The latest innovation in Ethics

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

You too can be a first responder to the latest “best new thing” namely a novel, creative theory of Ethics. Some critics have recognized it as a valuable theory and one that has lots of benefits for you and for all those you convince to adopt it.

It roots a universal standard in our very biology and looks to scientific methods to give us guidance in applying what we inherently yearn for …how to achieve the highest quality of life. In barest outline, here it is:

The first priority of the normal brain is to survive. Yet we don’t want merely to survive, we want a high quality life, we want to flourish. We want to optimize personal well-being. This is built into our very biology. The question then becomes: How best to do it?

The answer: Let science, the arts, and the other humanities be our guide. Science is a humanistic enterprise; as Polyani has shown it is guided by beauty. {Scientists select projects to work on because they find them beautiful, and intriguingly interesting! They love the symmetries they find … the parity, and fractal shapes, the swirls of the nebulii, the elusiveness of the boson, etc.} Science won’t explain everything it never claimed it could. There will thus always remain some Mystery. [For the larger the circle of scientific knowledge grows, the larger the circumference bordering on the unknown becomes: the more questions are raised.]

If we let science be our guide, the odds are that some marvelous technologies will follow. It has been demonstrated that engineering, and designing, are arts; and they are also applied science.

What science would best guide our Ethical life?

Why, a science of Ethics, of course !!! {It doesn’t even have to be named that, as long as it fosters harmony and cooperation, lessens violence, and gross, egregious immorality.} Ethics implies harmonious cooperative relationships, the assuming of responsibility, standards for conduct, moral principles, justice, sustainable dynamic stability of relationships, fairness and honesty. It prefers authenticity over phoniness, and the avoidance of double standards, one for oneself and another for others. It prefers a double-win or a mutual gain.

The universal aim of ethics is to give us a quality life, and a science of The Moral Sense, or a science of effective self-development would be the road to achieving the aim. Such an endeavor is neuro-axiology, otherwise known as Axiogenics. It has trained over ten thousand people - but is aiming for one billion - a critical mass. When enough are trained, a tipping point is reached. The liquid crystallizes; a lynchpin opens. The wold changes for the better as those coached in the new habits are now value-generating individuals. This is achievable. This is why you should pay attention. We ‘lost travelers’ let the science give us a sense of direction – just as many drivers use a GPS – a product of physical science; one of its many beneficial technologies - to help them find their way . We let it – we let moral science - serve as a guide. Each individual then has freer choices, more autonomy, more individuality, more personal liberty. Each is self-regulating and does everything in an effective manner. Each one gets worthwhile things done. Each is caring and people-oriented.
It may just turn out that promoting the happiness and flourishing of other people is the way we achieve it for ourselves…

He/she is liberated from corruption, slavery to temptation, greed, gluttony, and other deadly sins. He lives a full, rich life. He celebrates it. He is filled with gratitude and overflows with thanksgiving. His days are filled with beauty, love, and kindness.

The science of Ethics has made a discovery. It found that the habits based upon compensating for weaknesses interfere with, often prevent, the formation of good habits - ethical habits - that are based upon one’s strengths.

The research was done by extensive administration of the HVP Test (a projective/objectively-scored values/personality test) with follow-up interviews to confirm the findings. The results were shared among value scientists who then corroborated the findings.

By the phrase “ethical habits” I mean: the habits of adding value to situations, thereby tending to upgrade relationships with which one is involved. This includes creative self-improvement as well.

Know yourself. Choose (to accept, and to be) yourself. Create yourself. Give yourself.

Those are the four imperatives that the science of Individual Ethics has derived. The first one is as old as Socrates; the second was emphasized by Kierkegaard; the third means: develop your strengths and talents; and the fourth follows almost spontaneously, once the other three are accomplished. People tend to express their gifts publicly, and this is where Individual Ethics blends into Social Ethics.

A new technique has been discovered:

When there’s something you ‘hate’ to do - such as, for example, visiting someone in the hospital - yet you feel slightly obligated to do it …ask yourself: What would a good person do?

Such a positive inquiry presents you with a new perspective …as asking questions (when framed positively) tends to do.

Another such question has been designated ‘the central question of life’ by Demerest & Schoof. It is this one:
What choice can I make, and action can I take, in this moment to achieve the greatest value {for all concerned, and all things considered}?

The question, once it becomes habitual to ask oneself mentally this, orients one in a positive ethical direction.

Thus it serves as a breakthrough technology for applying Ethics in daily life.

Are you aware of a new ethical technology enabling nonprofits to form better coalitions. Here is a link to it.:
http://www.chicagogrid.com/reviews/tech/obamas-tech-team-citys-geeks-in-residence/

Their new company, Public Good Software has a formal mission to do good.

…More evidence that Ethics is catching on :exclamation:

And here is further evidence that Ethics can be a science, as envisioned by Dr. Katz in his booklet, A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS. See http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/A%20UNIFIED%20THEORY%20OF%20ETHICS.pdf as well as in his essay ETHICS AS SCIENCE here:
http://www.workforworldpeace.org/ethics_as_science.pdf

The evidence (in the field of Positive Psychology) showed that people do best when positive feelings exceed negative feelings by a factor of at least 3 to 1. Creativity, helpfulness to others and other elements of “flourishing” characterized people who displayed that ratio in their emotional life.

2

How does one objectively measure Value?

3

Thanks for a good question, James.

Value is a function of meaning. I defined it before in my earlier posts here. Value is a match (a correspondence) to some degree between one’s mental concept of the thing or individual being valued and the (properties of the) actual thing or individual itself as perceived and experienced. The more meaning (features or qualities) in the mental, the conceptual, part of the concept, the more value something can have.

So the more meaningful something is to you, the more valuable it is (to you.)

A test has been devised, known as The Hartman Value Profile, which uses statistics to objectively measure a person’s values […much the way an optometrist uses a kit of lenses and eyecharts to measure a person’s eyesight.] Then one can use the precise results to make comparisons, to form compatible teams, to do before and after studies after a self-development course, to measure strengths and weaknesses for self knowledge, for psyco-therapeutic diagnoses, etc. {See the Buros Manual for professional reviews of the test.} It has been validated by many standard criteria for tests, and has been doing a good job for 46 years now.



Here are two more developments of which we should be aware.  The first is based upon the soundness of the Moral Intuition school of thought, which claims we have a moral sense - that, for instance, tells us that [i]harming someone[/i] is wrong.  (This imight be the basis for Hippocrates teaching doctors and nurses to [b]Do no harm.[/b] )   My theory of Ethics derives a principle that says:  Minimize suffering.  The second is a report from [u]Science News[/u] about a study relevant to our yielding to temptations, and thus becoming corrupted.

The following data gives further support for the Unified Theory of Ethics argument that Ethics can be a science. First I offer for your consideration here some passages by Marc D. Hauser excerpted from his Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong (NY: Ecco - Harper Collin, 2006) pp. 52-54. Then be sure to see the relevant science report supporting the view that Individual Ethics is concerned with our moral efforts at self-mastery - which includes self-regulation and continuous self-improvement.

“Anatomy of the Moral Faculty
The classic view that dates back at least to Hume, . . . has been carried forward into the present by the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who proposes that we are equipped with four families of moral emotions:
(1) other condemning: contempt, anger, and disgust; (2) self-conscious: shame, embarrassment, and guilt;
(3) other suffering: compassion;
(4) other praising: gratitude and elevation. These moral emotions run the show. They provide us with our intuitions about what is right or wrong, and what we should or shouldn't do.it is impossible to deny that we experience guilt, compassion, and gratitude, and that these emotions materialize in our minds and bodies in the context of moral behavior, planned or imagined. These experiences, however, leave open two questions: What triggers these emotions and when do they arise in the course of moral evaluation? For an emotion to emerge, something has to trigger it. Some system in the brain must recognize a planned or completed action, and evaluate it in terms of its consequences. When an emotion emerges in a context that we describe as morally relevant, the evaluative system has identified an action that often relates to human welfare, either one's own or someone else's. The system that perceives action, breaking the apparently seamless flow of events into pieces with particular causes and consequences, must precede the emotions. . . . Our moral faculty enables each normally developing child to acquire any of the extant systems of morality. Below is a rough sketch of the Rawlsian creature's moral anatomy--in essence its design specs.”
[By Rawlsian creature, Hauser means a creature with an innate moral grammar via which recognition of causal relationships drive emotions. He contrasts this with Kant's view that human morality is driven by a rational "Categorical Imperative" and Hume's view that emotions are primary -- that "reason serves passion."] . .


“ ANATOMY OF THE RAWLSIAN CREATURE'S MORAL FACULTY

1. The moral faculty consists of a set of principles that guide our moral judgments but do not strictly determine how we act. The principles constitute the universal moral grammar, a signature of the species.
2. Each principle generates an automatic and rapid judgment concerning whether an act or event is morally permissible, obligatory, or firbidden.
3. The principles are inaccesible to conscious awareness.
4. The principles operate on experiences that are independent of their sensory origins, including imagined and perceived visual scenes, auditory events, and all forms of language--spoken, signed, and written.5. The principles of the universal moral grammar are innate.6. Acquiring the native moral s;ystem is fast and effortless, requiring little to no instruction. Experience with the native morality sets a series of parameters, giving birth to a specific moral system.
7. The moral faculty constrains the range of both possible and stable ethical systems.
8. Only the principles of our universal moral grammar are uniquely human and unique to the moral faculty.
9. To function properly, the moral faculty must interface with other capacities of the mind (e.g. language, vision, memory, attention, emotion, beliefs), some unique to humans and some shared with other species.
10. Because the moral faculty relies on specialized brain systems, damage to these systems can lead to selective deficits in moral judgments. Damage to areas involved in supporting the moral faculty (e.g., emotions, memory) can lead to deficits in moral action--of what individuals actually do, as distinct from what they think someone else should or would do.Features 1- 4 are largely descriptions of the mature state, what normal adults store in the form of unconscious and inaccessible moral knowledge. Features 5-7 are largely developmental characteristics that define the problem of acquiring a system of moral knowledge, including signatures of the species and cultural influences. Features 8-10 target evolutionary issues, including the uniqueness of our moral faculty and its evolved circuitry. Overall this anatomical description provides a framework for characterizing our moral faculty,”

.[Hauser's book, Moral Minds, examines research relevant to each of these assertions. For those interested in understanding universal ethics it offers a fascinating window into the human operating system and specifically the built-in dimensions of our ethical agreements.]
[amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Natur](http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Natur) ... 006078072X


This informative SCIENCE DAILY report provides us with important evidence:
June 6, 2012 — New pictures from the University of Iowa show what it looks like when a person runs out of patience and loses self-control.___________

A study by University of Iowa neuroscientist and neuro-marketing expert William Hedgcock confirms previous studies that show self-control is a finite commodity that is depleted by use. Once the pool has dried up, we're less likely to keep our cool the next time we're faced with a situation that requires self-control.
But Hedgcock's study is the first to actually show it happening in the brain using fMRI images that scan people as they perform self-control tasks. The images show the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) -- the part of the brain that recognizes a situation in which self-control is needed and says, "Heads up, there are multiple responses to this situation and some might not be good" -- fires with equal intensity throughout the task.
However, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) -- the part of the brain that manages self-control and says, "I really want to do the dumb thing, but I should overcome that impulse and do the smart thing" -- fires with less intensity after prior exertion of self-control.
He said that loss of activity in the DLPFC might be the person's self-control draining away. The stable activity in the ACC suggests people have no problem recognizing a temptation. Although they keep fighting, they have a harder and harder time not giving in.
Which would explain why someone who works very hard not to take seconds of lasagna at dinner winds up taking two pieces of cake at desert. The study could also modify previous thinking that considered self-control to be like a muscle. Hedgcock says his images seem to suggest that it's like a pool that can be drained by use then replenished through time in a lower conflict environment, away from temptations that require its use.
The researchers gathered their images by placing subjects in an MRI scanner and then had them perform two self-control tasks -- the first involved ignoring words that flashed on a computer screen, while the second involved choosing preferred options. The study found the subjects had a harder time exerting self-control on the second task, a phenomenon called "regulatory depletion." Hedgcock says that the subjects' DLPFCs were less active during the second self-control task, suggesting it was harder for the subjects to overcome their initial response.
Hedgcock says the study is an important step in trying to determine a clearer definition of self-control and to figure out why people do things they know aren't good for them. One possible implication is crafting better programs to help people who are trying to break addictions to things like food, shopping, drugs, or alcohol. Some therapies now help people break addictions by focusing at the conflict recognition stage and encouraging the person to avoid situations where that conflict arises. For instance, an alcoholic should stay away from places where alcohol is served.
But Hedgcock says his study suggests new therapies might be designed by focusing on the implementation stage instead. For instance, he says dieters sometimes offer to pay a friend if they fail to implement control by eating too much food, or the wrong kind of food. That penalty adds a real consequence to their failure to implement control and increases their odds of choosing a healthier alternative.
The study might also help people who suffer from a loss of self-control due to birth defect or brain injury.
"If we know why people are losing self-control, it helps us design better interventions to help them maintain control," says Hedgcock.  [size=85]He is an assistant professor in the Tippie College of Business marketing department and the UI Graduate College's Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Neuroscience.[/size]
[sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142704.htm](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120606142704.htm)

Comments? Further contributions?
4

I think that answered the question.

5

Thanks for the feedback.

Glad to be of service.

6

Thinkr, as much as I admire the things that you are trying to accomplish, I suspect that you don’t realize just how critical the thinkers (and others) on this site are. It doesn’t take someone as seriously critical as me to see extreme red flags popping up from the things that you post. You seem to presume a great many things that are unacceptable premises with which to begin a chain of reasoning for around here. And of course, when the very premises are rejected, the rest is a bit of a waste.

…just a thought.

7

Innovation? I see nothing but old morality. I see nothing new. Calling it a science doesn’t mean much when it’s similar morality many follow already.

8

That something is ‘built into our biology’ is not really a reason that it is a good thing to have.

A lot of people have a genuine biological instinct to have sex with children, or to rape women. It is built in to their biology, but I do not think many people are working on the question of how best we could enable them to do these things.

…

That being ethical makes us happier people is obvious, and certainly not new. Even when Aristotle defines happiness as being virtuous in the Nicomachean Ethics, he starts by saying what a common opinion it is:

]For some identify happiness with virtue[/u], some with practical wisdom, others with a kind of philosophic wisdom, others with these, or one of these, accompanied by pleasure or not without pleasure; while others include also external prosperity. Now some of these views have been held by many men and men of old, others by a few eminent persons; and it is not probable that either of these should be entirely mistaken, but rather that they should be right in at least some one respect or even in most respects.

…

I hate to hark on about Aristotle again, but asking this question is the very cornerstone of the way Virtue Ethicists think. Again, even Aristotle wouldn’t have claimed to have discovered it!

9

Maybe it is time to review this earlier thread entitled Steps to Value Creation
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=179293&p=2316353#p2316353
and then see what these valuable concepts have generated - the latest implementations of the ideas set forth - at this site: amindforsuccess.com

The designer of the webinar is confident that anyone who completes the four-lesson course will turn out better - in an Ethical sense - than before taking the lessons. The student who does the homework will have improved morally. This is a new Ethical technology.

And, it is safe to predict, there will be many others coming along.

10

There are many methods for causing people to become ethical by any one standard. I have created a few myself.

The question remains, what is the justification for any one particular ethic?

I have no doubt that I could justify mine far more than you could yours, but until you yield such justifications, no one is going to be more of anything that they weren’t already. And that can be pretty nasty.

11

We are getting into Applied Ethics now… and I grant there are no new ideas that haven’t been suggested by the ancients and the earlier moral philosophers in the long history of the field.

The secret as to how to improve your life and gain benefits as you do so is simple: Make someone else’s life easier by improving the quality of their life. Of course, I know it is futile to tell anyone how to live, since they will go their own way; but if you do want to improve your life, you now, in what follows, have some basic suggestions as to how.
First, be authentic yourself. Pretense and phoniness will get you nowhere. So, be real !

How improve the quality of an individual’s life? It isn’t hard to do: a kind word, a smile, show some recognition, take an interest in the person. Ask them if they have some achievement in life of which they are proud. Then be a good listener. (Be ready to tell them about one of your accomplishments in case they ask.
How can you be ready? By making some contribution to society in which you can take pride. Get busy on it. Even if by telling a good joke you made someone smile …that is an achievement!)

Figure out how to make your work fun. Find some activity you enjoy, or that comes easy to you, and see if there is possibly a way to make money out of it. Then your work will be your play; and your play will be your work. If you can squeeze a living out of some hobby of yours the benefits will be tangible! Also, find a need and fill it. You’ve heard this before, but it’s true. There is money to be made by inventing something useful. And it doesn’t have to be a physical invention; it can be a social invention …a new institution, a new business model. There now exist internet commercial enterprises which rent or lease everything in their office, including the Help Desk ‘Technical Support guy’. He is on lease from another e-commerce company. So are the telephones rented too. Dream up some business service that is novel, and rent all your office equipment to save the cost of buying it outright. You can do it. Use your imagination.

12

Been there, done that, only to find that there are adversaries to actually accomplishing it. They certainly don’t mind if you try, as long as you don’t actually accomplish… without permission.

It seems to me that the greater ethic would be to first gain permission to interfere with the politics of the land for doing anything other than what has been designated for your life to accomplish. And then go ahead and perhaps do as you suggest, as long as it is still within permitted parameters.

So the real and more relevant question is, “How does one gain permission to accomplish the ethic that you propose?”

Of course, you are of the mind that one need not gain permission.
But as I said, “been there, done that”… stepped on the Devil’s toes, got the bruises.

Is listening to the voice of experience and waking up to reality a part of your ethic?

13

[size=150]Yes.[/size]

You write: “… you are of the mind that one need not gain permission.” Isn’t that a bit presumptious on your part? Did I give you permission to jump to that erroneous conclusion? No.

I have no objection to gaining permission.

Here is the point to what I wrote - in case some readers have missed it - If someone with whom you relate to as “my family” wants to do X, but you at this moment would rather do Y, the theory recommends that you give serious consideration to doing X …if you believe it would really add value to the relationship - and thus, ultimately, to the universe.

Also, Ethics recommends that you extend your ethical radius, thereby including more people into ‘your family.’ See, in the papers below, The Principle of Inclusivity. We can, and we ought to, enlarge our in-group. Contemporary social networks aid us in doing this. The computer - in this respect - is an ethical technology. And it has answers in its content to many, if not most, of our questions about self-improvement …which, as I see it, is an important and vital part of the new paradigm for Ethics. As I see it, Ethics is a body of useful information. …Here is one quite useful bit of information:

Become the change you want to see in the world :exclamation:

If you don’t want to live in a climate of paranoia, discard your own.

If you don’t want people to be rigid fundamentalists, make sure you are not yourself.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE.

14

Perhaps, but you also don’t seem to comprehend the need for it.

All fine and good… but…

Were the Jews in WW2 paranoid?
Were the Nazis?

If you don’t want to live in a climate of paranoia, discard your own.
Ignore your own perception of reality???
Can You do that?
I seriously doubt it.

I grant you that one tends to inspire reality to become what he fears. Fear inspires fatalism.
But where is the line between being a realist and being paranoid?
Today, if you are not “paranoid”, you are not sane.
How can one know of the DHS and not be a conspiracy theorist?

“Become the change that you want to see in the world”
… and what if the world doesn’t want you to do that?
You against the world? Wouldn’t that inspire a good deal of paranoia?

If you don’t want people to be rigid fundamentalists, make sure you are not yourself.
… and what if you are blinded from what you are actually being?
Ignore your own inability to see yourself and correct yourself anyway?

15

Thinkr, until one knows the art of persuasion, one knows little of ethics.

The reason is the following;

Is telling someone how to be ethical actually causing them to become ethical? If it had that effect, wouldn’t the entire world already be ethical? Is giving them a method or program that would cause them to become more ethical if they were to do it actually causing them to choose it? Aren’t there a great many people who choose a different standard for ethics and thus refuse that program?

And if what one is doing is not actually creating the intent of one’s efforts, is it actually ethical for one to be doing it? “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” If one is not actually persuading with one’s words his intent, what trouble is he actually creating instead?

Anyone holding onto a different set of ethics is, in effect, an adversary to the set that you would propose. Many of those adversaries know the art of persuasion very well and can use your own words against you with great ease. The more misplaced words that you provide, the more ammunition you have given against your own cause. Is that being ethical of you? Is it ethical to help promote what you deem unethical, even by accident?

What must be ethical is to first learn the actual goal of ethics, not merely your first impression. But then any action taken must be guided by the requirements involved in progressing toward the establishment of the ethics. Any other action would be unethical because it would be promoting its adversary in many ways, creating an entropy state of both ethics as well as any future hope of persuading toward ethics.

So;

  1. Learn the actual true goal of ethics
  2. Learn the art of persuasion concerning the establishment of ethics
  3. Discipline yourself to adhere to those requirements.

Does your “Unified Theory of Ethics” include those concerns and in that order?
It wouldn’t appear so and that appearance is a very important part of persuasion and thus of ethics.

Are you really being ethical right now as you post these things?
Or are you inadvertently promoting the adversary to those ethics?

16

Well, to put it more correctly, you are jumping to applied ethics, avoiding James question which is one about ethics.

A theory of what people should do with no framework to explain why doing that thing is good is a religion, not a branch of ethics, never mind how well meaning it is.

I believe that your initial post attempted to root this in the fact that it is ‘in our biology’, but I already pointed out that this has severe problems.

I agree, so why do you keep calling it a ‘novel theory’ and referring to ‘new discoveries’, when in fact there have been none?

17

I am not avoiding Jim’s question. I have a section on “evil genes” in the booklet entitled A Unified Theory of Ethics. I have some of the characters in its sequel essays speak about criminality, and various sorts of immorality, and they explore whether an as yet undeveloped - an ethically-immature - culture instils this in its children; or whether it is inherent in our nature to be so disposed. It seems that people don’t read - yet feel free to criticize and condemn anyway.

OCould it be that perhaps Jim has been traumatized by some event in his life where he tried to be kind and was - in a manner of speaking - “kicked in the teeth” for it. It would be good if he shared with us some specific details so that we could better understand where he is coming from …when he presumes that so many folks are ‘insane.’ [Is that a philosophical term? Can he offer an analysis of the concept?]

p. s. (If a shoe doesn’t fit, DON’T wear it !)

Why not base ethics upon human needs?

This task has already been accomplished to the satisfaction of many critics in the chapter entitled “Human Nature: Its Cause and Effect”, which is Chapter 4, pp. 101-123, in the book by Marvin C. Katz – SCIENCES OF MAN AND SOCIAL ETHICS (Boston: Branden Press, 1969). Here is a link to it:
amazon.com/Sciences-Man-Soci … ial+ethics

The model there employs Formal Axiology as well as Maslow’s Theory of Human Needs, integrates them into a unified paradigm, offers copious evidence as to the existence of each need mentioned, and concludes that needs (or states of deprivation the satiation of which are reeinforcing – to use behaviorist terminology) form into a hierarchy and some of them are prepotent over others. Deprivation of earlier needs account for the various human compulsions, pathologies, neuroses and deviances.

I am open to suggestions of other models for Ethical Theory as long as they can eventually be formalized, and they employ logic. {To be appropriate to the data, it would be an intensional logic - a logic of meanings - rather than the extensional one - the logic of classes - commonly taught in school these days.}

18

So you have a Unified Theory of Ethic for only the right gene pool?

…where have I seen that before… :confused:

19

If I had ever gotten the impression that you were so capable, we would have already gone there.

I’ll tell you what, thinkr, since you have now shown your colors without engaging any actual philosophical content and if you have the courage, bring 3 more of your genetically and/or intellectually superior breed up to the plate and this particular genetically inferior intellectual breed will show a thing or two concerning the holes in your theory. I would take on any 10 of you but reading through pages of presumptuous irrational “reasoning” annoys me. And you might want to have your protectorate Satan archangel handy. You will need him.

Or do you even fear learning what Logic and Rationality are really all about?

20

Thinkdr,

Excellent post as it contains some good and useful points.

But, i would like to address only those issues, where i differ.

Before anything else, you have to difine what do you mean by Highsest Quality of the Life.

Evarything else depends on this and thus comes later.

I am sorry to say that this gentleman got it all wrong in this case.

Self control is not such a thing that has some reserve stock in our mind and lessens itself with every use of it. It is habit and tends to grow from strenth to strenth as we use it.

Thinkdr,

This methodology is not even new either. It is known since ages and even in better way.

have a look at this-

with love,
sanjay