ON MORALITY AND ETHICS

Now to begin with it is important to mention that there are two prerequisites which must be pointed out if one is going to do justice to the subject of morality and also to a system of ethics and how it relates to biological life in general and these two points or prerequistes must be addressed before any subsequent theories on morality are propounded and developed by the thinker.
Firstly; nature designs everybody differently in character, feelings, thoughts and in will and so therefore what works for one person does not work for or suit another in practice. The mistakes and errors that a lot of the moralists and philosophers of the past have made in dealing with the subject of morality is that they have based their theories on morality either on a concept of god or on themselves and what they thought was correct or on an artificially imposed moral law. Also a lot of what these moralists or philosophers of the past have considered to be correct in their theories of morality has produced a lot of biased and prejudiced attitudes on morality. Also one will find that most or none of these past theories on morality have ever been based on nature and its diversity of expression.
Secondly; any ideals or theories of morality in practice requires a mutual agreement and compromise between the people involved as a standard of what is considered to be right or wrong, rather than a fixed standard, which it must be pointed out is a rigid way in which to deal with morality; also all of the dealings and agreements between these people should not be based on "selfishness" or on any sense of overt "freedom" or lack of obligation by either person, because without a practical agreement morality means nothing and degenerates into force or opinion or fixed standards. Human beings have an innate sense of morality except for a minority of a few people and so the majority of people can be trusted in most cases to make the correct decisions in their behaviour. Mutual agreement is important in morality, without mutual agreement and mutual respect humans with strong characters would tend to enforce their wills unecessarily on others and prefer to abuse whatever common ground that might have existed between them and other people, morality just like everything else in nature cannot develop without harmony or agreement. Nature and its processes in reality are above and beyond and also more fundamental than the human concepts of what we consider to be right or wrong and so it must also be pointed out that conflict and struggle are inherent within nature and are what makes things advance and grow and so it cannot be considered as a completely wrong thing if a few bad things occur in the course of events that happen in reality and its processes. For something to be considered as either right or wrong one has to agree with it in accordance with the way one is designed by nature and not by an artificially fixed set of rules which does not account for nature or its rules. If a moral law is to have any value at all it has to be artificially imposed and agreed upon by the majority of people living in a state or country and this is what Immanuel Kant meant by a moral law has to transcend the empirical causal order of nature by exercising freedom of an artificial kind if it is to have any value, because morals are not part of the empirical causal order of nature, for instance, if a lion eats an antelope it is neither right or wrong and also if a person kills another person for food it is neither right or wrong either it is simply part of survival of the fittest and also of adaptation. If morality is to have any value at all in the practical sense it has to be something that is agreed upon by individuals as a unique agreement of what is considered to be right or wrong. Morality in its truest and most practical sense can be based on duty, on values, on ideals, on virtues or on whatever one chooses depending upon what you consider to be right or wrong in accordance with your own individuality or true nature. It is a well known fact that Immanuel Kant's theories of morality which he based on the concept of duty gets attacked all the time by people who have not thought about morality for any great length of time or in any depth whatsoever, in fact many people who attack Kant's morality are usually people who cannot think for themselves and are just following the bandwagon of the writings of philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche and also Ayn Rand. A theory of morality based on duty works for some people and plenty of evidence goes to show that morality based on duty is practised every day by millions or even billons of people whether they are aware of it or not, morality based on duty is a way of creating and proving that a feeling of trust amongst people can be attained, for instance, many people have a duty to their wives or husbands and also to their children to remain faithful and supportive to them, in fact people who are brought up in this type of environment usually end up being more well rounded individuals in most cases.
Also a morality based on duty can be observed in a lot of peoples choice of work and career, whether they are soldiers or doctors or factory workers and so on or whatever a persons chosen profession happens to be and this is because it is the duty of this person to go to work when they are meant to go otherwise they risk losing their job or career or money or the trust of the employer etc. There is nothing wrong with duty to a particular cause if this cause makes a person happy. If morality is to be progressive, practical and genuine it should be based on "reason" and "emotion" in equal measures and it should always be founded on an agreement by particular individuals involved with each other rather than on an artificial standard founded by society or by other peoples devising who are not involved in the agreement, because it is impossible to agree to standards or rules which are not in one's nature to follow irrespective of how well or fair the intentions of these standards are, a person should not sacrifice their true nature for an artificially imposed rule, this is worse than any crime you could commit by following your true nature itself unless you happen to be evil. Our true natures are what give us joy and purpose in this world and to sacrifice this is to live a life of misery simply for artificially imposed rules and standards of morality or to satisfy society and its standards as a whole seems wrong. In general society as a whole is a very manipulative entity and can be considered to be one of our worse enemies at best. Anything or anyone who tries to curb or manipulate our true natures is our enemy and must be defeated and rejected in due course. To have a will of your own and to be able think completely for yourself and to know exactly what you enjoy and desire at all times and to also be able to stick to this 100% are all the things that constitute your true nature or character. The reason that I mention that morality should be based on reason and emotion in equal measures is because they are both equally important in a balanced judgement of all decisions based on morality and how it relates to reality, too much of either gives you a false impression of what is right or wrong in any given situation. Reason or logic pertains to the mind, whereas the emotions pertain to the passions and the organism as well as how it relates to the mind as a process, as I have mentioned before and elsewhere the emotions are a very rational process especially for those who understand them fully and emotions should not be viewed as being completely groundless in their origin. Feelings and emotions are very important because they are essential to the biological organisms connection to the mind in most human beings, in general the rationality of biology and its processes is stronger than mental reason, or logic and therefore reason needs to be balanced with the emotions as a means to promote general good health and harmony in one's being. As I mentioned earlier for something to be considered as either right or wrong a person has to agree to it in the first place otherwise one would be expected to follow things blindly and without inner purpose, most relationships and friendships are founded on this type of agreement of affinity between people, if you have no affinity with a person or a thing why would you agree with it or them in the sense of what is right or wrong or good or bad, because what is considered as right or wrong is either subjective or is due to affinity and agreement because of one's nature. What is wrong to one person, maybe right and correct for another person, for instance, for a religious person adultery is bad, but for a person who is not religious and does not believe in god adultery is fun, exciting and life affirming. Amongst the greatest mistakes that have been made by religious people and moralists in the past and even by people now in general is that they have judged and attacked people because of the way they have been designed by nature and these attacks have been focused more on their personal lives whether these people happened to be gay or bisexual or whatever and any kind of morality and code of ethics which does not account for nature and its diversity or is not founded on my initial two prerequisites is a flawed morality and code of ethics.
In reality force is more real than the concepts of right and wrong and anyone who is willing to use force is more right and correct than someone who is not willing to use force, because this illustrates the fact that nature is always right, correct and real and theories on morality are not as real as nature unless they account for or are in accordance with nature in the truest sense. Conflict and struggle as I mentioned earlier is inherent within nature and exists for a reason (i.e., it makes things advance, and grow) and also one thing cannot exist without another so any theory on morality requires that we accept conflict, struggle, effort and even pain as a means to experiencing improvements and growth in events, you cannot create improvements and progress by promoting only the good without the need for the bad also, conflict and struggle may seem bad but they should be considered as necessary aspects of reality, concepts of good and bad only exist in our minds and feelings anyway and this is one of the reasons why some humans have commited so many atrocities in the past because they thought they were proving something, that they were evil or whatever, but in reality it is neither here nor there in either meaning or purpose whether you are good or evil or partly of each, because nature is simply an inevitable process that happens to exist and the things that occur in reality occur for a reason whether they be self inflicted or not, because nature has its own rules and laws which makes things and events harmonize and attain a purpose and meaning of their own which are part of the general processes of nature. The worse type of morality is the belief that everyone should be equal or the same or similar, because this is an insipid, boring, flat and rigid ideal, for example, nature thrives on diversity and difference as well as on conflict. Morality is partly subjective and partly objective, the people who claim that morality is only subjective are making the argument that I can do whatever I want to you and your family, but if you do the same thing to me and my family, then it is wrong, for example, I can murder your wife, but if you murder my wife, then it is wrong. Morality is objective in the sense that certain people have to agree to objective standards of moral conduct in their dealings together, on the other hand, morality is subjective in the sense that what is considered moral depends on your own needs as well as the period that you live in, what is considered as acceptable behaviour in one period, is not so in another. Problems in morality appear when it becomes dogmatic and rigid, we should only be moral towards people who deserve it that we meet, morality should be practical as well as being part of our values and goals in life, we should not be moral towards everyone indiscriminately. Sometimes people expect us to have more integrity and respect towards things and people that do not really mean anything to us, that we do not value or respect, they wonder why our morals do not apply to everything indiscriminately, when it cannot.

ON THE FINITE, INFINITE AND ABSOLUTE

The biological life forms that exist in nature are always in development, and life can be considered to be a learning process. In reality the events, things, processes, and occurences that happen are a development that leads to the absolute. The absolute (i.e., the complete, or totality of things,) is a finite concept, and the infinite is beyond measure and never complete. The process of things and events in nature and their development first aim towards the absolute and then afterwards in succesion of processes aims towards the infinite also, and so these processes are never fully complete in any way whatsoever and we are never fully satisfied, these are all finite processes occuring within infinite processes. In a lot of processes in nature the "actual" always aims towards the "potential", in other words, the finite always aims towards the infinite, and this is only possible because the activity and vibration within energy or matter is eternal, and infinite in movement and also in regard to potential rather than in actuality, the actual is always finite and absolute, and its absoluteness is relative in regard to other things and also in regard to the infinite also. Some philosophers reject the concept of "absolute objective truth", and they claim that we are the one's that dictate what the truth is subjectively, but the problem with this way of thinking is that these philosophers forget that all truth is objective whether we happen to exist to observe it or not, the truth that we feel subjectively is only a reflection of objective truths. The philosophers who reject the concept of absolute truth, whether it is subjectively felt, or exists in objective reality are self-centred, and these philosophers also think the truth of the objective universe revolves around their subjective opinion of it and what it should be, or happens to be, their idea of the truth is basically an opinion of theirs that caters to their own narrow view of what the truth is or is suppose to be at any given point in time, because this is what it means to say that there is no absolute truth objectively out their in the real world. Truth exists irrespective of whether we observe it or sense it, the truth is objective, particular, universal, absolute, and rarely is it subjective. "Universals"; and also other aspects of reality exist as absolute objective truths, absolute objective truths exist and are an aspect of reality in the sense of potential and possibility, reality exists and consists of both the "actual" and the "potential"and so both the actual, and the potential are therefore aspects of the truth.
Absolutes do not need to be irreducible, they simply need to be described because processes in nature cannot be reduced into basic explanations of why they are this way or that way and so on, energy and space are infinite and eternal and you cannot reduce what is infinite and eternal in a concept or basic explanation. Energy is indivisible, and continous, and elastic and therefore any attempt at reduction or division will be ill grounded and uncertain in its attempts. The concept of the "absolute" is similar to that of "universals" and also has a similarity to the concept of "perfection" in the sense that it exists as an aspect of reality in the relative sense as potential, and also as an ideal but not in a complete manner as part of physical reality, it can exist in our mind and in our feeling in the complete sense, an example of this is that our love for a person, or a thing can be absolute, and also our acceptance of a person, or a thing can be absolute also.

THE NATURE OF REALITY

The words that describe "reality" more accurately than any other words are, for example, energy, vibration, space, processes, inevitable, activity, something, tangible, actual, potenial etc. Everything in reality is an inevitable process which springs from processes in general that exist in energy and space and so is everything that occurs in reality also. Everything in reality is part of a process, and these processes exist and occur because energy and space are "something" tangible and active, and energy and space has always existed and always will exist, and energy, and space are both infinite. All the forces, rules, laws, processes, and events in energy and space occur because of the ceaseless and perpetual vibration that exists in energy and its interactions and activities. Processes consist of moments that make up a unity in the sense of a continuum, and each moment is connected to the other in patterns and this can be seen to occur in endless succesion. One of the most interesting things about reality is how the activity in energy and space produce what we see,for instance, how do the forces and nuclear reactions and so on emerge from the activity and vibration in energy and its interactions, because to attempt to describe and explain this is worth the effort i am sure. Anyone who has thought about and studied the subject of metaphysics for any length of time and who have attempted to understand it fully would have realized at some point in their research that the original meaning of the concept of substance does not exist in reality in the way the concept was used, for example, according to the concept of substance in its original meaning and how it was described, it is written that things are supposed to exist "in" substance, but supposedly substance does not exist "in" or "within" things at all in reality or its processes, and this is where the flaw and the contradiction in the concept of substance appears in its original meaning, how can something exist in something and yet not be part of it, it is like saying i exist in the world but the world is not part of me, of course the world is a part of me, and i am part of the world. The concept of substance in its original meaning is flawed, redundant, impossible to imagine, or feel, contradictory, and therefore untrue, and erroneous, and not necessary and can easily be replaced by the concepts of universals, and the thing-in-itself, and also by whatever other concepts are useful to describe processes in reality, the concept of substance itself as a means to understanding energy and its true nature and what it consists of, and also how it is part of reality is a useful concept though, and this concept should not be rejected completely, it is a concept that should be appropriated for modern use and used with a modern and more logical meaning. The word substance can also be used to describe different types of tangible objects such as wax, clay, stone etc... and how these are extensions of an original substance. Trying to understand the true nature of the ultimate substance that everything comes from, or is made from, and also how it operates, or creates everything in its turn makes a lot of sense from a logical standpoint, so this is why the concept of substance was used as a concept originally as a means to understand energy and processes, and one could easily ask, what is energy?, and what is its true nature?, and how does this operate, and function to create tangible structure?, and how does it operate, and move in reality and in space? It is energy and its true nature that metaphysicians are trying to understand when they talk about, and write about substance and ask what is it? and how does it create structure in the universe? All substances in matter are the same as energy, and are the outcome of its interactions and so therefore can be considered as extensions of original substance, and you could say that energy is the original substance that everything comes from, and energy should be understood more fully by all metaphysicians. Nature and reality in general is more certain of what it is doing than humans are aware of what they are doing, nature creates meaning out of potential and possibility, whereas humans go around doubting that there is meaning at all, when all you have to do is to simply create it from potential and possibility for it to exist. Humans have so much potential to create meaning and to do things, they simply have to stop being passive and fatalistic, they also have to stop pursuing illusions. Humans have been able to create elements on their own which nature had not yet got around to creating, and humans have also been able to send particles faster than the speed of light by artificial means. It must also be pointed out that energy and space are intrinsically linked and connected, and that you cannot understand one without the other, and also fields are part of this process, whether they be gravitational, or electro magnetic, so to have an understanding of substance you must consider these things also. The concept of substance in its original metaphysical sense can be viewed as a description of energy itself in its purest form, which one could say would have specific characteristics such as vibration, elasticity, divisibility, continuity, flexibility etc. It is energy, and process, and not substance in its original metaphysical meaning, and also not the concept of god that is the basic ontological categories which describes reality accurately, and this is due to the eternal processes of change, and exchange in energy and its perpetual, and ceaseless vibration, movements and interactions in the space it inhabits, and also space is an important feature of these processes. The change that exists in energy is expressed by the exchange of opposites, or the interaction of opposites within the structure of matter. A good point that can be made in the favour of the people who believe in god is the mysterious properties that exist in energy in the sense of the perpetual, and ceaseless vibration that exists in matter, scientists have even claimed that it behaves as though it had intelligence and so this aspect of reality can be viewed as evidence that there might be a god by some people, but this line of inquiry must be considered as a metaphysical and scientific claim for it to have any kind of validity. Some people wonder whether the universe is either fortuitous or planned but I think that reason suggests that it came about by inevitable and spontaneous processes which continually refine themselves over time.

ON GROWTH AND CHANGE

Growth it can be said consists of a process of change within any energy form in nature that requires additions from outside its form, as well as a change from within it due to the "will" in nature which is as I have mentioned before a force that is an extension of the ceaseless and perpetual vibration that exists in all energy or matter. In nature things like people and trees are able to grow only up to a certain point and then they stop growing, this whole process of growth and change is a fascinating aspect of nature, as is so many others, and should be investigated in its own right. The definite and particular size an object attains to due to the processes of growth and change in nature appear to exist due to a type of program within matter, but any program in matter or in nature in general has to be developed by an initial process and force, the reason i suggest this is because it cannot be any other way, inference and reason both lead to this conclusion. All of the causes of things and processes in nature are produced or set in motion by the ceaseles and perpetual vibration that exists in all energy or matter, so this would be the cause of the gradual forming of the seed and its program, aswell as the cause of the seeds growth once it has been formed and planted elsewhere, it is all of the combined activities of energy in general such as the soil, minerals, chemicals, water, and sunlight and their interactions with the seed that cause it to grow. The general activitities and vibration in energy and its processes that i have mentioned earlier are able to formalize and objectify an energy form that can grow and change, and this process and ability that energy has to do this becomes like a progam that can perpetuate and reproduce itself in matter by the use of free energy and this process is what i call the "formalization principle" and is a universal principle that exists in energy and its activities. The outward appearance of a growing and changing life form is shaped by its inner desires aswell as its will, and this outward appearance is also a response to how this lfe form views objective physical reality, for example, if our lifestyle is difficult and full of suffering because of our environment then we will seem difficult and unhappy to people, or alternatively cheerful and stoic, or however we choose to respond, and how we respond depends on our character and will aswell as the environment itself. Only life forms with weak characters or wills are shaped by their environment to a large degree, strong characters respond to their environment in the way they choose, and they also make an effort to shape their environment in accordance with their will. The change that occurs in growth consists of moments, stages, and phases and this change occurs because these processes are part of the program of whatever form goes through this , even the gradual decline of the form is part of the program, it is almost like the will in nature which is responsible fo this program in the first place is trying to stretch out and milk energy and processes for all it is worth in the construction of this form.

NOTHINGNESS DOES NOT EXIST

The concept of "nothing" or "nothingness" has always struck me as a very interesting and worthwile aspect of reality to think about and form theories about, it is a concept that is used a lot by philosophers and by people in general. People even say that when you die you become nothing, but if your body is buried the atoms that your body consists of still exist, and some of these atoms gets converted into gases, on the other hand if you are cremated most of your atoms get dispersed into the atmosphere, and the rest of the atoms remain in the left over ashes. Even an empty paper bag contains particles, atoms, and molecule and cannot be said to contain nothing, it is also impossible in nature to create a complete or absolute vacuum, a vacuum will always contain a degree of matter in the form of particles. If nothingness existed there would not even be any space, let alone infinite space, a common axiom is that everything in physical reality is something including space itself which is infinite and also has infinite energy in its structure, and the fact that things exist is the only truth of physical reality concerning the fact that you cannot have nothing in physical reality even if something is only a temporary truth and impermanent. The reason why humans have a concept for nothing or nothingness is because concepts get defined more in relational terms to other concepts, for example, we have "something" or "being" and so what happens is that people have to invent the concept of "nothing" so that we can define and understand the concept of "something" more fully. Absolute truth consists of something, and the concept of truth exists because of the fact that reality itself is something (i.e., it consists of infinite energy, and space, and potential to create forms and events,) and to presuppose nothingness as an aspect of truth and reality is incorrect, and only that which is not true or does not exist, or has never existed can be labelled as nothing or not a thing that has ever existed, you cannot have the concept of nothing as the negation of being or of the concept of "something" and then say that this nothing exists as a part of being and existing things and then apply it to a description of reality. Everything in physical reality exists as energy and space and is part of a process that is like a continuum, whether you call a thing in nature a "something" or call it a "being" does not really matter, it is still an aspect of creation, or has a temporary existence, or is part of the dispersion of energy, or destruction and does not really matter because all of these processes are something and they consist of energy in space and are part of physical reality. Only an imaginary thing that does not exist in any way whatsoever and has never existed can be considered as nothing and be called this with confidence. The concepts of nothingness and untruth that we have only exist in the minds of human beings and also in their works, these concepts or things do not exist anywhere else in nature. The word nothing is only used in speech because languages contain many errors of reasoning, and languages are full of faults of all kinds anyway and if one chose to find errors and mistakes in languages one could find them easily, but people who are proud of human languages try to cover up these errors by defending these languages, but these errors are their and exist in languages none the less and cannot be denied. "Something" can only exist in relation to "space" and not in relation to "nothing", space is something also, but in relation to solid tangible objects it has less stable matter so it seems like it is less of a something even though it is not, nuclear reactions create stable matter, whereas matter exists everywhere in the fabric of space itself whether stable or unstable. The concept of relation means something is relative to something else, things cannot be felt or seem like they are concrete and dynamic unless they exist in the form of duality or relativity, but one can say that these things are not opposites they are the same thing but in a different state of activity, the concept of opposites are simply extremes of the same thing in polar opposite states of activity or state, I have explained and described some of these things more in my essay called: "So-Called Opposites" and also in my other essay called "Unity And Duality". It must also be pointed out that our senses cannot detect nothing, or nothingness, our senses can only detect something, ideas come from sense impressions, ideas are formed from things that exist and are a something that gives us an impression through our senses, so therefore we cannot have an idea of nothingness as an idea because it has no impression on our senses whatsoever. Sartre seems to use the concept of nothingness in a subjective, emotional manner, as a way of describing a feeling he gets in certain situations; someone else would feel differently in these same situations than he does, and that he describes, or they would analyze, and describe it more objectively than he does.

UNIVERSALS

"Universals" appear to exist as perfect and apparent "ideas" but universals are not ideas and they are not perfect and this because there is not a thing in nature that is perfect. Experience teaches us that all universals exist only in a relative sense as part of physical reality and they have no real existence in physical reality in the complete sense and therefore can only exist in relative terms in physical reality as abstract potentiality and concrete partiality, but universals appear to exist in the complete sense in the reality of possibility and potential and are therefore an aspect of reality; reality does not consist only of what is physical but consists of what is possible also. The "eternal ideas" or forms mentioned by philosophers like Plato are called "universals" and these universals consist of all the eternal and universal things that exist as possibilities within the processes in energy or matter, universals also exist as thoughts in the minds of people also and universals give people and processes in nature absolute goals to work towards. The theory of universals is a description of all universal things that exist in the universe, either as concepts, forms or as abstract descriptions of universal things or a combination of all. Universals also represent all that is absolute in things in nature whether they are part of the continuum of nature or not, for instance, in nature specific types of colours in the electro magnetic spectrum, either in wavelength form or in the form of physical objects are never seen as pure, specific wavelengths are always seen by the eye as mixed with other colours, they are seen as fragmentary, so one could say that a specific type of red of the electro magnetic spectrum is a type of universal and is absolute as this type of red. for instance, the concept of a perfect sphere is a type of "universal" also, certain objects in nature due to processes may aim for the shape of a perfect sphere but they will never attain to this shape fully. "Universals" are the absolute "essence" of all eternal things and all temporary, imperfect and particular things in nature are partially derived from these universals and are called "particulars" and these particulars, it must be pointed out, have a character that is shaped by the circumstances that they are in due to the changes inherent in the processes of energy of which they are a part of. The reason why isolated parts of reality and particulars seem temporary and fragmentary, is because particulars are not absolute as an essence, particulars are combinations of universals and particulars also exist because of the changes inherent in the dynamic aspects of processes due to the "laws" "rules" and "forces" that are in place within the processes of energy and its possibilities. Particulars also consist of the temporary aspects of the ceaseless and perpetual vibrational activity which is inherent in energy and which is always at work in all processes. The fragmentary and temporary aspect of particulars is what gives them character and makes them unique, the only thing eternal about particulars is the vibrational energy activity inherent in them as well as the different universals they are a combination of and also of the laws, rules and forces that exist in energy and space. Universals are eternal, static, absolute things or forms that are abstract and become concrete in processes and are like rules and laws and things that are consistent and real within processes. Universals are possibilities and potentialities, that processes aim towards and become actualities in the sense that particular things are combinations of different universals. A particular on the other hand, is a dynamic, noticeably imperfect and partially real, tangible and temporary aspect of nature. Universals represent complete and eternal truths, whereas particulars exist as temporary truths in the concrete and tangible sense of physical reality. When describing universals and the rules and laws in nature and how the activities within energy take shape in accordance with the universal aspect of processes, it can clearly be pointed out that forms in nature cannot take shape or form without something to aim at that exists already within it to become as a guide and universals are like guides of possibility and potential that is inherent within energy and space. What has been ascertained already is that all things in nature consist of both the "universal" and the "particular" as well as the laws, rules and forces that are part of the processes in energy and space and all processes in energy and space come about due to the activity in energy. That everything in nature consists of the universal and the particular can be observed by the fact that this is the main reason why every individual human person is similar, but yet at the same time they are unique and partially different to everyone else and this can be observed in most tangible objects also whether they are animate or inanimate. Universals can always be sensed intuitively and felt, it is natural to compare in a relational way in our minds the concepts that we think about at any given point in time and how these concepts seem relative to universals and this usually happens when we think about reality in general. Universals or forms are immanent within matter, they appear, emerge and manifest in nature because they are inherent within nature itself.

IMPERFECT HARMONY

All processes and forces in nature are interactions of energy and its vibratory activities within space, and these processes follow and obey rules which are a type of imperfect harmony which are inevitable as rules of activity for energy and its interactions and processes. Physical reality is an imperfect harmony of forces, and the reason I describe reality as being imperfect is because the concept of perfection exists only in our minds as an "ideal" or "idea", the concept of perfection exists in mathematics and geometry also as ideal mathematical concepts. One can say that it is only moments in time that exist in our minds which can be considered to be perfect, and perfection cannot exist in the concrete or tangible sense of phenomenon in physical reality. The concept of perfection appears to be partly real and partly imaginary, the concept of perfection seems to exist as a possibility that cannot be fully realized in physical reality, and it seems to exist in relative degrees also, for instance, an object A, can be considered to be more perfect than an object b, and vice versa. That something can exist as a possibility but yet not be fully realized in physical reality is a strange and mysterious aspect of reality, and requires more investigation and thought to be fully understood, and yet this is how the concept of perfection exists in reality. There are many factors which prevent the processes of energy or matter from attaining to the condition or state of perfection as humans conceive it, the concept of perfection could be viewed as not being very practical in physical reality, an example of this, is the human eye, in the human eye we have a blind spot which exists because of the eyes physical connection to the brain. There are no perfect spheres in nature, especially not planets or stars which have their very specific shapes for a reason. Everything in nature is imperfect and flawed by human standards anyway, and what humans call imperfection in these things is what gives these things character, if everything was perfect then everything would be more similar, "character" is what makes things different and "particular" otherwise everything would be more standard and alike, if things were perfect and alike then things would be limited and finite, and there would be no room for variation with different and particular types of things. The particular has character and is imperfect and flawed, whereas the concept of the universal is a perfect standard for all forms, and mathematical forms, aswell as a standard for all known things in the universe which are either abstract or not, "universals" can be considered to be "static concepts", even perfection itself can be considered to be a static concept, anything involving change can be considered as imperfect and flawed, anything universal is not completely real, it is part real and part possibility. It is only when the universal meets the particular within processes that you get particular things with character, and these particular things or forms are unlike any other things in existence, even though they may happen to be imperfect. What human beings call imperfection is really only a form of doubt that exists in our minds because we are comparing things in physical reality to our static and perfect "ideal"which exists only as a possibility. Even though things in physical reality can be considered as imperfect they are also efficient in their own way as a physical expression of processes within change.

THE FALLACY OF CYNICISM

"Cynicism" is the belief, habit, and attitude of thinking that views other things; and other peoples actions as being insignificant, unimportant, not honest, self-serving, no good, redundant, not sincere, not worth anything, does not lead anywhere, etc. What I call "the fallacy of cynicism" is the fact that it is cynicism itself which consists of the things it projects as an attitude or view of the world, and it is in fact cynicism which is false, and negative, and unimportant. A lot of cynicism comes from a lack of inner content, or the lack of inner life that exists in people, and comes from a feeling of jealousy, and inadequacy, and a general feeling of apathy, and insecurity, and doubt towards oneself, and things in general, but is projected outwardly as an attitude, and it tries to convince itself and others that it is correct. All human beings who desire to be in touch with the truth at all times should banish cynicism from their very "being" as soon as possible. Modern society and the media and people in general these days are saturiated with cynicism, and it is because most people and the masses do not know how to think for them'selves, and don't really care about the truth, and are full of doubts, and therefore project this cynical attitude when they disagree with something. People should apply reason, logic, understanding, empathy, sympathy, and compassion if they want to overcome cynicism in them'selves and in others, cynicism is like a disease that must be eradicated. To have an appreciation for people, and the world in general, as well as developing, and displaying the faculties of "humour", "love", and "compassion" towards people has a positive and beneficial affect on people and their attitudes to the world in general , and when one displays this to them in a regular and consistent manner one finds great things begin to happen amongst people and their view of the world, and this should be encouraged more within the general make-up of peoples thinking and outlook of the world, instead of the tired cynical and defensive attitude that many people display which creates a feeling of seperation amongst people, which in general is a bad thing. I have always liked the Arthur Schopenhauer quote that; every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world, and this is why it is important to have a very open, and active mind, and one should also be all-embracing in one's view of reality and the universe in general, obviously wanting to know too much about reality can be foolish, you know the old saying, that if you try to be everywhere you find yourself to be nowhere, it is better to expand your knowledge a bit at a time, and at the same time it helps to have an active and open minded approach in one's understanding of things, it also helps to be all embracing in our approach and in our comprehension of reality, and we should also think of the "whole" and "totality" of things as best we can, and learn to harmonize differences. Some people have the attitude that being open minded means a person has no firm convictions, and also has an unbiased approach to reality, in a sense this is true, but this is not a bad approach, but a prudent one, and this is only because being biased can cloud peoples sense of reason because of its one-sided aspect and manner, also having convictions can be a rigid way of thinking and approaching life in general, because of the fact that convictions can be very fixed even when it is in defence of incorrect things, convictions can degenerate into petty one-sided stubbornness if it is not checked and corrected, so therefore it can help to be open minded at times when required. "Cynics" always have a very limited, narrow, and erroneous view of reality, and they think that their opinions have some kind of validity, when in fact their opinions on any topic contain the most useless answers any thinker could possibly have produced as a description of reality.
cynical people are always trying to devalue the efforts of other people and the force of their joy and enthusiasm, because cynical people have no joy or enthusiasm of their own, they have no desire to want to undersand things in reality, cynical people are simply negative empty shells devoid of any real content within their own "being", and they try to project this view onto everything else and everyone else, they want everything to seem less important than it is, and also less significant. Cynicism in most cases is a false and negative view of reality, enthusiasm, reason, and a positive way of thinking is a truer view of reality, and is also progressive. "Peak experiences" are a more accurate view of reality than a cynical and apathetic outlook could ever encompass, peak experiences give us a brief moment of clarity about the surrounding world, anything that gives our consciousness a feeling of clarity is truer than anything that simply undermines the importance of reality in our consciousness. Cynicism is an unconstructive and worthless aspect of human consciousness and should be beaten out of everyones attitudes to life who have this trait as part of their personality. Cynicism and apathy can create a feeling of boredom in our lives, and when events and moments in our lives become boring our will goes through periods were it remains passive for long periods of time, and then our focusing muscle, and our sense of purpose becomes weak and unenthusiastic and looses its focus, this outcome also gives us a feeling that our life is failing and is unimportant and futile. Meaning, purpose, and enthusiasm is important in our lives, cynicism, apathy, and boredom cripples the will, meaning and purpose stimulates the will, enthusiasm, joy, and the peak experience is a sudden surge of meaning, and it gives the feeling that we are in touch with the truth about reality. The majority of people who are very cynical do not, and cannot accomplish the great things that a more positive and enthusiastic person can attain, cynics by their very nature are low achievers. It is more what we believe things to be, and also what we want them to be that makes them what they ultimately become in the final result in the form of our actions, and this is why cynicism is such a negative and lazy attitude to have, because it lowers the quality of all judgements and endeavours. It is usually easy to tell what a cynic is thinking in most situations because most cynics have very predictable thinking patterns, in most cases. One of the only advantages to cynicism is that many things can be figured out using this approach, because the methods employed by cynicism are analytical, and fault finding, so in a sense the need for improvements in things can be suggested, by pointing out the faults that exist, and can be found in them, and cynicism can also indicate how those faults need to be improved, or eliminated. To be cynical about something bad is good, but to be cynical about something good is bad, for instance, to be cynical about an unfair, repressive and oppressive government is good, whereas to be cynical about a democratic and egalitarian state is bad. Most of what I have written in this essay is in regard to the cynicism towards good and positive things rather than the cynicism towards the negative and bad things. Sometimes when somebody is being very cynical we can get the feeling that they are not being truthful; so this the reason why I entitled this essay "The Fallacy of Cynicism".

CERTAINTY AND UNCERTAINTY

The "causes" that exist in nature and the universe in general are processes, and are not intentions, either by an all powerful god or by the events in nature. For all causes to be certain, all its aims would have to be certain, but the aims of energy, space, and processes are not aims-in-itself, they are simply processes from non explainable facts. Causes in energy and space are uncertain and groundless, whereas aims are not in most cases, aims are usually progressive and harmonious, some aims are groundless because causes are. Causes in energy and space are uncertain because they are processes rather than intentional causes, only an intentional cause can be certain, and be explained with certainty. If all the aims that make up a cause are known, then you can know for certain of how it causes things in a certain way as a cause. As i have mentioned already, the causes of processes in energy, space, and reality are uncertain, and they appear to have always existed, whereas the processes themselves have spontaneous order and can be explained by the laws of complexity. Seeing as though there is no ultimate aim to processes in reality and biological life implies that the processes of reality and existence are more important than the aims which are simply progressive and harmonious. All intentional certainty in nature is basically a build-up resulting from the events of processes that have occured in nature generally prior to the certainty that we are speaking of at any given point in time, but the more one traces back the certainty of causes for each event the more gradually they become uncertain and seem groundless as causes, and this is only because our knowledge is limited. Energy and space have always existed; and causes are the result of processes and cycles in nature that go from groundless and irrational, to arational, to rational and progressive, and then become refined, and then go back to a groundless and basic state again, and then continue because energy and space is infinite in all its processes. There is no beginning, and there is no end to processes in energy and space, processes simply continue from a sort of uncertain and groundless existence in energy and just continue and go on and work themselves out indefinitely, this is why humans have concepts like eternity, and infinity, because we intuitively feel these things in our very being as part of the universe and things in general, humans sometimes make the mistake of thinking that their existence is eternal because it is part of energy and space, but this is merely wishful thinking, and our existence is not eternal in any way, it is finite in space and time, and it is only the energy that we consist of and the space that we occupy that is eternal and is part of the infinite. A lot of processes begin and then die out or fail, this occurs all the time in nature, any process which is an extension of other processes, or you could say a microcosom of much more greater processes can be said to have a beginning and an end, but ultimate processes do not have a beginning or an end. Certainty is temporary, and limited, and intentional in most cases, and therefore has its limits in most situations. As society and civilization progresses more a feeling of certainty is aquired by people in general because knowledge has the ability of reducing the doubts we have about things. Ultimate causes and aims will always remain uncertain and cannot be understood fully seeing as how one thing cannot exist without another anyway, certainty only exists because uncertainty existed before it in the chain of events, and vice versa.