those people are of the minority, they are looked down upon and actually called "snotty and pretentious" (if you don't mind me quoting what you said before). But, they are free to lead their lives how they choose. We are taught there should always be middle path...

Oh, I wonder how you got into the Argument about Unlimited Charity... We also probably both know about some very Enthusiastic People who GAVE EVERYTHING to the Poor and are now destitute... Yes, Charity is good, but it must be Balanced. Too Little is Bad. Too Much is Bad.

I am wondering how you came to that conclusion from what I said! I had to reread what I wrote... I did not suggest at all that someone should give to the poor and destitute until they themselves are poor and destitute. That makes no sense and would be a foolish thing to do! We are taught to give freely no matter what condition we are in, but always within our means. Some people cannot give money - they can barely afford to keep a roof over their own heads. So maybe those people could instead give with their time and effort - helping others directly could be their charity. Perhaps you were just confusing being selfless and giving without expecting anything in return with giving until there is no more to give, because a person is not getting anything back. That is what our discussion had been centred around - giving without expecting to receive in return. But no matter, I still stand by what I said, that I want to increase my capacity to give without feeling so reluctant, but always within my means, because we are taught to always have a balance, just as you said.

Oh, I as far as Anger Management goes, I find it significant that nothing I said was able to ‘tick you off’. Not yet.

Now this really made me laugh! I wonder why you said this. Were you intending to 'tick me off'? I hope not! Or maybe you are just too accustomed to dealing with angry people? Perhaps I may actually have strayed into the wrong forum. I can't remember how I came across your post, but I started to read it and just found it interesting, which then lead me to post. I didn't necessarily expect a reply from yourself, and certainly not such a long one. But nothing you have said is any reason for me to become angry. It's just a matter of discourse. You and I having a conversation. I think there are so many things we can learn if we just speak to people and listen to what they have to say, so thank you for speaking to me.

Dear Popcorn,

Sorry you weren’t feeling well. May you get well soon.

Now, okay, I have decided to let you ‘win’ your Innate Goodness Argument, but only because it occurred to me that it quite fits with a pet Idea I have had for years, but I never thought about it in terms of “innate goodness”. My Notion is that the Universe is interpenetrated with an Enabling Lifeforce. It is not ‘alive’ on its own, but simply Predisposes Matter to Higher and Higher Levels of Sentient Organization. You can see how it works – First we have One Celled Organisms, and then they Organize into Multi-celled Structures. What could possibly be their Incentive? Well, that ALL Pervading Lifeforce simply pushes the Possibilities of Life further on and on into higher and higher levels of complexity and organization.

Lifeforce Organization has created ever larger and more complex and ‘sentient’ creatures, but the Lifeforce also Works to impel Higher Levels of Organization within Species and even between Species. We have the Bees (Leeann Womack does a beautiful song “The Bees” and it seems to express what I am saying, but poetically and metaphorically, with a Country ‘twang’). There is no ‘single’ Bee. The Unitary Entity for Bees is the Hive. They are Many Organisms that work so in unison that they have created a Coherent Higher Level of Organization, an Unconflicted Society. Then we have instances of Symbiosis between Species. Bees pollinate Flowers in return for Nectar. Every Song Bird in a Forest takes turns giving its call, to those of other Species, as a means of Collective Security – if a Predator Bird comes into the mix, then the Row Call Song Chain is broken as some Birds head for cover, and this tends to alert every Song Bird in the Forest that danger approaches… and they even know from what direction (even people can benefit by listening to the Song Birds… if the Song Chain suddenly stops, you should watch for danger too. Oh, if you pay attention, the Birds will let you into the Song Chain, if you can whistle or make any pleasing sound to identify yourself, but it is important to NOT go out of Turn, and to keep your timing exact, as the birds measure distance by exactly how long it takes for another bird to respond, and this includes the Speed of Sound. ). Even Man has developed a symbiotic relationship with Dogs, Cats, Horses, Goats. You know, Domestic Dogs and Cats are genetically predisposed to Like us, just as long as they can Bond with a Human while they are still young. Dogs have been with us for 10,000 years, and cats a few thousand years less. The Time seems to tell, doesn’t it?

Basically what I am saying here is that the Lifeforce Predisposes Matter to Organize and Cooperate.

In Human Beings this Lifeforce would evince itself in our Psychology somehow. Here we have our Dreams. As I told you before, once you start paying attention to your dreams, you will find them an Influence for Social Cooperation. Theymore you Cooperate in a Dream, the better they get.

Now, this might tick you off, but even Religion may be part of this Organizational Lifeforce, in the sense that the primary Link we have to Religion is Psychological. At this point my Notions become a bit more Speculative. I know we each seem like isolated individuals, but I suspect that there may be something like a Collective Consciousness. My only evidence for this is that Nearly Everybody who Practices Dreaming has dreams with Similar Motifs. We all have basically the Same Dreams. And sometimes they reach out into the World and gather information, somehow and in some way. I myself KNOW that there can actually be a Connection between two Minds. Decades ago when I was at University, I had this dream that I was stalking the Cafeteria in the middle of night, a Starving Student. It was closed and I had gone in the Back Door and I was checking the Lines in the order of 5 and 4 and 3, and found nothing to eat. Then, I look up and here comes Anne, a wonderful young woman who was so generally nice and congenial that she was invited to all the same parties I was invited to. So she was a good friend of mine in the social sense. We greet and we each know why the other is there (starving students). I start by telling her that there was nothing on Lines 3, 4 and 5 and she tells me that the only thing she found were some desserts on Line 1, but they looked like they had been left out too long. Then we each go on our separate ways. The Next Day, I was going to Class and I met Anne in the hallway. We each got a surprised look on our faces and somehow we each KNEW we had the same thing to say. We Each Said At the Same Time “I had a Dream with you Last Night”. And the next part was Extremely Lucky, because Somehow We Both Had the Sense to NOT let the other Speak as though to Lead the Conversatiion, and we both described our Dreams at the Same Time – each of us Repeating our Dialogue simultaneously. Even the Description of the Scene – we met between Lines 3 and 2. Okay, what does this Prove? Well, if TWO People can share a Dream, why can’t 7 Billion People? If THAT Shared Dream was Possible, and I Know it WAS, then the Collective Consciousness is also possible.

Even God may be a manifestation of the Collective Consciousness. The More Moral and Cooperative Humanity Becomes, the Better God gets. The God who existed for Primitive Man was not the same God that existed for Saint Therese of Avila. The Persian Moral Revolution may have also been a Revolution for God. God and Man may have become Moral Simultaneously!

If you think about my notion, it may lead to a bit of pessimism. You see, MAN has been moving away from Morality, and so the Actual Existence of God in our Collective Consciousness may be growing dim. Now, about what you brought up, about WHAT exactly Moved the Persians, and their Legendary Zarathustra to their First Moral Insight? If Morality can come out of Nowhere, then maybe Morality can Resuscitate itself after a lapse. Maybe the Collective Consciousness has the Ability to Push Back againt a Prevalent Evil, to rescue Itself and God. I know from reading about the pronouncements of various Saints over the past few hundred years, that they were giving dire warnings that the Generalized Collapse of Morality would estrange God. And they may have been right. Nearly Nothing has happened in the Supernatural Religious Sphere since Fatima, and that was almost exactly 100 years ago. Oh, there have been some apparitions in Africa.

Anyway, I am basically demoralized. What We need is a Huge Miracle. A Miracle So Big that the Media HAS to cover it. You see, Fatima in Portugal was big, but ONLY in Portugal. The International Media stepped on the story and squashed it. Fatima CHANGED Portugal. Portugal had been on the verge of a Secular Materialist Socialist Revolution, just like Spain were it evolved into its disastrous Civil War, but Portugal almost instantly Backed Off and became a Moral and Spiritual Society again. Portugal was able to dodge World War II. What I believe is that we need a World Wide ‘Fatima’ Experience. Without an Impellingly Emotional Collective Experience, the drive for egocentric self-interest and The Every Man for Himself Mentality will only get stronger and stronger and what we have of a Civilization will collapse.

You know, realistically, our World has not yet had its First Civilization. You see, an Engine is supposed to run. You start up a motor and it purrs like a kitten, and puts out horsepower. A Civilization is ALSO supposed to Run, that is to Work Consistently and Coherently. But all the ‘civilizations’ that World has had so far were conflicted and sputtering. They were Cranking but none of them ever really Caught and Started. Look at the Bees. They aren’t Conflicted and set at Cross Purposes. The Bees are Civilized, and we clearly aren’t and never have been.

But Humanity is still Young. Our First Attempt at Civilization dates back only about 5000 years. Just imagine what a Civilization that a Race of Beings would have if they had a History of Civilization going back 50 Million Years!? I heard that the U.S. Naval Department had become the final Keepers of the Alien Survivors of the Roswell New Mexico Crash. Indeed, the Alien Civilization contacted Washington and arranged for a Swap – the Aliens took back the Survivors, who were just Technical Personnel and left behind a Staff of Ambassadors. They were asked about their Civilization and so they asked for writing materials and were given a Yellow Notebook – the big kind with loose leaf paper. It became known as the Yellow Book . Wouldn’t you like to read it. It has never been released. The only reason we know about it is because Government Workers may have Top Secret Clearances, but they Drink Like Fish and everyone talks when they get drunk. Apparently the Aliens’ highly successful Civilization that is 50 Million Years Old, is not based on Predatory Capitalism, and so it would be considered subversive. But, we need to Remember from all of That that a Working Civilization IS possible, when confronted by those who insist there will Always be Wars, Always be Poor… Always be everything that We, as Humanity, don’t have the Wish or Will to correct.

Dear Leo,

Thank you for your well-wishing. I am feeling much better.

Now, okay, I have decided to let you ‘win’ your Innate Goodness Argument, but only because it occurred to me that it quite fits with a pet Idea I have had for years, but I never thought about it in terms of “innate goodness”. My Notion is that the Universe is interpenetrated with an Enabling Lifeforce....Lifeforce Organization has created ever larger and more complex and ‘sentient’ creatures, but the Lifeforce also Works to impel Higher Levels of Organization within Species and even between Species....Basically what I am saying here is that the Lifeforce Predisposes Matter to Organize and Cooperate.

Haha! I feel like I have achieved a small victory! However, your thoughts bring a whole host of new ideas to the table. You have introduced something which intrigues me - your idea of the all encompassing "life force". Well, that perhaps is not too dissimilar to my own ideas. The idea that there is some force that is able to maintain and drive the organisation of ecosystems and of life as we know it - I would say I agree with this. There is the wonderful structure of ecosystems that are composed of multiple layers which somehow interact and support each other and are reliant on one another. Your example of the bees, and I could add to that the hierachy and colonies of ants, which somehow cooperate and communicate for survival, as though they have a collective mind. We do not consider them to be 'sentient' beings, yet they are able to coordinate with one another to achieve their collective goals. And then of course there are inter-species relationships as you pointed out. We could marvel at these all day! [Side note - I looked up "The Bees" song by Leann Womack and it seems to be about the story of someone who was abandoned by their mother as a child, was possibly beaten by their father, but eventually found happiness with a family. Very sad....]

My own thoughts may perhaps take what you have said a little further. If we are to look deeper, to zoom in with a magnifying microscope, we could look at the cellular structure of all living creatures. The tiny components of the cell, that each perform their own function, are all coordinated to perform the necessary functions to maintain life. Somehow these miniscule structures are able to continually function to sustain the being that is comprised of all of these cells - your cells are constantly respiring to produce energy, and so many different types of cells make up the human body. These cells certainly do not have brains, so how do they function? What drives them and how do they remain coordinated? We know how important proper cellular function is for good health - even the slightest unbalance can have dire consequences. So then if we look even deeper, and use a super magnifying microscope, we could reach the atomic scale. Here we find almost a completely different universe - people are still trying to understand the governing Physics of the atomic and sub-atomic levels (I also marvel at the intelligence of humans...). You may have learnt in Physics at school about the structure of atoms - the central nucleus tightly compacted, comprised of protons and neutrons, and then the orbiting electrons that remain at distinct energy levels around the nucleus. How on Earth do these structures remain coordinated? It is necessary for the electrons to remain in orbit, but what keeps them there? And it seems that every living thing, every substance in the entire universe, is made up of the same atomic particles. That I find absolutely incredible. The entire organistation and structure of the universe depends on the coordination of those particles. And just while we are playing around with perspectives, if we zoom out entirely and look at the mega scales, we see the coordination of solar systems and galaxies, but don't forget all of these are made up of the same atomic particles! Wow! I think this is where this "life force", as you call it, comes into play. It is constantly maintaining and coordinating the universe, since the beginning and till the end of time as we know it...

In Human Beings this Lifeforce would evince itself in our Psychology somehow. Here we have our Dreams...Now, this might tick you off, but even Religion may be part of this Organizational Lifeforce, in the sense that the primary Link we have to Religion is Psychological. At this point my Notions become a bit more Speculative. I know we each seem like isolated individuals, but I suspect that there may be something like a Collective Consciousness....Even God may be a manifestation of the Collective Consciousness. The More Moral and Cooperative Humanity Becomes, the Better God gets. The God who existed for Primitive Man was not the same God that existed for Saint Therese of Avila.

Don't worry, I am not ticked off by this at all! Let me just explain some of my views. Yes, I do think that religion plays a part in this "organisational life force", but it's more that the "life force" is there first of all, and then religion is just a manifestation of that "life force" that is made for humans to abide by - almost like guidelines for how we can be coordinated. You say that we do not appear to be civilised, even when we compare ourselves to bees - they are somehow so much more coordinated than us! Well, don't you think that's where a set of guidelines on how to live one's life could potentially be very useful? People just do what they want. All over the world everyone lives different ways. I mean, we can't help that in some ways, because that is just another part of the nature of humans, having diversity, even amongst families. But to follow the same rules and guidelines would surely help the world become more aligned. This takes me back to what I said before - if we were to get a set of guidelines from a trustworthy source, then it makes sense to follow those.

And now this is where we get to the big things! Yes, let us redefine this "life force" as God. The Creator. Your ideas are different to mine - by definition God is independent of everything in the universe. He created it, and He sustains it, but in no way does He rely on it. Therefore, whether or not humanity improves or changes, or whatever, this does not affect Him. But He is the one and only, the first and the last. This is how He is defined. So it is he that orchestrates the entire universe.

Now, to get to your ideas about dreams. All this time we have concentrated on the conscious level, where people make conscious decisions and act upon their logic and thought processes - except of course where we discussed the internal moral compass. But I find this very interesting. Your idea that we may all be connected by this "collective consciousness" such that we may even be able to have the same dreams. I am not sure about this. I can't say either way what I think, but it is an intriguing notion and your story of you and that friend of yours who had the same dream adds to the fun. Oh ho! I just had a thought. What if "Mr Powell" had the same dream as I did and maybe that is what prompted him to contact me?? Hahaha! That is just too funny. Anyway, I sort of always thought of dreaming as being an individual thing. Yes, people may have similar dreams, but usually because of being in the same situation - your friend may also have been the sort to get hungry and raid the University kitchen! When we sleep, something happens to us - our consciouness switches off and our souls leave our bodies and go places. I have just added a new thing to our discussion - the soul - I hope you don't mind. But that is what we are taught happens when we sleep. That brings me to another point I want to make. You say that you think we are connected to the "higher consciousness" through our psychology, but I would say we are linked spiritually. This is where the heart comes into it - the soul resides in the heart. I did not want to say this before for fear of encroaching on the rules and also because I was worried that I may "tick you off" (haha), but here we are. That is what I was trying to get at with regards to the moral compass - the soul has it's own consciousness, it is the essence of our being, but is not controlled by us, and it can know right from wrong. And just for interest - this is why I became a little interested in lucid dreaming - I wanted to try and control the soul while sleeping.

If you think about my notion, it may lead to a bit of pessimism. You see, MAN has been moving away from Morality, and so the Actual Existence of God in our Collective Consciousness may be growing dim. Now, about what you brought up, about WHAT exactly Moved the Persians, and their Legendary Zarathustra to their First Moral Insight? If Morality can come out of Nowhere, then maybe Morality can Resuscitate itself after a lapse... Without an Impellingly Emotional Collective Experience, the drive for egocentric self-interest and The Every Man for Himself Mentality will only get stronger and stronger and what we have of a Civilization will collapse.

I do not think this is pessimistic. It is just realistic. It's just what I said before - we must accept the nature of humans - people are always influenced by evil forces and tend towards evil. This perhaps relates to the advice you gave me - you tell the angry people they need to repent, learn and actively change themselves, and this is because they may make mistakes but people can always change if they make the conscious effort. Perhaps there also needs to be an internal effort - spiritual rather than psychological. We are taught to consider all aspects of ourselves - physical, mental and spiritual - everything is connected and any one of these can become unwell.

About Fátima in Portugal, I had to look that up. So it seems that a hundred years ago some children supposedly saw an angelic being that told them to worship and some miracles happened. Hmm, it is dangerous to start taking these stories - or should I say accounts - made by people as entirely real. We cannot confirm if they are true. Now I know you might say that we can say the same of any religion - how do we know the teachings are true and that holy books are real? Well, that can be proven by scrutinising the scriptures and usually what happens is the scriptures were accompanied by a prophet/messenger. Maybe that is what you are suggesting we need? A messenger who can come to guide the people. Well unfortunately I know that no new messengers are to come (even though some people claim things e.g. speaking to God...). Once again, people can rarely be trusted. But I suppose, at least the 'apparition' that the children saw had beneficial consequences for their society...

You know, realistically, our World has not yet had its First Civilization. You see, an Engine is supposed to run. You start up a motor and it purrs like a kitten, and puts out horsepower. A Civilization is ALSO supposed to Run, that is to Work Consistently and Coherently... But Humanity is still Young. Our First Attempt at Civilization dates back only about 5000 years. Just imagine what a Civilization that a Race of Beings would have if they had a History of Civilization going back 50 Million Years!? I heard that the U.S. Naval Department had become the final Keepers of the Alien Survivors of the Roswell New Mexico Crash.

I wonder what makes you think that civilisation needs to be consistent and coherent. Sure, we can see systems in nature that are beautifully coordinated, while our own way of living in our socities can often be so disjointed, and unfortunately rife with problems. But once again, is that not just the nature of humans? We are inherently chaotic in some ways and our tendencies towards evil leads to crime and war, etc. Therefore, we must just accept that nature and understand that our societies will never be perfect. Even in our short space of existence, relative to the age of the universe, humans are still a testament to creation (I may be a bit biased...) - we are sentient beings placed on this world. Ah, the Roswell stories - some people call these conspiracy theories and do not believe them. I do not know what to believe. What exactly is that all about I am not sure, and it seems the US government will never say. They will just allow rumours to spread. But aliens - other sentient beings - I do believe there are such 'others'. And yes they are thousands of years older than our species. But that is something that science has not yet proven, so to consider these things is seen as nothing more than science fiction, for now...

But, we need to Remember from all of That that a Working Civilization IS possible, when confronted by those who insist there will Always be Wars, Always be Poor… Always be everything that We, as Humanity, don’t have the Wish or Will to correct.

We are taught that there will always be hardship in this life. Whether it is to do with wars, poverty or loss of loved ones. We must just accept this. To improve our civilisations, I think people need to become much more selfless. Just as I said before, to give without expecting anything in return is a great characteristic. If people learn to help others as well as themselves - societies can develop into wonderful communities. Unfortunately few people stay true to noble traits and are very selfish. But the first step to bring about change is to change ourselves. We can only control ourselves, nothing else.

Well, I think we have gone much deeper with these last couple of posts. Certainly a lot to think about!

Dear Popcorn,

In regard to Leeann Womack's "The Bees" you need to realize that the Literal Plot Line in the Verses simply become a distraction if you take them Literally. To Understand "The Bees" you have to see it as a kind of a Quest or Odyssey, from a Life of the Most miserable and confused anguish and struggle, to a Fulfillment, a Contentment, a Peace and an Understanding. How? Look at the Chorus. What Could That Possibly Mean? Its about Bees. Bugs!? What do Bugs have to do with anything. But the Bees represent an Order. Every Bee has a Purpose, and all the Bees are Happy. They Sing their Song All Day. this is a Song about Somebody who Finds their Life Joy in Belonging and Serving. This is Not a Selfish Individual seeking happiness through Materialism. He Becomes Whole only as Part of a Family. "Little Feet on the Kitchen Floor". Now he is both Protected and Protector.

The "Bees" represent the Benevolent Lifeforce. Look at "But there's a light shinin' through the trees, And a restless hum that's calling me. I could almost be carried by the breeze And let it take me where it goes." We are here being told of some intangible but still ultimately compelling Inner Drive and Wise barely conscious Discernment. he does not know exactly where he is going -- into the Trees, the Forest, the Unknown -- but he Knows he has got to get there.

Also, I am an amateur Musician and have compiled the best Recorded songs of the Modern Era of the Mixed Popular Genre. "The Bees" is in the top 200. So I really Like that song. so you can guess that MUSICALLY the Song is ALSO very impressive. I play the songs on my List in order. I have widdled the List down to 230 Songs. When I hit that song, every month or so, I greatly enjoy it.

"The Bees"


I've been looking for a sweeter side
Looking for a big bloom on a short vine
Looking for a better way of life
Somewhere that I can call home

Spent my time at a peach stand
Sun beatin' like a stinging red tan
Like the back of my daddy's hand
The only thing I've ever known

[Chorus:]
I can hear the bees buzzin' through the walls
Making their honey and singing their song
They say I work for the queen all day
Yeah, I work for the queen all day
Ohhhh...
Ohhhh...

Sometimes it's a bitter taste
For a motherless child so out of place
I never understood why she ran away
Maybe I'll never know

But there's a light shinin' through the trees
And a restless hum that's calling me
I could almost be carried by the breeze
And let it take me where it goes

[Repeat Chorus]

Now I'm standing on the front porch
Kettle whistling through the screen door
Little footsteps on the kitchen floor
Pretty soon we're gonna eat

Some things come right away
Some seem to take forever and a day
All I know is that it worked out either way
I think I found a family

Hi Popcorn

You say Well, don't you think that's where a set of guidelines on how to live one's life could potentially be very useful? People just do what they want. All over the world everyone lives different ways. I mean, we can't help that in some ways, because that is just another part of the nature of humans, having diversity, even amongst families. But to follow the same rules and guidelines would surely help the world become more aligned.

You advocate Law, and Set Protocols to govern all Economic, Social, Political Behaviors. Isn't that what those Black Flag Terrorists want?

Apparently I have still not quite drummed into you the Distinction between Morality and the Law. Confucius in China had quite the Debate in his own time. he was a Moralist, and his opponents were the Legalists. In his Life Time Confucius lost the Battle and was relegated to the Sidelines. But who does History Remember.

In Ancient Times there were many Famous Law Givers. What happened to all those Laws? But the Morality of Zarathustra spread like a Non-Specific Contagion and served as a Moralizing Force on every then Existing Set of Laws and Religions, and those that would crop up in the Future.

Then you should read the Historian Arnold Toynbee. One of the Factors that contribute to a successful Civilization is its ability to be agile and responsive to New Challenges. Every Action and Institution of a Society is in response to a Particular Problem. But Problems Change. Society has to be able to be Flexible. Laws and Set Protocols prevent any Flexible Response. Look at America. They treat their Constitution like a Divinely Inspired Document, but it fixes their Political and Moral Development to the Mindset of the Mid-eighteenth Century. We can read in all the Papers how THAT is working out for them.

But you seem to be advocating More of the Same. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting better results.

About Spirituality

Yes, one can speak about Spirituality on the informal basis.

But until some Progress is made Anywhere on being able to Quantify Anything regarding Spirituality, it would be Intellectually safer to skirt around It. You see, in the Scientific World, where things are measured, Spirituality is an Empty Word.

In a Way, Spirituality is akin to Aesthetics. What Makes Something Beautiful? What makes something Good? Intangibles do not lend themselves very well at anything one may hope to speak of conclusively.

So I speak of Psychology, which is barely only a notch less intangible then Spirituality, but there have been Studies and Quantifications, and Data. that is what Spirituality needs in order to become Intellectually Respectable.

of course, I speak of Miracles. Some seem so well documented. Saint Joseph of Copertino was the Flying Saint. How Towns witnessed him flying about the tree tops. He was often seen levitating in the Cathedrals, which could be done on wires, BUT numerous witness accounts site that he would suddenly "shoot like an arrow" from one side of the Cathedral to the other. and the Witnesses, for the most part, were NOT Religious enthusiasts. They were the Nobility and we all know how Religious THEY are.

But Miracles have Scant support among Scientists. Of course the Modern Scientist has his Presuppositions and Orthodoxies. There was about a dozen years ago a Study done by Doctors of the Sterling Hospital in India of a man named Pralad Jani who had reportedly not eaten in 60 years. They confined him for a number of days and noticed that he indeed did not eat anything, and did vital measurement on him. He stayed at a continual level of good health. His energy levels did not decline. Somehow, they concluded, this Man was synthesizing essential nutrient from Somewhere. When the Sterling Hospital forwarded their Study for Peer Review, it was rejected out of hand On Scientific Principle -- that if Something Is Impossible, then it is Impossible. They assumed it was a Scam. They might have assumed the Same Thing about Photosynthesis in Plants who seem to Get Something from Nothing, until you figure out it is the Sunlight.

But anyway, Things Spiritual... we must be careful about resting any arguments on them.

You didn't read enough about Fatima.

Remember that there is a huge Secular and Anti-Catholic Sector out there that actively diminishes anything like Fatima.

Read about the October Apparition. 75,000 People Witnessed it. Not only did the Sun Dance in the Sky, but perhaps more importantly, it had rained all night. The Field was bogged down in mud. Cars were stuck and their tires were spinning. It was a mess. Then the Apparition appeared. It was only Happening over the space of Minutes. But when it was Over, everyone suddenly realized that all their Cloths were Dry. the Ground was Dry. the Cars weren't stuck. Yes, people seeing the Sun Dance in the Sky can be 'explained' as a Mass Hallucination, as though that 'explains' anything, but What Happened to All that Water? THAT is the Miracle of Fatima.

You need to read more than a twitter feed to understand Fatima.
A

Political Leaders are fine, but we are free to believe them or not. But Religious Prophets and Messengers are different. Why should we believe them? Because they tell us what we want to hear (as with paul)? But the Test of a True Prophet has always been in the Miraculous. Elisha had to prove himself by calling down Fire. We can see that Jesus didn't insist on people just taking his word for it.

And Everybody today Talks a Good Story. But Religion Needs to Demand More. If God Exists then He needs to do something to Back Up his People. Heck, even I talk a Good Story, but none of it matters, accept in the Realm of Intellectual Speculation. Until I can Call Down Fire, Walk on Water, or Fly above the Tree Tops, then it is all just a Good Story.

Dear Popcorn,

About your Pessimism and Urge to Isolation. I believe it is deplorable. You seem to be wasting yourself.

Think of Life as Battle Between Good and Evil. You know in Battles they Count the Deserters among the Dead. In France during the 100 Year War the detachment of Knights from Orleans approached the Battlefield of Pointers, and seeing that it was not going well for their fellows, turned around and went home. But it seems from the Historical Detail that the Battle was not then entirely Lost. If the Orleans Detachment had ridden hard into either of the Flanks, the Battle would have been turned in favor of the French. But, all those Knights from Orleans were safe and cozy and that seems to be what mattered to them.

But France was Shocked at this Betrayal and Cowardice among the Nobility who had always Justified their High Place and Privileges on the grounds that they Provided Protection. So France was plunged into a period of Peasant Revolts.

So do you see how this can compare to your Social Pessimism and Tendency to Self Protective Isolation. You Beliefs are all very coincidentally conducive to your Personal Comfort, aren't they. and Nero Fiddled while Rome Burned.

Dear Leo,

You advocate Law, and Set Protocols to govern all Economic, Social, Political Behaviors. Isn't that what those Black Flag Terrorists want? Apparently I have still not quite drummed into you the Distinction between Morality and the Law... One of the Factors that contribute to a successful Civilization is its ability to be agile and responsive to New Challenges... But you seem to be advocating More of the Same. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting better results.

I did not expect the topic of those "black flag terrorists" to come up. And I most certainly was not expecting to be likened to them. That hurts. Those terrorists I find absolutely despicable. They go about murdering people left, right and centre. They have formulated their own warped ideology which they somehow use in an attempt to justify their actions and cause trouble. This is where what I have said before makes sense - people have self-interests and can often be drawn towards evil, so they can take something pure and warp it to fit with their own ideas - therefore, we cannot trust the interpretations of people and must be very wary when we hear people's accounts of various 'miracles' or of a sudden 'divine inspiration'. I honestly hope that you do not think I sympathise with those people. Granted, I can see that you are just suggesting that they may also hold the view of having all encompassing laws. But let me just clarify that I do not agree with what they do, and I hope that we can rid the world of such vile people and their evil doing.

OK, now I have said that, I will go on to explain my viewpoint. I did think I was constantly making a distinction between laws and morality. I kept on saying that laws are set by the people - they are made up, written down and abided by with law enforcement. This is why I think they are subjective. On the other hand, morality I was suggesting should be objective. We discussed how it is difficult to define morality (whereas laws are pretty easily defined, just continually changing and can vary greatly in one place compared to another). But I was thinking that morality - this is the basics of right and wrong - would ideally be set with a collection of universal truths. This means that what we know as right and wrong could be accepted by all. And in order for this to be the case, it would be ideal if they were not made up by people - I cannot imagine how it would turn out if we asked the G20 to sit down and discuss this - but rather it is better for us to be instructed by the Creator. That is where I thought the topic of God enlightened our discussion. And this is where I kept on saying that humans have an innate sense of right or wrong, but lines can be blurred as people can ignore their conscience. Then perhaps once the morals that are universally accepted are established, laws can be made based on these to govern society. Is my distinction between laws and morailty more clear?

I can see why you say that in order for civilisation to be successful it must be responsive to new changes - and I don't disagree with this. Societies can develop and change, the way communities interact or are structured change, for example moving from isolated settlements to more communal living, and even the technologies used can change a society. Laws and rules concerning the governance of societies should change and they will change. There are several break throughs in science that lead to great debate and people were wary of pursuing them, for example the use of IVF, but laws were changed to include these as people gradually came to understand more. However, I do not think that morals and values should change - these should be universal and correct for all time. That is where we once again go back to God, because He is the only constant that we know - everything else has an appointed time. I think it is important to enjoin what is good, and yes that may mean advocating what people have advocated for thousands of years, but only because they provided us with wisdom for how to live good lives. You will never get the same results with any set of rules because, as we already mentioned, people are so diverse. But the aim is to try and achieve the best outcome for all of humanity.

You see, in the Scientific World, where things are measured, Spirituality is an Empty Word.

You are right. Talking about spirituality is just seen as mumbo jumbo in the scientific world, as nothing has yet been proven. It is all still too intangible. But I just brought it up because that is what I think - there is more than just the physical and mental, we cannot neglect the spiritual. But that is a matter of belief and some people ignore it altogether. Miracles too are very skeptically viewed, but I suppose with good reason. Science is about measuring and testing. One-off phenomena are hard to test, especially when they cannot be explained. But don't forget that people are often not reliable when it comes to these sorts of things. So OK, let us step away from the term spirituality.

You need to read more than a twitter feed to understand Fatima.

Well, it was actually a wikipedia page that I found... hehe. Anyway, I have read a bit more (found some 100 year commemoration website) and came across this statement made by someone:
"The sun, at one moment surrounded with scarlet flame, at another aureoled in yellow and deep purple, seemed to be in an exceedingly fast and whirling movement, at times appearing to be loosened from the sky and to be approaching the earth, strongly radiating heat."

Just seeing as we mentioned science, I hope you don't mind that I suggest a scientific explanation for this. Maybe it was a comet that was coming towards Earth but either shot around it or burned up in the atmosphere? It may have come from the direction of the sun which may be why it appeared to be the sun... Anyway, it's an interesting account of a mass observed miracle. I do not know what more I can say about it.

Political Leaders are fine, but we are free to believe them or not. But Religious Prophets and Messengers are different. Why should we believe them? Because they tell us what we want to hear (as with paul)? But the Test of a True Prophet has always been in the Miraculous... If God Exists then He needs to do something to Back Up his People. Heck, even I talk a Good Story, but none of it matters, accept in the Realm of Intellectual Speculation.

Well, in all honesty surely we are free to believe religious prophets and messengers or not, just as we are free to believe political leaders or not. You are right - the prophets all performed at least one miracle which proved their status. But just as I said before, we aren't going to have any new messengers. And I certainly don't think there will be any normal people performing any miracles anytime soon. But this is where I had hoped that us discussing the wondrous nature of the world was enought to prove something. You mentioned the seamless way ecosystems operate, from the birds to the bees, and I went on to talk about the way I marvel at how the entire universe is comprised of miniscule atomic particles all of which are constantly in action and all are perfectly coordinated to maintain the integral structure of the universe. Well, does that not make you wonder? I mean, it sure would be pretty cool to be able to fly, but there are limtations to what we can do - I will just have to be satisfied with flying in dreams. But birds can fly, and we marvel at them as they drift past, suspended in the air. Actually we can fly, with aeroplanes! Anyway, there is a lot to ponder over, and even if we do not look outwardly, perhaps that is where we turn instead to look inwardly, within ourselves...

About your Pessimism and Urge to Isolation. I believe it is deplorable. You seem to be wasting yourself... So do you see how this can compare to your Social Pessimism and Tendency to Self Protective Isolation. You Beliefs are all very coincidentally conducive to your Personal Comfort, aren't they.

Well, I have to admit, this was a bit of a slap in the face. All this time I have been talking about being selfless, about giving without expecting much in return and helping others. But you are saying that my suggestion and choice of isolation is selfish. I had to take a step back to consider what you said. I see where you are coming from. I agree that it can actually be very selfish to purport to taking the high horse with 'higher moral standards', whilst leaving everyone else in their 'lowliness'. I did not think of it this way until now. I mean, I never was suggesting to be 'better', as in, in a haughty or arrogant way. I was just saying that once one has established their values, it is better for one not to compromise those values. Therefore, avoidance of some situations/people may become necessary. But I do still support the idea that it is better for people to integrate and to demonstrate their values such that others may be able to learn from them - they do not need to preach or push their beliefs, simply live their beliefs (got this phrase from Richard, one of the other regulars on this forum..). But this is where individual preference and ability is very important. If one cannot stand up to others and is easily overcome by others, and this damages their values, then they would need to consider their position. I do whole-heartedly want to be a positive influence in my community - I never said that I wanted to become a hermit! But if you would kindly allow me to take the time to establish my values, and as I said, build up my self-confidence, then perhaps I would be at a stage that I can be more comfortable when dealing with others. I am naturally introverted, but don't get me wrong, I can speak to people and do outwardly practise my beliefs - as I said before, I am grateful that I live in a tolerant society with such a diverse range of people. I just need to develop myself - though I know as humans we may always be in a state of continual development and should always be seeking ways to improve ourselves. But thank you for the perspective. I will consider how I may be able to step out of my 'comfort zone' more often...