 |
|
|
Literature Discussion - Lit-Talk.com
Islamic Perception of the Governing Will
By Wossool Alosool
Click here if you'd like to exchange critiques
Abstract
What kind of knowledge humanity has gathered! Fields and interactions of different and multiple kinds are studied to know their effects on each other and on their constituents. But what about us - what we believe is right and wrong, what is good and bad, ethical and non-ethical? Does all of this affect our future orour perception of it? Why is the knowledge we seek so difficult to gain?The first “Perception” is meant to say that this article has an identified used perception, relating what the writer has gained of knowledge to the instruments and tools that we use to understand our perception. It is not enough to receive knowledge; one must also perceive it. This is an experience gained while in pain. At every pain feeling, perception was tested forward and retested backward; is it true or false; is it valid or non-valid? The feedback was the feedback. All news through perception was suspected until the perception insisted it was true. It is not the aim to set new knowledge here; the aim is to perceive new ones. These are new ideas gained by a personal Islamic perception that did not evolve or become deduced from Quran, the Prophet or any other previous or contemporary Islamic mind or perception. I say this because it means that this writing does not await any Islamic approval of any kind.
Why do we appreciate logic so much in our minds while it is not so appreciated by things around us. Scientific natural laws are not the logical response of things within nature; nothing in our sciences says that. Beyond this our knowledge says that you can use logic to begin with but it will eventually lead you to nowhere except what you have begun with. It gives us systematic methods to study things, but not any idea about the results. It tells you the behavior, not the essence. The true knowledge is taken directly by experiments about things around us. If we find a breakthrough, then one can sit at his office or even in his bathroom and be assured what will happen somewhere out of new phenomena born in his logic, but is this yet accepted and - more - important is it logically possible? Either we do not know comprehensively what part of knowledge logic is and what really composes it, or there are no such restricting paths defined by something called logic.
I think that we should expand our imagination to see that there are some real governing behaviors or (will) between ethical (hyper arrays of values assigned to positions in any confident space) as well as that known between physical systems within things. We do not know the governing restrictions (ways) that describe their behavior and interactions and do not believe or imagine the existence of them. Because of that, our thinking is inhibited. Why? Because many of us do not believe that if Justice and Peace prevailed, the coming season must be prosperous. What drives our attention in continuous seeking to derive physical responses of matter is primarily ethical; a bridge will be made and new applications will appear.
One of these restrictions, the author found governing:
Ethics (control) = Justice … (a)
A universal state that is kept and forced by adopted values and ethics.
The right and left sides must balance for the values arrays to be stable. If not, The elements within this array will change themselves to keep individual’s states safe and secure, which results in adopting contradicting ethics before and after or changing the values of the unaffected elements in the same or any other encountered hyper arrays.
The interactions between the value, itself and its elements could be changed only as a result of changing the overall balance. This change is not allowed (needs authorization) by default. An unethical interaction felt by any element is not merely what is seen by the governing will within scopes but what is seen within the concerned element scopes trusted, documented and proofed by the concerned element in front of the governing will.
Any change in the balance to maintain it, is restricted by:
Change = Change (philosophy, motives) … (b)
We are talking about irrational elements, rational understanding of ethics, individuals who can take actions, and changes with no views. This is the result of having a choice, to choose between actions of different ethics. This choice parameter makes a definite isolation between different judgments about responses which makes the interactions ethical or non ethical. All elements have choices that even matter. Some are assigned ethical systems while others are not. Interactions that resist formula (a) are called evil. But there is a question, where is the right and wrong? Is it justice or injustice, it is not absolutely defined. An absolute definition must be given.
But what we know about ethics that could affect real physical matter is practically nothing. An outside interference occurs which tells us what is right and what is wrong; it is religion or God. To do so it tells us accompanied with means that hold meanings that it is whoever gave you peace from the beginning and you must obey for that peace to continue. The warning is that, if not obeyed, that peace of informatics will be no longer valid. Before asking what the ethics of this system are, a question must be answered - how wisdom (the baseline of ethics) is achieved.
Any ethical behavior (the interactions between the individuals) of matter could change if wisdom changed.
.
There are three Levels:
LEVEL I- Wisdom (Baseline ethics)
LEVEL II- Ethics (The wise interactions)
LEVEL III- Behavior (Interactions)
Each level is composed of a different value. One can change behavior by merely moving his hands, but it is hard to change ethics unless you change the governing wisdom...
Change (Philosophy, Motives) = Wisdom. … (c)
Where there is will for change, changing the choices needs a forcing will. The concept of choice expands to be restricted by the question: who gave it.
Driving changes in wise behaviors drives changes among other. The will of change could be weak as an order from an element; the parameters are the dominating values.
What can be deduced from formulas (c) and (a):
Justice ≠ Wisdom→ changes function (Philosophy, Motivation)
Changes could be an unwise state compared with the given wisdom... If this is true then anything could be ranked as Just because any resulting change will be ranked so. We do not decide changes because we do not have an authorization to do so by the will which gave us the choice. Their will be no justice at all, hence no wisdom and no ethics, and every thing will be meaningless and for nothing - but despite that, the peace of information will remain valid. The essence of the will is information; if you know it is true at one time it will never be lost even if you are lost. If you want it to disappear, erase yourself.
A discussion of matter is needed:
What is the nature of changes from the downside that drive changes upside? The will that forces changes in all levels without giving reasoning is always governing and it forces responding changes by assigning possible allowable states.
If the wisdom vanishes which means, under my new concepts, that the ethics and consequently behavior changes or vanishes, it is Death. The death is attained when it crosses the line to zero values; there are no values .
Death is a change that takes something from our universe to another array of wisdom, of different ethics and behavior. The continuum of changes lead to this point, but what will or choice, if it can, drives it.
The original formula put for change was (c): the philosophy must be defined and conceived and there must be a motive. If philosophy or motives changes the wisdom changes but this is only authorized by the will. In this ultimate choice, the individual chooses to change whole things, behavior, ethics and even the wisdom surrounding him.
For humans, the philosophy is different for different elements; motivation or driving force is not universal: Less pain or more happiness. In any case, their must be a will beyond, and takes the element to the proper place of values that it belongs to, and this is governed by formula (a). Formula (a) is not effective between two different arrays of wisdom because there are no common ethics.
What is energy and why it is important?
Do humans give an absolutely definite definition of existence of this thing? One can take the same amount of energy out of a system in far different states. Energy does not belong to a state. This is true because matter around us does not have choice to disobey the will; it has not given the ability to do so. But what is choice; it is the driving force to change response among matter that is not given initially. The choice as pure essence is nothing but what makes it effective is perception. Perception is the link between us and the material world and also between us and the documents of the will about us. There are two perceptions, logical perception, in the brain, and ethical perception in the heart. Depending on your perceptions, you decide your choice. The choice window is a dual one which opens to the mind and the other to the heart, the only way to judge the choice is the will. The soul is constructed from ethical essences to materially be found in this matter world.
As choices abandon ethics in its effective ethical representation surrounding injustice increases.
Choices have interactions with each other and interactions with matter. Matter also has interactions with each other and interactions with the choices. The rule for matter is that no stable unethical state found within is permitted without the authorization of the will. If this happened (the authorization) then the possible and impossible state stable and unstables of matter will be rearranged, reproduced and perhaps another states are created only to stop or even seize this event or just change its path. The matter decides; if it is not its will then it is the governing will effect. The extent of change in matter depends on the value of change in the ethical systems around. Unethical events are not described materially; it is described ethically. One can state one unethical event that is not permitted to happen in our material or matter world. It is traveling through time. Time is the primary axis where changes are not permitted because it is not ethical. The universe will be homogeneous and neutral about the will if ethics takes extreme values.
If there are gates or a transparent tune that could paint our inside or outside, trust is assured to be lost.
Some may argue, why did the author not benefit from this knowledge if it is true? Actually the author does not trust that his perceived knowledge is true. Because, if it is, then this information as an ethical tool will be worthless, because the high value ethical information have no value in front of him. It is a compensation for him to think that there is a way to escape the will. What you have of the will is one word, “ORDER,” and it is the soul. If the existence depends on one piece of information. Then the communications between its source and the existence must understandably transferred information to be rational. This results in that the will must check the balance and its information.
What about me? What am I...? I know who I am from what the surroundings have told me. The peace of information which I mentioned previously is known to me, not by learning. It is the fact that I feel I have been born in peace. What I have been told could be a lie depending on the ethics of the source because there are no ethics at my time “Trust is lost,” a time passed everything around sent pain, no help of any kind.
The rule is:
Ethics [care (subject), rationality] = Wars by (subject, rationality)
Mercy (elements) = Mercy (subject)
When you look around and find that GIGO boxes receive the highest values, what is left?
I do not believe in one concept in this existence, the meaning. Even the meaning of the peace of information. What I believe is that, when in war, whatever you belong to, when alone, the highest priority is to remain safe and secure and watch the only threat around, the punishment.
