Saturday, 2 August 2014

Principle of the Logical Exclusion (PLE, Level 18)







Every human being will breach the law at some stage in their life: Sooner or later, for whatever reason, everyone will.




It might be a husband who has to take the wife to the hospital to give birth speeding in a 30 Km/h zone; it might be a person who is originally from overseas parking at the wrong spot or passing the tunnel without the e-tag device in their car and it might still be something else.




It might be that people like us say: I am completely righteous, I never do the wrong thing, morally speaking.




That however would have to be a lie.

 


First of all, using the word never when we are humans is already a bit too much, and other people have said that.




We have, for instance, the so famous sentence never say never, which has been first uttered by Charles Dickens according to never say never




Suppose all that we think existed for our rights, like institutions or people, seems to be attacking our rights instead of protecting them.




We are then living in complete chaos.




It may as well be Rio de Janeiro (Rio).




Someone violates our sleep at night and brainwashes us with some messages.




One of them says that our computer will be stolen but we will receive another later on, which will appear close to our leg at the bus station.




We have tried every authority we knew to save ourselves from crime and get justice.




Now we are stuck with the marginals’ system.




We then try to cut a deal with them and throw our last possible coin on it.




We ourselves suggest something that involves our computer being stolen and us getting another, which will appear close to our leg. 



Still, because the people who were attacking our IT were originally from a certain place in the world, we say that the computer would come from one of them (born in that particular place).




Now, time passes and the story is all verified.




Our computer was stolen and there we are with the other computer close to our leg in the bus station.




We are now severely troubled and miserable in all senses, since everyone seems to be attacking instead of helping.




If we pick this computer, we may still be a honest person, but a honest person who is applying the Australian principle of equity, that is, a parallel legal system, informal.




Now however we have breached the law and we are possibly morally wrong, since that computer may have been stolen from the person who had the imagined nationality, so that the legitimate owner is as victim as we are.




We have obviously done something reasonable when we picked this computer, since we were made believe that the laws and systems for protection of rights were over and we were then left with the story created by our aggressors, which seems to be an OK agreement for us, since there is nothing else we can hang on to.




We have however breached the law and disappointed everyone else in terms of morality, since an innocent person has been harmed.




The harm is not intentional, and that we do have in our favor.




That is one of the so many situations in which a person who utters I am absolutely righteous could actually be lying.




It is actually impossible to find a human being who has never been wrong both morally and legally.




A mother who had an emergency and left little kids at home on their own is wrong morally and legally.




Those kids could cast fire on the house and die there, for instance.




She may never have intended.




It may be the case that someone else is having a heart attack and she rushed to save their life.




It is still a good person and God will probably help her, so that the kids will probably be all right when she comes back.




Even so, she is morally and legally wrong and she is a potential assassin, despite her so virtuous actions towards the victim of the heart attack.




This way, not only we cannot ever say we always do right, but we will all unavoidably commit crime sooner or later in our lives.




It would then be accurate saying that crime happens in a random manner, not always intended, and may come from anywhere and anyone. Actually, also at any time.




Because of that, it is irrational trusting anyone on earth unconditionally, but anyone in general, so that that includes authorities for law and order everywhere on earth.




We should always, absolutely always, be prepared to be attacked instead of served, regardless of the Country, the culture or the people involved.




If crime is random and everyone will commit some sooner or later, then it could be that the day that a particular cop commits crime is the day on which he is serving us, and it could still all coincide, so that he attacks us criminally, but it is his first time ever doing that.




We are interpreting for someone and, all of a sudden, we notice that we are not working as usual: Something seems wrong.




Perhaps we will never stop to think about it, but, if we do, we will probably find reasons of the type I needed the help of the police, they did not serve me and they still seem to have attacked



Unconsciously, we form some sort of paradigm that will lead to us not serving the police that well because of that incident.




This is not intentional, and it is also not rational. 



It is possible to control that, sublimate our feelings, and still perform OK, once we notice all.




It is just not something we can avoid until we realize that we are doing that.




Freud talked a lot about the slips of the tongue (slips), things like a person starting a talk at a scientific conference, not really willing to give it, and instead of saying I am now starting saying I am now finishing.




These are things that we cannot control, which come quite unconsciously to us. They are actions that can be observed and they may harm others badly.




We are not bad people because we have done that, but we may be morally and even legally wrong as we do that.




This possibility, together with natural consequences of alcohol or drug use, and actually also together with hypnosis shows, tell us that nobody can be trusted.




A person may be criminally drugged by another, for instance.




Suppose we have a person who is bound by the principles of confidentiality at work, so say they are a nurse, a psychologist or a cop.




They then go to a pub to try to find a date.




There, someone of the other gender spots them and thinks that they are an easy victim.




They then approach with a friendly smile and drink with them.




At a certain height of the conversation, they get them distracted enough to drop some drug into their wine or beer.




This drug is a truth serum (sodium).




Now the marginal will have access to all that professional had access to because of their professional privileges.




This marginal may destroy the world with that information.




And now?




Is this professional an evil person?




Are they guilty?




The person who does that to them may actually be an acquaintance, another cop, nurse or psychologist, like someone they trust deeply, perhaps a partner.




Because of the corruption of the other, and perhaps because of drugs that come even inside of their water, they may end up disclosing all and that disclosure may lead to anything else.




And now?




Are they guilty?




Even if we are sure that a professional is ethical and super compliant, we cannot guarantee that confidentiality will be respected because of things like that.




What if they are bugged, as another possibility, like bugged without knowing?




We can therefore never trust anyone else completely. 




We cannot trust the laws and systems in place either, for, first of all, they may all change from day to night. Besides, systems and laws are all as abstract as Mathematics, and therefore excellent for the paper but really poor when it comes to applying them to real life.




People who call themselves good people have obviously been brainwashed to believe that there is good and bad and that one thing opposes the other frontally.




Were it Mathematics, we would call that Classical Logic. Were it Philosophy, we would call that Cartesian Thinking.




God Himself is both good and bad.




In the Old Testament, God punishes people for about twenty years in a row for a small disobedience, say they consulted the deceased when they were told not to do that.




Punishments would have to be bad things for at least those receiving them by the time they are receiving them: As much as a good person would like to say that they feel great being punished, it is obviously a painful thing, and therefore a bad thing for them that they got punished and that the punishment does exist.




It might be a good thing for human kind in general, for their spiritual life, and things like that, but is still a bad thing in some respect.




It is not wrong splitting the world and everyone between good and bad, and that actually saves lives, but it is a bad thing to keep on saying that they/someone are/is good people/a good person.




It is not so much because of them being good, but it is because we are brainwashing ourselves with the notion of good and bad as if those were universal notions, and therefore believed or felt by everyone else or at least by the majority of the others we deal with.




Good and bad people, like those who say that they are good or bad, would probably have been raised in a Catholic environment with sayings of the type God doesn’t like it.




Saying that is per se blasphemy, as we know.




Unless God had told us personally that He didn’t like something or we had seen the situation in some report that we believed came from a true prophet, we would run the risk of being to the side of sin when saying that.




When we evaluate something in terms of humanity, we have to look at the consequences for human life of what is happening.




The consequences of applying the Cartesian Thinking to life are catastrophic because as soon as we classify someone as good, we are going to trust that person unconditionally.




The problem is not so much to the side of the bad, as incredible as it may seem, but to the side of the good.




Nobody can be trusted unconditionally, not even God, for God said that He only helps and loves us if we do what He wants. 




First of all, how can we possibly know if we are doing what God wants or not?




We may know all about The Bible, even by heart, and even so suffer some deprivation of memory, senses or whatever and do something that we should not be doing.




What now?




Are we sinning?




What if we did not have a choice?




Did God support Galileu when he said that he did not say what he said to escape death penalty during Inquisition Times (Galileu and the Inquisition)?




If we think that being alive in the shape of human is good, then God did support Galileu, is it not?




Galileu can then lie and God supports him at least when he does that to save his life.




Perhaps it is just because he did not mention the name of God (it is actually possible that he did use the word God when denying all)?




From a humanitarian perspective, it is best that we assume that everyone else is bad instead of good if we are to split the world into good and bad, since we are then prepared to deal with whatever and we are also best protected against evil actions.




The Sergeant is training people for a war.




He then brainwashes all soldiers with obeying him blindly.




What he is doing is demoniac, and is really, like really, evil.




However, we change contexts, we add, and everything changes with that. See: The people who this Sergeant is preparing his soldiers to defend in a war is the chosen people, God’s people.




They are perpetuated because the Sergeant won the war.




All the Sergeant has done is extremely bad, including the deaths that he caused. This from a humanitarian perspective.




Is this Sergeant good or bad?




In The Empire, we need to revert all brainwashing that we can revert, so that stopping what we could call Cartesian Optimistic Thinking (COT) is part of that: Everyone is bad and may hurt us.


Rather than protecting ourselves by classifying people as bad or good, we must have a strategy.




Life in human society is a war: We fight against everyone else for a job, money, comfort, and a multitude of other items.




In principle, nobody is here to help or serve us.




We must then not waste resources, just like in a war, since we all know that it suffices a wrong move and we lose the game of chess, which is pretty much based on war.




The only way to really get the best of this world and our human existence is always having a strategy, like never ever moving without having a clear objective and strategy in mind, if possible.




When we look for a partner, we are probably looking for a few items as well, say companionship, clean sex, and extreme loyalty (gang-type loyalty: Whatever we do should be unconditionally supported by our partner  if it involves others).




When we go out to chase therefore, say we go to a pub or a party at night, we’d better have that list in our minds and a strategy to eliminate waste of resources, that is, investment in candidates to partners that cannot possibly satisfy those conditions.




Assume we then know part of what we want and that is what we have just mentioned.




We are now at a bar with our possible candidate to partner.




We feel sick and vomit.




We now think we need to go home.




Suppose this candidate turns to us and says that they are having a good time instead and do not want to go home when we insist that we cannot stay. They then say go home yourself and I will stay here for longer.




This candidate is obviously not our partner, like they cannot occupy this position, for they have failed badly on the item companionship.




Now we drop them and find another. 


We must not go back and we must not try to change them.




If they regret at their own initiative and say that they should have done things differently and etc., then we may reconsider.




It is not that humans cannot be changed: We can actually change them by means of conditioning, for instance. It all depends on allowances and moral principles.




In Islamism, they can lock women, after marrying them, against their will, like the husband may never let the wife go out.




If we are the only provider they know, then we can change them into whatever we like using conditioning, just like we do with the dogs.




Because they only get food, for instance, if we give, then they will have to do what we want to get it: That is conditioning.




Conditioning, however, is not a morally acceptable procedure, since at least one of the human beings involved is not being treated as a human being: They are suffering violation of human rights.




The Empire does not support any relationship that be not of the type egalitarian for humans.




This way, we do not think of changing the candidate to partner in what we want; we abandon them and try to find another candidate.




They may ask for our help to change and may voluntarily decide to change. 



In this case, we can try.




The Empire defends that: 




  1)     There is no universal good;
  2)     There might be universal bad/evil;
  3)     Nobody should be trusted in an unconditional manner;   
   4)     If we act, we should have a clear objective and a good strategy not to waste resources. This at all times and for everything;
5)     If we like the Cartesian System of Thinking (CST), we should keep in mind that everyone on earth is bad/evil, that is, that nobody is good, not even we;
6)   We should never say that we are good or that we are bad. We should at most say that we try to act in coherence with our declared moral values;
 7)     Life in this world, amongst humans, is a war and, to win this war, we have to learn how to put objectives and strategies together. We also have to learn how to implement those;
 8)    The game of chess is a strategy game, which may help us learn how to put winning strategies together;
 9)   Sentences involving God are really dangerous and all care with using them may not be enough;
10)    Everything in human life is context-dependent and as such should be judged;
11)    Every single one of us will, sooner or later, breach the law and be to the wrong side of the story in terms of morality. It is simply inhuman not to do it; 
12)    Only God is perfect in terms of morality and compliance because, first of all, He is not human;
13)    Every relationship amongst human beings should be egalitarian in all that it can be; and
14)    There should be no help given before the person asks to be forgiven for the wrong doings and to be helped by us. We also should not force them to anything.












No comments:

Post a Comment