It's the Universe's Fault Also

When we travel on the road of philosophical inquiry, we become perplexed by situations that seem to us to be incalculable. Our limitations put us in situations which the right, true and correct path is not clear to us, and we are not able to see into the future to the ends which would help us know if we are right or wrong. Men can make choices such as the choice to live in immediacy, and to cleanse their means, making their ends into their means and therefore limiting their subject to their own control, limiting risks into the transcendent realm of the unknown, and putting ones self on the line for being responsible for monumental mistakes, or being praised as meritorious for making a lucky guess at a roll of dice. In this writing I would like to highlight some examples of incalculable situations, and compare them to easily calculated decisions. We derive our ideas of justice from a social contract of limited economy where what is viewed as transgression is qualitatively evaluated, and matched against a sort of equitable revenge to deter future transgression and to discourage the idea in others that they could freely transgress also. So, in this type of system, how does one punish a person who commits a transcendent transgression when not only the consequences cannot be calculated or understood, but evaluating the qualitative deterrent becomes nebulous and muddled, making axiomatic justice impossible? It seems obvious to me that if the system you are part of inherently has limitations beyond your control that may cause you to err, then, the onus of guilt for destructive outcomes falls on the one who created the conditions for those outcomes. Whereas, if a person has the correct view and information, but from within their vision is clouded by their own prejudices, beliefs and drives, then the err is immediate and though every contingency cannot be calculated at this time, if a majority judgment can be made, then our immediate judicial contract can be maintained. I am not religious in anyway, but I would like to discuss the idea that the universe itself as a whole, in its own form is to blame for many of the woes we suffer. I would like to blast those who negate mankind as a whole. I desire to give them the name "human traitors", and to talk about their personal self-interest in that negation. To finish, I would like to discuss the fact that the full responsibility, if there really is a productive and destructive equilibrium in the universe, is shared between those with limited vision and education, and that essence which begins at the edge of those limitations. Fuel up your vehicle, and let us go for a drive.

Situation #1

A strange man comes running at you with a knife. Saying nothing, he attacks. You happen to be trained ninja, so you take him down, disarm him, and hold him prisoner until the recognized authorities arrive.

Any civilized person would agree, this is the correct course of action in a civilized society where law rules, and fair judgment is expected.

Situation #2

A strange man comes running at you with a knife, screaming, "I'm going to kill you!". You happen to be a trained ninja, so you take him down, and disarm him, and hold him prisoner. While you are holding the man, he says "If you do not kill me, when I am released from jail I will hunt your daughter and kill her. Then I will hunt your wife and kill her. Then I'll come back for you!" To make matters worse, the jails are overcrowded and the local authorities are known for turning away criminals where no physical damage is shown to the victims.

Now one is faced with the dilemma of self-preservation and duty to family, or ones devotion to authority. Now, given this situation it would be nice to be able to test future outcomes. Is the threat sincere? Is he just angry? What happens if I end it here? What will happen if I let him go?

Some would say it is always wrong to take authority into your hands. But, if the authority which rules cannot be trusted to be fair and just, then you are in a state of war, are you not? In a state of war, each man is his own sovereign. In the end, unless we can test the outcomes, all we are doing is leaping into the unknown in an endless state of becoming, and a hope that our immediate value system coincidentally and simultaneously intentionally leads us to the best outcome. There are no winners in a situation like this, nor is there a defined right and wrong. Suppose one outcome has the killer live, escape, and kill the family. Is that right? Suppose one outcome has you kill the killer, who in the future would have never carried out the action anyway. Is that right?

Real situations are much more nebulous than this, and one is also effected by the irrationality of fight or flight situations, accidents, prejudices, making calculation very utopian. Given this is the system we reside in, beyond our own choice, to blame men for the errors in a fashion which holds them completely accountable is unrealistic, an unexamined. Usually people who blame men so readily, are interested in negating men in the belief that they themselves are above men.

The limitations we live by were thrust upon us as a given. We who are alive today did not chose to not be able to see, and in fact progress, growth and development toward an order for everyone, is and exhibition of the conscious drives in which man himself desires to bring about that balance of peace and tranquility.

Human suffering is inherent in the universal system, as is human bliss. We are shown early on what it is to be vital, then we are left wanting for the majority of our lives. While our lives are partially determined at a universal level, we are afforded some room to move to get ahead of the mechanism and alleviate our own suffering, through our own suffering. The mechanism follows predictable laws which cannot be broken yet, and it is up to us here and now, as a team to bring the levels of human suffering down.

People who negate mankind as inherently flawed are correct in some form. Mankind emerged in his way beyond his own conscious choice. His conscious choice was a possibility before, not by his conscious choice the possibility of choice became. His ability to choose was a determined possibility before he became conscious. Everything is discovered, not created. True possibility is determined, but discovery is contingent on freedom, will and external contingency. To blame men for inadequacy in a system based on qualitative growth is to hide from ones own duty to make positive, and productive affirmations for ones self. Instead of attaining substance for ones self, one spends their time negating the substance of others in a parasitic recess. In that inversion one makes themselves justifiably negated by those who they negate by the very rules in which they negate them. They set the standard by which they judge others, and become the actual men who are to be negated as inherently "evil" or flawed. In the end, they negate mankind as a whole to bring the masturbation to a pinnacle of no duty to payment for understanding, and ultimate ego inflation, and an unconditional, irrational, untouchable social space. While we did not chose to chose, we can chose to base our choices on no information which is next to rolling the dice in chance all the time. In a romantic sense you may say, "I leave it to God." The problem is: real people suffer the consequences of leaving things to God. The assumption is that leaving it to "God" is always the right choice, when it clearly is not. My point is, those that I refer to as "human traitors" deserve to be negated themselves from the rest of humanity, by the rules in which they set up for themselves as justice. The world of human affirmation does not justify such ideas, but should that other world of human affirmation decide to negate those who negate, the world of human affirmation would be fully justified in forcing pressure to disintegrate those who negate.

I would not argue against the idea that these systems were created in a first cause. I have been known to say, "There may be a creator, but there is not God.", and if you know me you know I throw off the Atheist imposition. I am only an atheist when I decide I want to negate the theist. The onus is on the theist to prove his God exists, before he can expect you to answer the question, "Do you believe in God?" But, the essence that is referred to as "God" is indefinable, by definition. There is that which is known, and that which is unknown. Of that which is unknown there is that which can be known in current realistic possibility, and that which can never be known by current realistic possibility. Since we cannot see the future, we make the assumption that that which cannot be known in our current realistic possibility, and that which we assume can never be known is the space in which the essence resides. In that incalculable unknown resides some of the accountability and responsibility for human suffering. While we are given enough space to moderate human suffering, some suffering is a priori inherent in the system. While we may be lead to believe that it is for our own good, that really is an oversimplification, and it would not be too crazy to theorize that there is some kind of transcendental bank account, that we pay into as a species, but some of us take loans from it also.

Never make blanket negations of mankind. Regardless of what you believe about yourself, you negate yourself in actuality.