Left and Right:

I’m not sure if i have posted this already but it is one of my writings that I feel like posting now. Please tell me if i’ve already posted it.

Left and Right:

Writing started on July 12 2010.

I will now outline some main points of what I percieve to be the right and left hand paths of existential morality and world views, and my explanatory critique to some minor degree. These things are the basis of the RHP and LHP:

The Right Hand Path:
Free Will, Theism, Creationism, Morality, Meaning, Realism/Ontology, Altruism,

The Left Hand Path:
Putting one’s self above other’s, Atheism/religious alternatives, Amorality,

1 : Free Will:
Free Will and that which is associated with it, is thus: Freedom, Self, Accountability, certain forms of Causality, Judgement of behavior, etc. Now if free will is the true and complete cause of our behavior, then other things such as how we were born, what we were taught, what we were exposed to, and how we were treated, will not control or influence our choices, because we are self-determining, not determined by what we are exposed to. Already this prooves to be nonsense, because how we were born, what we were taught, what we were exposded to, and how we were treated, in our lives, highly influences our behavior and our choices. If we were all equally free and entirely self-determining, then every race, culture, class and person would have the same average as regards crime, kindness, etc. But different countries have different degrees of crime and virtue. This is because culture, race, class and personality differs and truly alters our choices and influences us. To have complete, total and true free will, we must be impervious to all outside influence, being self-determining, not determined by things other than the self. This simply is not the case. Also, if free-will is equally existen in all of “Gods creations”, then the humanoids on each planet and in each realm would all basically have the same natural average of behavior and choice. This is definitely not the case. Species determines behavior greatly, and even moreso does our reality determine us, as we are controlled and created by the forces of nature and the laws of nature.

“Freedom” is roughly a state without human interferance or control. Freedom is still a controlled state, but the controls are simply the ones the instance was born with, and when those controls are replaced by new or foreign controls, the comforts of banality tend to feel threated, therefor the illusion of freedom is distorted or lost when old forms of control are replaced by new ones, in part or in full.

“Self” is complete nonsense. Where does self start and where does it end? We are constantly absorbing new materials and energies, as we discharge others. These materials and energies may reorganize slightly, but they were never self and they never will be. Self is a misunderstanding of forms.

“Accountability” is inaccurate, because we usually blame those only at the scene of the event, instead of blaming all of the natural forces and prerequisite events which created and led up to the scene aswel as the event in question.

“Causality” is incompetent, in so far as reality is pure cause and no effect. Reality is also one cause, not many causes.

2 : Theism:
Theism is a belief in gods. First of all, they should not be called “gods”. Super beings maybe, but not “gods”, as the word “god” is in ruins and madness. Most people are selective about which gods they believe in. Most people do not believe in zues, hadies, jesus and seth all at the same time, and if they did, then that would be self-contradictory, because the stories of who created who, and who exists and who doesn’t, differs within religions. Now if the gods are egregores and subcons, then they probably aren’t truly good, for their existential base originates within lies, fantasy and delusion. Since the right hand path is highly abrahamic, it rejects most theism and claims that only its own theism is correct. According to my logic, a true god can materialize, any time he wants. He doesn’t need to have human representatives. If he wants to rule the earth, he can rule it. If he wants to create something, he creates it. Christianity is based on possession, both true and false. A spirit claims to be God, then possesses a man, or influences a man, the man becomes a prophet, or a mystic, then they write the bible. That’s how it went. Christianity is based on possession. Christianity and islam are naturally demonic, due to the way that angellics and demons tend to operate. Now because the …relatively real gods are spirits, and the false gods are lies, theism is a mix of spiritism and madness. That is all that it is, and all that it ever was. If gods were material beings, we would be able to see and interact with them. But because gods are invisible, of ‘heaven’ and energy and such, they are spirits and of spiritism, or mental and of consciousness. Psychic creatures find it allot easier to control a mind than they do to control an inanimate solid piece of matter. This is why they need and require messengers, prophets, etc. Instead of speaking for themselves with their own bodies, for they do not have bodies. They must take bodies before they can have bodies, for they are thieves. Immaterial beings should not be trusted.

3 : Creationism:
There are certain principals of which apply to anything intelligently created. Although human creations are relatively simple, and diverse, they tend to always have some sort of function. For example, a car will have certain functions. It will consist of complex structures which all follow the united purpose of driving. A car meant to drive will naturally have 4 wheels. If it wasn’t meant to drive, it wouldn’t have wheels. So, if the universe was intelligently designed, what was the purpose of the universe? Biblically it is claimed that “God” created the sun and moon, etc. to light the sky for us. The bible never said there were planets other than the earth, as far as i know, or said that these things had a purpose. The bible claims that God created the earth and the things around it in order to support life, chiefly human life, of which was created in his own likeness and image. Well, humans are pretty fragile, and stupid, not God-like at all. I don’t see how that’s in “God’s own likeness and image”, at all… Our sun is eventually going to burn out, we’ve got meteors, earthquakes, storms, and lots of uninhabitable planets, and deadly cosmic radation, and stuff like that… That doesn’t exactly help us, or do anything good for life. If the earth was truly designed to support life, then it shouldn’t have deadly, flawed or unstable things. Like, what’s the deal with the ice age, and how many species that are now extinct? Earth doesn’t support life very well, at all. Life is hard, frail, imperfect, and unintelligent. If God is so nice and smart, why would he create us with such a small intellect, and frail bodies, and natural things like viruses. Viruses didn’t appear out of nowhere, and also parasites of various kinds, there are so many, and they don’t help humanity. Yeah man was supposedto have all the animals in subjection to him, and use them. But they don’t want to help us, at all. Most animals run away if they see a person. Or a bear will maul you, or whatever. So the animals aren’t even in subjection, or meant to help us, or are very hard to gain benifites from, other than some being edible. Ok so maybe God created uninhabitable planets because they are beautiful. Well, we can’t see them, for starters, so maybe they are just for him to see. But wow, a big round lump of rocks and gas, that’s not exactly beautiful. It’s like a baby scribbling on a piece of paper with crayons… So I don’t think God created that for beauty or fun, either. Planets have allot of energy, but they aren’t very complex, at all. They are very simple and dead. Stars are not complex either, at all. They are large large amounts of the same energy. Intelligent designs tend to be complex, and the more intelligent the creator, the more complex the design. Also, a smart creator makes designs with are highly efficient, and require little-to-no energy. Well, things like stars burn out after a while, and galaxies colide and misalign, and when a star burns, it doesn’t recycle its own energy it releases all of it and wastes it. Do we really need starts to heat outer space? Space is mostly cold, still, anyways, also we can’t see most stars so they aren’t there to keep our sky bright at night, and if they were, then they could have been made allot closer to earth, and just release light instead of also releasing heat and radiation that we didn’t need or could die from. Also if I was God, I would make creation self-repairing and self-cleaning, so that it didn’t break down or get toxified. When someone dumps some nuclear waste, or oil or something, and oil is a natural substance, but anyways, the planet doesn’t clean that up. If we nuke the earth and blow out a chunk, it’s gone for good. The earth is very fallable and temporary. Humanity hasn’t been around for very long, and it hasn’t been easy for humanity to survive, either. We have technology now which makes things easier, but that’s very recent. If the earth was created for us, for life, then why was life so hard? The lack of complexity in the cosmos, it being extreme amounts of simple, wasteful, random energies, aswel as the never ending lists of reasons… well, I don’t believe in creationism. Why should I, really?

4 : Morality:
Although I see morality as an imperfect construct, I believe that morality is one of the best and highest contraptions of the right hand path. Morality is an understanding of the outcomes and eventualities of our own choices and behaviors. From this understanding comes a certain form of logic, such as : “If we hurt eachother, we feel bad, therefor we should not hurt eachother.” This is very simple, but effecitve, and from such a minimal knowledge, comes the idea that harmfulness is wrong, especially towards people in general. I have come to conclude that proper morality is a benificial tool. Different moral systems are better or worse for different species and forms of life. But I believe that higher or highest morality is so complete, versatile, flexible and polyphonic, that it can be truly universal and useful for all. We are so linear and unintelligent as humans that we cannot create a universal and purely-always good morality, but that does not mean such things are impossible, at all.

5 : Meaning:
Creationism teaches that plans and thoughts preceeded reality, therefor reality was meant to be a certain way, and has the meaning of and from God. Well, I have many reasons to disbelieve in creationism. According to atheism and modern science, dead energies preceeded the living, and simpler forms of life preceeded the more complex forms of life. According to this principal, the small preceeds the large, and the simple preceeds the complex. So, according to this, things start out with relatively no meaning or purpose, then meanings evolve. Also this idea makes sense to me, because meanings can be reduced to the meaningless or the metameaningful. Example : although I can believe that I am meant to love someone, when I am reduced to my atomic basis, it is not the meaning of all atoms to love someone. Atoms aren’t meant to love anybody, and they don’t… Therefor what I am made of, doesn’t have the meaning, but instead the forms are the basis of meanings. I will agree to a little extent that meaning is, but I must say that at the root, there is no single purpose or meaning, and what reality can be reduced to, is something almost formless, almost without purpose. Therefor I say that the highest meaning exists only within the highest form, which would be, let’s say, some sort of giant super intelligent alien race full of love and wisdom and peace and all of that. That, to me, would be the resting place of highest and truest meaning. Meanwhile, dirt and grass has less meaning. Wouldn’t you agree that a house fly has less meaning and value than your own life? Therefor we conclude that God is more important than ourself, because it is a higher being than ourself. I’m not saying God is real, I don’t know the stuff, but I’m giving that as just a RHP idea/example.

6 : Realism/Ontology:
Realism, it’s a loaded word, but in religions, they claim that the reality of the situation is truly knowable, and that certain ancients knew what was up, then wrote it down, for us. I don’t mind realism, because I think we are real, therefor reality is of itself and thus capable of itself, therefor the real is knowable, due to its self-similarities and such, existing within the persons whom interact with it.

7 : Altruism:
This is a little bit of morality, but It’s a big thing when we get down to the right hand paths. We can imagine a world where everyone is altruistic. That idea appeals to allot of people. Can you imagine a place where everyone was willing to help you, and treat you well, and not be mean to you? If you’ve been around allot of assholes, you would probably moreso appreciate the concept of a world made of purely nice people. Even from a … semi-darwinistic standpoint, we can imagine a harmonious society functioning more efficiently and surviving better than a society consisting of crime and opportunism. Therefor I conclude that altruism is both subjectively valid as an appealing world concept, and also it is objectivley valid as a life-state in which life succeeds by working as a harmonious and supportive family system. Mothers of many species tend to be altruistic towards their babies, and so that little bit of altruism is a part of the success of life : supporting the needy in a way which leads them to becoming less needy, eventually being able to support themselves aswel as others. Altruism is like an investment in the potentials of life. We give in a way that eventually leads to someone even moreso giving. We expend a little bit of our life in order to create even more life beyond ourselves. Whether it be natural or divine, or both, altruism exists to some degree, and it has its profits to consider.

LHP

8 : Putting one’s self above other’s:
Life on earth, in general, constantly puts its own interests above the interests of other creatures or forms of life. You beef eaters do that all the time, even ya veggy eaters are willing to eat stuff like seeds, which are like baby plants, or whatever. Yeah this is just what we all do, to get by and exist. This is an immoral no-no according to the ignorant, whom often do it themselves but are too blind to recognize it. From this … impulse, comes the idea that one can be more valid or better than the other. Self interest is allot like classism. Both are systems of worth and value.

  • Far as I know, the Somaras also believe that one type of individual can be better and more worthy than another, that one species can be better and more worthy than another, etc. According to their thinking, as far as I know, currently, their definition of worth is difficult to grasp, as is the concepts of their dialects of virtue, but, they elect and give higher rank to … the pure hearted, benevolent, wise, proper, individuals and species within their society. Rulership, in their society, is not based upon, or given to, the powerful, or the intelligent, and especially not to the demanding, or the self-righteous, or the dominant, or the authoritative, nor to the passionate and the sensually appealing, but instead they believe that certain values are higher than these things. - They would teach that when a more good species eats a less good species, it is a form of progress, but ultimately it would be best to alter the less-good species, making a hybred with the best qualities of both species selected, then this hybred should be elected to govern over both original species. According to this, if men met some wolves, they would create werewolves, then give their government over to the werewolves to rule all the wolves and humans… It may sound strange to you, but that’s just how the Somaras are, a very progressive species.

One problem is that me-first attitudes tend to be parasitic, and parasites tend to harm their host moreso than they help it. Sometimes we get an ecosystem where all the hungry little basters help eachother, but that’s not what they actually wanted to do. They wanted to eat no matter what happens. As such I conclude that self-interest is based on the moronic. Yes it helps us, a bit, sometimes, but it is ignorant of the big picture. So I say that me-first isn’t as good as altruism.

9 : Atheism:
I’m willing to say that atheism is great, even though it has rejected magick and psychism, spirits, maybe aliens too, and all that. RHP guys tend to say that atheism is a moral problem. Ya can imagine a guy that doesn’t think God will judge/reward/punish him, then he does whatever he wants. That’s scary to a certain kind of theist, whom basis his choices on the God he believes in. Luckily we have allot more than God as the basis of our morality and our choices.

10 : Amorality:
Amorality can mean a few things, but it itself usually contains some sorts of values, beliefs, desires, etc. and these are the basis of morals, anyways. The most amoral position is to be a nihilist. This means neutrality of both belief and desire. Such a thing is not dangerous, and you can embrace it for a while when you need to take a break from the sophism that humanity is immersed in. Next the “amoral” is the pragmatic opportunist whom uses whatever he or she can, in order to attain things. This is a moral system of personal attainments being valued over and above things such as laws, religions, personal differences, etc. I consider such things to be rather unevolved but useful for the few.

Ok, out of all of this, I have concluded that the RHP is crap except for its morality and realism. LHP is basically the stuff other than or counter to the RHP, but since the RHP is mostly crap, LHP isn’t pure evil they are both crappy instead.

false…there are infinitely many flaws about this statement…i will address one of these many flaws…

if one is to have complete, total and true free will and be impervious to all outside influence, being self-determining, not determined by things other than the self and you say that existence does not have this- then how can a person have this within existence? he can not- it would be impossible…therefore- if there is not existence then there is only nothing and God/afterlife (unless you believe there is a “world or entity that is greater than existence” yet did not give birth to existence- if that were the case then existence would in fact be greater than this “world that is greater than existence”- therefore you would disprove your very own statement). therefore your idea can theoretically only take place within either nothing or God/afterlife. therefore you are lying to yourself- anyone that truly does not believe in free will would want it- and if your idea only takes place within nothing or God/afterlife you would kill yourself. anyone that could possibly be aware of themselves not having free will (impossible) would be utter torture…therefore atheism is the path to suicide. also therefore- if one is able to land his location from a place of no free will to a place of free will instantly by comiting suicide then when on the other side that person would be able to say (according to this infinitely flawed sentence) “hey i have free will now” and would then be able to realize that if he knew this would happen (in existence) and then made the trip- all that changed were his abilities but no matter how little those abilities were in existence compared to you now- you were still aware of the journey- therefore this knowledge of free will that you had would then have been free will in and of itself.

God bless

Birth and existence is unchosen. We start choosing when we get older, based on what we were born with.

Free Will is real if it is realistic. Otherwise it’s not.

Dan~ You can’t have the left with out having the right. Its like cutting a ball in half and still expecting each part to behave in a ball like manner.

I’m always going to be an idealist. I can imagine a world with little evil as still possible and preferable.

I see that evil has to be present in order to promote life and love. Its the shadow to the body

Only society thought Hitler as evil. Hitler thought he was doing humanity a great service. He was doing good in his eyes by being evil and if you think about it much good came from that atrocity.