As any individual grows, and clambers their
way up through the ranks of external consciousness, they
develop, and subsequently mature as individuals. Looking
back throughout history, we see the popping up of certain
individuals offering a helping hand, onwards and upwards
onto greater things, and a greater way of life, namely
through the implementation of religion.
Religion comes under many guises, and is
invariably upheld fervently by any of its supporters.
When examining any given religion, care should always be
taken not to make any judgements, based upon the
upholders of that religion. In the majority of
circumstances, the leaders of any given religion were not
responsible for the creation of that particular
philosophy, and are merely passers by in time, swinging
on the coat tails of a message passed on. They can only
offer their own interpretation of that religion, and what
it means to them. Therefore judging a religion on its
upholders, is clearly tantamount to the old adage of
judging a book by its cover.
The clearest way we can gain an insight into
the reasonings behind religion, and any subsequent
development experienced as a direct result of the
implementation of that religion, is to take another look
at the constants of base instinct and conscience.
We can see that as any individual climbs the levels of psychological
development, their actions will shift from being those of short term,
to those of long term gain:-
And with that gain, will come the associated
levels of responsibility that given individual is
prepared to accept with regards their actions:-
When looking at any individual, we can see
their current level of development, their position
relative to base instinct and conscience. However, merely
looking places us within the 'on the outside looking in'
frame of things. It's only when we directly experience
things, that we start to become really involved, for
through observation alone, such actions perpetrated
against any individual are interpreted as being those of
long and short term gain. However, when that individual
becomes you, i.e. you directly experience such acts of
long and short term gain as perpetrated against you by
any given individual, then such acts are interpreted by
you as being such actions as good and evil, respectively:-
The current level of either good or evil being
experienced, being clearly equal to the distance between
those individuals with regards their current levels of
psychological development in relation to each other.
As we've seen above, in reality, both good and
evil don't actually exist, it merely seems that way, when
the actions of any individual are experienced by another.
They're merely actions that are based upon short and long
term gain (selfishness and kindness), with equal amounts
of responsibility being accepted accordingly.
In the instance of evil, anyone finding
themselves experiencing the acts of a man in the grip of
frenzy (rape or murder for example), will quite naturally
assume that the man is totally evil, though this isn't
specifically true. We already understand that he just
seems evil, quite how evil will depend on the exact level
of current psychological development of the individual
experiencing such actions. The greater the development,
the greater the distance between the two, and the greater
the consequent level of perceived evil being experienced.
And in the instance of good, vice versa.
It's easier to both see and understand the
principles of short/long term gain, and their
interpretations of good and evil when looking at the
A man is walking along the road with a bag
full of coins. A young boy, sees the man, and his bag of
coins, and decides to snatch the bag of coins, and run
off. The man will undoubtedly conclude that this was an
act of evil, as he was forced to directly experience acts
of short term gain, as perpetrated against him by the
young boy, whose only aim and objective at that point in
time was to snatch the bag.
However the only reason the man views such
actions as being evil, is because he falsely assumes that
the young boy was at the same level of psychological
development as himself, which he wasn't. This is seen
most clearly when the same man finds himself walking
through the woods with a bag of nuts. A small monkey sees
the bag of nuts and decides to snatch them and run off.
The man upon experiencing the small monkeys activities
will undoubtedly smile to himself as he sees the small
monkey sitting in a quite spot, scoffing his nuts.
In both cases the old man had his property
taken from him, with the taker of that property staking a
new claim of ownership upon the property. Theft. Only
with the monkey, the old man wasn't too bothered, owing
to the fact that he rightly assumed that the monkey was
at a lower level of development than himself. Also the
monkey, by the limitations of its physical size and
strength, was in no real position to present any real
threat to the man in question.
Such a fact is reiterated within the example
of a new born baby. Whilst most people would conclude
that such a pure and innocent example of mankind would be
incapable of any act of evil, they'd be right. Though
only for the fact that it is incapable of interacting
with the world at large, in a manner which would allow it
to be deemed as evil. The baby itself is hanging around
the lower levels of development with regards external
consciousness and, as such, most if not all its
subsequent actions would be deemed by an outside viewer,
as being those of short term gain, with an equal amount
of responsibility being accepted accordingly. The only
reason such a baby will not be deemed as being evil, will
be on the grounds that it is not capable of interacting
with the world at large, and more importantly the people
within it, at a level that would deem him so.
Looking at the principles behind the constants
of base instinct and conscience with respect the
reasonings and meanings behind acts of both good and evil,
we see that the constants themselves are the two extremes,
the two opposites, by which any higher life form placed
within those two points, are effectively judged. The two
constants of total good (conscience), and total evil (base
instinct), each have their reference within the Holy
Bible, and are more commonly referred to, in todays
society, as God, and the Devil, respectively.
It's easy to see, looking back, how early man
in his desire to make sense of the minds of those he was
surrounded by, referred to such 'exterior forces'. In his
simplistic understanding of both the world that
surrounded him, and the people therein, he was
undoubtedly puzzled by the fact that some people were so
evil and wicked, whilst others were so good and kind. He
naturally assumed that people were the constants, and
that the Devil and God (base instinct and conscience)
swang to and fro, in their manipulations of the people.
Their 'voices' becoming louder and quieter in the process,
as they seized upon people and possessed them. Though we're
now aware, man isn't the constant, base instinct and
conscience are. The lowest and highest levels of external consciousness.
It's not the first time mans made such a
mistake, a similar one was taken and upheld with regards
the orbiting of the Sun around the planet. Again man
assumed that the planet was the constant. he was standing
on it, and he wasn't moving, therefore the planet wasn't
thus leading him to the conclusion that the Sun went around the Earth.
The effects of religion, and any subsequent
level of development experienced by any individual
indulging in such practises are blatantly clear, when
seen in action. Any given society is effectively graded
by the individuals that make up that society. By
labelling the constants of base instinct and conscience
as being those of 0 and 100 per cent, with regards
effective levels of development, any society consisting
of any groupings of individuals may be graded in its
current level of development by way of extracting the
average level of development of any individual therein.
In the instance of a fictitious grouping of
individuals, the level of development of the society that
they collectively form, will be judged by the average
level of development for the community that they
themselves form. For example, five individuals each with
levels of development thus:-
1 - 20%
2 - 30%
3 - 40%
4 - 50%
5 - 60%
Therefore the overall level of development of
this given society is equal to:-
If after the implementation of any religion,
each individual within that society now experiences an
increase in development 10%, the effective level of
development of this society as a whole, will hence be
Clearly making for a more highly evolved, and therefore better society.
It is by using these principles, that a
greater insight may be gained into the religions of the
world, and more importantly, the minds of the individuals
responsible for the creation of such religions.
In the instance of Christianity, again, we
must ignore those that push it, and its holy book, the
Bible, on the grounds of judging a book by its cover.
Studying the principles, and ethics passed on by those
that lay claim to moral superiority, only serves to
confuse and perplex. For example, how many religions
uphold the Bible as their guide book? Far to many to list
here, and yet they all claim to be right, and the true
upholders of righteous faith, when the fact of the matter
is, they can't all be right, whilst still holding such a
wide diversion of opinions and interpretations.
In summary, the only real facts you can derive
from studying any given religion, are the level of
development of the author/s at the time of writing, and
the level of development of the society for which that
religion was written, again at the time of writing. For
example, there is no need for the writer of any religious
work to encourage the people they are writing for, to
refrain from the act of rape, if such acts are not
indulged in by members of that society anyway.
© Sean Copland 1995-2014