emergence of integrity ~ a Quintet (2)

From my latest book : “emergence of integrity”

If the proletarians ~ as Karl Marx suggested it ~ would have brought better social justice, every revolution is legal and allowed in the most moral way. Then it is not discussable who leads the revolution. The only reason an revolution is permitted or allowed if it is based upon the highest moral grounds as mentioned. Every civil disobedience ~ no matter how small or individual it is ~ is then morally and ethically “legal”.

Considering Bergson and the idea that sympathizing with similar species is easier than with others we may conclude that every (sub-)culture imply “the (energetic) law of laziness” what brings us to the open and closed morality. The risk that is implied is the diversity of thoughts and actions. However there are only a few ethical rules these so-called “Closed Morality” organizations or communities loose contact with the outer world and that implies that borders of these morality become stronger and more solid.

The counterpart of ethics is free will as Immanuel Kant mentioned it. What if free will is assimilated by the leader’s (free) will ? Where is the space that is left over in the way I started this chapter named “Quintet” ? Can we still talk about free will of the inhabitants in case of the question if the laws of survival ~ at the benefit of that specific community ~ still represent  the same as the moral laws ?

“Free will is the Space that is left over when your Fate is filled up with Determinism.” ~ moì

Note : Space is synonymous to the Gap as it guarantees one’s Creativity

Closed Morality has nothing to do with Democracy. Democracy is best when its morality, its intellectual system is an open one. Decisions based upon democratic majority isn’t democratic when it damages nature, flora & fauna and even some human beings. The title of Bergson’s book “Creative Evolution” may imply a high welfare ~ a better social justice ~ for everyone. It is anyhow the way of an open mind or attitude willing to improve in the ethical way. Originally that was Bergson’s idealistic view, an open society. In that way Bergson shows us that our Technocracy that is concrete and existing of matter, facts & figures and money has nothing to do with the 2 processes “intuiting” and “sympathizing”, because it is not characterized that way, it has completely different features. As Schopenhauer said :

“The highest moral commandment is empathy.”

Note : Empathy as an integral term for intuition and sympathy empowered by imagination and language ~ moì

By the way, is this commandment just super(b)- or supra-valid ?

Evolution is a process in which the interpretation and world views become different from the old ones. Is there a continuum in the spiral or volvo, this rotation, in its direction of rotation ? Or do we have to deal here with quantum leaps as well ? However the quality of one’s competences concerning the 2 processes of intuiting and sympathizing may guarantee gaining one’s authenticity; the characteristic actions and behavings become congruent with your authenticity and your higher mission or purpose ~ teleologically speaking; your personality represents your arche type. Maybe an e-volution is to be changed into an in-volution; back to the source of all. The word “back” doesn't need to imply welfare regressions; it’s only diminishing the intensity of welfare and the ambition.

What can we learn from this all ? The 2 processes of intuiting and sympathizing are in all of us. So everyone has a capability to develop the right intelligence and knows what decisions are instinctively made and what in the right moral way. In the words of Chomsky every action is allowed when individuals or groups damage social justice. In this context I don’t mind if it is only about mankind him/herself, I include nature such as flora & fauna as well. So in that way of speaking the technocracy is not allowed to conquer natural phenomena by ignoring and even destroying them.

Referring to the 5 Chinese elements like earth/food, fire/energy, air/life, water/flow and æther/creation that represent the quality of our lives. Does that mean that it is allowed to kill the predator or perpetrator like Nero, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and other less known persons who brought damage to these human rights ? According to Hegel their actions were needed to contribute to human social progress in their own way and suggested not to follow the majority if ethical rules are at stake ? Do you know the quote :

“Hate the sin and love the sinner.” ~ “Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum.”

Originally it was quoted by St. Augustine and later Mahatma or Mohandas Gandhi adopted it. People who represent these crimes against humanity and nature must be stopped anyway as long as morality is respected. Legality based upon hard rules and laws are to be overruled by ethical values. So being integer means that you can’t be hurt and you won’t be capable hurting or damaging other individuals, simply because you deal with their actions, their sins and beyond those reflective behavings you try to heal this other person; in a fully responsible ethical manner.

The essential question is “what are the or only, are there limitations ?” I don’t think it is so hard to answer, there is just the only one as told by Schopenhauer.