Recalibrating Reason
Evil: it is a term that essentially means nothing. Just as good essentially means nothing. Both are entirely determinate upon the sign system and mythology that a person ascribes to. Government gives us a way to calibrate an understanding of evil through laws. Religion uses moralism and its very self to distinguish between an “evil” and a “good” (this is possibly one of the worst forms of understanding anything, self-referential reason is by logical deduction a fallacy). Economics distinguishes “evil” as a lack of money and “good” the acquisition of money.
One thing that all of these systems share is that one must adopt the shared base assumptions of these different ways of thinking in order to see the “good” and “evil” they demarcate. Unfortunately, they provide no support for their base assumptions, they are simply there and must exist as truth. Since very few people have taken the time to analyze their base assumptions, let’s take some time and do so together.
Government’s first and foremost base assumption is that a centralized power structure needs to exist in order for people to live. Honestly, that is the assumption. Anyone who has read about aboriginal people, lived with a small group of people sharing a space for a long period of time, or simply worked on a group project in school, sees that there does not need to be a center source of authority. As a matter of fact, humanity is so fallible, it is best not to invest any individual with much power at all. If anyone is to be given power, it should be those who constantly strive for the truth.
Plato made this same argument in the dialogue Republic. He also was astute in his observation that the political atmosphere will say those who are obsessed with truth are “useless and star gazing ideologists.” As Plato points out, this makes it impossible for those who would be any good at ruling to become rulers. We see this in the current political climate where politicians are expected to spend 6-8 hours of the day dialing for funds. This is not something that makes any sense to a person obsessed with truth and its acquisition, but rather one obsessed with power and money. As a student, I was perplexed by this conundrum. I thought that it meant that the governmental system itself needed to be altered, but the truth is that it proves the futility of government in and of itself.
To put this in a succinct way: government, in any iteration, will eventually end up degraded and run by money and the power hungry. Government itself is the fault. Now this does not argue for some violent form of anarchy, just the fact that humans must rule themselves in small societies that are in communication with each other. Realizing a diverse small settlement (such as the Farm we propose) will have a greater impact on people to recognize each other as unique humans and yet all important to one another. This is in direct opposition to large conglomerate governments that run on greed and the idea that some people know better what to do than others.
Anyway, all of that is to say that the base assumption that power needs to be realized behind the creation of laws (or political distinctions of “evil” and “good”) are false base assumptions. There is no absolute need for centralized government. In fact, a centralized power will become corrupted, and so the more correct base assumption would be to avoid any concentration of power at all costs.
Religious base assumptions are various, but, as long as it exists as religion rather than faith, then the central base assumption is that God can only be known and communicated through a construction. The reason why religions argue so much between each other is because they all believe that God must be constructed and disseminated through a central authority, and they are the correct authority. A faith without religion can make space for differing faiths and understandings or even refusals of God. But if God is essentially a religious entity that requires the truth of His/Her existence to be understood and disseminated from a central power, then there can exist only one truth and understanding.
The strange thing about this religious base assumption is that most religions (especially monotheistic religions) argue that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. The very idea of this level of Infinite Being requires that the being be essentially unknowable by a human mind that is trapped within the understandings of a finite linear existence. If this being is essentially unknowable, it would be impossible to communicate this God. Religion is all about communicating a single unified understanding of God, and the even claim this God to be infinite. But we just proved that an infinite God is unknowable by a finite being. Religion collapses upon its own base assumptions. This is not to say there is no space for faith. An infinite God can and should be understood in infinite ways. Unfortunately, this infinite idea of God produces an issue for religion, because then all faith is ultimately correct. There can be no single way to understand an “evil” or a “good” from within the religious understanding, because religion itself is a concept that falls apart with its own purported knowing of an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God.
So, government has no right to distinguish an “evil” or a “good,” neither does religion, now we are left to look at the economic understandings of the functioning of life. Economy and money are essentially a figment of the imagination. They have no purpose to anything. Somehow, we have assigned value to bits of information (not even a paper symbol now), and allow those bits of information to be given to us to represent our time spent doing something for some other individual or business, and then use those bits of information to purchase actual goods that took other people time to make and took our Earth resources to create. Economy and the creation of a monetary system is solely a way to distance ourselves from the amount of damage we do to the Earth. That is—in essence—its function. If we were to work the soil ourselves and craft things for ourselves, we would begin to realize how many resources are needed just to put a computer together and how much Earth needs to be torn up or dug through in order to get the materials in the first place. It is itself the biggest lie, and so cannot have any true base assumptions to pull from in order to create an understanding of “evil” or of “good.”
All this reasoning is just to point out the fact that we must remove ourselves from all our programmed sign-systems in order to evaluate the world with any sense of truth. I did this exercise to the extreme for a few years, living with the base assumption that there was essentially nothing. This allows one to craft whatever reality one wishes to live in, but it is an incorrect way of living as well.
While as far as consciousness and quantum theory is concerned, there is in fact no material world, we do experience a material reality. This material reality is not dependent on quantum theory, but rather on the existence of life. Life on this Earth is dependent upon the Earth and the Sun. If we as conscious beings who are clearly not something that is restricted to this existence treat this place as something disposable, we laugh in the face of life. From this perspective we can begin to craft a greater moralism, a better understanding of what is right and what is wrong.
Since all of the life on this planet is dependent on the Earth, to do anything against the Earth is to end life. To upset the natural balances existent on this Earth is to be invasive. Since a greater consciousness has no fear of death—because consciousness realizes itself as not being bound by physical form—it puts concern for the personal life last.
The first concern becomes the center and producer of life: Earth. After that we recognize the growth of life comes through having a diversity of species. This leads to the second base concern being the maintaining of the natural diversification of speciation. Since consciousness within the mortal human sphere is increased when a greater number of ideas are heard and shared, along with different ways of living, the next concern after the Earth and speciation is others. Once again, we arrive at the last concern: the self.
This is not some religion, this is not even a faith, it is in no way an economic structure or form of political philosophy. What I am proposing is just pure reasoning, something any human is capable of, just by using his or her own faculties. It starts with touching something, or looking at something, or smelling something, or tasting something and realizing that a sensation was experienced. After that you just consider: what allowed for that sensation to be experienced? It was some part of the body. What keeps that body alive and functioning? Well, that would be food, water, sunlight, we could even add movement (or exercise). What provides access to food and water, and then allows just enough sunlight to energize the body but not to kill it? What provides the space to move through and exercise in? The answer to both these questions is the Earth beneath one’s feet. How was the world able to create this wide expanse of life that includes yourself and that provides food, sustenance, and beauty for you to consume? It came about through it being allowed to work and operate according to its own natural devices.
Anything that acts against these natural devices is acting against the power that brought you and everything around you to life. If you believe that life is a gift, is miraculous, is enjoyable, is profound, is unique, is enchanting, is beautiful, or is in any way positive, then to act against it is to be the negative. True reason ends up constructing all thought and action into a simple order of consideration: First the Earth, Second diverse life, Third others of the species, Finally the self. Anything that acts outside of this order of consideration is not necessarily evil, but it is against natural reason, and essentially against life.
There is a simpler filter to use as well, and I mention it all the time: Love. You know when you feel it (and I don’t mean the romantic love), it is that feeling that there exists a natural order and a natural beauty, and that if it is allowed to function without interference, then things will be alright. When that Love and acceptance of all life is interfered with it we feel it, or rather, we don’t feel it. We stop feeling when we act against this order of Love. It is only through this state of not feeling that we could have ever arrived at the shit show that we see in Western culture. We are self-absorbed, anthropocentric thinkers that have torn the earth to shreds, destroyed our fellow inhabitants, and polluted our air and water. We are destroying the center of life- our own planet.
Do not be dismayed, Mother Earth will always bring order back. But to do so, She might just have to shake us off. But even that is okay, for we are consciousness, and we will exist regardless of the mortal state.
