6 Ethics

The Basal Motivations

2.11-1 The most basic desire (the root cause) inherent in all consciousness is to maximize the degree (quantity),
diversity (quality), and intensity of both the creative experience and the experience of creativity.

The Basal Motivations of All Life: The ultimate purpose of evolution is to (simultaneously) maximize the degree of experience and creativity of (in, with) all (aspects of) life.

2.11-2 The two concepts of creativity (as an expressive and outgoing process) and experience (as a perceptive incoming process) are at the foundation of all desire, all cognition. Together they are subsumptive of the basis for (and foundation of all) love, life, growth, evolution, transformation, interaction, communication, learning, experimentation, being and doing.

2.11-3 All the universe values all experiences and creations equally; it has no favorites (1). Everything (all eventities in all domains) is/are intrinsically significant. Experience/creation, cannot not be meaningful, valuable, and purposeful. This applies to each experience, each creation, and each type of experience and creation.

The purpose, meaning, and value of all life is to live, to live fully and well (to live well and fully, in all worlds of being).
Quality is as important as quantity, potentiality as actuality.

2.11-4 Both actuality and potentiality need to be maximized for the full realization of life. Actuality and potentiality are conjugate with respect to complexity. All of life is complex.

The concept of maximizing actuality is equivalent to the concept of maximizing experience, the integrity of self, world, and the relation between self and world.

The concept of maximizing potentiality is equivalent to the concept of maximizing, enhancing, and nurturing the creativity (potentiality) of self, world, and the relation between self and world.

[1] An experience regarded as 'undesirable' or painful is equally valued by "the all" as an experience of one's desire.
All creativity, all life, is valued and significant as creativity and life.

Effective Choice

2.112-1 An Effective choice is one that results in the realization (manifestation) of desire (1). An ultimately effective choice is one which realizes (manifests) the ultimate desires of all that is making that choice (the totality of the subjective) and all that is affected by that choice (the totality of the objective). Effective choices, therefore, are those choices which maximally support creativity and experience in the world, in the self, and in the dynamics of being between them.

It is an assertion of this metaphysics that the ultimate innermost nature of self/ soul is good.
Ineffective actions and choices, result from a lack of clarity between the deep self and the surface subjective.
To have a lack of clarity in this way is to have a lack of knowing and of understanding.

To improve one's knowing and understanding is to increase clarity within the self, to increase the effectiveness of one's own choices, and the degree to which one experiences joy/happiness. Those who choose ineffectively can be nurtured and healed by helping them to increase their degree of knowledge and understanding (i.e., teaching by example).

2.112-2 The most effective choices are those which provide or result in the greatest degree of wholeness and integrity (for self and world, necessary for experience), while at the same time allowing the greatest freedom to make additional future choices (for oneself and others, necessary for creativity).

The degree of effectiveness of one's choices is proportional to the product of the degree to which one's choices
(and their results) coherently maintain, sustain, enhance, and nurture:

1) the integrity and wholeness (i.e., the static continuity and symmetry) of the world, the self,
and the relation between world and self, and,

2) the potentiality/realization/evolution of creativity and experience in all of life
(i.e., the dynamic continuity and symmetry), including one's own life (the degree to which it potentiates other choices).

2.112-3 Perception is effective to the degree that it is dispassionate, without judgment, precondition, or expectation. Expression is effective to the degree that it is passionate -- a reflection of one's dreams and inspiration -- and is a clear manifestation of one's highest hopes and aspirations.

[1] Effectiveness is defined in terms of desire, as distinct from both want and need.
See section starting with 2.45-1 for more details on the basis of this distinction.

Distinguishing Ethics and Morality

2.12-1 Ethics: organized thought concerned with the study of, and adherence to, the principles of effective choice,
internal to oneself and independent of any particular domain.

Morality refers to an externally defined set of rules in a particular domain (generally applicable to all selves), and the degree that the choices of self adhere to those rules. Morality is the application of a collection of statements or codes which (hopefully) represent the principles of ethics in terms appropriate for a specific domain or world and general for all selves.

A statement of ethics is a statement of principle. A statement of ethics (as a finite content) originates from (and has its basis within) self (the infinite subjective context) as a commitment to all worlds (the infinite objective context).

A statement of morals is a statement of statutory or civil law. A statement of morality (as content) originates from (and has its basis within) a specific world (domain or culture, the objective context) as a command to (a directive to be followed by) all selves (the subjective context).

The relation between ethics and morals is similar to the relationship between philosophy (metaphysics) and science (physics). Ethics is always the ultimate basis for any moral (statutory/civil) code in much the same way that metaphysics is always the ultimate basis of any physics.

2.12-2 Ethics is the study of the principles of the most effective means of self-expression (in both words and actions).
It is about how to make one's immanent choices more effective, for (all of) oneself and all others,
in both form and feeling, rather than to have choice be 'right' in some absolute or omniscient sense.

2.12-3 Relative to the relation between world and self, the (immanent modal) concepts of expression, choice, and communication are all isomorphic. As such, the essential nature of ethics may be formulated in terms of any of these (1).

2.12-4 To consider how to increase the effectiveness of one's choices is to determine what is meant by both simultaneously preserving integrity and increasing the potentials of life evolution. Life evolution is in proportion to both the degree of conscious experience and the degree of the potentiality/realization of creativity. To maximize these is to consider the nature of how to maximize the degree of the combination of symmetry and the degree of continuity (2), in the relationship between self (subjective) and reality (objective).

2.12-5 To develop the principles of ethics is to determine a method (and therefore a practice) of making maximally effective choices. An effective set of ethical principles will positively specify (3) and characterize effective choices.

[1] For example, "action" may be considered as a domain of communication with a world. In this sense, ethics is the study of the 'best way to communicate' in the largest sense of communication (as a dynamic relation between self and reality that involves aspects of both perception and expression).

In connection with the nature of effective choice, the principles of effective expression and effective communication (all of which are involved in any real practice of ethics) are all ultimately defined in terms of the attainment of the basal motivations.

[2] To maximize the degree of continuity and the degree of symmetry is not to assert that symmetry and continuity will be realized in exactly the same manner for the same thing at the same time (i.e., as being in opposition to the Incommensuration Theorem). Rather, symmetry and continuity are to be considered as applying to different aspects of one common dynamic, the relationship/communication between the subjective (self) and the objective (world). The principles of ethics will, therefore, be those principles that describe what would be required (necessary) in this common dynamic (communication) for the subjective and the objective to be realized (made-real and known) as objective and subjective.

[3] To assert "positive specification" is to have an ethics which describes what or how to choose (what choices are best), rather than to state only what not to choose (which choices are worst, or to be avoided). A/all negatively defined ethical systems define a contrast class against an infinite set, and therefore must be regarded as incomplete.

The Two Principles of Ethics

2.12-6 The Principle of the Symmetry Ethics:
Where the omniscient/objective/external context is different,
and where the transcendent/subjective/internal context is the same, the content of expression (immanent) shall be the same (1).

The Principle of the Continuity Ethics:
Where the omniscient/objective/external content is different,
and where the transcendent/subjective/internal content is the same, the context of expression (immanent) shall be the same (2).

2.12-7 Ethics focuses simultaneously on the value, the meaning, and the purpose of expressions (choices and events) with an emphasis on meaningfulness. In ethics there is no right or wrong (3), there are only varying degrees of effectiveness, of enhancement of life and evolution, and of the capacity to nurture (mindful) consciousness.

2.12-8 The absolute principles of ethics are common to all of consciousness (all individuals).
The absolute practice of ethics is particular and unique to each individual, (it cannot be prescribed from without).

Ethics is (always) implemented relative to the self and to the situation. The realization of ethics is unique in each choice.

2.12-9 While there are only two principles (essential statements) of a non-relativistic ethics, there is an infinity of (diverse) effective ways to enact them; to live ethically. While there can be any number of moral codes (expressions of rules), it is usually considered that there is only one right (correct) way to enact them, to live morally.

2.12-10 Ethical principles (laws) are natural, and cannot be enforced.
Moral codes (rules/laws) are civil, and can only be enforced.

2.12-11 To require others beyond oneself to be 'ethical' (or to label them as being unethical) is itself (inherently) unethical.
One cannot enforce ethics (ethical action and choice) on another, on any other, in any world, ever. It is impossible.
Only by being ethical can one encourage, allow, and enable others to also be ethical.

2.12-12 One can only act effectively/ethically as oneself (personally) in every world, always. One can never act on behalf of, or in the place of another, any other, ever (this includes acting on behalf of causality or 'the universe'; one's own subjectivity cannot ever replace or supplant the objectivity of any world).

2.12-13 To attempt to make life adhere strictly, ultimately, and absolutely, to a moral code (without exceptions, no matter how minor) is to eventually kill it (4), to loose all meaningfulness and value, up to an including even the value of and meaning of the moral code itself.

Life (and evolution) itself depends in part on occasional exceptions. No single set of rules, no matter of what origin, can encompass life.

2.12-14 One chooses most effectively when choosing (and continuing to choose) from one's deepest basis of desire (love) (5).
Such choices should express that desire as affirming all of life at all levels of being, in all worlds.

2.12-15 Choices (and actions) are most effective when they are the most ethical; when they preserve both symmetry and continuity.

Love has the nature of the transcendent.
Life has the nature of the immanent.
Will has the nature of the omniscient.

Will has the nature of form and the being of attention to exist as a (one) cause.
Love has the nature of feeling and the being of intention to create many choices.

1.66-13 Any choice that one makes which is supportive and nurturing of all aspects of one's own being
will also have consequences which are supportive of all being(s) (apparently) external to ourselves (6).

2.12-16 Where the degree of intensity in interaction is very high, so also is one required to act with a very high level of integrity (7) (very ethically).

2.12-17 To sustain the integrity of self, be conscious of and choose the level of intensity of interaction with a world.
Be sure to choose the time of the best usage of intensity, and of involvement with it.

[1] Objective context refers to the domain, to time, space, and possibility; the environmental circumstances in which an event occurs.

The content of expression is the content of the communication channel from self to a world. It is one's statements, assertions, actions, choices, and expressions.

Subjective context refers to the integrity, self-integrity, wholeness and continuity of self.

The symmetry ethics is an expression of a principle of "consistent expressions".

[2] Objective content refers to matter, force, and probability (energy). It is the thing, being, or 'other' to which one perceives and expresses.

The context of expression is the communication channel itself, the carrier of the expression between self and world (for example; one's beliefs, attitudes, perceptual filters, etc).

Subjective content refers to the quality, the inner nature of self, the unique identity that is the being of Self.

The continuity ethics is an expression of a principle of "equal valuations".

[3] This is in contrast with a system of morality, which is defined as a fixed set of rules of what is right and what is wrong. Morality (or a philosophy/religion/society which confuses moral concerns with ethical ones) is usually defined in terms of goodness and virtue.

To the extent that a moral code defines some things as "good" (valued, of virtue) and others as not (some actions as right and others as wrong), it runs the risk of being inherently unethical in proportion to the degree that the boundary between the good and bad is 'sharp' (an expression of discontinuity). Systems of morality which are defined in 'black and white' terms are fundamentally antithetical to life and consciousness, and are to be avoided.

[4] No world is 'fair' (nor can any world be expected to be fair) even though all worlds are in their own way beautiful. Life itself is dynamic, inherently involving inequality in evolution and change, a flux across a boundary. Life is ultimately ethical, but it is not moral.

To be meaningful, life will involve some degree of rhythm and of change; a dynamic which eventually exceeds and extends beyond all boundaries.

[5] This principle of effective choice remains regardless of the of the level of intensity involved in that choice.
In making choices of high intensity, a corresponding level/degree of integrity is required in representing that desire (and affirming life).

[6] This principle will work especially well only when it is applied to a near absolute/perfect degree.

[7] One is permitted and empowered (required) to respond to an action affecting oneself, to act on, with a similar extent and level of intensity as with which one is affected (neither more nor less) as the degree to which one is acted upon.

In all interchange, there is to be maintained continuity. Where one has been deeply affected, that one may effect deeply; not to diminish or to escalate, but to change. Such changes are best and most effectively realized when enabling the realization of the deepest dreams of all involved.

Justice and Judgment

2.13-1 Justice: When a self (a personality) external to an event of subjective action (choice) attempts to deliberately implement on that subjectivity a moral causality (believed to be necessary), on the basis of a belief that no other (natural) causal relation would be (impersonally) implemented.

2.13-2 To attempt to seek justice is to have an expectation that the impersonal natural world would (should) adhere to one's own arbitrary personal sense of right. As such, justice can only be regarded as a moral concern and cannot be regarded as an ethical one (1).

2.13-3 To implement 'justice' is the attempt to personally act 'on behalf of', or 'in place of', natural causality (2).
Ultimately, this must be understood as a lack of faith (in deity, the universe, and/or the causality of the world in which one operates).

2.13-4 Judgment refers to an evaluation of a choice (act or expression) of someone other than oneself, or
an attempt to make choices in the place of (or on behalf of) someone other than oneself.

1.65-16 It is presumptuous to make choices in place of another. One can only make one's own choices.
It is presumptuous to have acceptance on behalf of (or in the place of) another. One can only accept what is in one's own experience.

2.13-5 In that the essence of objective judgment involves choices which are external to oneself, the practice of judgment is inherently unethical (3). There is, and there can be, no ethical judgments, and no ethical justice, in a personal, objective, and effective sense.

2.13-6 In that the practice and implementation of ethics involves personal choice, it is never concerned with either justice or judgment, regardless (and precisely because of) the degree of objectivity/impersonality involved.

2.13-7 In that the ends do not justify the means, neither do the means justify (determine, fix, or ultimately define) the ends (4).
There is always more than one path, more than one way to accomplish something.
So, also, there is always more than one thing accomplished.

2.13-8 The Law of Subjective Causality: The consequences of the intent of one's action is always returned to its point of origin. In matters of crime and guilt (where an action seems wrong), it is the act itself, which is its own worst punishment. No one can hide from the consequences of their choices (refer to the definition of self; 1.65-4).

2.13-9 All expressions/choices involve ethical implications. No perception (or knowledge, or experience) of the self will have ethical or moral implications (5). No events of causality (perception) have (in themselves) moral or ethical implications.

Ultimately, one can only account for (or be asked to account for) one's own choices and expressions, (and even then, only in the domains/worlds in which those choices/expressions have their instance and consequence, and for those parts of choice which can be defined as having a logical or reasonable basis). One must always (and can only) be responsible for (be able to respond to) the totality of their choices and expressions (neither more nor less).

One cannot be legitimately required to account for one's perceptions or knowing in any domain, world, or universe
(expression is always public; perception is always private).

2.13-10 The knowledge of something in itself carries no ethical assignment (6).
The expression (of knowledge/understanding) will always have (must have, cannot not have) an ethical aspect.

2.13-11 One is always responsible for all aspects of their expressions/choices, at the exact moment of their choice,
neither before nor after.

To the extent (neither more nor less) that the same conscious being can continue to make choice (that the self that made the original choice is still involved with that choice), they continue to be responsible.

2.13-12 One cannot ever be responsible for the choices of another. One cannot be held responsible for the reactions or responses of others. One can be held responsible only for their own action and response.

[1] Only in thinking of 'justice' as a personal practice of maintaining a continuity of intensity in interaction (to 'make just' or 'to regulate') can this concept be regarded as having ethical implications. However, by itself, this is not an embodiment of ethics for a continuity of intensity does not fully describe what would be regarded as effective choice.

[2] For example: To claim that one is enacting justice (or vengeance) 'in the name of God' is to imply that God would not otherwise support (or intervene/act in agreement with) the chosen moral code (a religious or civil law). As such, any war that is justified on the basis of religious convictions is ultimately founded on an absence of religious conviction. All 'religious wars' are categorically not based on having religion, but are (at best) due to an absence of religion.

[3] To consider if an act or choice was just or unjust, to sit in judgment, is to attempt to evaluate choices (actions) which are not one's own from a purely objective perspective. Therefore, the essence of the meaning of justice requires an objective consideration/perspective of that which is basically subjective (the choice or the action of expression). In that the objective cannot perceive the subjective, the attempt to personally consider or to implement justice, or to sit in judgment, is fundamentally ineffective and is to act (choose) ineffectively (by definition, unethically).

[4] For example, favorable intentions alone are not always sufficient to insure/assure a favorable outcome.

[5] The concept of perception is distinct from the concepts of knowledge, understanding, and choice. However, to the extent that perception becomes knowledge, and to the extent that knowledge becomes understanding, and to the extent that this understanding changes choice, and to the extent that choice must have ethical and moral implications, so also may perception be considered to have indirect moral and ethical implications (neither more nor less than the exact product of these degrees).

[6] Having knowledge in itself is ultimately independent of ethics. It can never be objectively judged by another (it may be subjectively judged only by oneself). However, the choice to express or not express in accordance with that knowledge may have ethical implications.

Act, React, and Response

2.14-1 2.14-2 Action, reaction, and response are distinct, yet inseparable. There is never a response that does not have some aspect of action and reaction. There is never an action or a reaction that does not have some aspect of response. Action has the nature of the transcendent. Interaction has the nature of the immanent. Reaction has the nature of the omniscient.

Nothing is purely chosen (random, chaotic, indeterminable dynamic), or purely deterministic (causal, logical, or of fixed process).

2.14-3 The Catastrophic Theorem: To negate the significance (the meaningfulness and value) of any life, is to negate the significance of all life. Either everything, (at all scales of being, in all worlds, at all times) is sacred, or nothing is (1).

Effectiveness, meaningfulness, and life, are best realized when regarding All as sacred and significant.
Heaven opens to all that know all is sacred. Hell imprisons all who think that nothing is sacred.

2.14-4 The React vs. Response Ratio: The specific degree of apparent amplification (increase) or attenuation (diminishment) in the effectiveness of one's expressions in the world; the ratio of the degree to which something is affective to the degree to which it is effective.

Affect: The degree of choice or effort (influence, or personal/ subjective energy invested) in the expressions of the self.

Effect: The degree of outcome, consequence, result, or impact, of a self expression.

To be responsible, as the being of oneself, one must allow oneself to choose and respond (to act with wisdom),
rather than to react and reject (to be in false judgment).

2.14-5 &6 The principle of continuity ethics is best realized when the react vs. response ratio is near to unity (i.e. is 1 to 1). The greatest levels of effectiveness are attained when there is a balance between the affect and the effect. The maxima of effectiveness (world health) is when the wisdom with which one chooses is equal to the degree of consequence associated with that choice (2).

[1] More generally, a catastrophic theorem is any derived statement of the form: either every X is Y or there are no X which is Y
(either all X are Y or there are no X which is also Y).

[2] Ideally, with regard to self and world, one should experience a balance between affect and effect. The degree to which this ideal holds is in proportion to the proximity and intensity of the interaction between the self and the world. To have significantly more affect than effect is to experience frustration and pain; to have significantly more effect than affect is to be tyrannical, to experience paranoia, and/or to inflict pain.

Wisdom and Maturity

1.57-5 1.57-6 Wisdom is the integration/synthesis of both knowledge and understanding.
Where from the perspective of the self, wisdom has the nature of the immanent, knowledge has the nature of the omniscient, and understanding has the nature of the transcendent (1).

2.14-7 The degree of maturity of an individual is proportional to their responsibility, their wisdom,
and the degree that these are used together in their actions, their making of choice.
The absolute degree of Maturity is a metric defined in terms of the multiplicative product of 1) the degree of responsibility with 2) the relative degree of wisdom with 3) the degree that one's choices of responsibility are made in accordance with, on, and as an implementation of, that wisdom.

A mature individual is someone who has choices to make, and who chooses well, with effectiveness for all concerned at all levels of being. The greater the degree of quality and significance of the choices made, the more mature is the chooser.

2.14-8 The rule of a nation is most effective when the maturity of the leadership is equal to the scope of that leadership.
Never should the scope of a leadership exceed its degree of maturity.

A leader of millions of lives shall need to have the maturity of millions of lives (2).

[1] Due to the subjective basis of consideration, knowledge has the nature of the omniscient due to its connection to the concept of (personal) perception, as an aspect of interaction. Understanding has the nature of the transcendent due to its connection to the concept of (personal/self) expression, also as an aspect of interaction.

However, from the perspective of the other (another, i.e., the world), the modal correspondences would need to be changed. This shift of the perspective (basis) of consideration (from self to world), has the effect of introducing an Axiom II "rotation" in the modality assignments to these three concepts. For example, consideration of these same concepts from a 'scientific' perspective (i.e., a worldly or objective basis) would result in assigning knowledge (of the impersonal) to be immanent modal, understanding (impersonal theory) to be omniscient modal, and wisdom (impersonal being) to be transcendent modal.

The basis by (or with which) one considers concepts and their associations to one another can have a strong effect on the semantic meaning and modal cast of the concepts and relations so considered. When there is a shift in the basis (a change of the domain of consideration) Axiom II dynamics will be introduced which will alter any prior given Axiom I modality assignments.

[2] In practice, it is unreasonable to expect the most thoroughly wise person in a civilization to have a degree of wisdom that encompasses 30 or so 'average' individuals. In more general terms, no form of governance of any grouping of 30 or so people (under any circumstances) can be expected to be ethical in its relations with single individuals. As such, a government 'of the people, for the people, by the people' will (cannot not have) significant ethical problems when ratios of influence of more than 30 to 1 people are involved in any stage of the administration of the culture.


2.15-1 Politics is what happens when a group of people makes decisions based upon what they fear,
rather than on what they love.

Consensus is what happens when people in a group make decisions on the basis of what they love,
what they all commonly desire together.

2.15-2 The emotional energy associated with political debates is proportional to the intensity of the perception of
a lack of value for something that is regarded as personally important.

2.15-3 The best methods of group decision making help people to know what they love, what they really care about, and to choose on that basis (1). The solution to unproductive political debate is to practice all values with unconditional acceptance.

2.15-4 As long as any one person or country chooses on the basis of fear there will be strife, frustration, and pain.
It is only in consensus (and desire) that agreement and true peace are reached.

2.15-5 To effect positive change is to help others (everyone) to know their real desires, and to cooperatively help discover the most effective method for their realization. To make positive change is to help everyone act on the basis of what is wanted, (or needed, or desired, so as to get what is wanted/needed/desired), rather than on the basis of what is not wanted or feared (and not needed, not desired).

2.15-6 Only in combination may one's actions be both meaningful and effective. To realize truth and honor in life, one needs to be both gentle and firm, to have both compassion and ruthlessness, and be able to act with both sensitivity and severity. These aspects cannot occur singly; they must always occur together.

Example: In part, the ultimate warrior (in the idealistic sense) must be at once completely sensitive, aware, and accepting of all that occurs, without judgment or conditioning. In addition, the ultimate warrior must be able to completely and wholly commit, decisively, with total faith and confidence, to their chosen action without reservation or hesitation in any part of self. The perception and compassion of the warrior is infinitely gentle and subtle while the expression of the warrior (their action) is confident, skillful, and absolutely firm.

With total openness and sensitivity, the effective warrior perceives directly -- and thus gains true knowledge about others and the world. Anything less, in the form of judgment, distortion, or a filtering and conditioning of perception, will result in significant weakness and ineffectiveness. The strength of the warrior is in the perfection of their sensitivity.

With complete and decisive commitment to do what needs to be done (ruthlessness), the warrior acts with a wholeness of being, effecting maximum possible meaningfulness. To act only in part, without coordination among all aspects of self, is to diminish significance. Maximum meaning and effectiveness is attained only when all aspects of self act in coordinated concert together. The strength of the warrior is in the perfection of their integrity of action.

Only where all of these attributes occur together and at once is the maximum of life realized.

[1] Example: One cannot stop war by hating and fearing war. One can only stop war by desiring peace, choosing on the basis of peace, and helping others to acknowledge and choose on the basis of their own desires for peace and fulfillment too. To sustain the environment, the natural world, it is essential to help (enable) others to get in touch with how much they care about the environment. Knowing how to love one's own children (in a natural manner) enables other peoples to love their children more naturally.


2.156-1 2.16-6 The perfection of ethics (impeccability) involves a completeness of interaction at all levels of being.
The more one acts ethically, the more one is required (from within oneself as well as from others) to act ethically.
The more one acts ethically, the easier and more natural the pattern of one's life.

2.156-2 An action of self is ethical to the degree that it increases the symmetry and continuity of self, world, and the relation between them. To act in accordance with ethics is an affirmation of the integrity of self and others.

2.156-3 One's choices are maximally affirming and sacred when they involve all aspects (the whole) of self and have continuity and connection to others (the world). Choice is effective to the degree that it involves both a significant reflection on the meaning(s) of one's prior experience(s) and a significant investment of new meaningfulness (a meaningfulness which is reflective of the highest dreams of all concerned).

2.156-4 The action of labeling something is problematic to the exact degree (neither more nor less) that it encourages a tendency to focus on only some aspect of that which is labeled, rather than on the whole (1). To use a name in a manner which honors the whole (in correction of the tendency for the abstraction of aspect and of discontinuity) is valid.

Prejudice is a maintained discontinuity in the distribution of one's choices.
It is an attempt to make choices beyond the boundary of self, as if to make choices for someone else.
Prejudice is the choice not to ever choose again; to be forever insensitive to all experience, thought, and feeling.

Selfishness is the failure to recognize and accommodate the needs of another, when it could be done at little or no cost to oneself (i.e., without a loss/ binding of a personal energy or potentiality). Selfishness is (reflects) a maintained discontinuity in one's awareness of potentiality. It is both an ignorance of the possible benefits one's choices may have for another, and an unwillingness to correct that ignorance. Selfishness is a loss of the insight for a win-win result for all involved.

Cruelty refers to an act that reflects a near total/ complete absence of (any) sensitivity (for any one, any part, of that which is other than self) which could be affected by those acts. One acts with cruelty when one has an absence of, or presumes/ assumes an absence of, a sensitivity to/of interaction and consciousness, on the part of the other (another, any other).

Prejudice reflects a discontinuity in one's awareness of
change and interchange.
Selfishness reflects a discontinuity in one's awareness of
choice and potentiality.
Cruelty reflects a discontinuity in one's awareness of actuality,
cause, and consequence.

To act with grace is to act with a distribution of awareness (a sensitivity) which matches the effects and consequences of one's actions and choices. In making choices as oneself, remain sensitive and aware of that which is not oneself (the shared meaningfulness of other people and the world).

[1] Whenever there is an asymmetry of value, a break or discontinuity between those parts of a whole which are valued and those which are not, there is an associated experience of pain.

The Path of Right Action

2.16-1 1st Theorem: It is always possible to choose in a manner that is win-win for all involved (including oneself), at all levels of being (for all scales and aspects of consciousness from the smallest to the ultimate). It is worthwhile to always search for the best possible choice. There is never a circumstance in which it is not possible to choose in a win-win manner.

2nd Theorem: A win-win choice applied to one situation is adjacent to the win-win choice for each succeeding situation. Choosing the best choice will always enable one to continue to choose well. (Win-win choices are mutually self-supporting). As such, optimal choices are contiguous with one another, forming the path of right actions. The "path" is the perfect possible sequence of one's own personal (and unique) choices.

3rd Theorem: The degree to which it seems that one cannot make choices to the maximal benefit of all involved, including oneself, at all levels of being, is the measure of one's deviation from the path of right action. In such circumstance where it seems that a situation requires a win-lose choice, the selection of the best choice for all involved will be the one leading in the direction of the path of right action, allowing eventual convergence with one's own, personal, absolute path.

2.16-2 The path of right action is a realization of the self-supporting dynamics of effective choice. Once on this path, one lives in dynamic balance, participating, creating, and experiencing; one acts with a clarity which is both internal and external.

2.16-3 With clarity one can act with a totality of clear conscience, without guilt or any internal hindrance (fears) of any kind. Within the discipline of the path (a seeming limitation), a true freedom of life is found.

2.16-4 One cannot determine, take away, or make, the choices of another. One must (and can only) make their own choices. No other can make choices for oneself, or take one's choices completely away. Others may be able to influence one's choices but they cannot determine them.

2.16-5 There is no one single right path of action for all individuals. There is only the unique right path for oneself.

One cannot perceive, walk, or determine what the path of right action is for another, or on behalf of another.
One can only (attempt to) perceive and walk (choose) one's own path of right action through life.

Confusing one's own path with that of others (an other, any other) will result in misunderstanding, dis-ease, illusion (and dis-illusion), conflict, and pain. A clear knowledge and continued practice of one's own path results in understanding, ease of life, creativity, synchronicity, and joy (an alignment with all of life; a continuity in the subjective results in a symmetry of the objective).


2.17-1 All of choice is uncertain; one can never know all of the consequences that will result from one's least action.

2.17-2 Reason (thinking, form of logic) can provide only a partial basis for effective (ethical) choice.
It also is necessary to make a careful, deep, and honest evaluation of the totality of one's feelings.

Reason is when one uses a fullness and completeness
(accuracy) of thinking as the primary basis of one's choices.

Faith is when one uses a fullness and completeness
(precision) of feeling as the primary basis of one's choices.

2.17-3 When one is whole, healthy, knows fully (with clarity), and accepts unreservedly the totality of one's feelings and thoughts on all levels of being, then the choices which one makes in accordance with those feelings and thoughts will be at once wholly ethical and wholly effective (1).

2.17-4 No effective choice can be made only on the basis of reason or only on the basis of faith. All natural choices involve some elements of reason and some elements of faith (typically in an intimate mixture with one another).

2.17-5 To have faith in a world (universe) is to have wisdom, knowledge, peacefulness, and insight.
To have faith in oneself is to have security, skill, creativity, and playfulness.

2.17-6 To have Faith is not to have certainty, but to allow Trust.
Faith and reason are complementary (they are conjugates, not opposites).

2.17-7 Faith has no reason of its own, and yet all reason implies faith.

2.17-8 Faith cannot be constructed or possessed. Faith is not a commodity. Faith (never finite or constrained) is necessary to all commerce and creativity (2).

2.17-9 Faith is not blind, it is vision wide open. Faith is an acceptance of potentiality and creativity, rather than an ignorance of reality and actuality. To have faith is to embrace the mythic, rather than to be rejecting the factual.

[1] Both thought and feeling are applied in fullness together to attain efficient and effective ethical choices, consistent with one's personal Path of Right Action.

[2] Faith contributes to confidence and is involved in all practicality, reason and construction.

True Ownership

2.18-1 Law of True Ownership: "None can take from you
that which you truly own".

If someone or something can take something, some property, or some quality away (even in principle), then it was never truly owned; it is not a part of one's unique Self (1).

2.18-2 Those things which are not Truly Owned
are not owned at all.
There can be no ownership of that which is external to oneself.

2.18-3 True ownership is not control. True ownership is not commercial. One cannot take true ownership, acquire it, give it away, or trade it for something else.

A Right refers to the potential to exercise any choice which is a direct enactment of the law of true ownership.

A Privilege refers to a/the potential to exercise any choice which requires the accommodation of another,
which has been willingly granted by that other.

True ownership is a statement of right and is not, and cannot, ever be legislated or traded commercially.
Only privileges can be legislated and traded commercially.

2.18-4 Self is always sovereign; the nature of deity is within. The nature of the being of self (the essence truly Owned)
cannot be (is not ever) conditioned or constrained by anything or anyone (by that which is external to self).

2.18-5 No amount of external acceptance or validation (of or by others, anyone or anything) will ever contribute to any degree of self acceptance. To feel peace, one must accept oneself totally, fully and unconditionally.

[1] Examples; Experience, choice, time, and validity are Truly Owned.


2.183-1 Safety is defined in terms of interaction. Safety is not found in an ability to prevent something from happening; it is found in a potentiality to act (regardless of what could happen or has happened). Safety is something that can only originate from inside the self.

2.183-2 Creation is safe. The feeling of safety is found in one's knowing of their freedom of choice. One cannot become entrapped in a domain of their own imagination. It is always possible to transition to another world.

2.183-3 There is no single domain or universe. No single domain (world) is more fundamental than any other.
Only within a domain can a concept of primacy be applied, never across domains.

2.183-4 The core of self does not belong to any single domain; it is (always) a part of the process of many domains.
The self is an axis upon which many worlds turn.

2.183-5 In that choice is Truly Owned, all selves are ultimately safe in all worlds. No physical boundaries can protect one from the innermost nature of spirit (1).

2.183-6 The potentiality to transition to another world is Truly Owned. Safety is the stability and sacredness of that spiritual core of self. It is intrinsic to self; it cannot be found in any world and it cannot be taken away.

2.183-7 To be safe is not the same as to be protected (secure). To attain absolute protection (or security) is to require absolute isolation (no interactions, no connectedness), which can never be obtained (even in principle). Absolute security (protection) requires the absence of all love and life. Real security and safety is found only in the Truth of one's ever continuing ability to choose (2).

[1] One does not have to protect oneself from spirit. There can be no Fear of God(des(es)).

[2] In that one cannot not choose -- and in that the capability to choose cannot be taken away (it is Truly Owned) -- one may always remain secure in choice. The greatest safety is in the potential to act, rather than in the prevention of possible events.

Limitation and Freedom

2.19-1 One cannot have freedom, but only give it.
One does not own love or freedom; one may only participate in its flow and unboundedness.

2.19-2 The personal and global evolution of both perception and self is the process of becoming more authentic, more defined, and more refined. This includes the development of both feeling (quality) and form (quantity). One's evolution is Truly Owned.

2.19-3 Limitation is as necessary as freedom (beingness requires focus). Diversity, separateness, limitation, the unknown, and forgetfulness, are all to be valued as much as singularity, oneness, freedom, limitlessness, and knowing.

2.19-4 There is nothing (no eventity) absolutely free and there is nothing which is absolutely limited and fixed.

2.19-5 Limitation is conjugate with freedom (they are inseparable). Freedom has an intrinsic, inherent, and irreducible aspect which is limitation, and limitation has an aspect which is freedom. Never does a limitation occur without a freedom, and never does a freedom occur without a limitation (1).

2.19-6 The action (change) of creation (and choice) is a realization of a freedom, yet all acts of creation (and choice) inherently involve limitation (causality).

2.19-7 One cannot "transcend" limitation but one can work with it, by adding to it (expanding freedoms by adding) other levels, dimensions, and qualities.

2.19-8 The limitations, patterns, and forms created or defined by the self are not limitations/patterns/forms of the self. Self has being in many domains (worlds) other than the one where patterns, limitations, and forms are manifested, structured, and defined.

[1] Consider for example, the action of discipline.

Back Up To TOC Next

For recommendations, comments, suggestions, or other offers to provide qualified assistance,
Please write to: