home

ps3

software

contact

newsfeed

archives
mental health problems
more lord mcalpine
more jimmy savile
these babies can read
first contact alien ufo
free charles bronson
my windows 7 advert
november tipping point
sex offenders register
beyonces better place
i facebooked your mum
mice and snakes
forty years on
free social bookmarking
war criminals out
obama dont multitask
hes got herpes
hamster fight video
carradine dead
european socialism
hi de ho from moscow
hello sooty
institutional racism
child abuse
credit crunch teens
portsmouth fa cup
white star cider
war sex traffic
first black president
michael todds apology
jersey child abuse
prozac bebo internet
kate gerry maddy
tiger tia copland
crimes against poetry
god bless 511
celebrity doss house
ten years on
hamsters attack
angry nhs doctors
ive been stabbed
rosa parks day
slave trade
you need terror
she wants it
its a whitewash
the deal is
move along
pedo loving sluts
wot no asbestos
i am not spastic
my toothache
ten years on
my tooth hurts
child killer
stop the terror
israels jfk
are you terrorist
your government
the cast
crucifixion
came for the porn
paedos out
catholic bankruptcy
farewell fucktard
stauffenberg
is it jesus
margaret hodge
new deal
blairs pedo sex rings
the brazilian
fuck id
its all over
cia car bomb
echelon
hilda murrell
newspaper spies
james rusbridger
sowan
subversives

Your Baby Can Read - Free Instant Download
name : email:

IV



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 following examples.

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:-

20+30+40+50+60
5

= 200
5

= 40%

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 raised accordingly:-

22+33+44+55+66
5

220
5

=44%

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.

 

<<< back

next >>>



© Sean Copland 1995-2014
evolution
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17



best blogs
davidicke
hotscripts
searchscripts
scriptsearch
radicalphilosophy
newsfly411
guerillanews
underground
coleman
angrycheese


linkswap