 |
|
|
Literature Discussion - Lit-Talk.com
WHO decides WISDOM?
By Khaled Alnobani
Click here if you'd like to exchange critiques
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 – as we know - of things around us; nothing in our science say that. The true knowledge is taken by experimenting with things around us. I think that we should expand our imagination to see that there is some governing (will) which makes a link between ethical values and behavior of matter.
We do not know the logic which describes this will. Moreover, some of us do not believe or imagine the existence of it. Why? Because many do not believe that if justice and peace prevailed, the coming season must be prosperous. What drives us to predict physical behavior of matter is primarily ethical. If bridges between ethics and physics were known, new applications would appear. One of these bridges, which the author found, is the balance equation:
Ethics (control ) = Justice …(a)
The interactions between the value, itself, individuals and the surrounding’s values and attributes (within society) could be changed only as a result of changing the overall balance. An unethical behavior felt by any individual is merely what is seen by him. The governing will within its scope and the scope of the concerned individuals must trust, document and prove the validity of any deviation of the balance. Simply saying, to keep society going on, justice must prevail.
Any change to maintain the balance is restricted by the philosophy and motives:
Change = Change (philosophy, motives) … (b)
Philosophy, here, is the mechanism within which motives act. We are talking about irrational elements (e.g. individuals within society), rational understanding of ethics, individuals who can take actions, and changes with no views and references. This is the result of having a choice - to choose between different ethics within the same values.
Only the governing will judges responses, it makes the interactions ethical or unethical. Interactions that resist formula (a) are called evil. Of all, what is the right and wrong? Is it justice or injustice? Is it absolutely defined? No absolute definition is known.
What ethics do we know that could affect physical behavior of matter? Practically nothing; an outside interference occurs which tells us what is right and wrong. It is God or religion, who gave us peace from the beginning? We must obey him for that peace to continue.
The speech is not universal. God is a piece of information that tells us; he is there watching you, no more no less. Can a piece of information be asked to do more than whatever it holds? All dilemmas about God, what he can do and what he cannot, seem only to be mystical insanity.
One question must be answered before asking which ethics should prevail. That is how wisdom (the baseline of ethics) is achieved or discovered. Any ethical behavior (interactions between the individuals) could be ranked unethical if the wisdom changed.
.
There are three Levels:
LEVEL I- Wisdom (Baseline of ethics).
LEVEL II- Ethics (The wise interactions between individuals).
LEVEL III- Behavior (Interactions between individuals).
It is hard to change ethics unless wisdom is changed.
Change (Philosophy, Motives) = Wisdom. … ( c )
Where is the will for change? Who has the will to change wisdom?
Driving changes wisely drives changes among other constituents. The will of change could be as weak as an order from an individual.
What can be deduced from formulas (c) and (a):
Justice ≠ Wisdom→ changes function (Philosophy, Motives)
It means, if justice is not wise, then all changes of ethics will change their wise baseline. There will be no justice at all; hence no wisdom and no ethics and everything will be meaningless and for nothing. Despite that, the piece of information (God is there watching you) will remain valid. The essence of the will is information. If you want it to disappear, simply erase yourself.
What changes of (ethics) that drive changes of (material behavior), or vice versa. The will that forces changes without reasoning is always governing; it forces response. Wisdom changes when philosophy or motives change. In this ultimate state all things change.
For humans, philosophy is different for different people. Motivation or driving forces are universal: less pain or more happiness. In any case there must be a will beyond which takes the person to the proper place of value where he belongs, and this is governed by formula (a).
What is energy and why it is important?
Do humans give an absolute definition of energy? The answer is NO. One can take the same amount of energy out of a system in far different states. Energy does not belong to a state.
What is choice? It is the driving force for changes. The choice as a pure essence is nothing. Perception is the link between us and the world around. There are two kinds, logical perception, in the brain, and ethical perception, in the heart. The choice opens to the mind and to the heart. The soul is an ethical essence located on a material; it is found in this world. It is an Order assigned to a body.
As choices abandon ethics; the surrounding injustice increases.
Choices react with matter. The physical limit is that no stable unethical state is allowed. If this is resisted, then the possible and impossible states of matter - stable and unstable - will be rearranged, reproduced and another states might be created only to stop or even cease this unethical event or just change its path.
The extent of behavior change of matter depends on the values changed in the ethical systems around. Unethical events are not described materially; they are described ethically. One can state one unethical event that is not permitted to happen in our material world; it is traveling through time. Time is the primary axis for our lives.
If mind and heart are blind; trust is assured to be lost, and we need a perceptive tool to gain more knowledge. This tool is essential for communications between different worlds of different ethics.
Is it possible to reach a system of ethics that is independent of culture and religion? Wisdom is comprised of laws of nature that decide ethics, while ethics are not. How could behavior be judged referring to the above concepts? First, one must understand that laws are tolerances (e.g. law does not say "I accept you killing somebody if you spent the penalty"); they are important and accepted because within the same system of ethics there are no clear lines separating ethical from non-ethical.
In other words ethical systems change with time and place within the same culture and religion. If there is no penalty in the law for a deed, it does not mean that it is accepted. Ethics are decided by a wise judgment within the conditions and circumstances of the society referring to the wisdom gained by it. This is a necessary introduction to see how the above given theory of relating wisdom to ethics could be applied to a specific case: SEDAW, convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.
Putting some tolerances in the law does not mean that we accept what it describes or rank it ethical. To answer how the results of SEDAW could be judged depending on the above theory, we must answer the question, are the tolerances given in the proposed laws in agreement with our own culture and religion. The answer is clear and known; the tolerances are accepted. The systems of ethics are maintained by the individuals, not by the laws.
All of these results could be concluded by any person, if he takes into account one obvious baseline wisdom: Subjective Nature of Behavior (SNB). For example, we respond to expected deadly accidents on streets differently from that if we are expecting a terror attack on the same streets, even if the second case resulted in far less deaths or no deaths at all.
What if we neglected SNB in this case? We will deploy all army forces along the streets all the time or we will neglect all terror threats. Think of the consequences! Values like human life are considered objective values; it is unethical to treat such a value subjectively. Ethics themselves have no values; they are assigned values by individuals and so they are subjective values. Some things like money have absolute values. SEDAW was a change in subjective values.
What about this article; what are its values?
Absolute value? None, I have not added to my custody any thing out of it.
Subjective value? None if not negative. Some one might sleep overnight and think that this article contradicts existing beliefs.
Objective value? Only critics can assign this value.
Value (Individual attributes, arguments) = Subjective (value) … line (1)
= Objective (value) … line (2)
= Absolute (value) = Money … line (3)
The state (progress, rank, etc.) of the society or community is judged depending on the relations created by the above lines. When the left hand side are behaviors such as (singing, composing, writing, sport activity, painting, etc.), it is a positive sign within society. While when it represents things like the body (or part of a body), subjective ethical values (e.g. honesty, positive credibility), or .the like, then it is ranked as a negative sign within the society.
