Morality

I have heard many times that non-theists are left with a hollow, existentialist "Nausea," a meaninglessness and a resulting amorality. In other words, just because we do not believe in God as such, we have no reason to "behave." Anyone who's studied these sorts of things at all knows the non-theist's answer: It is better to be motivated to do good out of love and mutual respect, than to do good out of fear. And this is true.

But I wanted to go a little deeper than that, and explain why faith is negative and also explain a much better alternative. In so doing, though, I have discovered there is so much to write that this practically warrants its own book. In this blog I'll attempt to keep it as straightforward as possible; but there's a lot going on here, so be kind.

Part One: Assumptions and Definitions

Any time an argument is made, there are assumptions made. In addition to statements ("all philosophers are human"), we also assume we are speaking about the same things (we assume we all agree on what a 'human' is and what a 'philosopher' is). If two people discussing an argument have different definitions of 'human' and 'philosopher,' they will find it extremely difficult to have a productive discussion - it's like they are speaking two different languages!

I bring that up because this "treatise" rests upon assumptions of definitions that will surely be argued. I cannot spend an "adequate" amount of time defending these assumptions, because some do not wish to be convinced; and for this type of person nothing is "adequate." I will give what I believe is a sufficient defense.

The first assumption made is about the opposite natures of faith and reason. There are generally three approaches to this "pair": First, that faith and reason are incompatible because our reason is finite whereas faith "transcends" reason; second, that faith and reason are incompatible because faith is absurd; and third, that faith and reason are perfectly compatible because the one picks up where the other leaves off.

My first assumption (about the opposite natures of faith and reason) rests upon another assumption: the natures of knowledge, certainty, and human experience.

Knowledge, Certainty, and Human Experience

Let's begin with what is inherent. None of us can escape the human experience. This is undeniable.

Human beings experience everything through our brains. Everything we experience takes place there. When you stub your toe, the experience of pain takes place in the brain. Even when you see something happen to another person, you experience the event in your brain. Even when something mystical or spiritual happens, our brains process the experience and interpret it for us, telling us what the experience was and what it meant.

But we discover early on that our brains often deceive us. Do you remember when you were a child and you thought the earth was flat and the sky was round? Or when you discovered optical illusions? Obviously, what we experience - based on what we perceive - is not sufficient for "proof" and "knowledge," for we are liable to be deceived.

Thus, instead of trusting our faulty perceptions, we begin poking and prodding our world, trying to test our perceptions against reality. If the earth is flat and the sky is a lid - as we see it - then eventually we must be able to approach and touch the edge of the "lid." So we test the perception and find that it is not actual. That's really what we call science in a nutshell: discovering what is actual, whether or not it fits with our perceptions. If we have an idea (theory) about how something works, we understand what consequences must necessarily follow. Science tests these ideas to see if they are true or if there is something we are missing.

Another way we "poke and prod" in our process of coming to understand is through logic. Logic takes two or more actuals, and just like math, discovers what consequences must necessarily follow. For instance:

1. Smaller, less dense objects with weaker gravitational pull can orbit larger, denser objects (but not vice-versa).

2. The sun is much larger, with greater gravitational pull, than the earth.

3. Therefore, the earth may orbit the sun, but the sun may not orbit the earth.

So - what does all this tell us about the human experience, certainty, and knowledge?

First, it tells us that everything - even science - falls under the realm of human experience; even objective science that contradicts our subjective experiences is still perceived. Human experience is finite, and our understanding is thus bound to the finite.

Second, we may claim certainty on indisputable logic. IF 2 and IF 1, then 3. Period. Logic, like math, is indisputable if not flawed. But still, this is not "knowledge."

Third, what about knowledge? Certainty is hardly the same thing as knowledge; "knowledge" means we are certain of what is actual. But we do not encounter the actual; we encounter our brain's interpretation of the actual; we encounter our perceptions. IF our perceptions are accurate, then we know our valid logical conclusions are true. So - knowledge depends on our perceptions being true. We cannot claim knowledge, then, except where we prove our claims through indisputable logic.

Faith and Reason

Now that we've got that out of the way, what about faith and reason? Here again are the possibilities:

1. Faith and Reason are compatible, because Faith leaves off where Reason ends, and vice-versa.

2. Reason is inferior to Faith, because it is limited.

3. Faith is inferior to Reason, because Faith is absurd.

Well - do you remember how I said we need to define terms? We need to know exactly what we mean by faith. There are many definitions and even claims that faith transcends definition. I think most people would agree that if an idea is undefined, it is useless to discuss.

At any rate, common to all definitions of faith (that I have heard, anyway) is an idea of trust - a certainty that does not necessarily base itself in Reason but in a sort of "Appeal to Authority" argument, which is decidedly ANTI-LOGICAL (for the definition of Appeal to Authority, click here: http://www.appealtoauthority.info/ ). A claim is subject to testing if it is logical and reasonable. That's "reason-able." Faith claims are not "reason-able," and nowhere connected to Reason. So we can easily see that Faith and Reason are not compatible. And thus we can cross #1 off the list.

What about #2 - is Reason inferior to Faith? Does Faith transcend Reason? This one is simple. Both Reason and Faith, like everything else, fall under the Human Experience. Reason can be tested - that's the difference. That means Reason is more reliable - that's "rely-able"; more capable of producing certainty. Faith, then, is a claim and nothing more. Reason, on the other hand, is a claim and a proof. There is no way for Reason to be inferior!

And #3 - is faith absurd? If it is "reason-able" to trust the Authority, then faith is not absurd. But is there a way to test that the Authority is actually "rely-able"? Unless the Authority is proven to be reliable (rely-able) then the faith is baseless, yes! If the authority is not trustworthy, the trust - the faith - is absurd. Even the mystical and the "sublime" fall under the inescapable auspices of the Human Experience, and the Human Experience can be deceived!

_________

And so, with much uncovered, I conclude bluntly that knowledge is impossible except where logic is indisputable; that Certainty is permissible where our claims function as true, and that Faith is absurd except where the Authority is certain.

A Better Way

It should be no surprise that, as far back as history goes, we see religionists - God-followers - come and go, each time leaving the earth a little more scarred and hurting. This goes against the conventional "wisdom" a bit - shouldn't God-followers be peaceful and moral above all else? What's going on here?


Each group has claimed Certainty - even Knowledge - on topics they were not actually certain of. If one possesses knowledge, it becomes unnecessary for him to tolerate other ideas (if one can identify truth, he can identify lies; and if one can identify lies, shouldn't he reject them?).


The problem is, without a clear understanding of what it means to be "certain," and what it means to "know," people can and do get their perceptions mixed up with what is actual. When this happens to more than one person or group, you will have two parties rejecting each other. It doesn't take too much imagination to see that spiraling out of control into full-fledged religions, or dogmas, or parties, or gangs, who feel they are justified (even obligated) to impose "the truth" on the rest of the world, for its own good!


And of course, when they meet an equally dogmatic group, you get Crusades and Jihads.


A "need" for Certainty will lead to intellectual dishonesty (if you want answers badly enough, you'll compromise your standards for what constitutes an answer). Then, once you have your faux Certainty, you'll have an arrogant spirit about it - rejecting all other possibilities without any good reason. Then, that arrogance will lead to division and warfare. And this is where the world stands.


But if you insist on staying intellectually honest, you will quickly realize you have no knowledge at all. This will give you an open mind and a universal posture of doubt. Arrogance of belief is all but impossible if your mind is open and skeptically curious. The more people abandon their dogmas and embrace skeptical curiosity, common sense says, the better they'll get along together - discovering, thinking, prodding, exploring.


Skeptical curiosity is where technology and discovery come from, while faux Certainty blocks these things (the "Dark Ages" and Renaissance periods are excellent examples of exactly what I'm talking about).


But, Religionists will say, Intellect is only part of the equation. We also have a soul and (as Teddy Roosevelt would say) "To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society."


But is this really true? I propose that to educate a man in mind is to educate him in morals.

Part Two: Energy Trips

What is an Energy Trip?

When we are born, we behave the way our DNA has ordained we should. Our motives are straightforward and simple. We care only for ourselves, and this is only natural.

We soon learn the value of lying: exaggerating to get attention, denying our crimes to avoid negative consequences, and the like. We now know two pathways to reward; still, our motives are straightforward and simple. We care only for ourselves, and this is only natural.

With language and early childhood, we begin to understand conflicting interests. Stealing a cookie, for example: we want to enjoy A (the cookie), but avoid B (a spanking). Or sharing a toy: We want to enjoy X (the company of another kid who likes your toy); we want to enjoy Y (the rewards that accompany "doing the right thing" and "sharing"); and we want to enjoy Z (playing with the toy yourself). The way we act is the result of a cost-benefit analysis - a sophisticated procedure we are mostly unaware of at the time. Our motives are no longer all straightforward or simple, though, whether or now we're aware of this to any significant degree.

We continue adding data and complexity to our motives, adding layers upon layers of conflict. In relationships, especailly, these unacknowledged conflicts begin to become evident. Behaving in a jealous way, for instance, is the interesction of love and selfishness (to put these words quite crudely for the point of illustration). It is here we find our energies "tripping on themselves." Jealousy is complex, a mixture of opposing forces; these types of collisions create turmoil and confusion on either a conscious or subconscious level. Imagine the feelings stirred when you were jealous - were these feelings not confusing?

So then, if temporary jealousy causes confusion temporarily, it is apparent that long-term jealousy would cause long-term confusion. But we humans seem to be able to tolerate bad living conditions, whether it be physically or mentally - people "get used to it." So there are people walking around confused in their subconscious minds, never realizing where their hesitations, inhibitions, cowardices, and indecisions are coming from.

It is important, as the Buddha said, to "know well what leads you forward and what holds you back."

Jealousy, of course, is not the only "energy trip." There is also angst over choosing a career; decisions can be anguishing when important. There are social energy trips and sexual energy trips, ethical energy trips and emotional energy trips. These kinks are your own.

If your energy is fighting itself, it is not moving you forward. 

If we look at every thing in our lives which is causing us pain and confusion, we can eventually track down the conflicting emotions, the "energy trips," that cause the pain and confusion. This seems simple enough, but it is not easy.

Aligning our energies can be very uncomfortable. It requires self-confrontation and a brutal honesty we are usually too embarassed to live with. "Knowing thyself" requires courage, clearly-defined language, and a great whopping deal of self-acceptance. 

Courage is the first step; next let's look at language.

What is the Relationship Between Language and Energy Trips?

The importance of clear language is readily apparent when you consider what happens to a conversation when a concept is equivocated, creating a conceptual/mental "energy trip." As a matter of fact, equivocation in one form or another occurs every time there is an energy trip.

What is an equivocation? It is defined as "the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)." It is using a concept two different ways in the same argument - for instance: "Margarine is better than nothing; nothing is better than butter; therefore, margarine is better than butter." In this example, "Nothing" has been equivocated. Think about it.

Consider, for example, the argument put forth by proponents of "factory farms." The attempted justification for the wholesale torture, imprisonment, and slaughter of these animals is that "they are animals" - that is, they are not conscious in the way human beings are conscious, that they are unable to suffer in any meaningful way. Anyone who has managed to convince himself of this is dreadfully misinformed, or - more likely - has equivocated the concepts of "consciousness" and "suffering" (a double-standard in the use of the term, as we usually view pet abuse and dogfighting as "exploitive" and "suffering").

A better illustration of conceptual energy trips is the word "know." A certainty which rarely actually exists is often imagined as a result of a misuse of this word; many people claim to know, and believe they know, things deduction is unable to tell us. They tell us that "there is definitely a cosmological First Cause" (inductive logic) or "I am certain that the Koran is God's Word" (this is not 'certainty.')  When we insist that we "know" something there is no proof for, IN THE SAME WAY that we know that we "know" that 2+2=4 or that we "know" we exist, we have just "stretched" and cheapened the concept of knowledge; and we have allowed for hugely damaging heuristics! The problem is that equivocating "knowledge" can throw certainties into question and often throws uncertainties into the "fact" category.

Conceptual straightforwardness and clearly-defined language are critical to "knowing thyself." If you want to talk about things you know, for instance, you should have a singular, strict definition of what you actually mean by the word "know." The mind's understanding of the world around it can often be hampered when we limit our understanding to not what we perceive but what we DEFINE. In other words, LABELING something or someone ("oh, he is just a liberal") can take away from our ability to actually understand  that person, thing, or idea. This phenomenon, in which a system/object is replaced by an oversimplified CONCEPT of the object, we will refer to as HEURISTICS. 

Heuristic language hampers our understanding, not only of concepts apart from us, but also of our actual selves. It leads us to view our perceptions as actual reality and also to limit our range of perception to that which has already been defined. It draws boundaries where there are none and simplifies ideas that are not simple. It "pixellates," in other words, a world with no pixels.

If you want to "know yourself," you must understand where your identifiable self ends. It's the biggest part of knowing yourself. Using Heuristics on "yourself" will necessarily make your effort impossible, as well as lead to a very confused life!

It might be the right thing to do, but viewing the world without the heuristic language filter raises far more questions than it answers. It is important to not eliminate heuristics entirely - for this would be akin to abandoning the left brain. Our brain naturally interprets and simplifies (hence optical illusions). While you don't want pixels, you also don't want an indecipherable smear! The important thing is to examine and reject faulty heuristics, thus freeing your perception to perceive and understand the world according to your own capability rather than your dictionary.

This is also not to say definition has no value. Quite the opposite - it is to say that it is our understanding of concepts, at the Definitional level, that causes disagreements in most cases. A Capitalist's definition of Capitalism is generally an oversimplified, generalized one that does not take into account the system's flaws; a Communist's definition of Capitalism is an oversimplified, generalized one that does not take into account its benefits. If both sides held the same definition of Capitalsm, in all likelihood the disagreement would dissipate (is an idealist one that does not fully understand his idea?).

Therefore this is not a call to do away with strict defintions - just the opposite. It is a call to make them stricter!

And, at the same time, shedding the heuristic shackles on our understanding does raise more questions than it answers. It is good - not bad - to recognize our utter lack of definitive knowledge. It allows our understanding to be SUPPLEMENTED when we do not refuse alterations of our definitions. Pride and ignorance shield us from understanding; shield us from humility, clarity, and peace.

To make a long story short, the way we talk about things determines our understanding (or lack of understanding); and our lack of understanding breeds discord.

How Does Bad Language Interfere with "Knowing Thyself?"

How does heuristic language affect our ability to "Know Thyself?" It allows us to reinterpret our motive energies, our trepidations, and our qualities.

-TREPIDATIONS:

Our trepidations can easily be "heuristicized" into "good behavior." Cowardice becomes peacefulness, meekness, and piety. Hesitation becomes thoughtfulness; silence becomes golden. Nietzsche spoke about this phenomenon and named it "ressentiment." He speaks of the lowest rung of people who reinterpret morality to fit their undertrodden state:

    "The slave revolt in morality begins when the ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of those beings who are prevented     from a genuine reaction, that is, something active, and who compensate for that with a merely imaginary vengeance. While all noble morality grows out of a triumphant affirmation of one’s own self, slave morality from the start says “No” to what is “outside,” “other,” to “a not itself.” And this “No” is its creative act. This transformation of the glance which confers value—this necessary projection towards what is outer instead of back onto itself—that is inherent in ressentiment. In     order to arise, slave morality always requires first an opposing world, a world outside itself. Psychologically speaking, it needs external stimuli in order to act at all—its action is basically reaction. ...the lambs are upset about the great predatory birds is not a strange thing, and the fact that they snatch away small lambs provides no reason for holding anything against these large birds of prey. And if the lambs say among themselves, “These predatory birds are evil, and whoever is least like a predatory bird, especially anyone who is like its opposite, a lamb— shouldn’t that animal be good?” there is nothing to find fault with in this setting up of an ideal, except for the fact that the birds of prey might look down on them with a little mockery and perhaps say to themselves, “We are not at all annoyed with these good lambs. We even love them. Nothing is tastier than a tender lamb.” To demand from strength that it does not express itself as strength, that it does not consist of a will to overpower, a will to throw down, a will to rule, a thirst for enemies and opposition and triumph, is just as unreasonable as to demand from weakness that it express itself as strength." - Nietzsche, On The Genaeology of Morality

Religion and popular morality is full of examples of this backwardness. In the Bible, Jesus speaks of the last being first and the first being last; he speaks of the meek and mild and submissive as becoming rulers in an afterlife. The underdog, in other words, is automatically the "good guy," and the good guy will win in the end by bearing the abuse.

What a powerful argument to keep the oppressors in power, while satisfying the victims!

Religious groups love to view themselves as oppressed. From terrorist Muslims in Palestine to Bible-Belt Christians in America, every idealist seems to be galvanized by the idea that he is being oppressed. This is a call to Negative Motives (inaction, destruction, or saying "no") rather than Positive Motives (creation, or saying "yes"). 

"I will never attend an anti-war rally; if you have a peace rally, invite me." - Mother Teresa

It's everywhere! Consider campaign ads. They are almost entirely "No-Saying." Consider the concept of righteousness - it is about "saying no" to sin. Is it any wonder that most of what we do is done for fear of not doing it? Consider American music of the 1960s compared to American music of the 2000s. Is it any wonder that modern music is lacking creativity and positivity? We are saying no and we are rejecting the Yang - instead of saying yes and embracing the Yin.

-MOTIVE ENERGIES

Similar to the "ressentiment" of our trepidations, our motive energies - in this case, the ones that cause us to do rather than not do - are often heuristicized as well.

When we do a friend a favor, or treat people kindly, is it because we want that person to feel good feelings, or is it because their good feelings will bring us good feelings of our own? Or is it because being kind makes us look good and feel appreciated?

We tend to justify our actions after the fact rather than before the fact. We tend to imagine our motives have been upright. We do not wish to be seen as "selfish," so we present ourselves to others as selfless. Then we begin to believe that "being selfish" is terrible, and soon we are presenting our selves, to ourselves, as selfless. This is ludicrous, delusional, and sick.

Better to admit that any motives you have to do ("Positive Motives") come from - who else? - your self. And will your self give a motive that does not benefit that self? Of course not! So, all our motives are "selfish." Believing you have achieved altruism, then, is a sign not of piety or generosity but of complete fantasy. 

-CHARACTERISTICS

It is imperative not only to define things correctly, but to know what characteristics to ascribe to the thing itself and which characteristics come from our perception of the thing (there is a difference between accurate description and accurate definition).

Subjective descriptions arise only when there is an action; objective adjectives describe only nouns. It's true - think about it! "Hot" and "Cold," "Loud and "Soft" are obviously subjective descriptors and one would think that they apply to the object. In fact, the way many languages are constructed, they do apply to the object. But this is another example of language being misleading. You are perceiving the relative heat and volume and judging it on your own gradient. Thus it is not the thing itself that is hot or loud; in reality you are describing your act of judging the experience! You are not saying that the thing itself IS hot; you are describing your judgment. The thing is not "hot"; for, relatively speaking, a very hot rock could be very cold lava, the same as very cold water can be very hot ice. All is relative; the thing is hot to you. This might seem like it's splitting hairs, but it's important to remember that our interpretation of a thing does not constitute part of its essence; and there are serious ramifications for thinking otherwise.

Think about it. Everything we experience comes through the filter of our senses; everything we experience we interpret; and our interpretation does not constitute part of the object's essence.

Thus essence is not an illusion but an unattainable. An object may have an "essence," but ultimately that essence is unknowable. All we have is our interpretation.

Here is one very fundamental leading heuristic: that of our characteristics. A common, central argument in Christianity is that we are essentially "bad":

    "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound / that saved a wretch like me"
    "There is none righteous, no not one."
    "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked."

The worst subjective attribute to assign to yourself, or another person, is Good and Bad. PEOPLE are not good or bad; their actions are. Think about it-  there is no person who affects you either for good or for bad who does so by simply existing. It is their actions that affect you for good or bad; in the same way a car can be used as a transport or a weapon, a person is a neutral force. Good and bad are thus subjective judgments of action, not objective attributes of an object/person.

So Why Should I Care?

Every time you hold two opposing energies or ideas simultaneously, you have an energy trip. We've seen that equivocation is an energy trip; jealousy is greed fighting with love; inhibition is desire fighting with fear. Whenever we want to do something and do not do it, it is because another energy has overcome our desire. We let these things happen; submission is a choice.

Why do we go to our jobs? Is there a real motive, or has it become a routine - an act with no real motive, like a husk without a seed? Do we instead insist on declaring a motive that is no longer actually a motive (say, to make ends meet)? When we desire to do away with a bad situation and strive for something better, but end up staying with what we have -- what energy is winning?

Nobody desires mediocrity, yet many of us end up mediocre. Why is this? Is it not because we refuse to go after our desires, and instead settle? When security fights ambition, what energy do we choose? Identifying the areas of our lives in which we are disappointed will lead us to identify the energies tripping over each other. We can then "know well what leads you forward and what holds you back," and then choose between the two. The decision is your own - only be true to yourself. 

Have a Self-Meeting. List your desires - even the ones that are contrary to convention and/or the law. List the things you "know you can't have," the dreams you've abandoned, the goals you have in life. Identify your energy trips and choose between the two energies. Make a conscious decision on what you do and do not want. Then you will be able to choose your path. Becoming self-aware is the most important step of becoming enlightened about everything else - for if you do not understand yourself, how will you understand your place in the world?

Energy trips in your motive energies can be defeated by identifying them. Once you are aware of your feuding energies, you are forced to make a decision between them. "Know well what leads you forward and what holds you back." If you have defined your goals, and you know how to get there, well, "Knowing is half the battle." The hard part is "Remembering" these things while making decisions. Practice CONSCIOUS decision-making. This is exactly the goal of Zen.

Practicing Zen is difficult, especially at first but always. Eliminating Energy Trips, though, requires constant attention as we are so accustomed to the "Autopilot." Energy Trips like jealousy and hesitation can be smoothed out by simplifying our motive energies - but to simplify we must understand our motive energies; and to understand them we must pay constant attention to them.

So much of ourselves remains hidden, even from our own selves, because of covention. Shining the light of introspection on our deepest selves can be frightening and very uncomfortable, as we found out when we had our Self Meeting. We listed our desires - even the ones that are contrary to convention/law. We listed things we "know we can't have," the dreams we've abandoned, the goals we have in life.

We probably found some things that would defy society in some way, or at least things that are, for whatever reason, "out of reach." Accompanying these are "Plan B" compromises that, in the real world, you substitute for your actual desires. 

Obviously there is a "Why" factor here. Perhaps you want to be a rock star but instead went into accounting because it is a more reliable way of supporting yourself. Perhaps you have homosexual urges but do not act on them because you value your social circle's opinion of you.

Analyze your compromises and the reasons for them. Choose whether to keep, modify, or eliminate your compromises based on the reasons (Maybe you could stay in accounting but also start a band --?). YOU know YOU best. Write it down.

This is liberating and empowering, but it is no good if you don't follow through. Again, practice CONSCIOUS decision-making!

Part 3: The False God

There are good types of guilt and fear:

-Guilt for breaking the "Golden Rule"

-Fear coming from existential threats; reasonable assumptions of danger

-Fear of consequences for our actions/crimes

And there are bad types of guilt and fear. These come from energy trips. Hypochondria, for example, is IRrational, i.e. works against your brain. This is an energy trip because your imagination is fighting your intellect. Bad guilt also comes from energy trips - feeling guilt for your desires is a fight between your desire for acceptance and your real desire.

This might be the hardest part of the "Program." Acknowledge - list - your guilts and fears. See if they are "good" guilts/fears or if they are Energy Trips.

There is a good way for dealing with good guilt/fear. If you are dealing with good guilt, you can make things right. Do not ignore good guilt - this is spiritually heavy and can drag you down further and further. And if you are dealing with good fear, you can practice conscious decision-making about how best to approach your fear. Basically, be honest with these things to yourself, and the answers you've buried will rise to the surface. You already have the answers you're looking for.

There is also a bad way of dealing with good guilt/fear.  This is Avoidance. There are two types of Avoidances: Nihilist and Externalization.

Nihilism "helps" you avoid and ignore and "bury" your guilts/fears by convincing you your guilts and fears are invalid, that morality is a completely relative construction, that in effect you've done nothing wrong and/or have nothing to fear. Feelings happen for a reason. Don't pretend your feelings don't or shouldn't exist. Deal honestly with yourself!

Externalization happens in its most recognizable form with "transference." You've seen it before - a selfish or slutty person is the quickest to notice someone else's selfish or slutty behavior. This is defensive, Avoidist behavior.

Now - have you noticed that the tendency for Religious people is to focus on apologizing to God for their sins rather than on improving themselves? If they thought deeply about their "sin" and its source, rather than praying about it, couldn't they figure out where it was coming from and address it?

This self-knowledge, this awareness of sin, this conscience, this punisher, is God. We create this stern Master to hold us to our ideals, because if there were no Master, there would be nothing to hide from, no place to hide from ourselves. Our sins make us hide, create a God to hide from. Fear and guilt create a Judge. 

When we come face to face with our "sins," feel they are insurmountable, and are frustrated by them, we become unable to face ourselves. We stop holding inner dialogue - pitting our own selves against our own selves. We may even get to the point where we hate our own reflection. This negative, self-defeating energy is so wrapped up with our identity, though, that it begins to look a lot like schizophrenia. One half of us loathes the other half - a Judge Persona versus a Selfish Self.

We cannot perpetually face this Judge persona, so we distance that Judge by externalizing it. Separating the Judge Persona from ourselves removes the unpleasantness of judging ourselves. Something, or somebody else, is doing the judging. Guilt/fear is therefore MUCH easier to deal with - our guilt and fear are personified in an EXTERNAL Judge. So our guilt and fear is no longer "inside" us, where it is unbearable to face. "God" is our Judge Persona, externalized.

Placating this imaginary, external Judge takes the place of making peace with ourselves! This is the False God.

Sacrifice takes the place of our guilt; Hell takes the place of good fear; and most importantly, making peace with "God" takes the place of making peace with ourselves; worship replaces change! It also makes any chance for real change much more difficult to attain, since our Judge is external, "He" is beyond our comprehension, and the standards are unattainable.

Look at history and you will see the pattern shows this to be true. Again and again the same story repeats itself throughout many different mythologies: A deity is born miraculously, gathers disciples, is executed to cleanse us of our sins, resurrects, and leaves. Horus, Mithra, Dionysus, Attis, and Jesus are only a few instances of this story. In all cases our faults are not fixed but forgiven; our debts are not paid but forgiven; our problems are not fixed but forgiven. Even in the most secret meetings of the world's most powerful men, at the Bohemian Groves, they cast their cares/problems on a giant wooden edifice and burn it in a ritual called the "Cremation of Care."

Cremation of Care

Dionysus crucified

Horus crucified

Jesus crucified

                 

Have you ever considered why, in the "vicarious atonement" paradigm, God had to send the Son to earth in the form of a human and count on human beings to execute him? If the Father was sacrificing the Son, why all the extra steps in between, and why not at the hands of the "Sacrificer?" 

This is the secret of the Bohemian Groves, and of Christianity, and every other morbid conspiracy that seeks to keep us spiritually powerless. God dies, again and again and again, for eternity. God exists to keep us from realizing our own power. We surrender our self-determination, our powers, our ability to become whole, to "Him" by giving "Him" the responsibility of making us whole. Then we kill "Him" again and again and again. If this is how we behave and believe, we cannot be rid of Him until we have no conscience. 

Our cares, our sins, our sadness, our despairs, our guilt -- who wouldn't want to cremate them, to crucify them, to wipe them away? This is the Cremation of Care, the destruction of God, the sunset, the winter equinox. The anti-gods keep God here for you. The Judas figure, the Romans, are necessary.

We've externalized our negatives by creating God, so God could take our sins away from us. But once our negatives are aligned with our positives, we have destroyed all sin and we have destroyed the false God.

Man is anguish. God and Satan are simply energies tripping over each other. Neither one is straightforward: one is "good" but "plain;" the other is "bad" but "exotic." This is our conflict, our yin/yang, our confusion, our soul in turmoil.

God is called Mercy, but He is Guilt. We create "Him" out of our guilt and we call Him Mercy. This is a false edifice, a monument to our own self-hatred. We are slaves to this false edifice, this False God; and what we created, we created to keep ourselves in the dark. God is powerful. Break free.

How the False God is Destroyed

First, the most important thing is to practice Self-Acceptance. All of us have done things we regret, and many of us have a hard time forgiving ourselves. This is why the False God is created in the first place. If it is self-rejection that created the False God, it stands to reason that self-acceptance will help destroy the False God.

But how is it possible, once we've come face to face with our faults and sins, to come to peace with ourselves?

When trying to find purpose and peace, it can be very hard for your Judge Persona to accept the Selfish Self. After all, the Judge reasons, how can the Selfish Self find meaning and live in harmony with other Selfish Selves? Shouldn't the Self be transcended, defeated? 

We must accept what human nature is. We have already seen that altruism is absurd... but what does that mean? It means that our motive energies, originated by our Selves, exist only in the Self's mind and ultimately are designed only to serve the Self. Many of us try for some reason, but obviously none of us can escape our own Selves. The Self cannot be transcended or defeated by the Self. It's obviously impossible. We are inescapably selfish (that's self-ish). Even if we tried to somehow "thwart" our selves, it would be to gain the satisfaction for our selves. It doesn't work.

So then, there is no escaping the flawed, selfish, imperfect Self. It is an indispensable element of the problem; best to accept facts and move forward rather than fight to eliminate something that can't be eliminated.

But what about generosity, peace, and all the other personal virtues that make a society function? Are we left with the LaVeyan Satanist philosophy that says simply, "do unto others as they do unto you?" 

Not if we apply enlightenment to our selfishness!

Before the founding of America, a philosopher named John Stewart Mill, as well as several others such as Jeremy Bentham, proposed an ethical system they called "utilitarianism." As an ethical/moral framework there are some problems, but in explaining the origins of laws and codes of conduct it provides a great service; it is a common-sense answer to those who say morality is impossible without a God. This is not to say, of course, that there is no God; only that there need not be one in order for mankind to come up with a system of morals.

It's simple when you think about it. It is not possible to sustain an Anarchy for very long; for with no rules, the strongest and smartest can bully and tyrannize the weaker people and soon there will be a tyranny instead of an anarchy. Men can steal each other's property, rape, and kill their way to satisfaction. This might be good for the strongest ones; but even they will inevitably have to start fearing retribution. If you've beaten up your neighbor to steal his food and rape his wife, several days later you are probably fearing that your neighbor will pay you back in kind. You have trouble sleeping, wondering who will be jarring you out of your sleep to bring you your just due.

It wouldn't take that much time living in these conditions to recognize that something needs to change - would it? Even the strongest would agree to a code of laws after a while without them - they might not have the lives of tyrant monarchs, but at the same time they would not have to fear for their very lives. It is probable that most people would rather choose a life of predictable, peaceful security than a life of short-lived power, suspicion, greed, and hatred. Rational thought dictates that a code of conduct be agreed upon and followed as law.

Is this rationality somehow altruistic, or is it still selfish? Yes, it may be done for the greater good - but even to the strongest, this idea of a code of conduct is beneficial. Thus a code of conduct, or a social contract, is a selfish idea. It's just that it is a selfishness that values stability and peace over material possession and power. It is a more enlightened selfishness.

What about the Golden Rule? It doesn't take too much thought to see the selfish basis of that "Rule" with this idea of "Selfishness" in mind. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" - inherent in the idea is the thought that your behavior will be rewarded in kind. And this is true. Angry, contentious people lead lives of anger and contention. Greedy, suspicious people reap what they sow. Loving, warm people get respect, love, and warmth. Once you realize that karma and the Law of Attraction are real and powerful, you will naturally begin to put out positive, loving energies with the very rational, selfish, expectation to get them back. Living by the Golden Rule is an even more enlightened selfishness.

The more enlightened your Selfish Self becomes, the more it will seek its rewards through karma, instead of through direct action. The more enlightened you get, the more sophisticated, eloquent, and simple your goals become. You will seek harmony and simplicity instead of recognition and grandiloquence. Simply put, being at peace and at one with nature is the most selfish thing possible, because it brings the most satisfaction possible. As the Tao says:

    "Those who know do not talk.

    Those who talk do not know.

    Keep your mouth closed.

    Guard your senses.

    Temper your sharpness.

    Simplify your problems.

    Mask your brightness.

    Be at one with the dust of the Earth.

    This is primal union.

    He who has achieved this state

    Is unconcerned with friends and enemies,

    With good and harm, with honor and disgrace.

    This therefore is the highest state of man."

There is a Selfishness that manifests itself with the pursuit of great riches and the admiration of the Shallow; a Selfishness that revels in Accomplishment. Then there is a Selfishness that manifests itself in the pursuit of harmony, with "primal union," with the admiration and respect that accompany quietude and wisdom instead of advertisement. Shallow Selfishness is rewarded when the Self is proclaimed; Enlightened Selfishness is rewarded when the Self is at peace.

One might ask at this juncture, "Well, what is the point of Enlightenment? If all is objectively meaningless, what reason do you have to value this 'Enlightenment' Selfishness that cannot bring the same epicurean, hedonistic rewards that accompany Accomplishment?

And this is a fair question. Why this Harmony instead of Accomplishment? The answer is that it is not necessary or even possible for everyone to be what the Tao calls a Sage. There are different personalities, different value systems, different elements to existence. Nature is full of domination and submission, actives and passives. There is a war class among animals, and nature does not function without violence and upheaval. One path enters into the upheaval and politics of life; the other path transcends it. This too is Yin and Yang. Perhaps your personality seeks adventure; who can argue with hot blood? All that is necessary is that you understand the choice and choose your path consciously, always practicing conscious decision-making.Wisdom will help you on whatever path you walk. And even those that choose the "hot-blooded" option will be well-advised to remember that what one puts into the universe, he will get back. Malevolence is still the least effective path to satisfaction.

Dealing With the Release

An important element of "Killing the False God" is Dealing with the Release. The emotional reaction to doing this is powerful; and, handled the wrong way, can lead to intense depression and irrational fears. 

One disturbing trend is something you have probably either noticed in others or yourself. Often when people are asked why they believe something or do not believe something else, they will mention an emotional reason - they want to believe in X, because it gives them hope; or, conversely, they don't want to believe in Y, because it would make them feel unhappy and empty. 

"I believe that there is nothing lovelier, deeper, more sympathetic, more rational, more manly and more perfect than the Savior;...If anyone could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth, and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not the truth." - Fyodor Dostoyevsky

People very often say they believe in God because there would be no "meaning of life" without one, that there would be "no point." But how is this different from using drugs as an escape? Belief should be attracted to what is true, not what is pleasing. If you can't accept this, you might as well believe in Santa Claus!

Still, dealing with the "death" of Santa Claus is nothing compared to dealing with the "death" of God. When you learned Santa Claus was a lie, you were probably sad that a certain magic and mystery was debunked, sad that the world became that much more mundane and un-magical. God, on the other hand, provides comfort, escape from dealing with your faults, and the very "point of existence." With God pulled out from underneath you, nothing comes between you and the cold, infinite, meaningless, unforgiving void. There is nobody forgiving your sins, no point, and ultimately no "hope." If you were to base your beliefs on what is pleasing, certainly you would believe in God!

But you don't base what you believe on what you want to believe. Think about it. You are probably unable to "re-believe" in Santa Claus. Why? Because while it's whimsical and fun to believe, you probably understand that the story is scientifically and mathematically impossible. It is not "reason-able" or "rely-able." You could try to believe in it, but if you were honest with yourself you would find it quite impossible. You might want to believe that your child is incorruptible and perfect; you might even operate as if it's true. But deep down, you will have to admit you don't actually believe it. You can fight the evidence and create an Energy Trip and bury your belief so deeply that you begin to believe it; but in so doing you've made yourself sick!

In fact, belief is not a matter of will. If you've allowed your will to sway what you think you believe, you've equivocated Belief and twisted your brain like a pretzel, creating a heavy and self-sustaining Energy Trip that is so huge it will seem earth-shattering to break it. No - "believing" is just what your mind does when presented with data. You believe in gravity and have no choice in the matter. If you've seen your child doing drugs, you won't be able to continue to believe he doesn't do drugs. You have no choice. If you see the results of a pregnancy test and the results are verified several times, you will have no healthy way to believe the opposite of the results.

So - when someone says they believe in something because it would leave them with no hope if it were not true, what they are really saying is that they are unwilling to even consider data to the contrary. That means they are unwilling to consider the results of the pregnancy test. They are saying their beliefs are unalterable and operate independently of evidence. They are deceiving themselves; they think that what they want to believe is what they actually believe. They are victims of their own lies.

But fixing this energy trip can seemingly cause more problems than it fixes! Again, with God pulled out from underneath you, nothing comes between you and the cold, infinite, meaningless, unforgiving void. There is nobody forgiving your sins, no point, and ultimately no "hope." What are you to do with this "forlornness?" The following is an excerpt from Sartre's essay, "Existentialism is a Humanism." I apply the term Existentialism here because in reality this entire philosophy is an Existentialist one; that is, one that believes that things do not have value (essence) in and of themselves, but that the values (essences) are human interpretations (as we saw with Hot and Cold, Loud and Soft, etc).

When we speak of forlornness... we mean only that God does not exist and that we have to face all the consequences of this. The existentialist is strongly opposed to a certain kind of secular ethics which would like to abolish God with the least possible expense. About 1880, some French teachers tried to set up a secular ethics which went something like this: God is a useless and costly hypothesis; we are discarding it; but, meanwhile, in order for there to be an ethics, a society, a civilization, it is essential that certain values be taken seriously and they be considered as having an a priori existence. It must be obligatory, a priori, to be honest, not to lie, not to beat your wife, to have children, etc., etc. So we're going to try a little device which will make it possible to show that values exist all the same, inscribed in a heaven of ideas, though otherwise God does not exist. In other words... nothing will be changed if God does not exist. We shall find ourselves with the same norms of honesty, progress, and humanism, and we shall have made a God an outdated hypothesis which will peacefully die off by itself.

The existentialist, on the contrary, thinks it very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him; there can no longer be an a priori Good, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. Nowhere is it written that the Good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is we are on a plane where there are only men. Dostoevsky [sic] said, "If God didn't exist, everything would be possible." That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to. He can't start making excuses for himself.

If existence really does precede essence, there is no explaining things away by reference to a fixed and given human nature. In other words, there is no determinism, man is free, man is freedom. On the other hand, if God does not exist, we find no values or commands to turn to which legitimize our conduct. So, in the bright realm of values, we have no excuse behind us, nor justification before us. We are alone, with no excuses.

That is the idea I shall try to convey when I say that man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet, in other respects is free; because, once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does...

The existentialist does not think that man is going to help himself by finding in the world some omen by which to orient himself. Because he thinks that man will interpret the omen to suit himself. Therefore, he thinks that man, with no support and no aid, is condemned every moment to invent man.

Existentialism is nothing else than an attempt to draw all the consequences of a coherent atheistic position. It isn't trying to plunge man into despair at all. But if one calls every attitude of unbelief despair, like the Christians, then the word is not being used in its original sense. Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. There you've got our point of view. Not that we believe that God exists, but we think that the problem of His existence is not the issue. In this sense existentialism is optimistic, a doctrine of action, and it is plain dishonesty for Christians to make no distinction between their own despair and ours and then to call us despairing. 

-----

We see here Sartre establishing two important points - one, that this Meaninglessness is "optimistic, a doctrine of action"; and two, that Despair over Meaninglessness is for people who still believe in Meaning. If one believes - or wants to believe - that there is a priori meaning, then Meaninglessness to him would be a doctrine of Despair. But when Meaninglessness is believed and there is no longer a desire to believe in Meaning, it is a positive thing.

How to get used to this idea? It's an important question, because most of us have trained ourselves to function on, rely on, the exact opposite. It is like learning to speak another language, or overcoming a powerful drug addiction. If we no longer believe in the crutch, it will not support us; but if we still want to believe in the crutch, we will be tempted to lean. And in so doing, we will fall flat on our faces.

First, we must rid ourselves of the desire for Meaning. The Reward of Meaning is that we can "have the answers," that we can have a road map. We don't have to create our own meaning and exercise our own power - we are comforted by "Somebody Else's" meaning and "Somebody Else's" power. We are content in our powerlessness, like a sheep with a shepherd (powerful analogy, eh?) or a baby in its mother's arms. Unfortunately, it is false. Recognizing that it is a powerful addiction that takes our power away, much like heroin, will help. Treat this artificial comfort the same way you would treat a drug, and practice Conscious Decision-Making.

Second, we must replace the False God, and Its False Security, with self-confidence and self-acceptance. This is one reason why the Self-Meeting was (is) so important. It is often said that when you give up a bad habit, you must not just give it up but replace it. You must learn to understand and appreciate yourself; those with a God have no need for this. You are free to invent and create your own everything. Invent yourself. Decide what you want to be, and make it so. Bask in your unique style, interests, and desires. There is no point to sulking over your infinite freedom. If all you have is the Moment, then seize it. The fact that the Moment will soon be gone does not mean that your action is a waste; it means that letting the Moment go unfilled is the waste.

And third, we must remember that nihilism is also Avoidance. The idea that there is no a priori reality does not mean that "anything is okay." Rational people are still compelled to behave in the most peaceful, enlightened way possible by our own Selfishness. To behave as if anything is permitted is to practice the opposite Avoidance as the Religious Person. And in many ways it is even more cowardly, because it absolves you of having to listen to your own voice and absolves you of any responsibility for your own actions. A nihilist might not care even about karma; he might despise respect and scoff at finite love. But acting in a way that does disservice to yourself is irrational - mental sickness. If you do not love yourself, nobody will. If you refuse to love yourself, go back to God or otherwise sedate yourself. Truth is not for immature cowards!

So - how to deal with the Release? Believe Truth, not Desire; and replace the False, external Judge-God with your actual Self. Become whole, meaningless, free, powerful, and creative. Replace Despair with Freedom. Make peace with Emptiness by accepting that which you cannot change. 

Part Four: The Choir

The Untuned Choir

Energy Trips can involve more than two conflicting energies. We have many energies, many motives, many compartments. Coming to know yourself intimately enough to identify each energy (let alone tame/align them) must take years of discipline. Fortunately, though, the only discipline required is in living consciously - being aware of energy trips as they form and eliminating them.

The chorus of motives and energies that make up "you" is practically just that - an untrained chorus of voices, each singing their own song in their own way. Left completely alone, this is more than an energy "trip" - it is energy anarchy!

Consider a person who has not yet learned to focus any energy - i.e. a young child. They are capricious, volatile, moody. What we call "maturity" starts happening when they learn to suppress some of those energies; but the majority of the time it is unlikely that we actually control and tune them. The obvious result: we become grown children who are good at denying ourselves and burying our childlike feelings. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Solos

Some people try to use only one motive energy in living their life, bending their other energies to support it (or ignoring them altogether). Some examples of this include drug addiction and nymphomania; but the best example is "righteousness" in religion. Most religion, at least in the West, tells people they need to drown or strangle their "dark side" and become wholly pure; human beings are filled with evil and their motive energies are impure and filthy. By following God and pleasing Him in everything you do, and working hard to overcome these energies (i.e. "the flesh"), you are doing the right thing. And the other energies that are allowed to express themselves (like sexuality) are to be heavily regulated and subservient to the One Motive, the motive to please God.

Staying with the music analogy, this is like having a soloist sing an aria while her choir stands behind her sullenly, grumbling; the singer is forced to turn around from time to time to hush them up. And, of course, every now and then, one of the other singers (energies) needs its chance to come out of the woodwork and you get situations like Jerry Falwell and the prostitutes.

Not a great idea.

Melody

Melody is a much better idea than solo. It is a good idea to plot a course, compose a melody, choose a main motive energy or two; but a Melody is supported by the other voices. It does not silence them, but is complemented by them.

Harmony and Dissonance

This has already been covered, but it bears repeating within the music analogy. If everyone is singing their own tune, the choir will be chaotic, capricious. 

It is not enough to decrease the volume of the singers that are off; they need to be tuned to get "on key." Likewise, it is not enough to try to silence or bury motive energies that bother you. They must be tuned to support the Melody.

For example, if you have a hobby that gets in the way of your work (or vice-versa), you've got two themes/energies competing for your time. A professional in the workplace has a hobby of making music at home; either the music can support the career (by offering amusement and decompression) or the career can support the music (the job becomes a means to an end, allowing him to have the resources to make music)... but "no man can serve two masters." Once the professional chooses which Melody to follow, the other energy needs to take on a harmonious role or else there will be conflict (an energy trip).

The Director

Most of us stand back and watch our energies squabble with one another, as an audience. Others attempt to give a deity control, while they try to silence their own voice as much as possible. Still others only care about one of the energies and let the rest lapse into chaos.

A better idea is to accept yourself as the Director of this choir, with the authority and the will to direct these energies to suit the Melody you've chosen. This is how you can know yourself and control your own life all in one.

Conclusion

As we've seen, we have the freedom and the ability to take charge of our spiritual selves (the collection of our energies). And there is nothing scary about leaving a Judge out of the equation, because there are perfectly rational reasons to behave morally. Faith is irrational and arrogant, and this leads to chaos. Doubt/Curiosity, on the other hand, is rational and humble, and this leads to improvements, discoveries, and a common quest for mankind.

And getting your "spiritual house" in order is as easy as making a rational choice, being aware of internal conflicts, and making conscious choices.