What really determines right from wrong?
In life, we are presumed to pay attention to what is true, to what is right. But too often, what we accept as true and right, isn’t true and right, its what is promoted as true and right, in the subversion of what IS true and right. Those collections of fictitious “rights and wrongs” are cultures of fictions (fiction cults), used by those who choose to thrive, via the exploitation of the good, by manipulation. These are the bad people. The aristocracy. And anyone who chooses to exploit rather than produce. Oh, and by the way, manipulation is violence.
“If the world had to rely on bad people being bad, in order to wreak havoc on society, then the world would be a better place. There are more good people than bad. Yet too many good people let themselves be led by bad people, amplifying the bad in life, against the good in life, bad winning 2 for 1.” —David Weeks (me)
Unfortunately, nearly everyone I know seems far too tolerant of letting people profit from bad character. Mostly lying (deceit) and failing by excuse (spin, which is strategic lying). Willful incompetence, also known as faking competence, to manipulate, many people profit from the codependent nature of willful incompetence. There is an entire book waiting to expose this, but this is not that book. Many people/organizations chose to build on the reliability of willful incompetence and are in turn, by that choice, bad people and organizations. And naivety is no excuse―they know what they are doing. They choose to ignore.
Those who choose to exploit willful incompetence need to know what is true and right, so that they can avoid doing them. Just as those who choose competence, use true and right as a guide to sustainability and perfection. Both choices need to pay attention to that which is true and right.
So, what then, is “true and right?” Correct? Real? The answer to that is easier and harder than we can appreciate. The answer is easier because we do not have to recognize or even acknowledge the answer, for it to work. We don’t even have a choice. The answer is harder too, because our ability to see and understand is woefully finite, where as reality is not. Reality is splendidly, empirically omnipresent—or ubiquitous, if you prefer.
Folding all those words: true, right, correct, et. al.—into a single word, that word is reality. And reality is God’s established creation. Whatever that means. The thing that I can understand about reality is this: reality is what it is, regardless of what I think it is, or want it to be. (The Second Rule of Irrefutable Understanding) Which means that I do not “know” reality; I only have an understanding of what is real based on my experiences, not on what I am told, not on what I believe. And that is the important part.
It is my experience and understanding, that “knowledge” is an emotion, not an understanding. This is important, because when you think yourself “knowledgeable” you feel correct. Even when you are not. Thus, knowledge is an emotion, not an understanding. And it is nothing more than that. “Knowledge” is vulnerable to your ego, and hardened against reality, because your ego wants to keep feeling powerful, even though your ego is not powerful, correct or effective. Understandings on the other hand, have built in caveats, in which the understanding is possibly incorrect, and certainly incomplete.
All “knowledge” is religious in behavior. Yes religious, so we’re going to talk about it. All people are religious by nature, running on their emotional certainty of “knowledge,” to do what they do, regardless of sanities, regardless of competence, regardless of experience. Often too, they just do what they want, and make stuff up later to justify their actions. Everyone is religious, because everyone has the emotion of knowledge. Never mind the label you put on it. I put the label of religion on the emotion of “knowledge.” We do not have to call our beliefs, our “knowledge” anything at all, yet we still have them. We still have our own religion.
Religion itself is a language construct (a dogma) treated as reality. A dogma of “knowledge.” It appeals to our insecurities, from our inability to see and understand. Because it fits into words we can see and believe we understand, we feel empowered by it, by its certainty. Dogma is especially useful as a means of hardening oneself from reality, from God.
(You’ll find rampant evidence as to how evil the practice of law is, when you consider its corruptive affect on the treatment of religious texts. Where as legal documents orient towards the “final word” on things, religious texts are mostly the start of things, not the “final word.” Yet people are trained to treat documentation, religious documentation not withstanding, as the limit, rather than the start, of things possible. Couple legal writings with the arbitrary nuisance of “procedure” and you’ve got a perfect environment of willful incompetence. Lawyers are actually experts in nothing. Legal doctrines are completely made up works of fiction. Legal doctrines and practices are not the Law, never have been, never will be. God makes law, not people.)
If you find yourself conflicted by your experiences, your experiences are not to blame, it is your religion. Bad things happen, and they are bad things, but they do not conflict with reality; they do conflict with religion. Because we’ve chosen to treat religion (our dogma of “knowledge”) as real, we’ve built and lived with a ridiculous set of expectations, that reality itself has no part in fulfilling. Rather than question our religion, we ascribe blame to God, to reality. Which is absurd.
(By the way, religion is not faith, religion is the antithesis of faith. Faith is trusting God and God’s created reality, beyond our ability to see and understand. That’s what makes faith spiritual, and religion man made. Religions are about the confidence of “knowing.” Faith is about the spiritual practice of trusting in God, beyond our ability to see and understand, beyond our emotion of “knowledge.” Thats a big difference, and a very big deal.)
Tragedies happen, they are supposed to happen. I do not like them, but they do not conflict me. “How could `God’ let that happen?” Uh, your false `God’ of your religion might not let it happen, but that `God’ is a figment of your imagination. We are mortal creatures, death brings us here, and takes us away. Dying is completely normal. That’s reality. That’s God. I do not think there is even anything particularly bad about it. I am exactly what God made me to be, and I’m glad to be me. I’m grateful just to still be a part of God’s creation, and I trust dying too. Love it in fact. Made by God, being here, I love God, even though I am only temporary.
Religion is NOT reality, it is what people say reality is, as if we can say what reality is—we cannot. Essentially, it is what we want to be true, like magic. Religion is always useful politically. Atheist are among the most religious of all. Progressives are an extreme example of this foolishness. (I’d compare progressivism to Nazism, Communism, and the Minions of Hell, but I get really tired of the subsequent apologies, and I really dislike apologizing to Nazism, Communism, and the Minions of Hell. If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything, so I do not.) Regardless of label (or libel LMAO!), all religions fail in the same way.
All religions are limited to our ability to put into the severe constraints of language, the limits of what we can see and understand. Reality, God, is so much more than the limits of our ability to see and understand, further restricted by the severe constraints of language. So much so that we do not begin to fathom the difference. Nothing in language is real. Language is not reality. Reality is not language. The “word” is meaningless, other than to put us onto considerations about reality, that have to be followed up with action, which at best end up being understandings that may be coincidental to reality. Belief without out works (experience) is just a belief. A crazy assumption. As in so what? Unless you practice your religion, you’re not even interested in God. Within that practice, never lose hold of the fact that we still do not really “know” and have to proceed on faith, that scariness beyond our ability to see and understand. This is entirely different from a dogmatic (decided), delusional, political emotion of belief, also know as “knowledge.” And for all my legitimate criticism of religion, I acknowledge that it is what we have. Religion is not bad, so long as we do not mistake if for God. It is embarrassing (tragic) to suggest you actually “know.” So long as you take religion as the start of things, not the finish of things, you should be OK.
Whew…
Let’s take “understanding” further. I prefer “experience and understanding” to just “understanding” because “understanding” without experience is just an idea. And we have lots of those. Lots of happy fictions. Stories. But for real-life ideas, we sanity check them with action, and pay attention to what happens. If we are learning, we adjust our idea(s) accordingly, from the experience of trying them. For some though, this is where we fall down. When we don’t like what our experience suggests about our idea(s), we can choose to reject the experience. We can choose to avoid those experiences. We can choose to adopt a lie, becoming a “high energy” protector of that fiction. When we choose not to learn, we are then at odds with reality, at odds with God, and will NOT survive. The question then becomes: “how many people are you going to hurt on your way out?”
So what is the arbiter of correctness? Having folded the idea of correctness into the word reality, we look at the means of determining and adhering (loyalty) to reality. Remember, reality is what it is, regardless of what we think it is, or want it to be. We do not alter reality, so this really is a one-sided endeavor, on us. And this determination and adherence has to be within our ability to see and understand, or what’s the point? So, what is the arbiter of reality? Competence, as evident by sustainable success and failure. Simple competence, actually, is the arbiter of correctness. Simple competence gives us the means of determining and adhering to reality. (Fancy competence is oxymoronic.)
Simple competence is the arbiter of correctness. How can we determine if this is true? Unavoidably circular, ask: “does it work?” Can we use the concept of simple competence to determine and adhere to reality? Whatever the endeavor, there are an enormous assortment of variables involved in every endeavors’ occurrence. More than we can see and understand, which scares us. All the same, we do stuff, the results of which does or does not accomplish what we meant to do. Simple competence repeats what works as needed, and adjusts (learns) when it does not, as suggested by the results. The permutations of which we cannot foresee. Simple competence does not require, nor expect, that you “know everything” before acting. Only that you know what it is you are trying to do, and will be able to tell when you have done it. The focus of these two criteria all by themselves go far in furthering our ability to get things done. We waste less time wondering, spend more time doing, and in doing, learn.
Simple competence is a very liberating embrace of life. Rather than hesitating because we do not yet “understand everything,” we go with the understanding we have, being very very clear about what we are trying to accomplish. And then see what happens. This is research and development at its finest. We should use it all the time. We progress from a vague possibility to a sustainable accomplishment, through the perseverance of action as guided by prior experience. We get it done.
None of that works, by the way, if you are unwilling to learn, and/or choose to exploit rather than produce. When you are unwilling to learn, you’ll never accomplish anything, except by blind coincidental luck. Which is not sustainable, nor adaptable. If you really are trying to do stuff, productively, and hesitate in learning, then the first lesson you need to learn is to never hesitate in learning. There is no “bad news.” Its all a means of getting better. Sometimes you’ll even think you’re wrong, and be wrong about being wrong, actually being right in the first place. You’ll find out. Building experience and understanding.
I’ve learned most of this because I’ve lived both sides now. I’ve tried living without learning, holding onto my own personal fiction cult. That’s normal human behavior, default human behavior if you will. My ego was happy; I was not. I know what it is to be threatened by truth, because deep down I knew I was wrong about stuff. There’s a cliché for that: mea culpa (meā culpā). Its a cliché for a reason, it is utterly common to us all. I’ve chosen to live truthfully now, embracing rigorous honestly as a way of life. And I’ve never been happier!
All said and done, simple competence, as in something is or is not working, is the arbiter of correctness. So far as you find the need to be “correct” this perspective will let you “know” when you are correct. In time, you’ll even lose the need to be “correct” and just pay attention to what you are doing, why you are doing it, and for whom. You’ll prefer finding things that can be improved, and make them better, to being “correct.” The realm of art and mastery.
Regarding loyalty, which is our determination and adherence, I suggest only one loyalty: competence. Be loyal to competence, and nothing else. Competence is the arbiter of correct. Do not fear being right or wrong, fear not learning from each and everything.
I close with this observation. There are two things I’ve learned about God’s will for me. First, God only wants me to do the things I am capable of doing. So I do not concern myself with things I cannot do. Second, God wants me to actually do those things that God wants me to do. God wants me to be simply competent. So my focus is on what I am doing, which is derived from what I am trying to do. I derive life fulfilling satisfaction from living according to these understandings. No regrets.
Now that you see, now you can choose. This will help if you let it.
David Weeks, Information Developer, Tampa, Florida.