~ Rich's Writings ~

A Collection of Writings by Rich Van Winkle

Click here to return to the Home Page



Oh - you're a bit ahead of me. I'm expanding and re-working (including re-formatting) Moral Transformation for web reading. I have posted the older draft while the new work is underway... 

Moral Transformation

by Rich Van Winkle



Statement of Purpose:

The purpose of this work is to create and communicate a process which may produce moral advancement of the human species.

What follows is a complex (at least for me) set of ideas arranged in a sequence which suits the stated purpose. Many will find the sequence inappropriate and I encourage you to browse through the material as desired. Please bear in mind that whatever new ideas are presented are discussed in relationship to the sequence as offered. Use of terminology is critical to my purpose and explanations of meanings or usage of key words is explained in order as presented. I have (will) prepared a glossary and a detailed table of contents. Both are specifically intended to facilitate browsing.

The book is divided into seven sections

    1. The Problem - Background and build-up

    2. The Purpose - The foundation

    3. The Process - How, what, when, and where

    4. The Procedure - Derivation for sections 1-3

*   5. The Experiment

*   6. Application

*   7. Special Background or Expansion

 I would greatly appreciate your input regarding this work. Together, we can make this more effective and learn form each other as well.

 Rich V.W.

 Mar. 2010


 What follows is an open challenge to the human species. It is a challenge centered in the perceived purpose which every member of our species seems to have ingrained in their nature...

      that there is something bigger and better,

         that it is important, and

                that we should try to advance to it.

 Our expression of this common purpose takes many forms, but they may all be condensed into the above summary. It is important for us to consider the origin of this notion of purpose, but not imperative that we agree upon it. In other words, the fact that a scientist and a priest may have different ideas on where this common sense of purpose comes from is irrelevant for our discussion. It would help if we could reach consensus on this, but such should not be the focus of our effort nor should it detract us from focusing on the central issue of advancing the species. Indeed, it would seem that focusing on this end would lead to narrowing the gap between science and religion.

 Our challenge then is very simple...

     To articulate and accept a statement of purpose which may serve as a test for behavior and action.

 Followed by...

     To expand our stated purpose into specific goals which may serve to challenge individual actions,

    priorities, and application of resources.

 The work that follows provide a basis and a framework for the accomplishment of the above. The foundation upon which all of these concepts are built is the notion that morality is a universal norm or absolute that we can both perceive and obtain.

 The application of the ideas presented has produced many of the ideas. As a cyclic, building process there may be no end to what may be accomplished when applied on a broader scale. If you are willing to accept a challenge to your beliefs, your behaviors, and even to your notion of reality, then don't just read on... attack. Your life may never be the same.



(A message from the author)


I regret that I have been unable to find a simple or straight forward approach to presenting the process for moral advancement. The process itself is not very complex. To understand its origins, its derivation, its subtleties, and its scope requires the assemblage of a fairly complex array of ideas. Most of the source concepts are simple and easily grasped. Others may require some adjustment of your preconceived notions.


Please avoid tying the content to the presentation. I am much more skilled at deriving these things than presenting them. I hope that with your involvement and feedback that the process and its presentation will evolve into something more substantial and more communicative.


I believe that to truly understand the whole, you must understand the pieces. Unfortunately, the pieces must be presented before the whole and it may be difficult at first to make the linkages between the parts and the whole. I hope that you will not get "bogged" down in the detail of the supporting ideas. Accept what you can, reject what you must, but plan in advance a second reading.


I have tried to keep the material direct and pointed. My hope is that you will read and assess as you go. Try not to skim or pass over new ideas without examination.


I thank you for your concern, your effort in reading this, and you desire to ethically advance the human species.





APRIL 1988



Pulling all these segmented essays together in some logical and efficient sequence will be a big challenge. Doing such should yield a useful collection, fill some important gaps, and help us refine the content where needed (throughout!). It will also give me an opportunity to test my ideas against your high standards and to challenge you to find fault with them.


My priorities are:


1. To be as certain as possible that there are no logical flaws in the essays.


2. To be as certain as possible that there are no logical gaps in the essays.


3. To make the logic as clear and complete as possible while maintaining tightness or compactness.


4. To provide supporting material when and where it contributes favorably to the above.


5. To make the presentation of the material efficient and effective.


6. To simplify the materials where such does not detract from the above.


To these ends, we will meet at regular intervals and discuss the purpose, content, and presentation of each of the essays herein. Our discussion should not be limited by this intent and I hope that our discussion will yield insights into the application and expansion of the included ideas.


The offering of the following sequence is for convenience and common reference only. I do not perceive of it as being rigid and I hope that you will impose your ideas on its intended flexibility.



I. Introduction


   A. Ethics & Morality

   B. What is evolution

   C. Purpose & Direction


II. Origin of Evolution


   A. Creation of the Universe

   B. Laws of Nature

   C. Purpose of Creation

   D. Purpose of Evolution

   E. Nature of Evolution


III. The Process of Evolution


   A. Parallel Processes

   B. Genetic Adaptations

   C. Effects of Outside Forces

   D. Natural Selection

   E. Quantum Evolution


IV. Evolution in our Ecosphere


   A. Pre-Life Evolution

   B. Origins of Life

   C. Evolution of Living Organisms

   D. Human Evolution


V. The Evolution of Morality


   A. Life

   B. Awareness

   C. Creativity

   D. Ethics

   E. Transformations


V. Extending Evolution


   A. Natural

   B. Controlled


VI. Morality and Man





Amoral - The condition or state of not being moral or immoral and not recognizing morality. No humans are amoral.


Art -  A process, method, or state which inspires creativity, often through pleasing entertainment. Most art works through both conscious and subconscoious processes.


Atom - The relatively stable transformation level of energy which is recognized as the basic element or building block of matter. Atoms are comprised of two or three basic parts, protons, electrons, and most cases, neutrons. Atoms are comprised of sub-atomic particles, and sub-atomic forces






Atrophy - That resultant of entropy which causes the diminishment of functionality as a result of not being used or needed.




God - The Creating Entity. As used herein, "God" may conform to many different conceptions. God most likely exsists in a form which is inconceivable to us, but many forms are acceptable. Thus, God may be a being, a force, a type of energy, or something else. God may be viewed as part of all creation or as a dissassociated entity. I view God as a moral being. As such, God is neither perfect nor infinite, but seeks creative truth to the best of his or her ability.






We need a new approach an approach which is ancient in its origin, modern in its sensibility, and futuristic in its vision. We need an approach which can challenge us and the children of our children for thousands of generations. We need a new approach to survive and prosper. We need a new approach to achieve our destiny.


This approach must focus on moral advancement, not on technological development. This approach must focus on total human development, not the development of a select few. This approach must be flexible in its methods and yet  rigid in its purpose. It must offer hope, logic, and a natural appeal. This approach must fit the past as well as the future.


We have before us an opportunity to experiment with a new approach. One which meets our criteria and expands beyond. An approach which is both concrete and abstract. An approach which is both simple and complex. An approach which balances risk and potential gain.


The approach is called "Moral Transformation". It is in its simplest form a means of enhancing creativity and love. In its complex form, it is an entire restructuring of the human experience. It is both easy to understand and yet beyond human understanding. To truly understand it requires that one has begun it.


To most, this may seem to be a strange play on words. It isn't intended to be. Our words fail us when we try to describe that which has not been defined and which does not coincide with our existing vocabulary. To understand our new approach requires new words, new perceptions, and new ways of thinking. We should not balk at the requirements and preconditions to begin moral transformation.


To start, we must care and share. The process is well defined... to a point. A point at which we may assume that the next part (or maybe the whole) of the process will become apparent. We must begin the journey without seeing our destination. We need not travel in darkness, as a "map" is readily available. We will not need luggage as our needs will be met as we proceed. We will not need a compass as we each have one built in.


The process itself is not very complex. To understand its origins, its derivation, its subtleties, and its scope requires the assemblage of a fairly complex array of ideas. Most of the source concepts are simple and easily grasped. Others may require some adjustment of preconceived notions.




As a rather arrogant species, we have made many claims of superiority and understanding which exceed the reality which surrounds us or the limits of our knowledge. Many of these assumptions are harmless. Others limit our perspective or delude us into false beliefs. Included herein are some of those which may be significant to consider.




    1. We are the most intelligent and/or ethical beings

       in our ecosphere.


We certainly have a unique set of abilities, yet do these intrinsically make us superior. We have little understanding of our own intelligence. How can we understand the degree and scope of intelligence observed in other higher mammals.


    2. We are the chosen beings (by our creator).


Because we view ourselves as being in control of our destiny and the destiny of the other beings in our ecosphere, we assume that we must have been granted this power. In truth, we have demonstrated repeatedly that we are unqualified for the responsibility and that our power is largely that of destruction and not creation.


    3. Our perceptions are complete and absolute.


If we see something we tend to assume it as real and believable. Of course, magicians and their like often remind us that our perceptions and senses are easily fooled. We assume that our perceptions limit the extent of the universe. We assume that the dimensions we perceive are the major ones in the whole of creation. We assume that our perceptions of time and spatial relationships are descriptive of reality and the foremost direction of these forces. In reality, we wear blinders next to our colored glasses while looking through the binoculars of reality backwards.



    4. We are the focus of the universe.


Both collectively and individually, we act as though the universe was created for our use and dominance. It is much more likely that we are one of billions of alternative life forms distributed throughout the universe. In time we may be rudely reminded of our own insignificance.


    5. We assume that someone or something else is in

       control of our destiny, is responsible for our

       nature, and will keep us "on track".


We are probably on our own. In the grandeur of creation, we are relatively insignificant. All indications are that we are expected to determine and create our own destiny.


    6. We assume that death is unavoidable.


There are probably many ways to avoid death as we know it. It seems possible that technology may allow the doubling or tripling of life span within the next century. It also seems likely that at some point we will learn to transfer that element described as "soul" from one being to another.


    7. We assume that we will continue in the same

       essential patterns and modes as we do currently.


It is very unlikely that the present will even vaguely resemble the norm in fifty years. Human nature will not change fundamentally, but most aspects of human interaction, priorities, and daily existence will change dramatically. There is increasing probability that the essence of our being may even change significantly.


    8. We assume that our knowledge of our ecosphere is

       fairly complete.


We believe that we can explain the birth of the universe from the first one-millionth of a second to date. We have defined all of the naturally occurring chemical elements. We have observed, measured, and controlled all of the major forms of energy which dominate our dimension. We act as though we fully understand the process of life and the evolution of species. We believe that those things which we don't control will be controlled. However, what we are learning is that the more we know, the more we know that we don't know. From quantum mechanics to life sciences, we are just beginning to grasp the complexity of our universe.







In our meager lives the most serious of concerns center around ourselves and our interests. We have failed to see the meaning of our own existence and its importance in the greater scheme of things. In the face of a greater reality we shrink into selfish beings who care little more than simpler animals about the true threats to our world. We are children in a storm seeing only the rain soaked path which leads home.


Our minds are focused on the mundane, the facts, the concrete. We avoid the abstract to avoid the unknown.

Within us is the power and glory of the universe and we hide it to avoid confusion and guilt. We are confused about our purpose and guilty about our failure to find it.


In the face of a greater reality, we have followed the simple path. We have become lesser beings, not the almighty focus of our creator. We shrink to the lowest common denominator instead of seeking the greatest factor. We seek pleasure and not meaning. We carry umbrellas instead of creating sunshine.




Our perception of the world around us is focused upon those elements which have proven influential in our evolutionary survival. We may now focus our attention on the new notions which will form the basis of future evolution and eventual transformation to higher levels of morality.


Many of the notions which we take for granted were considered heresy and irrational by those we consider the great intellects of the past. It is safe to assume that the same will be true in the future. We have an opportunity combined with adequate knowledge and experience to form a new basis for human activity. The core of our new notions should focus on the purpose for which we have found universal acceptance to advance ourselves and our species.




The picture that we must grasp is most odd. It is not only magnificent in its size, detail, and complexity, but in its abstractedness, its precision, its beauty, and its meaning. The more of the picture that we see, the more that we understand, and the more that we accept as real, the more we will find awe and admiration for its creator. Not only is the picture more than two dimensional, but it has a quality or substance which inspires, compels, and frightens. To describe this picture as the physical universe is as limiting as describing the Mona Lisa as paint on canvas.


To describe this picture with words is more difficult than describing the joy in a warm sunrise. To divide this picture into its smallest significant sections has taken centuries of human endeavor. To understand the complexity of its simplest parts defies human intelligence. And yet, we may not only rejoice in our ability to grasp the beauty of this picture, but we may take comfort in the fact that its creator specifically intended for us to grasp and understand its intricacy.


Let us begin then with the obvious and most observable parts of this huge picture. Let us consider the viewer and his or her frame of reference. Then, let us consider the creator of the picture and what we may deduce about him or her. Lastly, let us consider the intent of the creator what is the message so artfully crafted into the picture.


Our universe is more than a picture. Our approach in viewing it should be much like that which we use to assess and appreciate an inspiring work of art. Indeed, we are making some assumptions about its creation and about its purpose, but then what's wrong with that. Our goal is not to force a point of view or even to suggest that any one view is more complete or more accurate than any other. Our goal is simply to expand our appreciation, our comprehension, and our application of that which is everything.


Equally important in our view of this picture are the useful, practical, and tangible understandings which we may create as a result of the effort. To this end, we dedicate this work.







What follows are the first four works in a series that has no planned end. This set serves as an introduction and a foundation for the series. It is complete and whole as offered and yet it will be obvious that much more can be added. This is the beginning, the end is not in sight.


Each work has been written to stand alone and yet the synergism between them is very important. The order in which they are presented is of minor significance but was not capricious. In as much as this is a deductive work, the sequence helps the logic become clearer.


The intent is to add to the series frequently over a long period of time. Additional works will offer additional support for the conclusions drawn herein and will extend them to a broad range of application. Planned titles include...


    The Evolution of Morality

    God & Man - Touching the Hand of God

    The Universe - Another View of Reality

    Extending Human Awareness - A Challenge to the Species

    Humans - On the Path Towards Morality

    Moral Transformation -

         Individual Perfection as a Means to Morality

    Ethical Structures (Four Part Set)

         Education / Business / Government / Religion

    Applications of Ethics in Human Behavior

































I. Introduction


   A. Ethics & Morality

   B. What is evolution

   C. Purpose & Direction


II. Origin of Evolution


   A. Creation of the Universe

   B. Laws of Nature

   C. Purpose of Creation

   D. Purpose of Evolution

   E. Nature of Evolution


III. The Process of Evolution


   A. Stages of Evolution

   B. Genetic Adaptations

   C. Effects of Outside Forces

   D. Natural Selection

   E. Quantum Evolution

   F. Entropy as a Process of Evolution


IV. Evolution in our Ecosphere


   A. Pre-Life Evolution

   B. Origins of Life

   C. Evolution of Living Organisms

   D. Human Evolution


V. The Evolution of Morality


   A. Life

   B. Awareness

   C. Creativity

   D. Ethics

   E. Transformations


V. Extending Evolution


   A. Natural

   B. Controlled


VI. Morality and Man


   A. Prerequisites to Morality

   B. The Evolutionary Ethic

   C. The Move to Morality


VII. Summary




Touching the Hand of God


I. Introduction


   A. What is God

   B. What is Man

   C. What is Morality


II. God as a Moral Being


   A. The Nature of God

   B. The Purpose of God


III. The Universe God Created


   A. The Fabric of the Universe

   B. Patterns and Processes

   C. Size and Complexity

   D. Life, Intelligence, and Morality


IV. God's Messages to Us


   A. Balance in Nature

   B. Miracles of Mathematics

   C. Universal Norms - Logic and Reason

   D. Evolution (a means and an end)


V. Interpretations of God's Messages


   A. Human Purpose

   B. Methodology

   C. Caveats


VI. Summary



Another View of Reality


I. Introduction


   A. What is Reality

   B. What is the Universe


II. The Physical Universe


   A. Classical Physics

   B. Quantum Physics

   C. Dimensions and Relativity

   D. The Observer Created Universe

   E. Paradox and Unanswered Questions



III. The Metaphysical Universe


    A. What is Metaphysical?

    B. Origin of the Metaphysical Universe

    C. Metaphysical Forces

       1. Life

       2. Awareness

       3. Transformation

       4. Evolution

    D. Alternative Realities

    E. Direction and Purpose


IV. Energy


    A. Forms and Nature

    B. Transformations

    C. Metaphysical


V. Entropy


    A. Forms and Nature

    B. Transformations


VI. Time


    A. Natural Time

    B. Relative Time

    C. Time as a Fifth Dimension

    D. Transcending Time


VII. Special Spatial Relationships


    A. The Five Dimension Coordinate System

    B. Curved Space

    C. Total Unification

    D. Mobius Convolutions


VIII. Human Perception of Reality


    A. Observable Reality

    B. Non-Observable Reality

    C. Reasoned Reality

    D. Unreasonable Reality

    E. Deterministic Indeterminateness

    F. Absolute Probabilities


IX. New Perceptions of Reality


    A. A Restructuring of Thought

    B. Evolution

    C. God


X. Summary

XI. Glossary

XII. Bibliography






A Challenge to the Species


I. Introduction


   A. The Survival of the Species

   B. Where Are We Now?

   C. Where Are We Going?


II. The Problem


III. Creativity and Awareness


IV. Individual Perfection


V. Transformation Experiments












Planned Titles...


    The Evolution of Morality

    God & Man - Touching the Hand of God

    The Universe - Another View of Reality

    Extending Human Awareness - A Challenge to the Species

    Humans - On the Path Towards Morality

    Moral Transformation -

         Individual Perfection as a Means to Morality

    Ethical Structures (Four Part Set)

         Education / Business / Government / Religion

    Applications of Ethics in Human Behavior







I. Introduction


   A. Ethics & Morality

   B. What is evolution

   C. Purpose & Direction


II. Origin of Evolution


   A. Creation of the Universe

   B. Laws of Nature

   C. Purpose of Creation

   D. Purpose of Evolution

   E. Nature of Evolution


III. The Process of Evolution


   A. Stages of Evolution

   B. Genetic Adaptations

   C. Effects of Outside Forces

   D. Natural Selection

   E. Quantum Evolution

   F. Entropy as a Process of Evolution


IV. Evolution in our Ecosphere


   A. Pre-Life Evolution




Thanks for your help! The manuscript which you are being loaned is for you to write on, scribble over and edit as you wish. When you return it, I will exchange it for the most current version. All reviewers who offer their effort will be credited appropriately.


As you will note, I have chosen to work simultaneously on all four of the first books of the series. This allows me to continue my fragmented thinking style and yet produce more coherent work. There is a clear relationship between the books, but each is intended to "stand alone". My intent is to have them published as separate bound editions sharing a common introduction and glossary. I will offer a condensed bibliography with the books and intend to have a note like the following at the end of it...



Dear Reader,


I have utilized hundreds of references and thousands of specific notations in preparing this book and its related works. In order to reduce the size of the book and its cost, the complete bibliographical notations and my extensive notes have not been included.


Those wishing to have access to such are welcomed to send $5.00 for postage and handling to "Notes" care of P.O. Box5413, Bellingham, WA 98227. In return, you will receive over 100 pages of detailed bibliographical notes.


Thanks for your understanding,






          If we wish to create a better universe, we could start by

          improving our own.


          Perfection is an end which has no end. The best we can do

          is identify goals which are the most perfect we are able

          to conceptualize and work to perfect the means to achieve



          There is no object or force in this universe which can

          split a quanta of energy.



ABOUTGOD     About God                             6440   3-31-88

ADVERS1      In the Face of Adversity              2788   3-31-87

ALIGN1       Aligning Behavior With Purpose        6040   4-12-88

AMERICA1     The Decline of America                1054   5-02-88

ANOMOLI1     Spatial Anomalies                     4338   1-31-88

APPROACH     A New Approach                        3832   8-15-87

ARROGA1      A Bit of Arrogance                    2554   3-13-88

ARROGANT     A Touch of Arrogance                  3012  12-20-87

ART&SCI      Life is More Than Living              3066  12-23-87

ARTLIFE      Life by Choice                        3208   4-06-88

ASSUMGOD     Assumptions About God                 2767   1-30-88

ASSUMPT1     Assumptions Without Merit             4957  12-06-87

AUTHMES2     How to Use These Materials            2613   4-08-88

AUTHMESS     Starting Anew                         3506   1-02-86

AUTHPURP     An Overview                           2458   4-09-88

AUTOPO1      Autopoiesis - A Warning               3348   9-04-87

AUTOPO2      Autopoiesis - An Overview             4281   9-06-87

AUTOPO3      Autopoiesis - A Summary               9330   9-06-87

BEAUTY       Beauty                                2022   5-09-87

BELIEVE      If You Really Believe in Jesus        4066   3-31-88

BIGPLAN      The Big Plan                          3725   8-15-87

BODYSOUL     Life At the Lowest Levels             3913   7-03-87

BUSBYPUR     Business By Purpose                   5825   4-02-88

BUSPLAN1     Our Business - An Ethical Approach    7366   8-15-87

BUSPLAN2     The Ethical Business - An Alternative 7240   8-15-87

BUSSTRU1     Some Thoughts About Our Process       4408   3-12-88

CALLTOAC     A Call To Action                      4050   8-25-87

CLIMBING     Mountaineering - The Height of Man    5803   4-02-88

COMMWEAP     Communication As A Weapon             4980   5-19-88

CONTRACT     A New Beginning                       1171   1-12-86

CONVERS1     A Conversation With God               7331   1-13-86

CREAT1       Orders of Creativity                  4781   2-07-88

DANGER       The Danger Around Us                  3742   4-07-88

DEATH1       The Meaning of Death                  4035  12-03-87

DELUSION     The Power of Delusion                 3147  10-01-87

DESTINY      Destiny                               4431   9-06-87

DEVMIND      The Development of Mind               2853   1-13-86

DUTY         Duty                                  4110   1-13-86

EDUCAT1      Education - The Foundation           11657   8-25-87

EDUCAT2      Education - A Cookbook & Guide        8287   8-25-87

EDUCAT3      Education - Structures                1021   8-25-87

EDUCAT4      Education - Purpose                   3168   8-25-87

EFFECTS      The Effects of Personal Trans.        3521   8-25-87

EIMPERAT     The Ethical Imperative                2931   8-25-87

ELIGHT       Ethical Enlightenment                 4632  10-09-86

ENTROMAN     Energy & Man                          6153   8-25-87

ETHADV1      The Ethical Advancement of the H.S.   2605   4-09-88

ETHDEST      The Ethical Imperative (Short)        2931   8-25-87

ETHIMALT     The Ethical Imperative (Full)        26601   4-01-88

ETHMEAS      Measuring Ethical Advancement         6746   1-13-86

ETHSTRU1     The Design & Imp. of Ethical Struct.  2458   3-12-88


 FILE NAME              TITLE              USE   LENGTH    DATE

-----------  ---------------------------  -----  ------  --------

EVETHIC1     The Evolutionary Ethic (12/28/85)    16686   8-25-87

EVOLMORE     The Evolution of Morality             2757   4-17-88

EXPAPP1      An Approach to Our Problems (H.T.E.)  8728   8-10-88

EXTTHINK     Extending Non-Verbal Communication    5108   5-19-88

FAMILY       The Value of Family                   1943  11-28-87

FAMLET1      Letter to family & friends            6867   7-10-88

FAMLET2      Letter to family & friends                   8-10-88

FLAWS        Some Potential Flaws in the Process   1830  12-06-87

FRAGMENT     Fragmented Thinking                   1782   4-11-88

FRAMEOFR     Human Frame of Reference              1948   5-02-88

FREEDOM1     Freedom                               5370   1-01-88

FRIENDS      Friendships                           2906   6-15-87

GAMES1       The Other Game in Town                4889   7-17-88

GAMES2       The New Game in Town                  1966   7-17-88

GAMMA        The Gamma Mind                        2758  10-18-87

GLORYPUR     The Most Glorious Purpose            18050  10-09-86

GOD&MAN      God & Man                             5162   1-13-86

GODSMESS     God's Message to Us                  10087   1-31-88

GOLDEN       The Golden Path                       7284  10-09-86

HIERARCY     The Human Psycho-Social Hierarchy     4556   3-13-88

HISTORY1     The History of My Transformation     10912   1-13-86

HOLOGTHI     Holographic Thinking                  1816   5-23-88

HUMAN        The Problem With Being Human          2440  10-09-86

HUMCREA      Human Creativity                      9013   5-14-88

HUMCREA2     Human Creativity                      2713   8-10-88

HUMMIND      The Human Mind                        8510   4-07-88

IMAGINE1     Time, Space, Matter, Imagination      3554  12-09-87

INDIPERF     Individual Perfection                10587   5-13-88

INDIVADV     Personal Ethical Advancement          8165   4-30-88

INDVROLE     The Significance of the Individual    5027   8-25-87

INTELL1      The Responsibility of Being Ethical   3857   5-20-88

INTELL2      Intelligence in human Creativity      4625   5-14-88

INTERVEW     An Exclusive Interview                6298   9-21-86

JESUS        Jesus Was More Than a Man             4923   8-25-87

JOURNAL1     The Journal (Short Story)             5117   4-08-88

LEADER1      Leadership                            5912  12-20-88

LEARN1       Essential Learning-A New Perspective  4216   8-25-87

LIFE1        Life Energy                           3970  10-20-86

LIFE3        The Transformation to Life            5220   2-05-88

LIFETRAN     To Change the World                   2820   2-05-88

MACHINT1     Artificial Intelligence               5763   7-17-87

MAGIC        Like Magic                            2877   3-19-88

MEANING1     It Must Be Meaningful                 3067  10-19-87

MEASETH2     Processes of Ethical Creativity       8935   8-25-87

MEASETH3     Behaviors of Creativity               2905   1-13-86

METAESS1     The Essence of the Meta. Ecosphere    4839   8-25-87

METAPHY1     The Age of the Metaphysical           4666   8-25-87

MIRACLE      A Minor Miracle                       2101   4-02-88

MORALITY     Morality - The Step Beyond Life       6995  12-06-87

MORES        Mores are not Morality                6749  12-06-87


 FILE NAME              TITLE              USE   LENGTH    DATE

-----------  ---------------------------  -----  ------  --------

MORPURP      Moral Purpose in Human Endeavor       1023   3-12-88

MYHOPES      My Personal Goals                     1898  10-09-86

NATURE       The Nature of the Universe            6938   6-22-87

NEWBUS1      The Old Business                      4155   4-02-88

NEWBUS2      The New Business                      5031   4-02-88

NEWMODEL     A New Model for Living                2052   5-17-88

NOTIONS      Some New Notions                      2811   5-20-88

OBJECTS1     Moral Transformation - Objectives     4915  11-29-87

PARALLEL     Parallel Thinking                     1352   5-23-88

PATH1        Along the Golden Path                17891  12-03-87

PERCEPT      Perception                            5569  10-09-86

PERPERC      Personal Perception                   4028  10-09-86

PERSAFFR     Personal Affrontation                 2904   9-17-86

PERSGROW     Focusing of Personal Growth           1110   3-12-88

PERSPREP     Preparing for Transformation          3507  10-09-86

PERSREL      Personal Relationships                2382  11-27-86

PERTEAC1     Perceptive Teaching                   4980   4-04-88

PERTRAN1     Personal Reflections on Trans.        2276   1-13-86

PET-OVER     Personal Ethical Transformation       3408   5-20-88

PICTURE1     The Big Picture                       3492   4-11-88

PLACEIN      A Place Within (poem)                 1242   7-10-88

POWER        Power From God (?)                     969   4-02-88

PREFACE1     The Challenge                         3290   4-10-88

PREPFOR1     Preparing for Morality                3185  10-09-86

PREPTRAN     Preparing for Transformation          3464  10-09-86

PREREQ1      The Prerequisites for Success         6201   8-10-88

PROBLEM      The Fundamental Problem               3000  11-30-86

PROCESS1     Moral Trans. - Process of the Exp.    2250   4-01-88

PROCESS2     Intrinsic Processes of Mind           4215   4-01-88

PURPOSE1     Progress Through Purpose              2433   7-07-88

QUANTRIG     Triggering Quantum Thinking           2743   4-12-88

QUANTRNS     Quantum Transformations               2760   1-29-88

QUEST1       The Ten Questions                     1435   3-13-88

REALITY      Reality                               3389  10-18-87

RENAIS1      The Next Renaissance                  2744   8-10-88

REVEIW1      Review Schedule and Process (4/88)    2665   4-10-88

RULES        The Rules of Ethics                   3370   9-06-87

SACRIF       The Value of Sacrifice                4861  10-09-86

SCHED1       Schedule of Discussions               3979   4-12-88

SCHED2       App. Schedule - E.T. Experiments      2974   5-22-88

SIGNS        Signs of the Times                    2309  12-06-87

SLEEPER      The Sleeper Must Awaken               2539   1-13-86

SPECMORS     Moral Decline in America             16844  12-03-87

SPECNOND     Special Non-Disclosure Agreement      6986  10-09-86

SPIRIT1      Spiritual Energy in the Ecosphere     3750   8-26-87

SPIRIT2      Human Spirituality                    4518   5-17-88

STEP1        Step One                              5576  10-09-86

SURVSPEC     The Survival of the Species           2890  12-28-86

TABLE1       Personal Essay Set -T.O.C.            5675   4-09-88

TEACH1       Teaching Model                        1152  12-20-88

TEACHING     Teaching is Giving                    3598   8-15-87


 FILE NAME              TITLE              USE   LENGTH    DATE

-----------  ---------------------------  -----  ------  --------

TEACLIFE     Teaching for Life                     1529   9-06-87

TEAMLEAD     Effective Team Leadership - A Pers.   6524   7-09-87

THEBEGIN     The Beginning                         5107  10-09-86

THEPOFP      The Pursuit of Perfection             2092   9-06-87

THINKPAT     Human Thinking Patterns               6427   5-14-88

THINKPRO     Thinking Processes                    2297   4-05-88

THINKS&M     Thinking - Strategies & Methods       8255   4-04-88

THOUGHT      The Magic of Thought                  5315   1-13-86

TIMEPERS     Th Perspective of Time                3028   8-26-87

TIMEQUES     It's A Question of Time               3166   8-26-87

TIMETRAN     Transcending Time & Space             2962   8-26-87

TITLEP1      Title Page - The Ethical Adv...       2471   4-09-88

TRANNOT3     Transition Notes 9/86                 1181   9-17-86

TRANS1       The Transformation Process - 1       13323  10-09-86

TRANS2       The Transformation Process - 2        3210  10-09-86

TRANSIT1     Transitions                           3506  11-06-87

TRANSIT2     Personal Transitions                  2598  11-06-87

TRANSTH2     Transcendental Thoughts               5447   5-13-88

TRANSTHI     Transcendental Thinking              10155   5-19-88

TRUTH        Truth                                 3518   1-13-86

UPDATE1      Personal Diary                        9067   1-13-86

VWPERSNL     Private Notes                        12804   1-13-86

WHERE1       Where Are We Going?                   9602   8-13-88

WHOLEPIC     The Whole is > the Sum of the Parts   3325   4-12-88

WHYME        Why Me ?                              1149   1-13-86



- A Handbook for would be Gods -



Purpose: As God, we take on immense responsibility. The primary duty of our existence is to create especially to create divinely. The ultimate divine creation is a universe, a propagation of our own universe. To create a universe requires divine power the power which stems from truth, specifically ultimate truth. And, there is no truth more ultimate than perfection.


Ultimate creation will yield a more perfect universe, a universe which expands morality and truth until its beings become Gods. When that is achieved, the creation will join the whole and the process will resume. That is the cycle of life, of growth, of continuation. Unless the cycle is maintained, God will perish.


It is wrong to embark on the path of ultimate creation without moral purpose or adequate preparation. Failure to do either will diminish the whole and since the whole is the source of the one, failure will diminish God.


This handbook summarizes the collective truth which must become part of any universe and offers suggestions regarding approaches and specifications. As we are imperfect, so must our creation be. Our goal must be to seek new systems and structures which will allow our creation to become more perfect than we are.


Overview: We have created many universes with many failures. Some have reached stability and thus fail. Some have been unstable enough to prevent the building forces to initiate necessary systems and structures. Some have lacked essential constituents. A few have self destructed. There is no correct design, no plan which makes success inevitable. We have only our desire, our experience, and our truth to guide us.


We have considered creating numerous universes with many designs, but time, energy, and resources dictate that we focus on designs which are well conceived, well tested, and justify the cost of implementation. Designs which appeal to reason and intuition must be tested within the whole for compatibility with known truth. Designs which are found to have merit and which meet the test of truth are prioritized based upon the ratio of complexity and assessed probability. As implementation resources become availavable, creation is commenced.


Given the degree to which the creation of universes is a boundary process, it is imperative that the conjugation of will which initiates the procreation process be as perfect as possible. Without requisite levels of will and discipline, the resulting universe will neither have the longevity to evolve or the ordered complexity to survive, regardless of the quality of the design. And, once created, there is little which may be done to alter the implementation.


Basic Concepts:


Although some aspects of the procreation process remain outside the realm of understanding, we have learned much through analysis and observation. Other aspects fit the intuitive picture perfectly and are thus regarded as true. It is important that we not limit our awareness by accepting absolutes or by making inappropriate assumptions regarding the process or its result.


We accept the limitations of our understanding based upon our imperfect perceptions and our faulted reasoning. We accept our place in the continuum and we revere that which allows us to create. Since our beginning, we have recognized the need and the essence of the process of procreation: the creating of universes. In our pre-luminous stages, we experienced glimpses and perceptions of our creative potential and managed sparks of creation which were very transitory. Upon transformation to wholeness, we began the collective growth which has led to our current awareness and ability to create. Now, we utilize the same process as before, only we avoid the less moral and less efficient approaches.


The process is as fundamental to our nature as thought itself. It begins with the will to create and is focused by the acceptance of greater purpose. Once given shape by the truths which frame it, our conception is transformed into a point of reality an infintisimal break in the Infinite Nothingness Matrix.


The INM complements the IAM (Infinite Awareness Matrix), forming the Continuum which we maintain and which maintains us. It is our belief that the procreative process is our best option for maximizing the IAM and that the universes created may eventually achieve the same creative ability. Progression through binary reproduction has proven to be very successful in simulations and experimental models. It also has an inherent elegance and simplicity.


The essential balance in this creative process is between the evolutionary will which we instill from the IAM and the entropic will which is inherent in the INM. We accept that each universe we create must eventually succumb to the INM. Our intent and hope is that the systems and structures which form as a result of the IAM creative will can evolve to a level which support awareness. With time and proper conditions, we believe and expect that this awareness can expand and improve until it reaches the Omega point.


With the completion of the Omega Transformation, the awareness will transcend the boundaries of its universe and join us. In this manner, we may continue to expand our awareness in the persuit of perfection. We will alter the balance between the INM and the IAM, we will maximize our creativity, we will maximize thruth, we will maximize morality, and we get closer to our own Omega point.




We begin the process of creating a universe through he following steps:


   1. Identify the purpose in terms which allow for

      challenge and feedback.


   2. Identify the elements, variables, and factors which

      effcet the implementation and lie outside the

      boundariy of our influence.


   3. Select the inception operators and set up initial

      balances and imbalances (conditions).


   4. Select a configuration which is appropriate for the

      inception operators and conditions.


   5. Structure a system of checks and balances to prevent

      contamination inside and outside the universe.


   6. Compare the design with other implementations and

      models to refine and extend.


   7. Compute a variable-selective probability analysis

      to estimate risk, investement, and return



   8. Challenge the design utilizing all appropriate truth



   9. Coalesce the design across the whole. If sufficient

      committment and unity is achieved, develop an

      implementation plan.


  10. Coordinate the implementation. Ensure that

      sufficient will is available, that an adequate

      expectation has been formulated, that the

      synchronized thought is scheduled.


  11. Catalyze the intrinsic creation process. Stress

      or stimulate our core structures to trigger the

      genesis process.


  12. Observe and assess the development within the

      universe. Report confirmations and conflicts which








Reality is our perceptual window to the outside world of the universe. We have struggled to make our conception of reality coincide with our perception of reality. That is to say that there has always been and may always be a difference between what we think the universe is and what we observe the universe as. If that gap is ever closed, we will either have become gods, or have died.


The trend has been for this gap to cycle through expansion and contraction. For a while, it seems as though we are getting closer to a total understanding of our universe. Then, a new perception or conceptualization either widens the gap or allows us to better see the gap.


We may choose to argue about where the gap came from, but I believe that is for another book ("God & Man"). As I suggested a moment ago, if the gap is closed, we become God. The possibility may not exist, but that is not the point. The point is that there is a gap and it is that gap which separates us from God.


In this book, we are going to contract and expand the gap. I hope that when we are done that the gap is smaller and that we have taken a step closer to God.


Largely because of the above belief, I am not uncomfortable with the concept of God. As a physicist, it would be arrogant to assume that all is knowable. Even if all is knowable in the physical domain, there remains another of greater diversity, the metaphysical domain. At some point, every physicist must realize that the two are linked, even if the linkage is as two ends on a magnetic string. No matter how small I chop up the magnet, it remains a magnet with two ends until suddenly it is no longer a magnet and it has no apparent ends. No matter how big or how small the objects I choose to study, at some point I will encounter a barrier which limits the objectification of the object. Beyond that is the realm of the metaphysical.




Given the above definitions and the title of the book, the purpose should be clear to expand and extend our concept of the universe and our perception of the universe. If we grasp the meaning of the perception and conception, then we should understand the difference in approaching the two.


Perceptions are linked to sensory awareness. Our tools

have greatly expanded our sensory awareness and thus we have been able to "observe" or perceive much more of our universe than Newton or Einstein. Even with the tremendous expansion in the complexity of our tools, our perception of reality has not gained much on our conceptualization of reality.


Concepts are built upon thoughts and memories. They are as real as our perceptions, but are based upon a different reality. As I said above, it is this difference between the perceived reality an the conceived reality which is the fundamental basis of our natural existentialism and the need for religion.


Thus, we find that our study of the perceived reality has been called science and our study of conceived reality has been called philosophy. Both sides have worked at bridging the gap with little success. I attribute such failure to the most common approach of either side, to assume that the other must bend or change its approach.


Because those who specialize in either science or philosophy best understand the value of their approach, they expound its virtues and ignore its failings. Science allows us to explain, predict and control. Philosophy allows us to challenge, clarify, and justify. The uncomfortable marriage of the two is mutually beneficial, but fraught with misunderstanding, differences in origin and language, and perhaps even different values.


In this book, I hope to approach the study of the universe with a near balance of science and philosophy. Many have done so before me. Most have given up. Newton finally decided that science was too limiting Teilhard that philosophy (Christianity) was too vague.


Both disciplines have reached the point where their languages and their processes are paranormal. Everyday people living everyday lives have little time to keep up with either domain. The press and the media are at a loss to communicate the wholeness and the integration of these divergent realms without the cooperation of the specialists in each field. The specialists have become trapped in bureaucracy and egotism.


To be recognized and admired (and thus funded) in either science or philosophy, one must publish. In choosing to communicate in rigid media, one is confronted with a choice of communicating to other specialists or to the masses. In our world, those who choose the former usually get more recognition and reward than those who do the later. In fact, many specialists who "lower" themselves to share their insights with the masses are shunned and shamed by their colleagues.


My point is simple. It is neither desirable nor possible to communicate all scientific or philosophical information using everyday terminology. On the other hand, everyday terminology grows constantly. When people understand the importance of new ideas or events, they learn the necessary terms. Our values need to change so that both technical and commonplace communication is valued and that the synergism between the two is expanded.


Our technical communication needs to be clear, concise, and complete. The language of mathematics has proven to be well suited for such. Elaborate words may convey great meaning with brevity. Jargon may serve to couple thinking and rapport. But each tends to isolate the non-specialist and thus diminish the spread of the information.


This book is written in everyday terms wherever possible. I hope that it balances conciseness and completeness and that it is exuberant in clarity (did you catch that one?).


As in all the works in this series, the approach is exploratory, sequential, analytical, and deductive. Starting with the origin of the universe and proceeding as far as our imagination will allow, we will look at what has occurred, what the current result seems to be, and some important directions where this might lead. We will take the best perceptions of science and the best concepts of philosophy and analyze them with a different and challenging perspective.


We will always value objective truth over opinion and will strive to verify our analysis with facts and reason. Many of the conclusions reached are subjective. If there were practical means of objectifying them, we would, but in truth much of what we must accept will always be subjective. With this in mind, we begin...







Before we begin, we need to be clear about the distinction between concept and precept conceptualization and perception. Sometimes the two words are used interchangeably and herein they will have two very different meanings.


Concepts are those ideas whose origin and existence are wholly within the mind. There is no external manifestation required for a concept to exist.


Percepts (perceptions) are those ideas whose origin is based upon sensory awareness. There is a tangible quality to percepts which does not exist for concepts. We can test our perceptions against our sensory experience.




Both the history of physics and the history of philosophy are filled with mavericks and charlatans. They also include some of the greatest concepts and percepts of history. The vast majority of advancement of the species has come from these domains. I know that valuable contributions have been made in other fields, but physicists and philosophers take on special challenges and have produced special results.


For many, both fields have a mysticism which is close to that of astrology and sorcery. Our physics has become polluted with charms, novelties, strangeness, and color. If this is the physicists way of making his complex science more palatable, he misses the point. Such terminology detracts from his purpose. Philosophers have become so engrossed in self-serving lexicons that the average person is lost with unreal truths and esoteric convolutions. Take the following passage form Kierkegaard:




To those who wish to speak in such abstract ways, so be it, but for those who wish to enlighten and ennoble, the language problem is not so severe.


This book is divided into two halves. The first half is a flowing, sequential look at the world of physics its processes, laws, and view of creation. We are more interested in the results than the process. The second half uses a subject oriented derivative approach to extend and expand the contents of the first half. It specifically deals with metaphysical elements.


We can not possibly hope to support each and every rationale or conclusion with extensive evidential analysis. We will carefully describe how the results were objectified or derived and point to supporting work. The literature in both physics and philosophy is almost too complete in some areas.


In physics, we easily forget how quickly evidence accumulates to invalidate recent premises and theories. Such may happen to much I've assumed or reasoned herein. Good and valuable works with seemingly creative and potent ideas that are five years old may be entirely unacceptable given new evidence. Powerful minds like Einstein and Teller often overwhelms with absoluteness or verbosity. Both made critical and seemingly gross errors in judgment and analysis (as well as profound contributions). Physics is a fast growing and frequently changing field which requires frequent updating to stay current. It is necessary and desirable that scientists speculate, hypothesize and theorize. It is wrong for the same to assume too much or accept anything as absolute.


In philosophy, we tend to forget that the Greeks may have had just as much insight into the metaphysical nature of reality as we have perhaps more. We have not objectively increased our knowledge in these areas in any significant way for 2000 years. It is just as valid to argue Aristotle's conceptualization of ethics as Sartre's. Concepts are not bound by objectivity. More modern concepts are often clouded by the perceived need to defend them against historical or contemporary "attacks". Philosophers have gotten so caught up in their own sophism that they have disregarded the contempt of the masses. Thus, philosophy and its major branch we called theology, are dying sciences. To be resuscitated (or resurrected), they need a large injection of "common sense", simplification, and application. As in physics, speculation is critical to philosophy. Whereas invalid, unworkable, or unacceptable speculations and concepts are "weeded" out of the physics world by objective verification, such seem to remain forever in philosophy. Those who choose to study the great concepts are soon bogged down by the weight of impertinent doctrine.


It is unfortunate that this impertinent doctrine has resulted in the rejection of the science of mind by so many of our students and scholars. Now, more than ever, we need the clarity of thought which can only be wrought by the careful communication, comparison, and testing of our concepts with those of others.





The real universe is more process than it is material. We have gained significant understanding of the material, but little of the process. Our existence in this universe is closely tied to a "space-time continuum" which has properties and processes which we are just beginning to recognize, much less understand. Philosophers have long understood that the ultimate question is not how the universe works, but why. Our cosmology is directed towards answering the question why by understanding how. Our philosophy is directed towards why, with little regard for how.


The link between how and why is very important. Philosophers who ignore this link ignore the clearest and most absolute reality. Scientists who search for the methods without searching for the meaning are unlikely to understand either. It is time that we take a new broader view of our universe and the implications of its existence. It is time that we bring science and philosophy back together to seek the meaning and the method.







Perhaps the most descriptive word for our perceived universe is reality. As a popular expression, "I'll believe it when I see it" has a depth of meaning which is important in our concept and percept of reality. Perceived reality is tied to sensory awareness of it. And yet, we accept and believe in many things of which we've had no sensory awareness. Are they also real?


Take for example two different concepts truth and infinity. Neither is real in any sensory manifestation. Neither produces any tangible or objectifiable force. Are they real? Do you believe in them? Why?


Both truth and infinity are imaginary or conceptual. However, both are important in our objectification of the universe. We transpose the concept of truth to observable reality by attaching objectifiable concepts like "predict"  and "control" to it. Thus if something leads to greater predictability or greater controllability, then it must be true. Can truth exist without such attachment? How...where?


Infinity is a concept with deep roots in mathematics. Many of our best perceptual descriptions require infinity as a means of allowing them to work. The simple numerical representation of the nil element (zero) doesn't work in our mathematical system without infinity. Physicists would be at a loss to define mathematical relationships that describe either the quantum or cosmic domains without the use of infinity.


We have become too accepting of these easy solutions to complex problems. If we take such uses of transcendental concepts like truth and infinity for granted, then we take the first step towards taking our reality for granted. Such is the greatest problem in modern science.




Those observable and verifiable constants which we deem the laws of nature are important stepping stones in our understanding of reality. We have a tendency to achieve plateaus of knowledge where we assume that we know everything of value within major subject areas. We accept as dogma the laws we have discovered because they fit the perceived world so well. Such would be fine if our perceived world was a bit closer to both realities. If we look backward at the major transitions in physics, there are valuable lessons to be learned.


In the world of physics before the Newtonian era, our perceptions allowed us to accept concepts which were expressed in the Bible. Physics was deterministic in the sense that everything was assumed to be predictable as God wanted it that way (reflecting our own wish). Newtonian physics and the new awareness of astronomy challenged both the knowledge base of the time and the methodology for deriving it. Newtonian physics fit the perceived world very well. It was concrete, deterministic, elegant, and simple just the way we like our world. Because of the conflict between the world of Newtonian physics and the world described in the Bible, a huge barrier was erected between them. This barrier grew as new perceptions in geology, biology, and astronomy confronted Biblical concepts.


Suddenly, we had broken centuries of close ties between percept and concept. A large and influential segment of our species held that some concepts were important enough to eclipse conflicting percepts. They were correct in this belief, but unfortunately, most seem to have picked the wrong concepts.


We have seen repeatedly that the great advances in percepts (natural laws) were proceeded by great advances in concepts. However, the majority of concepts do not "mesh" with the perceived reality. There is no inherent reason to assume that there should be a direct correlation between concept and precept. On the other hand, there should never be a percept which conflicts with a concept. (Later we will see that a determinant premise never supersedes an indeterminate premise, but that an indeterminate premise is transformed into a determinant premise by perception).


The essential fact that I'm advocating is that those things that we think, believe, and imagine comprise a different reality which is just as significant and "real" as those things which we touch, taste, see, hear, and smell. The essential goal of this book is to support the concept of equal realities by demonstrating consistency with accepted perceptive evidence and reason.


There are two other important points which relate to this goal. First, we tend to accept those ideas which are comforting and which fit our perceptions, even when they don't work at explaining, predicting or controlling our world. Secondly, we have just begun to realize that the universe is indeterministic. In other words, the most predictable thing about our universe may be its unpredictability. This is a particularly disturbing concept as it's hard to imagine purposeful creation that isn't fixed and predictable.


Natural laws are representations of the most accepted elements of perceptual reality. But they are only relevant to understanding the real universe in so much as they are accepted as probabilistic representations of observed cause and effect relationships and that observations are always tainted by individual or collective prejudices. Perception is not absolute. Natural laws change.


In our effort to apply natural laws to the perceptual and conceptual realities we must acknowledge the limitations of the observable perceptual reality and the barriers which have been built between the realities over several generations.


The Role of Mathematics:


Mathematics is a language. When we study the ties of language and thinking we more accurately understand the importance of language in forming precepts and concepts.


Scientists use the very precise and standardized language of mathematics to describe perceptions in an observable reality. They also use mathematics to express unobservable conceptual possibilities.


Partly because mathematics is a language which transcends both perceptual and conceptual realities, it has gained great acceptance and widespread application. Unfortunately, most people learn very little of this language.


Because of this, we will avoid the use of mathematics herein (I'm not as fluent as I'd like to be). We will not avoid using some very important concepts which are best proven using the syntax of mathematics. Thus, we will rely on outside sources for important extension and validation of "proofs" offered in support of several premises.


Secondly, we will use the language of science to differentiate perceptual and conceptual realities. This is not a simple task as the language test we will use only differentiates in one way.


If a concept or precept can be represented mathematically in a manner consistent and valid with common practice, then it is almost certainly within perceptual reality. In converse, just because a concept or percept has not been represented mathematically (as above), then that does not prove it is not within perceptual reality.


Here we come back to the concepts of truth and infinity. Because infinity fits within the accepted representation of mathematics, it is part of the perceptual reality. Few of us may have a conceptual understanding of infinity or an accurate view of its mathematical meaning, but it has become perceptual in its use. That is not to say that infinity is complete and accurately represented within mathematics. For example, a simple representation of infinity in mathematics is 1/0 (one divided by zero). That however is said to be equal to 2/0. This seems to conflict with other rules in mathematics.


Truth is even more abstract than infinity. We can use a case/situation model to establish truth, but we have no general theorem or proof for truth. Thus we can say that 3>2 and that 2>1 and prove that the statement 3>1 is true. The concept of truth extends far beyond this perceptive example and some aspects of truth remain in the conceptual reality.




The rest of this book is about the origin, nature, purpose, and meaning of this dual reality we've termed perceptual and conceptual. Perhaps you've already begun to conceive each of these things. We're going to try and make them as perceptual as possible without the direct use of mathematics.























(In a Nutshell)


The miracle of the human endeavor to seek knowledge of the origin of the universe is enhanced by the history of its conceptualization and the knowledge of the conditions under which we have gained so much. Unfortunately, those gains have been realized by a select few who are privy to the secrets of quantum and cosmological physics. In a brief summary fashion I will try to reveal the essence of those secrets. If doing such influences you to research the history of their origin, I have done a great good. On the other hand, if you assume that knowing what is presented here is enough, you will miss one the great stories of the human mind and will.


Few things are for certain. In this new realm, uncertainty is part of the certainty. This is not only a play on words, but a conceptual paradox. The origin of this paradox and similar ones dating back to Zeno (300 B.C.), are part of the new reality offered through quantum physics. As the verifiable pieces of this amazing puzzle have started falling into place, not only have the pieces been incredible, but the gaps remaining are awesome in their implications. We are at the threshold of new era in human thinking.


(The fact that this story is not being told in the media, in our schools, and in our churches is the worst possible indictment of the scientific illiteracy of our generation. If ignorance is bliss, we must be much happier than it appears we are).


Strangely enough, it's hard to really credit a small few with the whole of quantum and cosmological physics. It's easy to single out the contributions of Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Hubble, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger. Hundreds of others have made important or critical contributions. A point is that these fields are not focused on one or two abstract theories, but hard core experimental science with some of the best minds and most profound observations. At first, it was hard to see how they fit together, but since the quantum theory was introduced in 1906, many seemingly diverse theories have come together to form our new conceptualization of the universe. As much as anything, it has been the odd predictions and translations of these concepts to precepts which has shook the world of physics. As more and more observations serve to transform these concepts to percepts, new paradoxes appear. As the picture is coming together, physicists seem to be seeing the "face of God".


As a scientist, one is not supposed to be peeking over the barrier into the world of theology, but as our perceptions merge the two realities, something is going to have to change. Somehow it doesn't seem coincidental that biologists, psychologists, and physicists are each encountering the same basic problem there are some things that just can not be explained within perceptual reality.


I mention this because as you read through the following, you may get the impression that this is somehow disassociated with the reality you're comfortable with. You're not alone!


A Short History:


Planck's constant (1900): The paradox of black body radiation (heated metal glows) led to a universal constant which expresses the continuity or discreteness of the universe (it's made up of separate parts). This is the foundation of quantum theory.


Existence of atoms proven (1905): The paradox of Brownian movement led Einstein to conceive a "simple" method of proving their existence (movement of pollen magnified).


Existence of Photon proposed (1905): In an incredible break from accepted thought, Einstein used quantum theory to conceptualize the photon (verified in 1915).


Special Relativity (1905): Einstein developed a mathematical model of a space-time coordinate system that opposed Newtonian mechanics.


Matter and Energy Linked (1907): Einstein proposes his most famous theory and a conceptual paradox. Matter and energy are the same thing in different forms.


Discrete atomic structure proposed (1911): Radioactive transmutations led Rutherford to conclude that atoms had parts.


General Relativity (1916): The theory of nonuniform motion explained by the principle of equivalence conceptualizes "curved space". "Gravity is geometry".


Wave theory of electron movement (1923): If light could behave like particle, then electron might behave like a wave. (de Broglie)


Quantum theory tied to atomic structure (1924): The concept that the laws of energy and conservation of classical physics did not apply at the quantum level. (Bohr, Kramers, Slater)


If you're ready for a profound prediction, in 1925 Neils Bohr wrote:


"One must be prepared for the fact that the required generalization of the classical electrodynamical theory demands a profound revolution in the concepts on which the description of nature until now has been founded".


Uncertainty becomes part of reality (1925): Werner Heisenberg relates wave mechanics to matrix theory. This demonstrated an anomaly between the mathematical representation and physical perception.


Universal expansion/contraction realized (1925): Freidman showed that Einstein's theories showed an unstable universe.


Wave mechanics / Schrodinger equation (1926): The general actions of wave mechanics were reduced to mathematical equation. These seemed to conflict with Heisenberg's.


Probabilistic nature of wave action (1926): Max Born offers statistical method of determining position of wave particles. Waves are not material, they are "probability".

(This concept is central to an indeterministic universe).


In a letter responding to Einstein's criticism, Born wrote "If God has made the world a perfect mechanism, he has at least conceded so much to our imperfect intellect that in order to predict little parts of it, we need not solve innumerable differential equations, but can use dice with fair success".


Dirac's Transformation Theory (1927): Reconciled differences between Heisenberg's and Schrodinger's representations through a symbolic transformation. (Both were really the same thing in different forms). Conceived invariants and antimatter.


"Big Bang" theorized (1927): A Belgian priest, Lemaitre, conceived of creation through "primeval atom". Predicted "test particles" would confirm such.


Expansion of Universe confirmed (19xx): Hubble uses spectral shift of light to show that universe is expanding.




Statistical Mechanics applied to particles: Maxwell, Boltzmann, and Gibbs demonstrate that the random distribution of particle movement adheres to laws of statistics.



Parity of universe broken (1957): Yang and Wu.


"Big Bang" confirmed (1964): Penzias and Wilson detect background radiation of the universe left over from big bang of creation.









The Fundamental Physical Questions:


"It's a question of balance." (unknown ?)


Most physicists begin their concept of the universe with the act of creation. Surely, the nature of the moment of creation is a fundamental question, but it precedes the beginning of physical reality and thus is technically not the domain of physicists. Immediately after the instant of creation, the physical world begins to take shape a shape that is governed by some obvious and not so obvious choices.


We can reduce the essence of the universe into four pairs of related balances which determine its nature. These in turn lead to many other balances which affect every interaction or force. They are:





| Determinism/Indeterminism  |  Randomness/Ordered       |


| Discrete/Continuous        |  Finite/Infinite          |


| Local/Nonlocal             |  Objective/Subjective     |


| Symmetrical/Asymmetrical   |  Real/Unreal              |


(Figure 1)


Some of these balances are closely tied, some are loosely tied. All are sequential and somewhat dependent upon the prior balances. Each is associated with a quantum bifurcation which occurred within 10^-30 of a second after creation. We will explain the branching and timing later, but first we need to examine each balance and its significance.


1. Determinism/Indeterminism: At the risk of giving meaning where there may be no reason to, I view this balance as the answer to a simple question did God want the universe to follow his (NGI) blueprint or to be self-creative? If you remove God from the question you have to ponder what the alternative to "self-creative" was.


A descriptive word for this self-creative universe is "autopoeitic". Originally coined by Maturand** and used by Margulis and Garcia, autopoeisis is a word we will use to explain several processes. Ours is an autopoeitic or self-creating universe. Like several of the following balances, we have no clear concept of what the alternative would have been. Because it is autopoeitic, the universe is on its own. No external or underlying hidden forces should exist.


To some, this is clear evidence that no God or "Creating Entity" was responsible for the universe. To others, this is explanatory of the purpose of God and the nature of our role. Either way, the evidence clearly supports an indeterministic universe a notion that Einstein found unacceptable.


I believe that there were two good reasons for Einstein's doubt about this balance. Firstly, he had a prejudice for the "Old One" his concept of God. Secondly, he was one to clearly see the explicit nature (see Bohm) of the universe. The universe appears very deterministic to us. This appearance is based upon the determinism which is part of our reality.


This points out the reason for calling these dichotomies or choices balances. If one part of the universe was to be inderterministic, another equal part had to be deterministic. The "choice" is not an either-or one, but a where and when balance. The indeterministic nature of this first moment of creation is evident in the quantum reality of today, but not evident in the non-quantum reality. The reason for this is the balance of randomness.


2. Random/Ordered: Our material universe is governed by chance. All of the physical reality which is linked to matter in our universe is based upon probability and randomness. Most of the certainties we assume are an illusion of high probability. Newton's mechanical laws are statistical representations of almost infinite probability, but are still based upon an underlying randomness that prevails in all material interactions. Again, this seems incorrect when we deal with a reality that seems so "fixed".


We need to separate interaction from force as the balance to the randomness of material interaction is the certainty of the nonmaterial or force actions. Force actions are ordered or nonrandom. Entropy is the nonrandom force which works to produce randomness. Chaos is a measure of randomness. Evolution is the nonrandom force which works to produce order. Complexity is a measure of order.


In this set of paired balances, we can easily perceive a trend or relationship. To "see" this trend we need only to assume a perspective of relativity and infinity. This relationship and trend are repeated in each of the balances.


To address this issue, I would prefer to move away from the balances and look at an analogous concept. If we address the question why wasn't the universe created perfectly?, we might accomplish two important things. I think this question subsumes purposeful and willful creation by some entity, but perhaps not. Either way, it's worth considering.


Perfection is a concept that I describe in "God & Man" as being "transcendental". There are other such concepts, but perfection is a common and generally better conceived notion than most other transcendental concepts. It is transcendental because we have perception and conception of the idea of perfection. But what is perfection and is it obtainable.


In our perception, we may view something as perfect. It may seem perfect within the constraints of our sensory ability. Thus we might look at a marble and describe it as perfectly round. Conceptually, this can not be true. Nothing is perfectly round. At least nothing in the material universe. We might say that "perfection is a conception only found in perception".


Perfection is relative and infinite. Thus, to describe something as perfect requires that we define perfect in relation to what. Thus perfection is not a state, but a gradient. Such is the case with truth and beauty other transcendental ideas.


So what does this have to do with balancing the universe? Consider random and order as concepts. Are they transcendental? Is anything perfectly random or perfectly ordered? You'd be hard pressed to name something, especially given the above description of perfect.


Look again at figure one. On the left side are balance pairs which are not transcendental the right side pairs are transcendental. See if you can make the analogy concept above work for each of the right side pairs.


3. Discrete/Continuous: Up until 1900, it was almost universally accepted that the universe was continuous meaning that everything flowed into everything else and that "reality" was one big whole. Because of Planck's (and other's) assessment of light radiation, and Einstein's application of it, we have now accepted that the universe is discrete that even energy comes in small "packets" or "quanta". This of course was the origin of the quantum world which we now use to explain the cosmos as well as atomic interaction and structure. Matter, energy, and their interaction is based upon discrete quanta.


Natural forces like gravity and electromagnetism are continuous, again demonstrating the balance and the difference between these two perceptive domains.


The transcendental pair of this balance is finite/infinite.


4. Finite/Infinite: This pairing is more obvious than some of the others. Discrete units are finite, continuous implies infinite. What is most interesting in this pairing is why infinity is necessary to balance the universe.


Our concept of infinity is a strange boundary. To have infinite dimension implies either extension beyond conceptualization (a logical contradiction) or some type of circling or folding. We should shape our conceptualization of infinity on some type of folding. Many great thinkers have "built" folding models which are both simple and profound. (Klein bottle?). At some point we should be able to develop a folding model of the universe as well as all other conceptual infinities. Thus, infinity is a "form" for the universe.


5. Local/Nonlocal: Physicists are profoundly local. What this means is that causes are more closely associated with local forces than with nonlocal forces. This seems entirely obvious and yet, we should know by now that the quantum world is indeed full of "weirdness".


John Bell designed an experiment which produced results that seemed to show nonlocal causality. This created a bit of a stir among quantum physicists and although the appearance of nonlocal causality has been resolved, the solution requires a "sleight of hand". The subtle quality of randomness discussed above is part of the solution, the other has to do with objectivity/subjectivity.


6. Objectivity/Subjectivity: If the quantum universe is to be as objective as the classical universe, we have introduce a new concept, cross-correlation. Although it is somewhat odd in its nature, cross-correlation provides for an objective localized quantum universe.


Cross-correlation is tough to explain without more detail than we've been using, but is explained well by Heinz Pagels in "The Cosmic Code". What it suggests is that the nonlocalized causality apparent in Bell's experiments is actually an objectification problem of the observer and a result of nonlocal correlation between split pairs of quantum particles. This particular anomaly has led some to suggest interaction outside the limits of the space-time matrix. We'll have to wait for this one to be resolved, but either answer should serve to maintain the appropriate balance.


We might ask where the subjective balance occurs. We will deal with this in detail later when we consider the observer created reality.


7. Symmetrical/Asymmetrical: Symmetry comes in two forms, specific and general. Specific symmetry is the kind of two dimensional axial symmetry applied to a given situation or object. General symmetry is a bit more involved than the everyday two dimensional variety, but it follows the same idea. General symmetry is the symmetry of physical laws.


Physicists are mostly interested in general symmetry. Quantum physicists are captivated by it. It is not easy to explain general symmetry in short or simple terms, but a few characteristics stand out.


Obviously, the more dimensions, angles, axis or laws we include in our symmetry, the more complex it becomes. Physicists are trying to reduce the complexity of this symmetry to one simple representation. The basic reason is the relationship between general symmetry and invariances and the ensuing relationship between invariances and laws of conservation. Invariances are those things which establish the true nature of something. The use of "thing" is not a vagary, because invariances apply to all kinds of things missiles, photons, and physical laws... Especially physical laws.


It was Emmy Noether who conceptualized the relationship between continuous (as opposed to discrete) symmetry and laws of conservation. In doing such, she pointed the way to finding more relationships and reducing their terms to produce more explicit formulas.


With symmetry and conservation connected and new mathematical tools like Yang-Mills transformations, it was inevitable that someone like Steven Weinberg would reduce the symmetry formula. Few expected that it would take asymmetry to do it.


In this "esthetic" and "beautiful" reduction, many physicists find a new awe of nature or God (or both). It is this best recognized relationship which characterizes all the relationships in figure one.


I can not help but believe that anyone who makes the effort to grasp the inherent "art" in such symmetry and the links which bind these properties together will have a strong belief in purposeful creation.


8. Real/Unreal: If this sounds "off beat", you're following the right drummer. Reality is divided into two parallel domains, perceptual and conceptual. Where did the unreal come in? I have no idea.


My guess is that it is closely tied to antimatter (antireal?). If antimatter is real, then there must be unreality. It may be linked to conceptual reality or it may be as foreign to our thinking as antimatter. I'm inclined to think the unreal is so unnatural and unfamiliar that we have difficulty deriving a conceptualization of it. (We'll have this problem again when we deal with 11 dimensions).


Fortunately, we need not worry about the unreal just as we need not worry about antimatter. It's not something we're likely to run into driving home after a long day, nor does it change the picture were building.


So What?


As I just mentioned, we're building a picture. The pieces we just described are very important to seeing the bigger picture. Part of what we hope to see is not only the picture, but much about its creation and perhaps something about its purpose.


Personally, the conceptualization of the pairings and relations of the inception operators was awe inspiring. The simplicity of the relationships and the detail of their results is just becoming comprehensible. The more we comprehend, the more incredible they become.


Next, we should look at the sequence of events which produced the cosmos.

















If the world of quantum and cosmic physics seemed strange, wait until we get to magnetic monopoles and black holes. Even their conceptualization is difficult or improbable for most. To understand our beginning is to understand our purpose and thus we must continue to explore and expand our knowledge of these things. Even when we are wrong, we learn. Eventually, our grasp will reach a dead end using the methods and assumptions we currently work from. Until then, let the progress continue.


At the first tiny fraction of a moment in the beginning of our universe, so many things happened which are critical to our clear understanding of why things are as they are, that it is worth the effort to deal with some difficult concepts. That we know so much and that we can guess accurately at so much more is a great tribute to the spirit of the human species.


Singularities, Thresholds, and Event Horizons:


Physicists are bound by the mathematical physical reality. They may conceptualize outside this boundary, but when confronted by a domain which defies all the laws that have been defined to date, they are at a loss. Working backwards in time, we reach just such a point. One Planck Moment (we'll define this an a few moments) after creation, some of our physical laws start working. Before that is "no-mans land".


It is unfortunate that instead of simply calling this the moment of creation, some physicists cloud the concept with words like "singularity". If we're trying to characterize more than one event, perhaps we need special term for it. But since we only have one universe, and since it only had one "birth", why do we need an obscure term for it? Here's a chance to express our awe for the beauty of it all let's call it The Creation.


In "The Evolution of Morality" and "God & Man", we deal with The Creation in a different way each acknowledging or advocating a role for God. Herein, we will call this "Unknown" in the tradition of the early cartographers. We won't draw in serpents or fire, we'll just accept that at some point, there remains a profound unknown.


Astronomers have coined a phrase "event horizon" which fits our situation well. It was originally conceived to deal with some strange manifestations of black holes (which we theorize, but haven't yet proven exist). The essence of an event horizon is that of a threshold or barrier. On one side you have one set of physical laws, and on the other there is a different set of physical laws. The greatest conceptual event horizon occurs at The Creation. In a sense, the reason is simple. Our physical laws were created after The Creation, so there must be an event horizon there. What physical laws exist on the other side are pure conjecture as none of our instruments can sense anything real there. There may be a way to cross this threshold, but it won't be part of physics.


The event horizon starts or stops at the Planck Moment. This strange time interval is the shortest time possible for quantum events. It is a universal constant derived by both Planck and Johnstone-Stoney using Newton's gravitational constant and Planck's constant and algebretically factoring to produce a time in seconds. It is very small and is expressed as 1.33 X 10^-43 secs. Thus, we have assumed that our knowledge of the universe begins at that moment. Time may not have assumed its current relativistic or absolute scale at that point, but it's convenient to have a common reference point to grasp the duration of described events.


A Chronology of Creation:


At the Planck Moment there are only two elements energy and a "superforce". The unified superforce of The Creation bifurcates at 10^-41 sec. and gravity interaction suddenly exists. (I will be using the more common word "force" instead of the more accurate "interaction"). At 10^-31 sec. another bifurcation yields the nuclear force and lastly, the weak force branches from the superforce at 10^-10 sec. leaving the electromagnetic force. Thus, the superforce is divided into the four basic physical interactions of the universe gravity, electromagnetism, the nuclear force, and the weak force.


Despite the apparent shortness of this interval of time, several actions are occurring at the same time and within this interval. It is also worth interjecting a relevant theory. Two important anomalies appear in our acceptance of this time frame. First, too much is expected to happen in too short a time. Even with the extreme conditions of the moment, the rate of energy exchange is too great for the time allotted. This is easily ignored and perhaps irrelevant, except for the second anomaly.


The universe probably expanded faster than the speed of light during some part of this interval. Nothing in what has been suggested allows for this. My current theory holds that the speed of light was not the universal speed limit until the space-time matrix was fixed by a symmetry break. It doesn't matter if this occurred at 10^-41 sec. as we can not apply the speed of light limit to expansion, time had no meaning in our current relativistic sense.


Another way of viewing this is to consider a related theory that suggests a new relationship of time with the rate of universal expansion. If the rate of expansion was not uniform or fixed, time would also be nonuniform and unfixed. This may have occurred between the bifurcation of gravity and the bifurcation of the strong force or it may have lasted until the decoupling.


Side Effects:


Side-effects are a fascinating aspect of creation and the evolution of our universe. In a conservation law held true for centuries, we have understood that every action must have an equal and opposite reaction. It seems that almost every action has as part of its effect some radial effect which is related by effect to the causing action. The correlation between the effect and the side-effect is manifest in the appearance of that property in some "observer". The objectification by permanent "fossilized" record fixes that effect and supports the existence of that effect in absolute time.


Observer caused reality has gained popular acceptance in quantum physics. It is a very unnatural phenomenon and has raised many profound questions. We will deal with this concept and some of its repercussions later. At this point, I am advocating that the observer (in this case a quantum particle) only serves to fix the quantum property by objectifying its effect at a given time.


Most of the physical laws and the relationships between basic forces and interactions are fixed in this way.  Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam proposed asymmetric solutions to spontaneous breaks in symmetry (caused by Higgs particles). Once a spontaneous break occurs and it is fixed by an objectifier (neutrino), then symmetry is not restorable without a gauge field transformation (a gauge is just a set measuring point, a field is a set interaction between particles).


We can "get around" these breaks in symmetry with quanta associated to gauge fields. The now classical Yang-Mills field theories are required to unify force effects of "spontaneously broken gauge symmetry". To further unify the primary forces of electromagnetism and gravity, we must seek the fixed effect of the broken symmetry caused by the bifurcation of gravity.


Back to the chronology...


During the same interval that the basic forces (and interactions) are differentiating, pre-hadrons are being formed. These may be grouped as colored (quarks and gluons) or noncolored (leptons - electrons and neutrinos) particles. Once the strong nuclear force appears, hadrons (protons, neutrons, and pions) are formed. The energy levels are still too great for atoms to form, but interactions between colored and noncolored particles must have occurred. Any break in symmetry at this point would have had great effect.


The addition of the weak force at 10^-10 would either cause such a break or result from a break. Either way, the appearance of entropy coincides with the appearance of the weak nuclear force and the ensuing radioactivity becomes a dominant factor over the next 100,000 years.


As significant as the sudden appearance of the primary interactions (forces) and matter (baryons) were, the side-effects were equally significant. Gauge theories resolve the symmetry breaks inherent to these side effects (to a point). In sequence, they were...


      Bifurcation                  Side-Effect


  Superforce > Evolution     Determinism (non-physical)

  Energy                     Discreteness

  Gravity                    Locality

  Nuclear                    Symmetry

  Weak Nuclear               Entropy

  Matter                     Space-Time Matrix


We will pass the first break at this point because it is metaphysical in its nature. We will (and have) assumed that The Creation began with the deterministic balance already fixed.


With the bifurcation of energy quantum there is an implicit discreteness. The balance was fixed.


With the bifurcation of gravity (an interaction which differentiates local and nonlocal effect through infinity) there is implicit locality.


With the bifurcation of the strong nuclear force, there is an implicit order or symmetry (we can't break a hadron into parts, it "magically" reorders itself).


The bifurcation of the weak nuclear force is less implicit, but more evidentiary in its effect. Decay is inherent in its nature.


The bifurcation of matter has an implicit structural requirement (form) which we call the space-time matrix. Matter can not exist without form. Form requires dimension.


There is a simplicity which underlies the conceptual linking of these events and their side-effects. Later we will extend this principle to other significant events.


Again, back to the chronology,


With the appearance of early matter (pre-hadrons), three "catalysts" are created, the W, X, and Z particles. These catalysts force the issue of creating matter as we know it by binding quarks into protons and neutrons.




They also regulate the resolution of conflicts between matter and antimatter.




The neutrinos busily catalyze the transformation of protons and neutrons trying to keep them balanced (without succeeding).




In this first second of creation, we already see trends in the workings of the superforce and in its "favoritism". The first trend is towards symmetry breaking.




If all the energy had been symmetrical+++




The second trend is towards specialization.+++



The universe was "shaken, not stirred" in a indeterministic quantum cataclysm.



The first favoritism we see is that of matter over antimatter.




We don't know what an antimatter universe would be like. There is a possibility of antimatter galaxies in our universe. They may prove to be very valuable in our future.


The second favoritism is left over right.




Particles which spin, tend to spin to the left. This is probably a side-effect of the matter-antimatter battle and its purpose is unclear. We'll notice this favoritism again later.


A final thought about the first second of creation. There is a clear directionality apparent and a certain irreversibility in the process. It is theoretically possible and perhaps even likely that billions of years from now, the universe will collapse back upon itself. Some have advocated that time would then work backwards and the universe would simply reverse itself. I believe that this is contrary to the evidence and that a collapsing universe would maintain evolutionary directionality.


+++ discussion


On with the universe...


Things start to slow down considerably after the first second. The force of entropy enters the picture in a big way.




  ... radioactive decay becomes crucial to the formation of more complex matter for the next 100,000 or so years. Once the universe becomes cool enough, hydrogen, deuterium, and helium are formed.


This radiation era merges into the ionization era where a strange transformation called "decoupling" occurs. This decoupling allows the continued growth and fluctuation of the universe to form stars and then new "star stuff", the heavy elements.




Protogalaxies form and collapse and we end up with solar systems, interstellar clouds, quasars, and black holes (among other things).




Over the next three to fifteen billion years, billions of new galaxies form. Within these billions of galaxies are billions of stars. Around many of these billions of stars are orbiting planets. Among these billions of planets, at least one has evolved consciousness.





The second part of this book looks at the universe with a different view or approach a nonphysical or metaphysical approach. We will be using the structure and perceptibility of the physical universe to validate our premises about the metaphysical universe. The two must coincide and are clearly linked in process and effect.



(End of first part)



The real universe is more process than it is material. We have gained significant understanding of the material, but little of the process. Our existence in this universe is closely tied to a "space-time continuum" which has properties and processes which we are just beginning to recognize, much less understand. Philosophers have long understood that the ultimate question is not how the universe works, but why. Our cosmology is directed towards answering the question why by understanding how. Our theology is directed towards why, with little regard for how.


The link between how and why is very important. Theologians who ignore this link ignore God's clearest and most absolute message to us. Cosmologists who search for the methods without searching for the message are unlikely to understand the either. It is time that we take a new broader view of our universe and the implications of its existence. It is time that we bring cosmology and theology back together to seek the meaning and the method.




The space-time continuance is not continuous at all. With the three dimensional frame of reference, it remains essentially linear. Within the next three dimensions, time, exp, and neo, the continuance takes on different forms. All dimensions are related spatially as predicted by Einstein, yet the relations are not as uniform as often thought. Through non-linear transformations and spontaneous creativity, the continuance takes on at least two new "vectors".


Time offers us a first-hand observable dimension with spatial anomalies that defy understanding in the Newtonian perspective. Even with special relativity, we are limited in viewing the act by which an event is created or measured. What are the variables and factors which make spontaneous creativity possible? Are they the same type of variables and factors which make creativity possible in the three dimensional world? Undoubtedly not. Our attempt to bring these characteristics into this new dimensional realm has lead us down the wrong path. Our universe is not as ordered as we'd like.


Describing extra spatial dimensions is inherently difficult as their nature and even their basis is foreign to our nature. As we expand intellectually and spiritually, we are confronted by these dimensions and our need to identify them and deal with them increases. Our understanding of the three dimensional universe will only allow us to grow within those dimensions. To reach our potential as a species and to broaden our scope, we must begin to perceive and expand in other dimensions.


The logical starting point is time. Because of its transitory nature and its key position as the transformation dimension between the rigid dimensions and the fluid dimensions, time should serve as the foundation for understanding fluid dimension.


As a semi-linear dimension, time has fit our perceptual and natural model. It has also raised many unanswerable questions. Integrating time with material space, we find that at least one central question has been difficult to deal with why does time only move in one direction? We might argue that time is like the other three linear dimensions and that one cannot have a negative width, height, or depth. On the other hand, we perceive time as a series of events and we sense that these events are the result of a strange balance of causality and randomness. Our control of the three fixed dimensions is veritable. Our control of time is nil. We believe that we control future events by setting up conditions which will "gel" when the time comes. We believe that we have fixed the duration of time that an event will take. But we learned fifty years ago that the duration of time between events is relative to speed, mass, and position. Unfortunately (perhaps) we have gained little control over our speed, mass, or position.


To understand and deal with the fluid dimensions, we must first better understand time and its special link with our perceptual domain.




It can easily be seen that time is a window to reality. Our perspective of reality is limited by our ability to sense and perceive time. We fail ourselves and our species when so restricted.


If it is difficult to sense the length of a lifetime or our position within it, is it any wonder that we are unable to sense our evolution or our duration as a species. As adults who look back on their childhood and wish they could live it over, we are a species which longs for a different past. As children who have little perception of what the future demands, we are a species afraid of the future. As individuals, we prefer to put the past behind us and accept what small gains we made despite ourselves. As a species, we somehow think that the past offers us a view of the future. The future is as a budding tree. Bound by the limits of its roots and heritage, there are patterns, probabilities, and possibilities in its development which are easily recognized. And yet, could one expect a tree to fit a pattern or form which is foreseeable?


As with the budding tree, our control over our own future is limited. We know how to prune its growth to fit our needs, fertilize its growth, and harvest its fruit. We also know how to cut it down and remove its stump. As those who lack the perception and patience to nurture a tree, our species spends too much time tending its roots and planning its future.


To broaden our perception and perspective of time, we need to see through the measurement of time and look into the meaning of time. We need to recognize the balance of time its value and price. We need to relate time and life to yield a new vision of our future.




The essence of human thought centers around the manipulation of time and space. We move objects in order to facilitate their use and purpose in a given time. We see little beyond the small framework of time and space which may best be described by the here and now.


Our minds are capable of transcending the limits of the here and now to allow us to move beyond the scope of normal existence. The methodology for this transcendental experience lies in the focusing of thought energy towards the task of decentralization.


This decentralization allows one to remove the normal focus and broaden the view or perspective of ones position and relation with time and space. With such a broadened view, one is free to explore a new domain or dimension which lies adjutant and sequential with our common experience and yet envelops a more direct and effective perspective for guiding ones behavior. This envelope is characterized by spatial and abstract imaging as well as intuitive and insightful thinking.


As time is a continuum, this perspective allows one to focus farther ahead or behind than the normal view and thus yields glimpses into potential future events. The realization of these events is only as probable as the actual realization of events and thus has little significant value for predicting and controlling in the normal time-space continuum. Its value seems to be in the providing of a new perspective or frame for planning.


As we approach individual perfection and improved thought control, we will inherently become aware of this transcendental potential. If we choose to limit our view and our perspective, we simultaneously choose to limit our ethical potential. We must strive to overcome the biases of our culture and experience to forge ahead.




We can not afford to question "What is real?". Reality is an illusion, but it is the only illusion which may sustain our fragile souls. When we seek that which is not real, then we fragment our souls and disperse our minds.


Reality is only a manifestation of our own existence. The universe is real only so long as we perceive it as such. It's existence is a reflection of our own.


Within us are many universes as many as we choose to make real. Each moment is real so long as we choose to make it so. The creation of our universe was solely to facilitate our own perception of reality. Once we outgrow the limitations of this perceived reality then the universe shall shrink before us and the reality which we now hold dear shall become as unreal as any dream that we might sense as real.


Until we reach the point of awareness which will enable us to cope with and create a new reality, we must not question our own. As we continue to explore the nature of our existence we shall find more and more which strikes us as unreal. The nature of our existence leads us to the realization that our own relative position in the reality which is greater than our perceived universe.


As we discover the fragile nature of our own perceptions of reality, it shall become increasingly difficult to avoid self-destruction. The greatest tests of our species shall come when that reality is questioned.


Our creator was "subtle, but not malicious" (Einstein). In the reality which we perceive, it is necessary to limit our perception to the immediacy and finiteness of our universe. To expand beyond such barriers prematurely could only yield chaos and loss of purpose. To fail to extend beyond our current boundaries can only yield stagnation and death.


The key is awareness. Awareness of our own reality and that reality which must have preceded our own. Awareness of the need and nature of limited perception tied to limited morality. Awareness of the limits of self versus the limits of mind, versus the limits of reality.




In the new world of quantum physics we are stumped by the new realities in this reality within reality. It is as if God had wanted a universe without law, without absoluteness, without rigidity. How can things which are not things exist? How can time and distance be inverted or nullified? How can nothing be certain?


The seeming paradoxes of modern physics should not prove disturbing. It has been such paradoxes that have led man to challenge perceptions, to expand consciousness, and to broaden his reverence for the majesty of creation. Perhaps, this is God's way of forcing man back to a position of awe after a period of arrogance. Just when we began to believe that we might eventually gain sufficient knowledge to predict and control the entire universe, we encounter a series of domains which conflict with our most deeply held scientific beliefs. As Newton's challenge to the church was based upon new levels of predictability and undoubtability, the new physics challenges Newton with new levels of unpredictability and doubt.


As we look for new linkages which allow for simultaneous interaction across parsecs, new forces which cause bodies to behave as expected or observed, and new laws which explain random probabilities we will surely find new clues to the intent of the "Old One". Perhaps the answers are as basic as the currently perceived mechanics of the universe.


Even before we explain these phenomenon in scientific terms we should anticipate their meaning. Every part of the universe is inexorably linked. The permeance of these linkages should shatter our perceived isolation and smallness. The forces which link action and perception are particularly disturbing. If the measuring or observing of an event helps shape it, what implications are there for beings as perceptive and imaginative as we. Are the subtleties of the "random" events which shaped much of our world really part of a larger force which unifies such occurrences? How close can we get to the master plan before we touch the hand of the creator?


A new perspective which may prove useful in analyzing the physical universe is to view creation as anti-nothingness. We have avoided the obvious by viewing our world as the positive image when in truth, it may be the negative. Our existence is as likely to be a reversal of the increase in nothingness as it is a result of creativity. As such, the laws of nothingness are dominant and what we perceive are largely aberrations of those laws. Reality and our perceived universe becomes an effect of anti-nothingness blossoming within a superuniverse of nothingness.





Einstein was way ahead of his time. Not only did he recognize the intimate relationship of time and space but of the very essence of the universe, energy. We take a very narrow view of something which we understand little about. If we broaden our scope and recognize energy as the basic ingredient for all matter and all thought, it helps put the true nature of the universe into perspective.


Energy is a scientifically bound word which has meaning far beyond the denotations associated with it. Surly, electricity is energy, but so is the paper and ink you read, the thoughts racing through your brain, and the spark of magic we call life. Let us start cataloging the essential elements of energy as we have done with atoms. It is not too early to predict a "periodic table" of energy elements.


If we view ourselves in historical perspective, we are about as far along in the process of cataloging and experimenting with energy as we were with matter when we thought of all the universe as fire, water, earth, and air. As we were unable to conceptualize how similar they are, we are unable to link divergent and intertwined forms of energy. We know that matter is just energy in a more compact and controlled form. We know that there is a clearly defined relationship between the energy and matter (E=MC^2). Why have we failed to identify the other forms of energy and their interrelationships?


We are blind and senseless. We base so much of our thinking and perception on the fixed realities of our major senses that we neglect the sublime and invisible. We know that the majority of the electromagnetic spectrum lies beyond our senses and that our ability to reduce or transform other spectral elements into our sensual range has greatly increased our awareness of our universe. But have we seriously tried to broaden our own sensual scope to intensify our perceptions of other energy forms? Are we able to sense life energy? Is there thought energy? If so, can we magnify and transform it in the same way we do light energy?


The questions continue. Our efforts to answer them seem locked up in our unwillingness to visualize the structure of our universe. The physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists have broadened and narrowed our perspective simultaneously. We know more about our physical universe than ever before. And yet, we seem to know less and less about ourselves, our origin, and our purpose. Yes, we understand evolution. Yes, we have the "big bang" pretty well worked out. Indeed, we have shed the terrestrial bounds of our ancestors. So What !


Even by the simplest of divisions, we see our universe as segregated into the physical, the biological, the psycho-social, and the metaphysical domains. Is it not obvious that that which separates these domains is energy? We believe that mind does not exist without matter. We have good reason to link life energy with those unique physical masses which have some metabolic and autonomous manifestations. We are even aware of our own awareness. Now what form of energy could have brought on such a strange and powerful resultant?


Is the energy in our ecosphere a constant? Can it neither be created or destroyed, but only transformed? Where then does the energy of a living person go after death. In what form does it continue to exist? Where might we start looking for it?


We have an intrinsic interest in the subject. Not just in a survival sense, but in a natural and instinctive sense. We are curious creatures in both effect and affect. If we cease to wonder about our origin, our nature, and/or our purpose, then we cease to be valuable. We become lethal parasites upon our planet. We might even wonder what form of energy causes such interest and how might we direct or transform it.




As the fundamental basis for the evolution and thus the characteristics of our species, we are creatures driven by the forces of our metaphysical world. It is part of us and we are part of it. To deny its existence or diminish its importance is to degrade our selves and the purpose for which we were created.


The essence of the metaphysical ecosphere is the life energy force synergism which is the result of the combined physical forces which we are very aware of and the hidden creative forces which we are essentially unaware of. It is easy to relate to the power of the biological, physical, and psycho-social forces which have dominated man's interest and energy for the last two hundred millennia. It is easy to believe in the miracle of creation when we realistically view the probability of a "random" occurrence of intelligent, spiritual being such as ourselves. It has been very difficult for us to see and place into perspective the relationship between the two.


If we accept the idea of some invisible and omnipresent     forces which are remnants of our creation just as is the background radiation of the universe, the invisible cosmic radiation which has so contributed to our evolution, and the visible and invisible energies of our sun, they why should we find it difficult to accept an equally significant and powerful group of creative "forces" which fall within the non-physical or beyond physical category.


If your answer is that we must stay within the domains of the absolute, the concrete, the observable, the verifiable, the touchable, the seeable, the thinkable, or the known, then our time is wasted. There is no clearer lesson in our history then the simple fact that the most forward looking, the most accepting, and the most open societies are always the most productive and prosperous.


If your answer is to question the practical value of such spiritual endeavors, then we must reevaluate our positions. If you can not accept or will not accept your own awareness of our purpose, then you will always be blind to the value of spiritual advancement. When we speak of practical we generally refer to that which improves our physical position. We forget that the sole purpose of the physical domain is the support of the spiritual. As our bodies are the temples of our souls, the physical domain is the temple of the spiritual. If we do not care for our bodies, we suffer spiritually. But then if ALL we care about is our bodies, then we suffer even more spiritually.


The creative forces are as prevalent and as absolute as the physical forces of gravity and electro-magnetism. The first and most easily recognized is evolution. Evolution has a direct parallel in the physical domain and is thus easily related to in the spiritual domain. The force work in the same manner and has the same general purpose, the advancement of all creation in opposition to entropy.


Entropy is the primary negative force in the metaphysical domain. It parallels its efficacy in the physical domain. However, the interactions and subtleties of the force seem much greater in the metaphysical domain than in the physical. Perhaps this is due to our lack of perception in the physical. It is clear that entropy is the dominant and restive force in force domains.








We have been in the age of the physical for long enough. It is time to examine the gains and losses we have suffered as a result of our fixation on the convenient and comfortable domain of the physical. If we are to continue our growth and understanding of the universe, we must break free from the bonds of physical science, we must ignore the self serving diatribes of the church, and we must look beyond the simple and concrete.


If the ultimate achievement of science is a better understanding and appreciation of our universe, then science has been rather successful. Indeed, science has defined the origin of our universe, its nature and laws, its structure and workings, it secrets and its wonder. Physical science and the experimental methods which have made it so worthwhile have brought us to a plateau of understanding. It will not take us far beyond.


As we accept the reality that our bodies are physical entities made up of particles which have existed since the beginning of our time, then should we accept that the thoughts which we seem to create are also made up of particles which have existed forever? It is intuitive and reasonable that the physical domain fits within the models advocated by modern cosmological theories. It does not however fit or follow that the creation of the universe or its ultimate end fit within the same models. Indeed, the questions which remain when the scientists are finished are more significant than the questions which were answered. Where did the original "spark" come from? Where is it going? Where do we fit in? There answer to the last question is the most disturbing. If we place ourselves into the physical domain, there our role and future are clear. We are to exist and then die.


Such a notion must be as unacceptable to our nature as the most serious of taboos. We must exist for a reason and our immediate purpose is to define that purpose and to ultimately use all available resources in the accomplishment of it. The lessons learned through our scientific efforts have been crucial to this process, but we must now move beyond science and accept our destiny as spiritual beings. We must recognize that the physical universe, including our bodies, are mere tools for the spiritual entities which we must strive to become.


Science has brought us to a level of awareness which allows great concentration of will and knowledge, an understanding of our place in the evolution of our ecosphere, and sufficient knowledge to prevent the premature elimination of our species. Science has also brought an avoidance of the metaphysical.


The metaphysical domain is not easily explored with scientific tools or methods. Indeed, much of the metaphysical domain conflicts with the assumptions advocated by science. It is easily seen how science and metaphysics have avoided each other. It is also easily recognized that science has brought our species more tangible results than philosophy or theology. Lastly, it is easy to see that if science had been as corrupted, maligned, and misrepresented as metaphysics, then it could not have produced the advances it has.


A Challenge to the Species





I. Preface


II. Introduction


III Where We Are


   A. The Process of Ethical Decline

   B. The Symptoms

   C. Major Social Structures

   D. The Prognosis and the Problem


IV. Who are we?


V.  Where Are We Going?


VII. The Problem


VIII. Creativity and Awareness


IX. Individual Perfection


X. Transformation Experiments


XI.    ????












I have agreed to share some ideas and statements which I hope will serve as a new starting point for our species. This hope is based more on my concern for the direction we are headed than my belief in the value of what is contained. Nevertheless, I have accepted the challenge of doing my best to offer some creative new approaches to our problems. In doing such, I have confronted some very stark and disturbing realities which have affected the way in which the material is organized and presented. The simple truth is that most of us are not ready for what needs to be said, nor will it be easy for some to accept the reality of what it means. It is time to boldly go where we have chosen not to... the truth.


I have attempted to keep my writing direct and pointed. My semantics are rigid and thus you will need to refer to the glossary often. Please do not automatically accept or reject any of the concepts offered. Instead, evaluate each and every sentence and even each and every word. It has taken considerable time for some of these ideas to become acceptable to me. Within the limits of my ability, I have attempted to link some very diversified domains of human knowledge and experience and to extend them where needed.


It was my intent to support my ideas and my views of reality with reasoning, intuition, and objective truths. I challenge you to find flaw with the process or the result. I'm confident that you will. Accept the challenge of offering a better alternative before denouncing mine.


The material is organized into a loosely sequential structure. There is no one starting point. Much of the support is cyclical. Some ideas are derived from concepts explained at some distance. Others require the context of sequence to provide support. I realize that this places an additional burden upon the reader and hope that the results justify the additional energy required.


I hope that you find my writing short on words and long on meaning.


Thank you for your indulgence.





A Challenge to the Human Species






This is a book about human advancement. I wrote it with the entire species in mind. I am tired of the petty racial and nationalistic squabbles which are based upon greed, fear, and hatred. I am a Caucasian Anglo-Saxon American, something that is grounds for both pride and disgust. I appreciate the advantages such offers me, but I resent many of the behaviors of my kind which have provided those advantages.


As it is one of my goals to transcend the barriers of race, nationality, and culture, I hope that those who share my heritage will understand my need to identify and accept the failures of my kind. I also hope that those of other races, nationalities, and cultures might put aside their resentment, fear, and hatred and accept my intent to view us as one species in one ecosystem with one creator.


Issues which are discussed in my writings invariably have an American orientation about them. Because of my familiarity with my own race, culture, and nationality, it is both easier and more sensible to address matters close at hand.


Conversely, the most important issues that I wish to address effect the entire species, equally. As far as ethical potential is concerned, all humans are indeed created equal. When a culture, a race, or a nationality reduces that potential, it harms the entire species. It is the clear realization of this that is driving us forward in the human rights movement.


The United States of America enjoy a very influential position. The potential good which lies in the hearts of the American people is formidable. Unfortunately, there is another side to America, the side which pollutes, abuses, wastes, imposes, steals, bullies, and maligns. Most Americans choose to ignore this other side because it is not a significant part of their lives. We live in a very sheltered world which benefits from our "dark side" and we find it easy to ignore or excuse it.


On the larger scale, Americans are much like all other humans in their desire to mask their true selves. We have a strange desire to avoid confronting our real nature. Our scientists and theologians ignore evidence and history to avoid confronting our divine and privileged image of ourselves. When the evidence suggests that we evolved from less divine, aggressive, perhaps cannibalistic "apes", we take exception or change the evidence. When the evidence shows that we are the most abusive creatures to have ever existed on our world, we make excuses and claim divine privilege. When the evidence shows that our hedonism is rapidly destroying our home world, we look for solutions in the technology of that same hedonism. When the evidence shows that God created the universe with specific purpose and made that message obvious to all "intelligent" beings, we create idols to appease our conscience. We have paid and will continue to pay the price for deluding ourselves.


This book describes how we've paid for our failure to face the truth and how our debt can be repaid. It starts with few assumptions and builds upon a simple notion our existence has purpose. If you accept what I offer in this book, you will have a choice to make a choice between autogenesis and autogenicide.


I hope that you will choose the major process of auto-genesis, Moral Transformation.





The evolution of morality is the fundamental physical and metaphysical process of the known universe. All other processes, laws, or phenomenon are inexorably linked and in turn valued in accordance with the evolution of morality. Thus, any process which does not contribute to the evolution of morality is trivial or destructive.


Moral Transformation is a means to the advancement of the human species. As far as I can tell, it is the ONLY MEANS by which we may attain survival not by maintaining the species, but by advancing it. Moral transformation serves the individual and the group. It is a means which has no religious ties or rituals. It does not require faith or belief in the traditional sense. It does not require the investment of any money. It is not painful or difficult, but is does have risks and take effort. To succeed at moral transformation, you must sincerely want (choose) to do it.


The justification and the processes are detailed herein, making this a "how do I" as well as a "why should I" book. I have tried to make the process description as complete as possible with the understanding that each human is unique and requires that special individual insight which collectifies that uniqueness. Through examples and detailed explanations, you will be led to the threshold of human moral transformation. Once there, you will need to find the will to transcend to a new reality. I will provide examples of how one might build motivation and energy, but I can not magically induce the desire to advance or actuate the process.


This book is part of a three book set. Each deals with the basic issues of human purpose and nature. Do not worry if you have not read either of the other books in this series. Each is intended to stand alone, although the set forms a cyclical reinforcing synergism. The other books are...


1. The Universe - Another View of Reality: A more technical or scientific view of our origin and nature leading to a derivation of moral transformation as the result of natural forces. Understanding the nature of reality leads us to acknowledge the existence and process of moral transformation. Transformation is presented as an parallel alternative to a very limited physical reality. The bifurcation processes of evolution within quantum and astro physics are extended to explain the origin of parallel realities, physical and non-physical. A detailed model of reality is derived and the characteristics of non-physical evolution are defined.


2. God and Man - To Touch the Hand of God: By assuming that God is an intelligent moral being, a case is made for purposeful creation of our universe. Moral Transformation is the purpose which God has passed on to us. In "God and Man", I redirect religious principles, precepts, and purpose to the physical reality which is accepted in science. God's purpose (and thus ours) is derived from fact and reason, not fiction and wishful delusion. It is an easy to read book which is neither technical nor "religious".


Each of the books comes to the same conclusion there is a clear and objective means to answer the question, "what is the right thing to do" and that the result of doing the right things is moral advancement. I will not rebuild the derivations offered in the other books, but there will be some references made to their content.


This book has four parts...


          What we are?


              How did we get here?


                  Where should we be going?


                      How do we get there?


The first part is intended to explain why we need moral transformation through a stark and objective look at our current situation. We will attempt to answering a fundamental question, "What are we?". For those who think the answer is too simple or too obvious to be of interest, I challenge you to read this section just for a good laugh. Then we will extend or extrapolate our present into both the past and the future. This predictive exercise is based upon a somewhat new view of human history and destiny. Lastly, I will defend my view of what our best choices are and how we might accomplish them.


This is not a book for the present or for those who live in the present. It is a book for the future a future which we will choose. Our children and the children of our children will grow into the world that we create for them. They will look back and ask "why?". I hope to be able to look my offspring in the eye and feel comfortable in saying "I did my best to make this the best world possible for you and to offer you the opportunity to fulfill your purpose".


For those who would say that they have done and are doing such, I offer this challenge prove it. Prove to me that you have behaved unselfishly and compassionately. Prove to me that you have looked for purpose in your life and developed an objective means of measuring how well you have behaved in accordance with that purpose. Prove to me that you are willing to have someone else challenge your belief that you are doing your best. Prove to me that you have openly considered the long term results of your choices. Prove to me that you really care about the world you have offered future generations.




Ethics and Morality:


Throughout this work, we will be using the words "ethics" and "morality". These words are often used interchangeably and in my view, incorrectly. At the risk of causing confusion, these words will be used, but with precise and rigid meaning.


Herein, ethics refers to the system of rules or standards used to determine if something is right or wrong. Morality refers to the quality or essence which makes something right regardless of rules or standards. Ethics may change, morality doesn't. Ethics is a means, morality is an end. Ethics are relative, morality is absolute.


We derive our ethics from our environment and from the situation. For the most part, what is ethical in one situation may not be ethical in another. We develop codes of conduct, professional standards, and laws in order to standardize our ethics. In religions, we have commandments, canons, decrees, or the like to follow. As stated above, these things change with the times, are means to a behavioral end, and are usually relative to a given circumstance. There is plenty of room for flexibility and opinion when dealing with ethics.


Morality is more akin to Plank's Constant, the mathematical quantity pi, or the logical if A>B and B>C then A>C. As far as we know, these are the same all the time, everywhere. We sense morality, but we never create it or change it. Our attempts to define morals are misnomers. Morals are usually extensions of ethics, not morality. It seems foolish to make morality more complex, but in order to expand our awareness, we need to view morality more like infinity and truth. There may be no such thing as total morality, but there will always be that which is most moral.


What is Evolution?


Evolution is the natural force which "pushes" the universe towards morality. We will be defining evolution in greater detail throughout the book. Our general notion of what evolution is may be more representative of reality than the more precise definitions used within the scientific community. There is no need to argue or support the issue of man's evolution. Those who deny the evolutionary process as one of the most "religious" of all scientific acknowledgements are capable of denying their own existence. We must mature beyond the petty and unreasonable arguments common to our times. We live in one universe created in some unitary action. Everything we perceive is part of this one universe and all of it is closely linked. To deny the existence of evolution or to get lost in discussing its application to humans is probably immoral.


Thus, for our purposes, evolution is a universal natural process and force which acts to increase morality. It is balanced by the opposing process and force which is called entropy. Entropy is a universal natural process and force which acts to decrease morality. The relationship between these forces, their origin and nature, and the implications of their existence for our species are major subjects of this book.


Purpose and Approach:


Given the above definitions and the title of the book, the purpose should be clear to expand and extend our concept of the evolution of morality leading to the recognition and acceptance of its most significant process, moral transformation. If we grasp the meaning of the evolutionary process and if we understand morality, then we may derive some very important and fundamental sets of knowledge. Those sets are the subjects of the other books in this series.


My approach for exploring the evolution of morality is sequential, analytical, and deductive. Starting with the origin of the universe and proceeding as far as our imagination will allow, we will look at what has occurred, what the current result seems to be, and two major directions where this might lead. We will take the best observations of science and the best insights of mankind, and analyze them with a different and challenging perspective.


We will always value objective truth over opinion and will strive to verify our analysis with facts and reason. Many of the conclusions reached are subjective. If there were practical means of objectifying them, we would, but in truth much of what we must accept will always be subjective. With this in mind, we begin...




Knowing a little about how I came to have my views may reflect any biases or delusions I hold. My views may seem pessimistic and there are those who might term me a "doomsayer", but I would resent that. I have not begun my purpose looking for an excuse or justification for suggesting change. I believe that change is required for advancement and that our greatest danger is becoming complacent with the security or comfort of the status quo.


Before I offer my concerns, I'd like to extend some encouragement and optimism. I believe that America is the greatest country to have ever existed in our world, because I believe that there is a greater collection of intellectual and ethical potential in our country right now than at any time in history. I believe that the core of America remains committed to those values which have made us the envy of the world. I believe that we are the greatest hope for the future of our species. I believe that there are more good people doing more good deeds right now than at any time in history. I believe that we have the tools and the understanding to begin a new era of human freedom, dignity, enlightenment, and advancement.


I believe that God intended for us to live and learn and in doing such, that we would find the wisdom and magic of our creation. I believe in the adaptability, the cooperation, the common hope, and the force of will of the Human species. I believe that there is a future before us which promises more than our dreams ever imagined, if only we make the right choices to make that future real.


My fear is centered in our inability and unwillingness to make the right choices. My fear comes from careful study and analysis of the structures we've created to enhance and stabilize the decision making of our species. My fear is based upon intentional and directed observation of human nature. My fear is objective and quantifiable in both its origin and extension.


Some Personal Background:


During the late 60's, a time when it was easy to be a pessimist, one of my closest friends labeled me the "eternal optimist". Perhaps I was naive, or perhaps I was deluding myself, but I saw great hope in the hearts and minds which were part of my "generation". I was bolstered by the words and promise of Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy. The conscience of the America public was rising slowly, but it was rising and it seemed like a new era was blossoming. My intellectual and personal freedom was unbounded and there seemed to be no limit to what good people with big hearts and able minds could accomplish. After all, there was great power in being right.


Even after Nixon was elected and I was "volunteered" by my draft board, I continued to see the world through rose colored glasses. There seemed to be a "critical mass" of caring people who'd surly keep the maniacs in power from continuing the destruction of our environment, the proliferation of nuclear doomsday machines, the erosion of values, and the decline of our social institutions. It was obviously in everyone's interest to have a clean safe world with high moral purpose. It could hardly imagine how bad things actually were.


Even after four tortuous years in the military, I saw great hope in the intellectual/academic community which seemed to identify our problems so well. With Jimmy Carter's victory over Gerald Ford in 1976, I saw my idealism realized and then diminished. The fatal blow to my optimism came from what would have seemed to be the least likely source, public education.


I had pictured myself as a teacher since joining Future Teachers of America in junior high school. I knew that teaching was an honorable and productive profession. Those who teach prepare the future. I was confident that I could contribute both as a teacher and as a professional. After six years of teaching, the dream had faded.


Public education was less than poor, it was destructive. I continue to believe that the educational structure is the best measure of the progress of any society. Clearly, ours has its good parts. For this trickle of goodness, I credit a minority of dedicated and unselfish teachers who "buck the system" and succeed at inspiring our youth despite the lack of support or reward. In fact, teachers are hindered in their effort by the very educational structure that claims their success for itself.


After years of observing a group of intelligent, caring, dedicated, and hard working educators, I can say with assuredness that the problems in public education are not originating at that level. It was my attempt to identify and resolve the problems in education that led to my understanding of the scope and nature of our problem. If, in fact, our schools are an accurate reflection of our society, and our schools have become DESTRUCTIVE, then what about our other major institutions: government, religion, business, and family?



Let us begin with an overview of the problem...





The Process of Ethical Decline:


The problem begins with the recognition of what America is all about. America is more than the "land of the free and the home of the brave". It is more than the country "for the people, by the people, and of the people". It is more than "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". America is the ethical standard by which all other countries are judged. In the course of human history, no other society has offered as much ethical opportunity to as many people as has the United States of America. The freedom to seek and express the truth, both objective and subjective, remains the cornerstone of American society.


When it was founded, America set new standards for ethical behavior and ethical structures. Its strength was centered in fundamental religious convictions not any one religion's convictions, but the essential moral fiber which permeated all the major religions. Despite the strict mandate of separation of church and state, America was built upon a strong religious foundation. As a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, America reflected the high ethical values which were common to all accepted religions of that era. Those values were reflected in all our major social structures government, education, churches, business, and family.


America was a nation which put its trust in God and the values which were inherently assumed to be part of God's mandate for us. I believe that the diminishment and collapse of those values is killing America. She is suffocating in an atmosphere void of the life giving values which gave her strength. In turn, America's influence is dragging the rest of the world down with her.


I speak not of religion, faith, or belief in God, but of values the essential prioritization of what is right and what is wrong. When an institution or a society fails to identify and advocate what it values, in clear terms of right and wrong, it is doomed to fail. In the United States and the vast majority of the rest of the world, institutions and societies are failing in this effort.


In government, we allow laws to circumvent morality. In schools, we prioritize standardized learning over the teaching of essential values. In church, we advocate ritual, dogma, and faith over conviction, purpose, and truth. In business, we prioritize profit and perks over achievement and advancement. In the family, we emphasize convenience and comfort over cooperation and sacrifice.


We can not solve our problems by making temporary changes in or avoiding any one institution. Our problems are systemic, deeply rooted, and "intertwingled". We are like doctors treating a very sick patient. We must not only understand how the patient functions, but the origin and nature of the disease. Finally, we must be able to offer a cure a cure which removes the disease and eliminates "reinfection".


To diagnose, make a prognoses, and eradicate our problem, we need to start at the roots. We will see that our disease has spread throughout our system. We will see that the disease is growing and strengthening while our ability to fight back is being undermined by the most sinister and evil of forces. We will see that our hearts and minds are being infected with greed, lust, selfishness, and hedonism. We will see that even those suffering the greatest from the disease are generally unaware of its presence or its adverse effects (until it's too late).


I know that this seems rather grim and I do not intend to make the prognosis sound so poor, but in order to begin making ourselves well, our first task is to clearly understand our problems and where they came from. Only then may we begin to offer cures and remedies.


The Symptoms:


To see what is happening, we must take a look at the whole picture. We have a fateful tendency to focus on one part of our problem and to assume that correcting it will significantly affect the whole. If we treat the symptoms and not the cause, the problem will persist. We must open our eyes and examine carefully, thoroughly, and purposefully or we will not succeed.


Apathy: Perhaps the best starting point for observing our symptoms is apathy. American's just don't seem to care anymore. We don't vote, attend public hearings, write to the editor, stay informed, or risk meaningful discussions. We tend to sit passively in front of the TV being guided through trivial lives of meaningless drivel. If we make the great sacrifice of time and effort to watch the evening news or glance through the newspaper, we feel as though we have kept up with the important issues. Unfortunately, we have lost the ability to decide for ourselves what the important issues are. What kinds of answers do you think average Americans would offer to these questions:


How much money did the U.S. government spend on defense last year? On education?


How many times did you call or write your governmental representatives last year? Who are they?


How has the federal budget shifted over the last twenty years?


Do American's work more or fewer days to pay their taxes than they did 5,10, or 15 years ago?


What percentage of American's control 90% of it's total wealth?


What percentage of American's live below the poverty level?


What is the percentage increase in two income families in the last 20 years?


These questions have a dual function. First, one could argue that they are important questions for which informed citizens should be able to at least offer intelligent guesses. Secondly, each points to a serious symptom which most Americans choose to ignore. We will deal with those issues after we deal with a couple of more basic ones.


Hedonism: What a word! It certainly sounds bad. It's appropriate because pleasure seeking is the American way of life. At no time in history has there been anything to even approximate the time and energy we devote to seeking pleasure. Of course, some argue that such access to pleasant stimuli is what makes America great. I say it's killing her.


The strange synergism which ties this hedonism with our constitutional rights is unsurpassed in the human experience. Our only limit on our pleasure seeking is that we're not supposed to hurt anyone in the process. If that were true, we'd have to change our behavior because a pleasure seeking attitude and approach to life hurts everyone.


As an end, pleasure seeking has been the downfall of all the major civilizations of the past. I propose that the percentage of resources that we devote to pleasure seeking exceeds the percentage used for the same purpose by any of the "great" civilizations. It's only a matter of time before this subtle force corrodes away the moral fiber of America and leaves her open to subversion.


For most of the last two centuries, Americans sought pleasure in the "simple" things family, productive work, meaningful social interaction, faith, and charity. We have changed our concept of pleasure and now we seek it in the form of sensual diversion, artificial stimulation, and sex.


I'm not such as purist as to suggest that any of these is bad, when practiced in moderation. But, when I watch those of my generation and those of the next two generations, I see behavior which reflects a dramatic change in values. I see a sharp drop in productivity, and I see hedonism becoming a new "morality".


The verification of this is rather simple. Objectively, we can determine what percentage of time and resources is used in the seeking of pleasure. Subjectively, we can assess the work ethic and the life decisions which are important indicators.


Discipline: Our lack of discipline extends far beyond the simple adherence to rules. In fact, we are among the most law abiding people in the world. In part, our hedonistic attitudes have contributed to our lack of self-discipline, but in truth, the foundation lies in our opulence. We're spoiled.


It's so easy and common to see this in the children of the rich, but we don't recognize it on the large scale of our society. We exhibit the same attitudes and behaviors that we appall in spoiled children. Those attitudes and behaviors are the result of a lack of self discipline. These attitudes become most apparent in our lack of courtesy, respect, and compassion for others and our unwillingness to accept "discomfort". Our concept of discomfort is so skewed that most other human societies can't even understand it.


Few Americans can relate to hunger, insecurity, pestilence, or lack of shelter. This fact is used as an argument for our "success". Indeed, it is a credit to the ethics of our forbearers that we have the material wealth before us. The price for this progress was great. We stole our land from others, raped mother nature, and "sold out" our values to get here. We say that "its not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game that counts". If we really believe this, then we are losing where it really counts. "Pleasure at any price" is a ticket to desolation, decay, and death. Our lack of self discipline is leading down this path.


Waste: The most flagrant example of why hedonism is so destructive is waste. Industrial engineers have developed productivity measurements which indicate the efficiency of almost any system. If we apply these methods to our social system, we discover that it is extremely wasteful. Waste in this sense has two components, refuse and excess consumption. A factory which produces refuse that can not be disposed of should never be built. A production process which consumes excess energy and materials can never compete with one which is more efficient. The economic downfall of America is inevitable unless we do more to reduce excess consumption. The environmental downfall of the planet is inevitable unless we do more to reduce     (or recycle) our refuse.


Greed: American's do not have a monopoly on greed. It as characteristic of the human species as any attribute. Are we more greedy now that in the past? I think we are. My perception is that a century ago, there was plenty of greed, but it was isolated in high concentrations in a small minority. There was little need for the rest to be greedy because they were of simple means. Working a farm leaves little time for greed.


With the coming of the industrial society, greed found new territory in the hierarchy of social competition. "Keeping up with the Joneses" became part of the American mindset. Inherent in the mindset of one-upmanship is possessiveness, materialism, and covetousness. With the advent of sophisticated new advertising schemes, Americans were sold the idea of material success. The male of the species was most affected because of a natural desire to seek power and in our constrained social environment, there were few accepted outlets for this desire. Soon, this mentality broadened to affect women and children. Now, it seems a natural part of American life.


As bad as this is by itself, the greed inherent in the materialistic ethic supplants a very important part of our nature and we develop a syndrome characterized by Eric Fromme in "To Have or To Be". In seeking to "have", we lose touch with what it means to "be". The core of human awareness is supplanted with avarice.


Lack of commitment: A related effect of our new ethic (materialism) is a lack of commitment. More and more we find that people are willing to bypass or ignore their commitments to family, principle, or society in order to gain material wealth.


Family: The decline of the family is one of the most subtle and yet damaging symptoms of the decline of America. If we observe closely the series of transitions which have produced this decline of family, we can see how indirect and yet powerful the forces operating against us are. Let us look at how a change in law and a statistic which seem to be indicative of advancement are actually working against the family.


The move towards equal rights is an example of ethical advancement, but for the wrong reasons and in the wrong manner. Instead of reinforcing the equal value of the natural roles of men and women, we have imposed an artificial value which advocates that women may (and should) assume an equal place in the workforce. We have given each sex equal right to become slaves to the almighty dollar at the expense of the family.


The results are devastating to our families. We know how important the first years of life are in forming the character and persona of our children. When mothers (and sometimes fathers) shirk their natural role in order to have a career or to make "ends meet", our children suffer. When the values of any society shift from human potential to gaining wealth, it's serious. In America we have failed to acknowledge the success and value in raising quality children. We don't teach parenting skills, we don't license parents, we don't limit the abuse inflicted on our children. This issue represents the real nature of our problem as well as any.


The greatest misconception in America is that we are somehow supposed to be equal. We are not equal. Men and women are not equal, blacks and whites are not equal, Jews and Catholics are not equal, "normal" and disadvantaged are not equal, children and adults are not equal, Native Americans and Americans are not equal, the rich and the poor are not equal, and since nobody's parents are equal, nobody is equal. I know that you're thinking I've missed the point that equality means equal opportunity, not equal ability. So what?


When our founding fathers (sexism is everywhere) chose the phrase "all men are created equal", they implied one very small ideal of equality. That equality is based upon the equal rights and responsibilities of newly created citizens (born and "of age" or naturalized) under our constitution. Of course, we immediately rejected the equality of slaves, non-whites, children, women, "Indians", and immigrants (some of which have been granted "equality"). We also knew that there was no way to ensure equal opportunity for Americans. Thus, there are great discrepancies in the "land of opportunity".


America is still the "land of opportunity", but let us stop deluding ourselves the opportunities are not evenly distributed or offered and the distribution is not getting more equal. It is neither practical nor desirable to legislate equal opportunity as there is no way to enforce such. When we placate ourselves by passing equal opportunity laws, we just glaze over the problem and create economic and social chaos.


The best example of this gets us back to the family. We have convinced each other that the successful family is one which enjoys economic prosperity. We have convinced women and minorities that they deserve and enjoy equal opportunity to enter the workforce. They do, and the American dream is realized. Or is it?


I'm not sure what the "American dream" is. I suspect it has something to do with two cars in every garage. I wish it had more to do with two happy and productive children in every home. What about the children? If you really want to see what is wrong with America, go to any major inner city and pay attention to the children. Listen to their perceptions and their stories. Get to know their values and their dreams. You won't hear the notion of making the world a better place for all.


Go to any public high school and walk the halls. Listen to our future. I assure you it will be a rude awakening. If you choose to assume that kids have always been "weird" and rebellious, you have missed the essence of the problem. I may object to the new dress and hair styles. I'm sure I object to the obscene use of the language, but none of these are even a small part of the problem. What is astounding and disturbing about our young is their impertinence and their values. Their impertinence will change (I hope), but I don't think their values will. What we seem to have is the first generation of prime-time, soap-opera, hollywood values.


The origin of these values seem to be two-fold, the obvious dominance of media in their lives and the lack of dominance in their parents, churches, and schools. Each of these assumes a responsibility for forming the values for our children, but our society has always held that as the domain of the parent. The collapse of the "traditional" family is causing the collapse of traditional family values. Churches, day care centers, and schools have not picked up the "slack".


Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll: OK, I acknowledge that it was my generation that made a big deal about Rock & Roll. I believe that the music of the 60's was revolutionary in its style and effect and as such opened new issues of human freedom and dignity. Unfortunately, it also ushered in the new drug awareness and advocated sexual mores which are perhaps too liberal. I'm a staunch believer in freedom of speech, but when I listen to what is being "sold" to our children in the guise of "hip, boss, radical, or what?" I know its abuse, greed, and decay at its worst. If there is a moral message to it, it defies logic. Listen to any popular "hard rock" radio station for an afternoon (if you can) and you'll get the point.


The drug problem doesn't require any explanation or emphasis. Beginning with alcohol and nicotine and the model their use advocated, we had a problem. Add in the new "permissiveness" and the current lack of self discipline and you've got a serious disease. It's much worse than anyone wants to accept or acknowledge.


Sexual mores have been lost to the new prime ethic pleasure. The contributions from all of the above effects have aggregated into an orgy of sexual indecency. I don't want to be labeled a "prude", but we must draw the line closer to common decency if not intelligent abstinence.


The arrival of AIDS will have great impact on sexual permissiveness, but the real issue comes back to values. The fear of AIDS doesn't change the essence of the problem. What people choose to do on their own, in private, with other consenting adults, is only their business. But that is not the reality of our world.


The two best examples for my point are homosexuality and pornography. I have a personal bias against homosexuality. I can deal with that by carefully balancing between that bias and my belief in the right of the individual to choose and act in private. But if homosexuals wish me to acknowledge that such behavior is not indicative of personal character flaws, then I disdain their practice. By making homosexually more open and "acceptable", we serve no one. By legislating it's equality, we deny the decadent nature of its practice and agree to have such placed as an acceptable standard for our children.


Pornography has few proponents, but plenty of purchasers. The beauty and attraction of the human body has been prostituted to the extreme by a group of greedy degenerates. I have nothing against eroticism and do not advocate censorship. The lack of self discipline of a few is not the concern. However, until these degenerates can provide better guarantees that their filth will not fall into the hands of our children, we must enforce tighter restrictions on its dissemination. Our legislating against child pornography is akin to legislating against prostitution but not against the buying of the service.


Homosexuality and pornography are but indicators of a more serious problem. Sex between mates serves the very ethical purpose of bonding. Sex outside of long term relationships serves to diminish bonding. This brings us to the next symptom.


Divorce: If the divorce rate is any measurement of our "advancement", we're in even worse trouble than I'm advocating. As before, the problems we've already dealt with contribute to this symptom. Our inability to form and maintain life-long commitments has roots in sexual attitudes, acceptability of divorce, lack of self discipline, greed, and hedonism. It is representative of our general inability to form commitment and a strong contributor to the problems of family.


Relationships which are based upon shared values and goals instead of pleasure and convenience tend to last much longer and produce greater joy. What has happened to this kind of relationship?


Commercialism: Our greedy materialistic side has become manifest in the commercialism of most major social institutions. The most repulsive example of this the commercialism of out holidays. Christ would be appalled at the manner in which we "honor" his birthday. We honor the "man" and dishonor much of what he stood for. But Christmas is not alone, Easter, Halloween, and other traditional holidays have taken on new meaning in the eyes of Madison Avenue's commercializers. Is nothing sacred?


Discourtesy: Our general decline in courtesy and manners is a reflection of our lesser respect for each other. As we've become more self-centered and apathetic, we have shown less regard for our fellow citizens.


Care of the Earth: I predict that in another fifty years, those of us still around are going to suffer considerable grief over our treatment of the Earth and its environments. It will come in the form of condemnation from the people of that generation and specifically from the "developing" nations. We will be blamed for setting the model which led to the ecological disaster which will prevail for centuries. We will be criticized for not taking action to stop the harmful pollution, the rape of our resources, and the accumulation of wastes. We will be seen as fools who fowled their own nest.


The mentality which led to this problem is ancient. It is clear that environmental issues were not in the forefront of our ancestors mind. They did not have the advantage of our scientific insight nor the limits of our expansion. This is a good test for the species as reason must prevail over greed or we will reduce the quality of life to new lows.


Honesty: Honesty in business is like honor among thieves. We have stopped looking for honesty in our politicians. A man's word is worthless except perhaps in his own home. Even pre-nuptial agreements are necessary. We need locks on every door and alarms in our businesses. Pilferage and shop lifting is a matter-of-fact 10-15% cost of doing business which we all pay for. I have only empirical evidence for this, but it wasn't always this way!


There have always been thieves and those whose trust was questionable, but its gotten worse... much worse. Mistrust is contagious and we have an epidemic.



Deficit Spending: There was a time not so long ago that having debt was much like having festering sores. I guess in some ways it still is, only now everybody has them so they are not socially repugnant. In business, it is widely held that strong businesses loan money and that deficit spending is taboo. As individuals, we tend to dislike owing money. And yet, we are the greatest debtor nation ever.


There are many good reasons for going into debt, but most of them are just excuses for impatience. Our lack of self discipline and greed have put us in an awkward position. A position where too much control ends up in the hands of those who may not have the scruples we would care to share or follow. When the private sector borrows inappropriately, it is clear that some fault lies with both the creditor and the debtor. When the government borrows inappropriately, who can we blame?


Opportunity: To measure the quantity and quality of opportunity available is very difficult. It is probably best to stick with a subjective approach and to accept empirical evidence. Both of these would indicate that there are more opportunities now that ever. Unfortunately, most of those opportunities are of poor quality based upon their challenge, advancement, and potential. Having millions of new jobs in the fast food industry is not an increase in opportunity.


The American workplace has changed greatly in the last twenty years. My impression is that we will soon run out of credit and carryover and when that happens we're in for a shock. Our wealth will decline as the big investors find greater profits in overseas opportunities.


Symptom Summary:


The symptoms of our problem are varied and yet connected. None stand alone as the most serious even though some stand out more than others. Clearly other major problems exist, but my intent is not to list all of our problems, but to identify systemic indicators which were point to the underlying causes.


Those causes fall into two categories, structural and inherited. We were born with natural traits, many of which are detrimental to our current needs. Evolution has not had time to catch up with our new world and we must consciously adapt to our manufactured environment. We have created structures which now limit or degrade our advancement. It is time to take control of the problem before it takes control of us.





Politics: Our political structure was the envy of the world two hundred years ago. Unfortunately, we have become less and less involved and thus less and less in control of the governing force in our society. We have permitted the politicians and bureaucrats to take control of the process by which officials are elected. Thus, despite the two party system, we are presented with the same type of uncreative, status-quo politicians who are only superficially different. They inherently hold the same flawed values which have contributed to the decline of the system. It is a self-feeding negative cycle structure.


Even when the remnant power of the American populace allows a more ethical candidate to emerge, the bureaucracy easily negates their effectiveness. Meaningful change is prohibited by the checks and balances built into the bureaucratic structure. Politicians are forced to compromise their values to be effective and then their lack of values prevents them from offering worthwhile solutions to our problems.


I have reached the conclusion that our current political structure is so flawed that there is very little hope of any significant changes coming from it. In time, I expect it to become one of the greatest hindrances to ethical advancement.


Government: The American government is based upon simple concepts. The constitution is generally clear and concise about those concepts. It is also very incomplete and therefore ambiguous in meeting its purpose. Even with its numerous amendments, the constitution leaves plenty of questions. Those questions and others form the basis of our legal system.


As wonderful and innovative as our constitution was 200 years ago, it had many flaws. Again, its many amendments were important additions (especially the Bill of Rights), but we are left with vagaries. Those have opened the doors for the bureaucrats and power elite.


The government is a set of laws based upon guiding principles and defined structures. It is implemented by elected officials. Because the political structure is so flawed, the elected officials which it yields are also flawed. Those officials swear to uphold the constitution and abide by our laws, but few actually do. Even fewer uphold the intent of the guidelines which underlie the laws. This is evident by the amount and depth of scandal and corruption which is poorly hidden from the American people. The politicians don't work very hard at hiding their corruption because the apathy of the American people is great enough that they let it pass.


We have reached the point where it is difficult to find any moral behavior in our government. The lack of moral purpose and direction is clearly evident in our judicial system. When we became a society of laws, we gave up the moral foundation which our founders intended. It is easy to demonstrate that the more laws a society has, the less moral its behavior will be, (ie. there is an inverse relationship between the number of laws and the amount of moral behavior). This seems backwards, but is easily supported by observing the judicial process.


Our judicial system has gotten so caught up in the law that it should only be termed the legal system. Judges no longer judge, they administer law. The law may be based upon moral principles, but lacks intuition, compassion, and flexible application. Moral behavior is derived from such compassion and conscience which is interjected into the legal system by a jury of one's peers. However, the legal system has become so bureaucratic and rigid that juries are often sheltered from the most important evidence and constrained to administration of law. When laws win, justice loses.


Media: The most obscure and least analyzed of the major social structures is media. There is no area in which the U.S. is more dominant on a global basis. The types of behavior depicted in the media and the values expressed have changed more dramatically than any other major indicator of moral position. If everyone took the impact of media as seriously as the advertisers and the politicians, perhaps we would recognize that as important as our "right" of free speech is our right to truth, meaningfulness, and freedom from exploitation. From the tabloids to the evening "soaps", we are deluged with falsehoods, trivia, and exploitation.


The most important roles media can fill in our society are educational, political, and inspirational. Our media gives us the potential of live national debates, yet we have failed to create a meaningful forum for in depth discussion about current issues. Instead we get carefully produced "snap-shots" of candidates designed to appeal both consciously and sub-consciously to the less desirable nature we all possess. Less than 2% of all spending in media is directed towards education. The "spiritual" domain of media is dominated by the most corrupt and manipulative of humans. The film industry gropes for new levels of degradation, violence, and false morality.


If American youth had a strong source of alternative values, the effects of media would be greatly diminished. As it is, too many future citizens learn their values from TV shows, movies, and rock stars.


Religion: Our attitude towards our religious institutions is probably the most deluded of all. Although they are often used as an examples of moral stability, our churches have become idolistic and ritualistic. Indeed, religion remains the one bastion of professed morality and moral behavior. The values espoused by the major religions are generally sound and should produce moral behavior. They seldom do. In too many cases, religion is used as a front for money and/or power hungry manipulators. The ease with which these charlatans corrupt religion should be a good indicator of a fundamental flaw in our religious perceptions. When we tell people they must believe in something without evidence or support and that those things are absolute, then we deny reason.


Religion is by its essence highly subjective and personal. Any attempt to force, coerce, and or adjudicate one's religious beliefs to another is an unethical behavior. The greatest of religious teachers gathered their "flock" by stating their beliefs and living their lives in accord with their values and allowed others to make up their own minds. We have neither the wisdom nor the right to judge other people's religious beliefs.


The depth and subtlety of the harm done by the major religious institutions in our culture requires long term perspective and considerable insight to understand. It is my impression that 50% of the churches in America would "fold" if men outlived women. This is an indication of how much churches "prey" on the fears and insecurities of widows.


Education: Education has long been recognized as the foundation of democracy. We educate more people to a higher level than any nation ever, yet we elect officials without knowing their positions, their qualifications, or their values and we send a smaller and smaller percentage of people to the polls each decade. We offer a level of technical and artistic sophistication only dreamed of by our founders, yet we fail to produce creative generalists capable of integrating the diversity of the new knowledge base in creative and productive ways. These somewhat superficial problems only point to a deeper and far more serious problem in our educational structure.


Even as we claim success in standardized testing, we find fewer and fewer students who demonstrate a love of learning, high levels of understanding, practical problem solving capabilities, and essential societal mores. Competency in our schools has been redefined so that the structure does not appear to be at fault. By removing God, playing "lip service" to patriotism, and reducing our standards, we have built the most destructive bureaucracy in our society. The price that will be paid is already becoming obvious.




Is the situation getting better or worse?


The answer is definitely worse and getting worse faster than ever. I know this differs from the perceptions of many and there often seem to be some clear indications of improvement. But, if we view the situation from a broader and more fundamental basis, we can only reach one objective conclusion we have a terminal disease.


The reason why the problem is not obvious is derived from two human tendencies delusion to avoid discomfort and the two sided nature of the problem. Just as humans will ignore symptoms of major disease until it's too late, we have deluded ourselves into complacency. We keep saying to ourselves "just give it time and it will work itself out". Instead the problem keeps getting bigger and the solution more dramatic, improbable, and risky. Delusion is a universal human characteristic and we must consciously work to overcome it.


The problems with America are not simple or singular. They do originate from a singular source, but they have a two sided nature. On one side, they actually produce desirable and beneficial effects which tend to mislead the observer on the other side, they present a facade of well-being and acceptability which leads to complacency and even their defense.


We can categorize the arguments for the health of the system in three groups prosperity, freedom, and security.


Material prosperity is a clear result of forces which create the problem. That is not to say that material prosperity would not have resulted anyway or that material prosperity is good in itself. The work ethic of the American people would have produced material prosperity under almost any governmental or economic system that allowed them the freedom to work for themselves (more about that below).


As was mentioned under "Symptoms", the price we've paid for our material wealth was and is great. We saw that material wealth leads to a single-mindedness and enhances the natural tendencies of greed and covetousness. The shift in values which results causes spiritual degradation, dishonesty, and neglect of other more important aspects of life. It even leads to disintegration of family.


We are deeply into this vicious cycle and it offers one of the most serious challenges to us. If it continues unchecked our society must fall to others which are more efficient, less wasteful, more spiritual, and less greedy. If we are lucky, this will be a slow and painless death ending with new life in another form. This seems less likely than a more rapid and painful death brought on by the imperialism required to sustain our wealth. Our position in the world will become more and more like that of the Soviets today where we are forced into isolation. Eventually, internal disruption would lead to the dissolution of our government and economic system.


Freedom is held as a cornerstone of the American system as if our government is the only means of providing freedom. Obviously this is not the case. It is easy to forget that freedom is the natural condition and that governments serve to reduce individual freedom by imposing sanctions against behaviors which are deemed harmful or which infringe on the freedom of others. In return for enforcing these sanctions and providing certain cooperative functions, governments impose greatly on our freedom by demanding taxes. If we look carefully at how much our taxes have increased we can easily see that our freedom has been greatly diminished by our government.


Of course, those who benefit directly from such taxes are generally in favor of more government and more taxes. When a society has a majority of its work force directly or indirectly on the tax payroll, it's very bad news. The difference between the Republicans and Democrats is only one of distribution of taxes, not one of maximizing individual freedom or security. The Democrats tend to implement large governmental programs which hire more government employees and give tax money to less fortunate citizens. The Republicans tend to reduce governmental programs and invest taxes in wasteful military build-up. This has the effect of returning taxes to the wealthy. Either way, the cycle feeds itself, government grows, taxes increase, and individual freedom is diminished. Meanwhile the facade of freedom through government is continually sold to the American taxpayer.


The combination of our material prosperity and linkage of freedom to government serves to check any taxpayer "revolt". The false threat of Communism is used to scare Americans into the acceptance of the need to continue their blind support of a system which is "bleeding" their freedom and forcing material prosperity upon them. The prognosis for this process is slow decline.


As parasites serve themselves by avoiding excessive harm to their victims, Americans are maintained by the system. With the power of the modern media, we will be easier and easier to manipulate and in time we will come to willingly accept greater tax burdens, less materialistic prosperity, and even less spiritual advancement.


Our perceived need for security will increase over time. In evolutionary terms, security leads to stagnation. The human desire for security is naturally subservient to human curiosity. We like to explore and are inherently willing to take risks in exchange for the imagined return.


A result of our combination of symptoms is the reversal of these natural tendencies. As one gains more material possessions and becomes more greedy, they want to make sure that they keep those things. In time, they will value security more than curiosity, even more than the accumulation of new wealth.


Combine this desire for security with a corrupt government and you have the makings of a military/industrial directorship where the military industries direct taxes to themselves by directing who gets elected and who gets power in the government. This cycle is self perpetuating and has been growing since World War II. In time, this parasitical trend may produce too great a threat to our enemies and result in devastating war or it may simply continue to grow until it reaches a point of maximum drain on the system and then stabilizes. To perpetuate itself, all it must do is play to people's fears, mislead them about the severity of the threat, or foster their natural insecurities.


The situation is bad and it's getting worse.


Will the situation improve by itself?  ----  No!


I realize that it seems to many Americans that there are so many good people doing so many good things that our situation must get better. I know that it seems as though America is prospering and that we have made major advances in human rights, care of the disabled, and material prosperity. We've already addressed our material prosperity. It pays to recognize that we do not have the highest per capita income, the lowest infant mortality, or the best social programs. It pays to know that 90% of our wealth belongs to 10% of the people. It pays to understand that the material wealth we have is based upon borrowing, stealing from others, bullying the marketplace, and back stabbing international politics.


It pays to recognize that the advances we have made in human rights have not come through moral advancement but threat of revolution, civil war, and flagrant suffering. It pays to recognize that whenever we become complacent or apathetic, those rights begin to dwindle. It pays to recognize that the power in America is not in the hands of the people, but in the hands of the wealthy people. We are not created equal and our government is actually of the people, by the people, and for the wealthy. As long as the people accept this, it will not change.


*** A personal note:

There are those who do not know me who will assume that I am some communist, Marxist, socialist, or miscellaneous subversive. It is frightening to think that we have gotten to the point where serious and loving concern is distorted into hate and fear. I love America. I believe in the American people or I would not take the time or accept the risk to speak the truth. Before one makes assumptions about my political views, they should read to the end. ***




In this chapter, I have offered a bitter pill. Those who accept my critique in the spirit intended need not agree with all of my conclusions or opinions to understand the problem before us. Our first step in finding a solution is to swallow (accept) this ugly pill and to move ahead.


I have used the United States as the subject of my evaluation. If the problems specified exist here, the same problems or worse exist elsewhere. The situation is not American in nature or even American in origin, but human in nature and human in origin. It's time to ask...


What are we?





If we understand where we are, then we begin to understand who or what we are. In as much as I described where we are in terms of our institutions and societies, I shall describe "What are we?" in terms of unique qualities. This orientation is not suggestive of any diminished role for institutions and societies, but a realization that we are unique in ways that are separate from our creations.


We are numinous beings the only numinous beings on Earth. Our special awareness is both a gift and a responsibility. (In the next section titled "The Evolution of Morality", we deal with the origin and nature of our awareness. We also extend our awareness of the origin of our awareness to derive both our purpose and our destiny.) More than anything, we are the most evolved form of life that we are aware of. We know ourselves and have sought our origin. We have a common vision of a future which is greater than ourselves. We are the culmination of thousands of millions of years of evolution, but we are not the end. We are part of a process which is aptly described as the force of God. We are not essential to that process, but we reflect a great investment of time and energy. We are beings who have the responsibility to return that investment by exercising the intelligence and spirit which have been integrated into our being.


You need not accept this basic description of who we are, but many of the conclusions we'll deal with later are built upon this notion. It is our immediate goal to provide a detailed perception of our essence.


If we understand the process which produced us and if we carefully examine the evidence for our past, we get some valuable insight into who we are. If we study psychology and philosophy, we get valuable insight into who we are not. The more we study ourselves, the greater the mystery becomes:


           Why aren't we what we should be?


If this seems an odd way to begin, it is because the most descriptive aspect I've found in studying our species is the strange difference between the ideal that we can imagine and the reality which we choose to be. We are the only known beings that can imagine a better self and a better world. We have the intelligence to understand this image and the ability to create it, but we don't.


To clarify my point, you and I as individuals know that we are less than perfect, that we are less perfect than we'd like to be, that we could be more perfect if we chose to be, and that perfection is an end which is important. Why then don't we simply choose to be more perfect?


I believe the answer to this question takes us right to the "root" of who we are. But, bear in mind that we've searched for the answer to this question in many forms for many years. The science which deals with this question is psychology the most confused and disjointed science. Perhaps this is a result of the difficulty or complexity of the question or perhaps it is a result of the question itself.


My regard for psychologists is very low and my regard for their answers is even lower. In his book "PsychoFraud", John David Garcia explains the problem clearly. My personal experience is that the most "warped" group of academicians and scientists I've been exposed to are the one's who use their own "normalcy" to judge the behavior of others. Psychologists are so wrapped up in their standard version of the human psyche that contradictory evidence is ignored. That's not science it's delusion.


There are exceptions to my global condemnation, but even among them, there is little to provide direction for our question. The best psychologists have added greatly to our understanding of ourselves, but due to the "clutter" of the field, it's hard to sort them from the pack. I should name many, but I'm only thinking of two, Eric Fromm and Carl Jung.


Fromm has hit the nail on the head with his "To Have or To Be", addressing the fundamental dichotomy between two modes of human existence. Jung took the risk of peer denunciation to open a new era of psychology in which the human psyche is grander and more expansive a psyche which is part of something much greater than the individual operating in "synchronicity" or coordinating interior orderedness with it.


I don't think the collective sum of the whole of psychology can provide half of the answer to the question at hand (why don't we behave more perfectly?). Few psychologists are willing to venture forth with a description of more perfect behavior. Even fewer have understood the significance of our conceptualization of a more perfect self and I've yet to find one who addresses our question with any directed or incisive answers.


If science can't help us with our answer, perhaps we should try a religious approach. Religions often assume the role of defining more perfect behavior. Usually, they describe a "history" which explains our imperfection. For example, the Bible would indicate that we blew it early on and have inherited our faults from Adam and Eve eternal ignorant bliss forfeited to knowledge. The Vita would have us keep trying to find perfection in life after life until we get it right. Then we become part of the perfection others seek.


Frankly, I don't think any religion (of the many I've studied) offers any semblance of an answer to the question "If we know that we can be more perfect, then why aren't we?". It seems that proselytizers are more likely to "dodge" this question than other less "enlightened" individuals. Again, there seems to be no clear answer as to what constitutes perfection. There is even greater confusion about how and why we should seek it. Religious answers tend to avoid the questions.


The same approach is common to philosophers dodge the question. Or, even better, answer the question with circular (self referencing) allegorization "We are the way we are because that's the way we are". We might even get the response "It's just human nature" (my point exactly).


In the next chapter, I will attempt to explain how evolution has produced our ability to conceptualize something more perfect than ourselves. Unlike Descartes who used this fact to "prove" the existence of God, I contend that this ability is the simplest answer to our question, "Who are we?".


     We are beings who are capable of conceptualizing

     something more perfect than themselves.


Because we have this unique ability (or curse, or responsibility, or gift, or ...), we also have guilt, neurosis, and psychosis. We are compelled to live a life knowing that we can never accomplish all that we should.


Our response to this varies greatly. Some create delusions of accomplishment, others need constant distraction, and  others rationalize constantly. Most of us combine these and other techniques to achieve a level of comfort or tolerance. How often have you thought...


   "I'm doing the best I can!"


   "It's not my problem!"


   "Someone else will take care of it."


   "I don't have the right ________ to do that."


By choosing to be less than we know that we can be, each of us creates a dissonance within ourselves which must be satisfied. What psychologists have succeeded at is identifying and describing the many techniques we have developed for satisfying our "guilt".


With this notion in mind, I wish to take a excursion into the origin of our unique abilities. This is necessary in order to answer our next questions...


                How did we get here?


                Where are we going?





We are the pinnacle of evolution in our ecosystem. In the continuum of growth and advancement, we "lead the pack". This leadership position has not been attained without sacrifice. Nor has it been a result of any particular favoritism or specific will. The fact that humans became  aware of morality is the result of random non-deterministic forces which uniformly pull all objects in the known universe towards ordered complexity and awareness.


Part of understanding ourselves must come from understanding our evolutionary origin. The whole of our ability to set our course for the future must come from our understanding of the purpose and nature of evolution.


[It is this reality which makes the "creationist" view so damaging to religions. Unless one's religious beliefs may incorporate the most significant effect of God (evolution), how can it possibly meet God's purposes?]


In "The Universe - Another View of Reality", I have developed the evolutionary model in much greater detail. For now, let us "shortcut" the process by continuing with earlier assumptions our existence has purpose and the best indicator of such is evolution. Evolution demonstrates its pervasiveness throughout nature in physical ontogeny. This process and effect is well documented and generally well understood in the scientific community. I will apply the same observed characteristics of evolution to the ontogeny of human awareness.


Essentials of Evolution:


It is not necessary to decide if evolution is the intentional creation of God or a manifestation of the varied elements of the universe. For our immediate purpose we must accept that evolution exists and that its origin may either be the will of God or an act of nature (if those are not the same thing). In two of the other books in this set, we will take each approach and deal with its implications in a different way.


Evolution may or may not have existed before the creation of our universe. It certainly existed before the creation of Humans and will continue to exist long after we are gone. If it existed before the beginning of our universe, then it is probably safe to assume that our universe is the direct result of the evolutionary process. If evolution is infinite in both past and future, then it is tantamount it also produced God. If however, evolution began with our universe, then evolution is merely the most creative and moral force we have identified.


Either way, evolution is worthy of our consideration. We need to understand its nature and its role in our future.


Evolution is the force of growth. In its simplest form, evolution "nudges" energy into more complex and ordered forms, specifically matter. Matter is then "nudged" into more complex and ordered forms to yield molecules and so on.


The force which opposes evolution is entropy. Entropy is the enemy. It is death, evil, destruction, disease, pestilence, hatred, and unrighteousness focused into one universal negative force. Entropy is everywhere, all the time. It affects everything. When the universe was created, entropy was given the upper hand.


Again, whether it is a naturally occurring phenomenon or God's intention, entropy wins in the big picture (the second law of thermodynamics). Fortunately, over shorter periods of time within smaller systems, evolution prevails and ordered complexity is produced.


To us, it would seem that evolution is the dominant force. It seems as though there is lots of growth and renewal around us and the world is becoming more and more complex. Not only is our perception wrong, but in the degree that it is wrong, our ecosystem is the exception. An easier way to understand this is to remember that all of our known energy sources owe their origin to the sun. The amount of matter converted into a less complex form every hour on the sun is much greater than the entire biomass of our planet. The bottom line here is fairly straightforward both our perception and the cursory evidence are misleading, our ecosystem is becoming more complex faster than the energy consumed would balance. Thus, it is often assumed in the scientific community that some unidentified energy enters our ecosystem from outside the solar system. That is probably the case, but more significantly, we should link that energy to evolution and we should trace the origin of that force back to the creation of the universe.


The Nature of Evolution:


Now that we have described evolution as the primary "building" force in the universe, we should recognize that evolution resulted in our planet it produced "life" as we've come to accept it and it created human awareness. From our perceptual viewpoint, we can observe that evolution always yields a higher energy level, a more complex structure, and a higher level of evolutionary potential. Our current model of evolution was conceived to fit our perception of its observable effects. In the same way that Newtonian physics works at many perceptual levels, but not at the quantum or cosmic levels, current evolutionary models only work in more limited perceptual domains. In other words, we must change our understanding of evolution to integrate it with the larger conceptual reality which is expanding before us.


Our new model of the evolutionary force must fit observed, perceived, and reasonable effects of each physical domain (quantum, classical, and cosmic). It must also explain non-physical ordered complexity which we conceive (life, mind, and morality).


The nature of evolution becomes difficult to objectify and we are constrained to deal with it on a cause and effect basis. We can observe an effect and attribute it to evolution through analytical and deductive reasoning. This is what Darwin did in "The Origin of Species". This approach increases the likelihood that we will make mistakes and that there will remain controversy in our interpretations. Until we develop scientific tools and techniques in the metaphysical domain, we will remain in this position.


Based upon our best evidence and reasoning, evolution is linked with energy in a fashion similar to the way gravity is linked to matter. Instead of increasing with mass, it compounds on complexity. Complexity is based upon amount, type, and order of energy. It is the exponential product of the amount of energy involved raised by the number of ordered interrelationships. A mouse is much more complex and ordered than a tree, the human brain is more complex and ordered than the total complexity of a forest, and so on.


If we recall that entropy is the counter-force to evolution, then we may easily observe how entropy opposes evolution in all known environments. Through the continuous deterioration in environment and the long term diminishment of available energy, entropy will always dominate evolution within a closed system (see laws of Thermodynamics). To ultimately succeed, evolution must produce an energy form capable of moving to another environment which is in a lower stage of entropy.


The Nature of Awareness:


The concept and percept of awareness are so integral with our nature that we take our awareness for granted. We tend not to reflect upon its meaning or nature and yet our awareness is the essence of our life. Clearly other animals have awareness, but humans are more different in this regard than any other. We are aware of our own awareness. It is this transcendental leap of awareness that makes humans so unique and so special.


We can not define awareness. We can relate it to consciousness and realization of self, but what do these things mean? Awareness only has meaning to another being that has the same level of awareness and can relate to the experience. It is the experience of awareness and the realization that we are aware which allows us to reflect upon our own existence. We thus have an existence which is "outside" of the physical existence inherent in life.


We do not understand the linkage between our physical existence and our awareness. Science has looked for some genetic or physiological mechanism which gives us this special linkage. Cultural anthropologists have searched for evidence that human awareness "sprouted" at some point in human evolution. Theologians attribute our awareness to God's creation of man.


Our hope of finding some fossilized remnant of human transition to awareness of awareness is unfounded. Our belief that this transition was tied to brain size ignores the obvious overlap in the range of current brain size and the range of brain size 100,000 years ago. Our desire to be God's chosen species has led us to ignore the astounding genetic similarity of humans and apes (99%). We want to be special and we are. That which makes us special is not physical in nature!


The linkage between brain and mind has been sufficient to allow awareness of awareness for over 100,000 years. Why didn't this result in sudden and substantial cultural manifestations? Because, the existence of the potential for action does not imply action. Just because the potential was there doesn't mean that we exercised it.


Awareness of awareness is a process of mind, not brain. It is not a "light" activated by a switch, but by a "dimmer". Human awareness grew in spurts which were too small to differentiate in the fossilized remnants of human behavior. There are clear indications of transition, but no indications that one small band of humans became greatly more aware than any other. The evolution of awareness is thus like the evolution of other human physical and cultural characteristics. It progressed along the same timetable in very similar ways in more than one place. This is common in our observations of evolution and consistent with the evidence.


Awareness is subject to the same processes and is a clear resultant of evolution. Perhaps to many, this is so obvious as to seem begrudging. To others, this is a difficult "pill to swallow" as it conflicts with many religious tenets.


The evolution of awareness takes on special significance to a species which holds its awareness in such high regard. By seeking physical evidence for the evolution of awareness, we have missed the "boat". Cave paintings and artifacts can be used to demonstrate transitions in human thinking, but how long did we have to wait for someone to suggest "I think and therefore, I am".


Clearly awareness of awareness existed before such words, but isn't it the articulation of a concept which proves its comprehension? Clearly, the Sumerians and Greeks ushered in new eras of human awareness, but not so much because they reflected upon their own awareness, but because they questioned the existing assumptions about the nature of awareness. Awareness was becoming associated with self, instead of with God (see Jaynes). It was becoming internal instead of external. It was becoming a cause instead of an effect. It was becoming a means instead of an end.


It is the evolution of this awareness which is central to our growth. This new awareness of self was the prerequisite to the next evolutionary jump.


But this thought puts us ahead of our sequence and before we move ahead, we should look back. It is, after all, the continuation of the evolution of our past which is the basis for our assumptions about the evolution of our future.


Now that we've brought awareness into the picture, we might ask when did awareness begin to evolve. In our perspective, awareness is tied to a "self" or an individual identity. Can awareness exist in some lower form, and if so, what form?


The Evolution of Awareness:


Part of the answer to this question focuses on the difference between general and specific. In the short description of human awareness above, we might note that human awareness has moved from general to specific. An awareness of self is more specific than an awareness of existence. Awareness of awareness is more specific than awareness of self. It appears that evolution is moving from general to specific awareness.


In The Creation, awareness exists in its most general form. It is diffused and random. In parallel with the organizing of energy into matter, general awareness is organized into specific awareness. As matter grows in complexity, awareness grows more specific.


It is hard to identify this awareness without understanding the "magic" that occurs in the compounding of matter into more complex forms. Even when we take into account all the known interactions (primary forces), we can not account for the "identity" which binds all forms of matter. The stability which is inherent in atomic and molecular structures is mostly due to the interaction of the primary forces, but there is more than that. The seemingly random orbits that electrons assume and the covalent interactions of atoms are not random. They form incredibly complex and consistent "patterns" which result in the forms we have learned to recognize. A snowflake is a good example. Each is different and yet each is the same. Science has answered the question "how?", but we haven't answered the question "why?".


I contend that this early form of identity is awareness in an elementary form. As matter gains new complexity, the awareness of the structure takes on new characteristics. Molecules begin to interact and cooperate. We can attribute this to chance, but chance can not produce living organisms in tens of billions of years or even thousands of billions of years. We are not creatures of accidental or random events, but of the ongoing evolution of awareness.


An important threshold in the growth of awareness occurs when molecules gain sufficient awareness to reproduce themselves. This action makes little sense on a purely chemical basis. Surely the mechanisms are in place, but why replicate? Are chemists suggesting that molecules have some reason for replicating? Is it a random event? Of course not.


The "force" of the growing awareness inherent in the structural complexity of replicating molecules "encourages" the complex interaction required. These are difficult notions to articulate without using terms that may imply some intelligent or anthropomorphic basis. Such is not my intent.


I relate awareness to a "field" effect like magnetism. I don't think a scientist would have conceptualized magnetism if its effects hadn't been so easy to observe. I hope that we will begin to observe the effects of awareness in the same way. Perhaps we will find a way to measure these effects, but I doubt such is possible as machines based upon physical principles can not measure effects based upon metaphysical principles. (There is a possibility of measuring some radial effect).


[Krillian photography might be used in this regard if an individual could alter their Krillian patterns without detectable physiological change. Of course, we then need a way of proving that no physiological change occurred, which seems very unlikely. A nonlocal psychokinetic effect would also support this "field" theory.]


The Transition to Life:


The next important threshold occurs in the transition to life. I question our definition of life. We have identified some behaviors which are characteristic of life, but some organisms seem to "bridge the gap", exhibiting some, but not all the characteristics. If we set five criteria for defining "life" and an organism clearly reflects four of the five is it 80% alive?


Life reflects a level of awareness which non-life doesn't. It's very difficult to ascribe physical descriptions which reflect metaphysical phenomenon.


Perhaps the best way of characterizing life is death. Life is a transition in awareness which is mortal. Living things die. We may have trouble determining what physical changes occurred which resulted in death, but we can certainly observe the changes in behavior which differentiate alive and dead. Likewise, we often can not identify physical changes which bring on life, but we can observe behaviors which indicate that life has begun.


The changes in behavior which we associate with life are reflections of a transcendental increase in awareness. This awareness "drives" living things to behave radically different than non-living things. It doesn't always drive them sufficiently to produce radically different behavior, but the "energy" apparent in life if usually obvious.


Perhaps the singular behavior which reflects life best is reproduction. The awareness inherent in life produces "frenzied" reproductive behavior. From bacteria to humans, there is no stronger "drive" than the need to reproduce.


Biologists recognize the results of reproductive behavior among living organisms better than most. Not only does it produce more organisms, but provides a means for change. More of the processes of evolution appear in living organisms that in their precursors. More growth is possible, more cooperation is evident, and evolution takes on a whole new dimension. I think of this dimension as compassion.




I recognize that this term also has strong ties to human behavior. I'm thinking of compassion in its most basic form sacrifice for the greater good. Prior to compassion, we see many examples of its predecessor cooperation.

Catalysts cooperate with molecules. We can not view this as willing, but neither part of a catalytic action is harmed, diminished, or limited by the cooperative act. We see cooperation in the forming of films, bubbles, and membranes in both pre-living and living structures. (Cooperation probably begins when X, Y, and Z particles assist in pre-hadron formation at 10^-40 sec.)


Compassion is radically different. Compassion is evident in sacrifice. Clearly, compassion subsumes some cooperation. Both parties ultimately benefit from compassion, but there is some sacrifice apparent. I think a good example of this is evident in the mitochondria of eukaryotic cells. Symbiotic cooperation between prokaryotic cells enhanced the survival of both. If either had "refused" of failed to sacrifice something for the relationship, our form of life could not have evolved (all animal cells are eukaryotic).


I realize that this is a crude and very low form of compassion, just as bacteria are a very crude and low form of life by our standards. What happens from here makes the growth of compassion more apparent, because this new level of awareness drives living structures to cooperative specialization.




In the simplest multicellular organisms, there is no specialization, but plenty of cooperation. In some cases, cells give up mobility to cooperate, in others they gain mobility through cooperation. Again, we see that natural selection and the laws of probability would eventually lead to specialization that enhanced survival. But as with the formation of molecules, the probability doesn't match the results. Some other factor must enter into the picture. That factor is the driving force of increased awareness which is inherent in the new complexity of living organisms.


Quickly and in incredibly diverse ways, cells begin to "find" ways to specialize. This new higher order of cooperation blossoms into a diversity and complexity which transforms the planet. Cells specializing in each of the basic functions appear sensing, movement, metabolizing, and reproduction become specialized functions. This leads to cells specializing in controlling or communicating. Behaviors and cooperation become more complex. More specialized cells and cell groups require "arbitrators" to balance sacrifices and ensure mutuality. Transfer mechanisms are required to move raw materials and energy. These require more and more control.


The cycle keeps building and building using the same basic processes for millions of years. The most complex forms of life develop hundreds of specialized cell types and develop elaborate "neural systems" capable of storing information extragenetically. Extragenetic information leads to more cooperation between creatures, especially in the area of reproduction.


Autonomy, innovative behavior resultant from extragenetic information, grows. More and more organisms develop structures for enhancing autonomous behavior, especially structures which enhance "perception". Memory and sensing structures gain complexity as organisms adapt to greater and greater varieties of stimulation. Fish become the front-runners in the evolutionary race of 500 million years ago.


Within a couple of hundred million years, adaptation and specialization lead to life on land. In another 150 million years, mammals appear and we enter the last 1% of living evolution on earth (50,000,000 years).


The same processes which produced the first multicellular organisms are still working to produce greater specialization, complexity, cooperation, growth, and compassion. Mammals, the advanced new model of evolution, demonstrate new levels of compassion. The very nature of their care for their young and the cooperation evident in their sexual behavior works to bring greater bonding and compassionate behavior external to the self. An awareness of mate, mother, and fellow hunter produces cooperation with others.


Twenty million years later, the first anthropoids (apes) develop. Anthropoids form a unique new bio-social synthesis which prods the development of complex brains. Along with new social interaction requirements and demands of a very diverse environment, anthropoids face the challenge of newer more intelligent hunters. New cooperative defense structures appear and group behavior becomes very complex. Individuals sacrifice security for the group. Mothering reaches new levels of sacrifice. Stronger and more elaborate mating bonds form. Social evolution becomes much more influential in genetic evolution.


Then, as early as 15,000,000 years ago, a bold new group of anthropoids recognized that waving or throwing sticks frightens away predators. These pre-hominid creatures became less and less tied to the trees and found walking upright beneficial. Their hands slowly changed to better suit the new needs of an upright ground dweller. Cooperative and compassionate behavior increased as new social behaviors evolved. New sexual behaviors, specialization within social groups, and highly varied environmental conditions continue to push for more elaborate brain structures.


Over the next ten million years, these pre-human creatures grew in size, stood even more upright, had become avid tool users, and were distinctly human in morphology. A new era of evolution was unfolding, the evolution of mind.


We have skimmed through biological evolution in order to get to this point without excessive detail. There are several excellent books dealing with the physiological and social evolution of the apes, pre-hominids, and man. The essence of most paleontological works focuses on the changes in the fossil records (as implied by the name). For years, anthropologists have attempted to explain social evolution of early man through careful analysis of ape behavior. More recently, we've seen bold combinations of several fields produce great insight into the evolution of man. We have had the opportunity to study primitive man by studying isolated primitive cultures that still exist. John Phieffer's excellent book "The Emergence of Man" is a valuable synthesis of contemporary thought and evidence.


Before moving on with the evolution of mind and awareness, I wish to offer a less than pleasant speculation about one of the larger questions looming over anthropology why is Homo sapiens sapiens the only survivor of this genus? It appears from the evidence that cannibalism was much more prevalent in several stages of early man than we wish to admit. Early man's aggression, territoriality, and cannibalism made him a serious threat to other men. The development of Cro-Magnon humans through hybridization may have had the radial effect of abhorrence of cannibalism (or vise versa). The inherent threat of Neanderthal humans would justify their being hunted down by the smarter and more agile Cro-Magnons, thus the rapid disappearance of this species. I believe this fits the behavioral and fossil evidence which is unfolding.


The Evolution of Mind:


The evolution of morality is best evident in the evolution of mind. This subject makes up one of the larger and more important pieces of our "picture puzzle".


What is "mind"? We know that there is substantial difference between mind and brain, and yet we also know that there is substantial linkage. Despite extensive research into the mechanics of brain function and the use of some of the most sensitive equipment to measure and sense brain activity, we still have no evidence of mind. How is it that something so apparent to us, something so profoundly significant, and something so real in its effects can avoid detection?


I believe that the answer is simple mind is a radial side-effect of complex neurological interaction and it is metaphysical. Along with being metaphysical, it is directly associated with a parallel non-physical reality. This is a simple answer that is very difficult to support. I intend to support my answer with a comprehensive analysis of the histology and evolution of mind, a careful reexamination of physical reality, and some evidence which is consistent with this answer and not most others.


In "The Universe" I develop a comprehensive model of a two reality universe perceptual and conceptual. We need only deal with the most observable differences between perceptual and conceptual realities. For our purposes, it is not important to explain the origin and evolution of our dual realities, just to recognize the difference between percept and concept and to relate conceptual reality to things which are neither physical nor tangible with physical perception. As such, we should categorize the brain as part of physical perceptual reality and the mind as metaphysical conceptual reality. This differentiation is consistent with our inability to "measure" or sense mind with physical instrumentation.


I suggest that the branching of the two parallel realities was an early bifurcation in the evolution of the universe and that conceptual reality was affected by the same evolutionary forces and processes as physical or perceptual reality. We are struck by the sudden appearance of a linking mechanism between what are otherwise discrete realities, the linkage between brain and mind.


Finally, if we look  at the nature of each reality, we find the perceptual physical reality is dominantly indeterministic and probabilistic, whereas the conceptual metaphysical reality is dominantly deterministic and absolute. It is little wonder that a linking mechanism is necessarily complex to resolve otherwise stressful conflicts. Fortunately, we had been unable to ascertain the indeterministic nature of our physical reality until this century. Hopefully, we are intellectually mature enough to accept and deal with this newly discovered uncertainty.


To succeed in analyzing the evolution of mind, we need to integrate this two reality dichotomous model into our thinking.


Because there is no way to measure mind and because less complex life forms do not exhibit behaviors which we associate with mind, our chronology of mind begins where our description of evolutionary history left off. Early hominids were not the only animals challenged by intellectual needs. Most mammals were effected by the new birthing and nurturing practice in a similar way. More complex behaviors and the need to learn rapidly after birth, pushed for the larger and more complex brains which are characteristic of this class of animals. With the advent of the placental sub-class, the pressures were even greater. The compassionate nature of this highly specialized nurturing process required new types of bonding and interaction between mates.


Important questions arise from this view of evolution. Why was man the only placental mammal to transcend to our type of mind? How and why did evolution act differently in man than in apes and dolphins? Do apes and dolphins have a mind? It is very difficult to answer these questions with extensions of natural selection and mutation.


It is easy to grasp the different requirements for survival on land and at sea. Dolphins and other sea mammals did not become tool users and lack the demands of extremity dexterity. Both of these are very important in the evolution of human mind.


Apes remained arboreal. Tree life is much less demanding than ground life. It restricts range and provides substantial security at the cost of lesser diversity. This lack of threat and diversity removed powerful stimulus for change and growth. Likewise, even though apes developed tools, their application was very limited and stable. Their use of tools seems to be the true result of accidental discovery as opposed to a willful act even though the information is passed to new generations extragenetically.


I believe (as stated in part one) that the separation of man and ape resulted from such accidental discovery the use of weapons. These weapons were not willful implements of destruction, but a means of fending off threatening carnivores. Thus, the most creative, the most bold, and the most exploratory (curious?) apes branched from their compatriots and became the first pre-hominids.


We can gain considerable insight into the nature of these creatures by careful observation of their most closely related modern counterparts, chimpanzees and baboons. Their differences serve as a reminder of how later branching could produce very different adaptations. Nevertheless, together, they form a composite picture which should serve representative of the mind of the first pre-hominids.


The observations of Jane Goodall and her associates have opened our eyes to the complexity and "humanness" of these compassionate, playful, and intelligent beings. More open and unbiased studies of these and other apes have provided great insight into the differences and similarities to humans. The evidence is largely empirical and subjective, but still profound in its application. Our arrogance has caused us to commit a great wrong in dealing with our distant cousins.


If mind is what makes man, then humans are not alone. Other apes demonstrate perceptual and conceptual skills which are lessor, but much like, our own. I do not wish to build a case for the full meaning of these observations, especially as I believe that most people sense the "humanness" of these beings, but I do want to make it clear that our assumed "superiority" over the apes is more like racism than not.


If the ape mind is representative of an earlier state of our own, then it is worthwhile to note similarities and differences. The obvious difference is in conceptualization, not intelligence. Adult chimp intelligence is roughly that of a 3-5 year old human. (Would we treat infants like we do chimps?) Humans learn more faster than chimps, but that simply points to the weaknesses in our descriptions of intelligence.


If we separate that aspect of intelligence that we've been calling conceptualization, we find a transcendental difference. Without access to the conceptual reality, chimps are unable to perceive mechanical stability, integrity of objects, mathematics (other than rote), or morality.


Their use of language (artificially introduced) is limited to symbolic representation. Of course, their use of symbolic representation was a big surprise. We use language as both symbolic representation (perceived) but also as a thought mechanism (conceptual). I would be surprised if we don't discover some rudimentary conceptualization capability in chimps. They are nevertheless, much lower on the scale than an infant human in this regard. What is surprising is to discover how the lack of conceptualization limits the chimp's intelligence and awareness.


Tying it Together - Evolving Morality:


The pattern which emerges from the overlapping evolution of energy, matter, awareness, life, mind, and conceptualization may be summarized as follows...




   1. The specific process moves towards greater

      organizational complexity in ordered states.


    2. The general process moves from a literal or

       physical orientation towards an abstract or

       conceptual orientation.


    3. Manifestations of conceptual change occur in

       discrete transformations.


Hopefully, the first two elements have been covered sufficiently. Our purpose in dealing with them was to get to the third element.


In accordance with the currently vogue concepts of punctuated equilibrium and dissipative disequilibrium (*), evolution does not always occur as continuous and successive transitions. Our recent recognition of this tendency and the growing evidential support for the supporting theory in physical evolution coincides with observable non-physical evolution.


As per the prior discussion of life, there are no partly alive organisms. Life is a conceptual change which only occurs in discrete transformation. The same is true of consciousness, conceptualization, and awareness of awareness. The same will be true in future evolutionary advancement.


The most recent major conceptual transformation has been the awareness of evolution. It is an incomplete transformation as not all humans have managed to become aware of how we came into existence and perhaps no human has become fully aware of evolution. Despite that, our awareness of evolution has already allowed us to envision the next major conceptual transformations.


In as much as one can not derive human purpose from facts, we can not deduce what transformations in awareness are required to produce continued advancement. However, since we have identified the process and its characteristics, and since we can "guess" where the process should lead us, we can surmise what interim steps are likely. Lastly, by extending the process and developing specific experimental conditions, we are able to invoke transformational processes.


The ending point of evolution is neither clear nor important. Accurately identifying and accepting a distant purpose which is intuitively and rationally acceptable is what matters. Throughout philosophy and theology, the most descriptive word of this end is "morality". Even when misused, morality carries an intuitive and rational depth which exceeds any comparative meaning. In its simplest definition, we quickly see the power of the word...



          Morality = The quality of being right.


By combining ideas then, I am advocating that the quality of being right is evolving and that we are the beings (of all known beings) most able to judge what is right. Since this statement is the essential basis of this book, I want to dissect and analyze it.


In different words...


The universe is structured such that energy (or its resultant forms) will occasionally restructure itself with the intent that the resulting forms will be better able to establish what is best for achieving the purpose of the universe.


The first essential dissection involves the word "right". If morality is related to rightness (or righteousness), then we must try to find universal acceptance of what it means to be right. Clearly, this issue has remained muddled, debated, and disputed. No individual, no religion, and no society has had any better judgment of what is right than any other. Despite human willingness to impose its views on others, there can be no definitive answer to the question "What is right?".


I am suggesting that right is equivalent to that which is best for achieving the purpose of the universe. I believe that we may easily establish what the purpose of the universe is and thus, our immorality is based upon our inability to determine what behaviors or actions best achieve that purpose. Furthermore, I offer that we can remove the word "best" from the above statement and replace it with "that which has the greatest objective probability".


For now, I prefer to leave the purpose of the universe stated as "to maximize morality". In the next chapter, we shall deal with the purpose more fully, leaving us with this composite statement:


It is the nature of the universe to create structures which have the greatest objective probability of maximizing morality.


Once dissected, the statement might look like this...


1. |It is the nature|

2. |of the universe|

3. |to create|

4. |structures|

5. |which have the greatest|

6. |objective|

7. |probability of|

8. |maximizing|

9. |morality|.


The reason for dissecting this statement is to insure that we have chosen the exact and precise words for the intended meaning. Bear with me for a minute...


1. The "nature" of something suggests the fundamental characteristics or qualities which as a whole identify the thing. Thus, for the statement to be valid, it should relate the most distinguishing and essential characteristic of the existence of the universe.


2. The "universe" is everything. It is the infinite extreme. It is incorrect to suggest that something could exist outside of the universe. As intuitively unacceptable as this may seem, as soon as we imagine or observe something "outside" the universe, it instantaneously expands to include it. The conundrum of this concept is fundamental to our awareness of ourselves.


3. To "create" implies to cause. To cause implies the production of agent, force, or condition which results in some specific outcome. For me, the difference between creating and causing is purpose. I may cause something to happen without precognition or intent, but I can't create something without willful purpose.


4. "Structures" have order, form, and process without order, form, or process there is nothing identifiable as a structure. The opposite of structure is absolute chaos, something which probably does not exist.


5. The "greatest" is used in its most common meanings, both literal and mathematical.


6. That which is "objective" exists outside of mind. Specifically, objective results are those which may be reliably attained independent of observer influence. There is no such thing as human objectivity.


7. "Probability" is a mathematical concept based upon binomial distribution as applied to statistical analysis and expressed as a ratio of the chances favoring an outcome to the sum of the chances for and against that outcome. Our problem is accurately assessing the chances of a given outcome based upon our ability to predict and control our total environment.


8. "Maximizing" is also used in its most common meanings, both literal and mathematical. It is specifically used instead of "optimizing" because "optimizing morality" is redundant.


9. "Morality" is a means and an end which defines an infinite gradient of perfection. Thus, to be totally moral would equate be being perfect, an impossibility.

As structures which have the potential to objectifiably maximize morality, we are supreme in our environment. As beings who've failed to do such in an ordered and purposeful manner, we've demonstrated our immorality. Once we become aware of our moral potential, every action or behavior which fails to maximize that potential is immoral.


We can rationalize, delude, and distract with thoroughness and still not shroud our inner sense of guilt. We can build alternative value systems (paradigms), personalities, and selves, which encase and shield us from our sense of purpose. We can NOT avoid the truth.


In order to feel comfortable with our immorality, we simply refuse to acknowledge the truth. In doing such, we sacrifice the greatest gifts of human potential: will, awareness, and moral judgment.


I hope that I haven't gotten too far ahead of myself. You   may be able to "see" enough of the "big picture" to fit some or all of the pieces of the my puzzle together. First, we accepted that the universe exists for some purpose. I advocated that its purpose is the maximization of morality. Then, by  adding evolution as the primary process, force, or method by which this purpose is accomplished, we realize that our very nature is a result of the evolution of morality.


The Epitome of Evolution:


If we are the epitome of the evolution of morality, then we also serve as the guidebooks to the future evolution of morality. If evolution is a continuum or progression of events towards a purpose, then shouldn't we be able to extrapolate the next steps form the prior ones?


I contend that the answer to this question is a definite "perhaps". The process is akin to a person climbing stairs where each step is three feet taller than the person. Seeing one step ahead is difficult, two steps - impossible. We haven't made a serious effort to determine what is on the next step, to ascertain what was on the steps behind us, or why we're climbing the damn steps in the first place.


So long as we remain content to stay at this step, the next steps seem very much out of reach.


We climbed the first steps long before the earth came into existence. We can't remember being at the last step, even though we were there for millions of years. Our ladder

might look like this...


                                | Terra Incognita


  You are here ------->  ** | ????


                        | Awareness of Awareness


                    | Awareness


                | Life


            | Matter to Pre-Organic Molecules


        | Energy to Matter


    |  Creation of the Universe




As we move up the ladder, the following characteristics apply...


1. Complexity increases (entropy decreases)


2. Orderedness increases (chaos decreases)


3. We merge from perceptual (physical) to conceptual



4. Response to external conditions increases.


5. Dissipative requirements increase (see Prigogine).


6. Will increases.


7. Awareness increases.


8. Moral potential increases


These transformation changes are not as obvious in the first stages and appear exponential in both time and effect (except for the first step). The preeminent transformation is life no other transformation makes each of these characteristics so obvious. In fact, the very description of life incorporates the transformation characteristics.


Despite our failure to identify the essence of life, it is clear that its nature transcends the threshold of physical to non-physical. Living beings have a "quality" about them that is distinctly not physical. Because our science is primarily concerned with energy and condensed matter, it fails to offer worthwhile explanation for the nature of life.


The ordered complexity of life is very apparent. Compared to non-living entities, living beings take on sufficient ordered complexity such that each being takes on that identity. It becomes unique. The extent of cooperation and collective interaction dramatically increases in living entities. This interaction is most evident in the way living organisms respond to external conditions.


The dissipative character of living entities is expressed in the word "metabolize". The process of "consuming" external energy by reducing the energy state of matter is the essence of dissipative action. Life takes on other dissipative characteristics which we shall detail later.


In pre-life transformations, the element of "will" is much more difficult to recognize. The "will" to maintain structural integrity is so inanimate that we prefer to think of it as a purely physical manifestation of particle interaction. From hadron stability to co-valent bonding we see examples of pre-life will. After the transformation to life occurs, we observe a profound change in will. We call this determination to maintain structural integrity "the will to survive". Secondarily, we observe a tremendous increase in the will to reproduce.


Awareness takes on a whole new meaning at the transformation to life. Even though we often suggest the possibility of some "life force", we have no evidence for its existence other than the change in awareness which is manifest in living entities. This new form of awareness seems to be the result of the synergistic interaction of the various components - ordered complexity, access to energy, perception, a conceptual "seed", and will.


The result and the framework of these transformation changes is moral potential. Every increase in any of the characteristics of transformation increases moral potential. The increase of potential with each transformation step might be termed "quantum", both because of its discrete nature and it profoundness.


The two transformation steps after life are more familiar and inherently obvious to us. We are aware, as are all of the higher mammals. Any entity capable of identifying itself has made this transformation and thus our affinity for dogs, cats, dolphins, horses, monkeys, whales, apes, and people.


Awareness of awareness is an attribute which we alone seem to possess. We can't be sure that other animals don't possess this attribute, but we have never observed any of the behaviors which would make this apparent. On the other hand, the very nature of human behavior is the best descriptor of this characteristic. This is not to suggest that other beings who've achieved this transformation would behave LIKE we behave, but that the complexity and PURPOSE of their behavior would clearly indicate this characteristic. For example, humans are the only entities ever observed who will sacrifice their life for "abstract" purpose. [Animals at the "Awareness" level or close to it will risk their life for their young, but I credit this behavior to instinct, not rudimentary abstract reasoning].


In essence, we may label the major differences between ourselves and all other higher mammals as the result of the transformation to awareness of awareness. The pundit may argue that some attributes are causes and others are  effects, but for our intentions, there is little need to separate them. The processes which yield transformation are cyclical and self-creating (autopoeitic).


I will not attempt to delineate or define the attributes which make us us or you you. As a "full member" of this club, you are as aware of yourself as anyone. Unfortunately, most "members" of our elite group never take the time to consider what it is that makes them a member or the benefits of such. Consider for example, the following questions:


  What is the source of "free will"?


  How is awareness of awareness manifest in mind?


  At what point does reason prevail over emotion?


  What is consciousness and conscientiousness?


  Why can't we measure the effect called "mind"?


Philosophers, theologians, and schoolchildren have contemplated these questions for generations without resolving any definitive answers. The mystery of human consciousness remains.


Perhaps now that we've become aware of the process which has yielded our awareness, we can begin to understand it. Hopefully, with knowledge of the intent of the process, we can accurately define its purpose, if not its workings. By recognizing where we are in the continuum of evolution and by understanding its processes, we are ready to take a giant step in its advancement. But first, we need to look at one more part of the process.


At each major step in the evolutionary "stairs", there are  "boxes" which serve as steps in aiding progress to the next level. Once these steps are utilized, progress becomes much simpler. We may, through shear strength or plain luck manage to reach the next step. Some of the "stepping boxes" we have utilized are...












                    |    | <--- Awareness of Evolution


                 |       | <--- Awareness of Morality


              |          | <--- Awareness of Conceptuality


           |             | <--- Awareness of Self-will


(Awareness of Awareness)



We attained awareness of self-will sometime before the first civilizations appeared. In distinguishing between our ability to direct our own actions versus those of other animals, we became aware of something greater than ourselves. Thus, even in the most ancient of civilizations, we find religious beliefs which focus on the essential questions, "What am I?" and "Why am I here?".


Awareness of conceptuality coincides with the development of formal language. In turn, formal language differs from basic communication in its conceptuality. We have found evidence of this transformation in Sumerian cultures, but it doesn't seem to have reached its full attainment until the Greeks (~1000 B.C.).


Awareness of morality may have preceded awareness of conceptuality, but has never been as fully developed. As a  concept morality may have been the trigger or catalyst for awareness of conceptualization. Regardless of which came first, the two are clearly linked and we would be arrogant to assume that we have attained full awareness of either.


It was the rapid increase in awareness of morality which triggered and sustained the Renaissance. Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, and Confucius were each highly influential in bringing forth this awareness. Spinoza may have done the best job of fully articulating its conceptual foundation. Teilhard and Garcia have extended its application towards future evolution. My hope is that this book serves the same end.


Although we tend to think of evolution as a more contemporary concept (Darwin, 1858  **), the basic process was clearly articulated by the ancient Greeks. In this case, we can easily see how awareness of a concept "unfolds". The process may be reduced to three steps...



              1. Recognition


              2. Acceptance


              3. Application


Recognition of a concept does not indicate complete awareness. Neither does acceptance. Until we are able to  apply a concept in meaningful ways, we should not claim "awareness" of it. In the case of awareness of evolution, it was recognized by the Greeks, accepted by the "scientific community" of the previous century, and is only now beginning to be applied fully. Our awareness of evolution is as incomplete as our awareness of morality. And although our awareness of conceptuality is more complete, I believe that we have yet to apply our awareness of conceptualization in the most important areas.




The existence of human consciousness is the result of collective evolutionary transformation advancing towards greater moral potential. We understand the major processes by which evolution occurs and we have identified the significant results of its advancement.


We have reached the point where we may assume the role of evolutionary guide by both reinforcing the processes and by directing the implementation towards purpose. Our ability to accomplish this is founded upon essential awareness of self, mind, process, and purpose.


Because we are self-reflecting beings, we may know ourselves as well as we wish to. As self-willed beings, we may choose to expand our minds and become aware the potential of mind. The greatest result of mind has been our awareness of the evolutionary process which has produced mind. Intrinsic to mind and awareness of evolution is awareness to purpose our purpose.

Having recognized our goal and the process by which it may be attained, and by being aware of our current level, potential, and responsibility in the evolutionary continuum, we may identify specific method(s) by which we may reach the next evolutionary step. We have termed these steps "transformations" and our purpose "morality" and thus we seek "Moral Transformation".


The rest of this book is dedicated to the methods and ends by which we might exercise our moral potential.







There is a positive and a negative way to view the question "How do we get there?". On the positive side, we can look at the steps which are before us and simply develop the will and methods to surmount them. Another view might ask "Why haven't we already gone?". With our awareness of the unfolding evolution of the universe and the natural movement towards ordered complexity and moral potential, it would appear that something is preventing us from advancing.


We need to assess both questions thoroughly. Eliminating the negatives doesn't make a positive and adding positives while there are greater negatives will not "break even". To succeed, we must reduce the negative influences and maximize the positive attributes until sufficient positive outcomes begin to build cyclically. Then we must generate sufficient impetus to increase the cyclical effect until the inherent transformation threshold is breached.


The most probable reason for failure to recognize and reach moral transformation will result from a failure to extend our grasp to the whole of the task. There is no short-cut or by-pass to moral transformation. Any of the several negative forces or attributes will prevent success and failure to reach minimal levels in any of the positive areas will prevent transformation. And, although we may choose to focus on one or more areas of "weakness", we must never loose sight of the whole. Indeed, the best means of negating the negatives and building the positives is through a holistic integrated approach.


Because we must deal with details within many areas and because we must put each detail into perspective with the whole, a linear sucessive description of the process is not possible. Our problem is not unlike the challenge of completely describing a person.


The Picture Puzzle Approach:


I shall approach my description of moral transformation in a manner similar to the solving of a picture puzzle. We start by knowing what the subject of the picture is, but we have no visual representation to start from. We will study each piece and group related pieces together. As small pieces fit together to make sections, the picture begins to take shape. Once we reach the point where the entire picture is framed, our task gets easier. Then, once the whole picture become clear, each piece takes on new meaning and importance.


The picture that we must grasp is most odd. It is not only magnificent in its size, detail ,and complexity, but in its abstractness, its precision, its beauty, and its meaning. The more of the picture that we see, the more that we understand, and the more that we accept as real, the more we will find awe and admiration for its creator. Not only is the picture more than two dimensional, but it has a quality or substance which inspires, compels, and frightens. To describe this picture as the physical universe is as limiting as describing the Mona Lisa as paint on canvas.


To describe this picture with words is more difficult than describing the joy in a warm sunrise. To divide this picture into its smallest significant sections would take centuries of human endeavor. To understand the complexity of its simplest parts defies human intelligence. And yet, we may not only rejoice in our ability to grasp the beauty of this picture, but we may take comfort in the fact that its creator specifically intended for us to grasp and understand its intricacy.


Let us begin then with the obvious and most observable parts of this huge picture. Let us consider the viewer and his or her frame of reference. Then, let us consider the creator of the picture and what we may deduce about him or her. Lastly, let us consider the intent of the creator what is the message so artfully crafted into the picture.


Moral transformation is more than a picture. Our approach in viewing it should be much like that which we use to assess and appreciate an inspiring work of art. Indeed, we are making some assumptions about its nature and about its purpose, but then what's wrong with that. Our goal is not to force a point of view or even to suggest that any one view is more complete or more accurate than any other. Our goal is simply to expand our appreciation, our comprehension, and our application of that which is our future.


The Value of Moral Transformation:


Before we begin with our description, let us reiterate our expectations. If we are to spend time with this puzzle, we should have clearly identified goals for the time and effort we invest. Our goals may be pragmatic and thus "tangible" or they may be spirtual and "intangible". I beleieve that we are mistaken when we differentiate the two.


To insist that we find "pragmatic tangible" results of moral transformation is a bit like insisting that we find pragmatic tangible results for great art or music. To be even more accurate it is like asking one to make the value of inspiration apparent to a chimpanzee.


I will attempt to relate some pragmatic and tangible effects of moral transformation in a way which is at least representative of their value, but first I'd like to restate my premise of inapplicability.


When I first began to seek moral transformation, I was seeking the most pragmatic and tangible results. It was clear that much of the outcome would be focused on a purpose which has little pragmatic meaning in our current cultural and intellectual framework. After all, what is "pragmatic" about morality?


Initially, we reduced morality into an evolutionary and hierarchical process. Thus, we identified truth and creativity as measures of our preparedness for morality and means by which we might attain such. Our rules for judging behaviors (ethics) provided a method for guiding our actions. We have discussed the "real world" application of these ethics in many diverse and challenging scenarios and have discovered that the application of purely conceptual simple rules to everyday life is very complex. We understand that our ability to predict and control our total environment is the measure of our success in implementing our ethics. And although these things in themselves are not pragmatic or tangible, that we expect pragmatic and tangible results.


Our assumptions have been based upon an experiential background which has a dubiously moral nature. Why should we assume that greater ethical awareness should produce results which have great application in a generally amoral environment? Furthermore, we have made many assumptions about our existence and the nature of our universe which were based upon overwhelming physical dominance. In fact, our very argument against the non-physical aspects of our existence is based upon a purely physical prejudice. If our future is to be dominated by a physical reality, then the demand for physical outcomes is relevant. I hope and argue that it isn't.


With this in mind, I accept the reality that dominates our existence today as being physical and that despite our movement towards a non-physical emphasis, we may always depend upon a physical "source" or "root" for our growth. If the outcomes of moral transformation cannot be directed towards growth in physical terms, then its value is greatly diminished.


In the past, there has been a great tendency to dodge this issue by offering esoteric obfuscations, and to insist that the best and most meaningful results of non-physical growth have little meaning at a conceptual level dominated by physical and materialistic drives. Even this is true, we are bound to physical limitations and our fulfillment of our physical needs is a prerequisite to any substantial spirtual growth.


Unfortunately, to fully grasp the value of ethical advancement requires that one understands and accepts the value of morality. It is much easier to recognize and accept the "value" of comfort and opulence than it is to find value in truth and purpose.


Fortunately, we have an innate sense of value for both and it is a very common experience for those who have attained high levels of comfort to suddenly realize that their prioritization of such was wrong that comfort without moral purpose is uncomfortable. Our cultural emphaisis remains physical and comfort oriented and it is only our innate value of moral purpose which prevents overwhelming hedonistic domintation.


It is much easier to make white paint black, than black paint white. Trying to make spirtual outcomes useful in a non-spitual realm is very difficult, even though making physical outcomes useful in a spirtual realm is generally easy. We will attempt to do both.


To begin then, let us reconsider the value of creativity. A rigid and pragmatic definition of creativity demands that it result in objectifiable ability to predict and control in the total environment. Let us assess the implications of this definition:


1. That we grasp the total environment.


2. That we are intellectually capable of objectification.


3. That we understand causitry and imply that prediction

   and control are "creative" abilities.


Although not relevant for the discussion before us, each of these are arguable we clearly do not grasp the total environment, we are not always objective, even in our objectification, and prediction and control are not inherently processes of causation.


Accepting our assumptions and the implications of our definition of creativity, we can use it as a "best available method" for determining a level of ethical achievement, the ethical potential for actions, or the ethical result of a method. Thus, creativity becomes both a means, a measure, and an end.


Unless we are rigorous in our application of creativity as defined, we can not even measure creativity for unless we are sufficiently creative or aware to grasp the effect of an action or behavior on the total environment, we will be unable to objectify its ultimate predictive and controlling value. This circular effect serves to negate the measurement of many of the most creative effects of moral transformation.


Given these restrictions, I suggest that for the most part people will be only able to recognize and appreciate the more


   trivial, simplistic, unimportant, and short term


results of moral transformation. It is though we are Pontius Pilate confronted by Christianity.


Despite all of this, moral transformation is such a creative process that its trivial, simplistic, unimportant, and short term effects may be easily objectified. With willed application, the results may be used to serve any area of human endeavor which increases human ethical potential. If we are able to recognize those areas and are willing to accept that many human endeavors have little such potential, then we have a common frame of reference.


Conceptual Benefits:


Although perhaps less pragmatic, let's begin with the general and mostly conceptual gains from moral transformation:


1. Increased Will: Will, the driving "force" of human behavior", is increased in two ways. First, we have greater means of "tapping the reservoir" and second, we gain sources to re-fill he reservoir of will. In contrast, we reduce the ability to focus will on trivial or unethical behavior.


2. Increased Awareness: Awareness has two aspects, "quantum" awareness and perceptivity. Contrast this meaning with "knowledge". No knowledge is inherently gained, but one becomes aware of many new "things" (whose description I will offer later). Picture the transformation to consciousness. No new knowledge is gained, but one becomes "aware" of their consciousness.


3. Intellectual and Emotional Control: As much a prerequisite as a result, moral transformation produces a "wave" or "surge" of consciousness which has a tangential effect of enhancing intellectual and emotional control. I doubt if there is a measurable increase in "intelligence" as determined by "objective" tests for two reasons: the tests don't measure intelligence and the process doesn't make one "smarter". However, if one has increased awareness, perceptivity, will, and intellectual control, they will appear smarter.


In as much as each of these benefits may be directly manifest in some pragmatic and tangible outcome, they also may fall within the next group of benefits.


Pragmatic and Tangible Benefits:


Moral transformation is a conceptual process. We are not sure to what extent physical reality as we perceive it is an effect of our own conceptualization. Likewise, we have no direct way of ascertaining whether a given effect is the result of some specific cause. We can only set up conditions where we are able to repeatedly observe an effect which has a predicted cause. When the relationship between causation and result becomes highly probabilistic, we say that something is "controlled" by the cause.


The paradox in this thinking is the circular relationship of our expectation and our observation. How can we prove that a given effect is not a result of our expectation as much as some physical "law". It is conceptually possible that physical laws are just a manifestation of sufficient expectation of a given outcome.


This paradox does not need to detract from our interest in pragmatic and tangible benefits of moral transformation. I am however going to leave the suggestion open, advocate that another possibility exists, express a preference for that possibility, and move on.


The second paradox for us to view is the creativity cycle. If creativity is our end and the best means towards that end, then the most important result of a creative process would be.... creativity.







Methods, or means toward ends, are intents, approaches, strategies, and behavioral choices which we will to implement. The implementation of methods is the best indication of our will towards purpose and our creativity. Thus, we must always seek improvement in our methods by invoking and responding to feedback.


When we move from the conceptual reality in which methods are created to the perceptual reality in which the resulting behaviors will be judged and either reinforced, ignored, or impugned, we are confronted by several "realities" which are part of the physical realm. Each of these characteristics are identifiable as a balance of two opposing "forces" or attributes which are demonstrated by the following "rules"...



The Consumption Rule:


Each action will require time, energy, and resources of which there is a finite and restrictively limited supply.


The implementation of any method must be balanced with the consumption required. This is akin to the second law of thermodynamics.



The Conflict Rule:


Each action will conflict with one or more other methods either in fulfillment of purpose or consumption of time, energy, or resources.


The prioritization of resources to resolve conflicts is one of the perennial problems in achieving unity towards purpose.


The Tangent Rule:


Each action will result in "tangential" or "side" effects which may negate the intent of the method.


Our ability to predict and control these tangential effects is directly tied to our probability of success in fulfilling our long term goals. Tangential effects have been the undoing of most of the great "plans" of the past.



The Imperfection Rule:


Methods, not matter how perfect their design, must be implemented by humans who are far from perfect.


The design and implementation of methods should incorporate feedback and redundancy structures to compensate for human imperfections and unpredictability.



The Entropy Rule:


Methods may never change as fast or as completely as the total environment in which they are implemented.


Any method which is based upon conditions of the environment must have adaptability as a part of the structure. Such adaptability may never keep pace with the changes in environment. (All methods die or become obsolete).


If we are to design methodological structures which deal with these rules, we must then strive for the following:


Our methods must...


1. change with time.

2. have redundant structures where possible.

3. have feedback structures.

4. compensate for human imperfections.

5. make optimal use of resources.

6. either minimize tangential effects or control them.

7. compete and cooperate simultaneously.

8. be part of an on-going methodology plan.



The best methods are those which balance high probability with success and low probability of risk. Risk is a result of any of the following:


1. Methods which consume resources and provide no

   return to purpose.

2. Methods which have design faults or which mutate

   and become destructive.

3. Methods which result in unpredicted and uncontrolled

   tangential effects which are more destructive than the

   offsetting positive results (especially in the longer


4. Methods which become ends unto themselves and distract

   resources from the fulfillment of purpose.

5. Methods which become focal points for feuding and


6. Methods which invoke human imperfections, especially

   greed, lust, laziness, and fear.


We cannot implement any method without accepting and dealing with each any every possible risk listed. All methods should begin with the "Mini-Max" stratagem as a premise: minimize risk, maximize success.


All methods are organized in similar ways. Regardless of the extent of design in each area, any method will have at least six parts:


         1. Definition of Purpose

         2. Definition of Approach

         3. Definition of Strategies

         4. Definition of checks and balances (feedback)

         5. Schedule of initial conditions

         6. Schedule of implementation


Definition of Purpose:


This may be any common goal statement. The purpose of any method has two components: some ultimate (unattainable) end and some intermediate (attainable) end.


"To seek morality by enhancing a love of learning" is a goal statement which satisfies the requirements.


Definition of Approach:


An approach is a "direction" or "course" towards the purpose. Starting a business which produces and distributes products which enhance a love of learning is a different approach than writing a book which inspires teachers to model behaviors which enhance a love of learning.


Definition of Strategies:


An approach may incorporate hundred or thousands of strategies. These may be expressed as rules, guidelines, or even "methods" as more commonly used. As in game playing, "strategies" are on a different level than the "rules" of the game.


The best of our creative talents should be brought to bear on the design and implementation of strategies. Again, as in games, those who know the object and rules of the game, who avoid mistakes, and develop the best strategies, win.


Definition of checks and balances (feedback):


Even the shortest and most succinct of methods must have some feedback process. Otherwise, there is no comprehension of success or failure and thus no result.


The more involved and durable the method, the greater the requirement for feedback structures. Good feedback structures provide complete and accurate data.


Schedule of initial conditions:


The better the perception and assessment of the initial conditions, the better the prediction and control of the total environment. This is especially critical in regards to designing "around" tangential effects.


Without a complete and accurate schedule of time, energy, and resource requirements, the method may be undermined.


Schedule of implementation:


Methods must have starting and ending points. Unless they are of very short duration, they should also have intermediate check points. The starting point identifies a target for satisfying the initial schedule of requirements and the right environmental conditions for implementation.


Check points (and the ending point) determine whether the method should be continued, altered, or concluded.




Strategies are limited by purpose and approach, but otherwise are only limited by imagination. In general, a strategy is expressed as a guideline and is intended to structure the implementation of will, energy, and resources. Examples of well known strategies include:


   Mini-Max - The most common chess strategy. Works well

              in almost all applications.


   Tit for Tat - A directed response strategy intended to

                 maximize cooperative behavior.


   Turn the Other Cheek - A high level strategy requiring

                          great will and discipline.


A complete statement of a strategy includes:


    1. Identifying name

    2. Expression of intent

    3. Expression of domain

    4. Expression of requirements

    5. Guidelines for implementation



Example - Cognitive Dissonance:


Cognitive dissonance is that natural human characteristic which attempts to prevent conflicting or dissonant knowledge, ideas, values, or beliefs from coexisting within the mind. As a strategy it is intended to cause the individual to question such conflicts when they appear in behaviors which are less than ethical.


The domain for implementation ranges from teaching applications where new knowledge is intended to challenge norms, standards, or dogma to the deepest levels of ethical decision making (many domains).


To implement cognitive dissonance requires minimal will and an understanding of the cognitive dissonance mechanism. In general, the risks are low although when implemented with great skill this strategy will cause significant disruption in the thinking and behavior patterns of the "subject". Tangential effects of such changes can be severe and unpredictable.


As such, the following guidelines are relatively rigid:


1. Limit the implementation to levels of skill and experience where predictability remains very high.


2. If the process is used subtly, be sure that the subject has consented directly or indirectly to its use.


3. If used at the higher levels, it is recommended that the subject be prepared and instructed in the process, although not necessarily in the specific approach or application.


4. "Anchors" which prevent "run-away" dissonance are necessary when dealing with fundamental beliefs and values.







Evolutionary transformation occurs when necessary conditions are satisfied and sufficient energy, force, or will is applied. The result of evolutionary transformation is the quantum increase in ordered complexity of a system.


All evolutionary processes are intended to satisfy one of these two requirements: providing environment and providing force.


For example, let us examine the most understood evolutionary transformation and the process which yield such: human consciousness. The preconditions are easily summarized as sufficient ordered neural complexity sustained with operational energy via biological support systems (the human body). As we know well, just having the mechanism does not yield consciousness and the quality of consciousness varies form individual to individual from time to time.


The other prerequisites are life force complemented by consciousness force. Life force is a biologically linked manifestation of the cooperative force of evolution. Consciousness force is the cumulative tangential effect of the bifurcation of self and soul. The catalyst of this bifurcation is the will and expectation of the birthing parties. This effort is subliminal and automatic and dominates the first few years of consciousness growth. The same process continues throughout the human life.





In the rather esoteric domain of moral advancement, I've advocated the need to continue our advancement along the lines and processes which we may identify as consistent with the evolutionary past. Thus, I have invested great time, energy, and resources in development and implementation of transformation processes. As a test of my theories and their implications, I have taken substantial risks into domains of great danger.


My friends have asked me why. I have been reticent in answering this important query because, in my mind, the motivations were all intrinsic. That is not to say that there are inadequate extrinsic motivators, its just that I have failed to value them.


What I have offered are suggestions which provide the basis for the answer to their queries. For my purposes, the results only served the process. It is time to expand the application of the results to broader domains.






In creating a transformation process, I had a variety of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. The initial focus has been in fulfilling the intrinsic goals and it is now time to shift the focus to the extrinsic areas.


The first goal area was perpetuation. This has two aspects, self-perpetuation as in perpetual motion and continuing self-function.





(Life and Beyond)


The study of biological life focuses upon the mechanisms and observable manifestations of living organisms. Instinctively, we recognize that life is much more than a "biological" process which is the result of complex chemical interactions. The transformation to life adds a "mystical" or "spiritual" element which defies explanation in biological terms. I hope to explore this miracle and extend its meaning to other successive transformations.


In order to avoid thaumatology and teleology, I shall attempt to adhere to observable (although empirical) and categorically accepted concepts. I will not shirk from my clear belief that an understanding of these aspects of life is insufficient to fully grasp life's profound meaning. It is just that I believe that I may support my basic thesis without such subjective interjection.


For the purposes of this discussion, I use "transformation" in a most literal sense: a change in form, structure, or nature. Biological transformation is a progenitor to spiritual transformation in the following ways:


1. As ordered complexity increases within biological systems, so does the potential for will, awareness, intelligence, perception, and discipline.


2. As will, awareness, intelligence, perception, and discipline increases, so does the potential for prediction and control of the total environment.


3. As the ability to predict and control the total environment increases, so does the potential opportunity for recognition of, acceptance of, and commitment to truth.


4. As the ability to recognize, accept and commit to truth increases, so does the potential for recognition of, acceptance of, and commitment to purpose.


5. As commitment to purpose increases so does the potential for moral behavior.


6. As moral behavior increases, so does the potential for conceptual realization.


Our sense of conceptual realization is limited, but may be best articulated in the most glorious and moral attributes and manifestations attributed to God (as a composite human conceptualization).





Transformation processes are those ethical advancement events which produce significant enlargement or enhancement to ethical attributes of a species. Quantum transformations occur at threshold points in the ethical advancement continuum.


The total effect of each transformation is the accumulated effect of each enhancement to existing attributes and in quantum transformations, the appearance of new attributes.

The sequence follows this basic outline:


              1. Uniqueness

              2. Cooperation

              3. Specialization

              4. Sacrifice

              5. Will

              6. Autonomy

              7. Reflective thought

              8. Awareness of self

              9. Creativity

             10. Awareness of awareness

             11. Inspiration

             12. Enlightenment


All cognizant humans remain at or above the 10th level. Almost all modern humans are capable of inspiration and experience such infrequently. A few experience enlightenment.


It is very difficult to articulate higher developmental levels to those who have no direct experience with such. There is no descriptive terminology which will communicate an understanding of inspiration to a being who has not experienced such. It is difficult to articulate the experience to someone who has shared the frame of reference.


At each transformation level, each and every attribute which existed previously is enhanced in proportion to he magnitude or quality of the transformation. Thus, by the 10th level, will is manifest in purpose, sacrifice in love, and reflective thought in formal logic and reasoning.




If we consider the questions "who or what created the creator of the universe...?", or "how many times may we cut something in half?", then we will have three basic thinking choices. Firstly, we may apply classical thinking and resolve that there is no acceptable answer within that realm. Secondly, we may invoke an analytical process which leads to other questions which pose the same problem. Better yet, we may invoke a seldom used thinking process, "transcendental thinking".


No other thinking process transcends the barrier between imagination and reality to the same extent. No other thinking process is likely to yield better or worse answers to a problem. No other thinking process is so sheltered within us. We tend to use this thinking process accidentally or unconsciously. It is important that we reawaken and expand this type of thinking if we are to move up the evolutionary scale.


With transcendental thinking our goal becomes the expansion of awareness, instead of resolution of a dissonance. The best "answers" in transcendental thinking are often better questions. The result of transcendental thinking is often greater dissonance and as we find this stressful, we have chosen to submerse such thoughts into our intellectual background. As long as we are taught that such questions should not be asked, we will lose access to this valuable skill.


To refresh our memories and to awaken our skill all we must do is choose to do such. A small amount of will, simple preparation, and easy exercises might help. To assist in the development of will, consider the benefits of transcendental thinking:


   1. Expansion of perceptual domain

   2. Expansion of frame-of-reference

   3. Broader scope of awareness

   4. Unconventional responses

   5. Greater creativity


To prepare yourself for transcendental thinking, consider the following:


   1. Consciously consider the intellectual limits you've

      imposed upon yourself and the reasons.

   2. Consciously choose to open your intellect to ideas

      or thoughts which conflict with conventional ideas.

   3. Relax and dispose of your fear.

   4. Consider your normal response to dissonant ideas and

      how you might control that response.


To invoke transcendental thoughts, you might try...


  1. Close your eyes and focus on one of these topics:


     "Why do I exist?"

     "Where did God come from?"

     "What lies outside the universe?"

     "What is the most beautiful thing I can imagine?"

     "What relationships exist between zero and a circle?"

     "What truth is always wrong?"

     "What is the relationship between time and



  2. Allow your thoughts to drift, but keep them focused on the topic.


  3. Be patient. Give yourself at least twenty minutes. We generally have trouble focusing on one thought for more than five minutes. If you persist, your mind will take over the details.


To recognize transcendental thoughts, consider their nature


  1. They are often "odd", colorful, or abstract.

  2. They often conflict with conventional ideas or

     experiences (they invoke cognitive dissonance).

  3. They are often framed as questions.

  4. They "appear" without conventional effort.

  5. They are new, creative, and imaginative.

  6. In many ways, they are like other thoughts.


Remember, transcendental thinking is innate. You've always had transcendental thoughts, but you may not have isolated them. You've probably built up a certain amount of "resistance" to them and will tend to shun them. In the same way that we need to stop and look to see the individual leaves on trees, we need to stop and think to refresh this thinking skill.






To transcend... to move beyond. We have the gift of transcendental thinking. Thinking which is beyond the limits of our understanding. Thinking which transcends reality. Not only may we contemplate that which is not real, but we may link our imagination to reality. With practice, we may break the barriers of classical thinking and move into a domain which defies the thinking that produced it.


The barrier of classical thinking is as strict and self reinforced as any in nature. Classical thinking not only prevents perceptual expansion beyond classical thinking, but it produces social structures which enforce its limits. Classical thinking is well suited to the tasks of survival and the adaptation of tools. It is poorly suited to the tasks of creativity and ethical growth.


Classical thinking may be characterized as linear and algorithmic. Even when heuristic processes are utilized, the boundaries of perception and the resultant feedback serve only the notions which fit our classical ideas. If we were truly limited to classical thinking we would probably have destroyed our planet by now. Fortunately, the same physical structures which produce classical thinking also produce transcendental thinking.


Transcendental thinking may be characterized as unstructured and dissipative. Instead of coalescing into easily categorized structures, transcendental thoughts tend to be expansive, subjective, and even mysterious. We often reject transcendental thinking as meaningless, trivial, or purely philosophical. It is generally more difficult to integrate transcendental thinking into our everyday lives. It is however, transcendental thinking which is the very core of human creativity and survival.


The easiest way to conceptualize transcendental thinking is to focus on transcendental subjects. These are matters or concepts which have application in both classical and transcendental processes. Truth, beauty, reality, time,     thinking, love, and life each have a quality or nature which is definable in classically rigid and concrete terms and yet can not be dealt with completely in classical modes. If we attach the notion of inspirational to the word beauty, then we must deal with it in a transcendental mode. If we view truth as a process instead of a measurement, then we move towards transcendental thinking. When we sense that reality extends beyond that we commonly call "physical", then we are confronted by transcendental thoughts. Classical love almost always produces transcendental experiences.


Transcendental thoughts are the basis for imagination, inspiration, and revelation. They are the basis for human creativity and spirit. They occur spontaneously within our minds. They often invoke feelings of awe and wonder. In those cases when they move into classical consciousness, they form the basis of most new ideas. As they often produce concepts which conflict with classical ideas, they are a significant source of cognitive dissonance.


We can teach ourselves to produce more transcendental thoughts and to make better use of those which we have. To do such will enhance our creativity and diversify our perceptions. It will also provide us with a "second option" to consider classically. Transcendental thinking is intuitive and easy. Capturing and integrating transcendental thoughts is not. We should not expect to be able to think transcendentally in the same mode or way in which we think classically. Likewise, we must not neglect classical thinking as it remains the linking and application mechanism for transcendental thoughts.


Because we devote 99.9% or more of our thinking time to classical thinking, we should recognize that we need only increase our transcendental thinking slightly to greatly expand its power. Likewise, without increasing our transcendental thinking, we may gain substantially by improving our ability to utilize the resultant thoughts.


The first step is to learn to recognize transcendental thoughts. The most common human experience with such thoughts occurs in two domains. The first we shall term transition state thoughts and the second we know of as day dreaming.


Transition states occur frequently in our minds. The two major transition states which are easily related to are waking and falling asleep. Some examples of other transition states might include:


    When we change our thinking mode(s),

    When we are confronted by dissonant ideas,

    When we are threatened,

    When we feel inspired or awed,

    When we first become bored,


    When we choose to make a transition.


Most humans have had the experience of impulsive or random creative ideas which they didn't write down and later couldn't recall in detail. Many have learned to keep a pad and pencil near their bed to record such thoughts. We often go to sleep with a problem on our mind and wake with an answer. We think without conscious will or direction. As we pursue this further, we will discover that the basis for such thinking is not new or even original. It is truly as natural and intuitive as classical thinking, we simply have not been drilled in its use or application. In fact we have been taught to avoid transition state thoughts (TSTs). This is especially true for DDTs.


Day Dreaming Thoughts (DDTs) are even more recognizable that transition state thoughts. They are characterized by their free flowing nature and their lack of classical "containment". In fact, they are closely related to TSTs as day dreaming is a form of continuous transition. The major difference between TSTs and DDTs is the manner in which they form and the nature of their results.


TSTs tend to be fast, articulated, and pointed. DDTs tend to be slow, vague, and diffused. TSTs form as bubbles rapidly flowing to the surface before bursting. DDTs form as a cloud and diffuse into nothingness. TSTs have immediate, often startling impact. DDTs fade in and out creating a tapestry of loosely linked notions and ideas.


The process for recognizing, holding and then integrating transcendental thoughts is simple, but not easy. The processes for creating and controlling transcendental thoughts is analogous to the same processes for classical thinking. Unfortunately, we are not very articulate in describing how to create and control classical thinking.


As we begin the search for these thoughts within ourselves, we must be cautious in our approach. Classical thinking is at odds with transcendental thinking and we are so practiced at classical thinking that for many, transcendental thoughts are very hard to grasp. You may find that the harder you try to create and hold a transcendental thought, the less likely you are to succeed. Do not assume that this means that transcendental thinking is random, capricious, or accidental. It is no more so than classical thinking. We are in the habit of using classical thinking. Our current environment and perceived needs are better handled by classical thinking. As our environment and perceptions change, so will our requirements for thinking strategies.


Time and practice will prevail. If you are patient and willing, transcendental thinking will become a "second nature". Transcendental thinking compounds itself. Once you begin to recognize and hold transcendental thoughts, those thoughts will begin to build upon themselves. Be persistent.


In continuing essays, we will deal with specific categories of transcendental thinking, details of their nature, and processes for utilizing them.












THE FRAMEWORK OF moral transformation


In order to understand the process of moral transformation, we can break the larger whole into parts and segments. In doing such, we can deal with details of those less complex processes with greater ease, so long as we remember that they are indeed a part of a larger whole and that they interactions of the sub-processes are as important as any single process.


A Basic Structure:


The transformation process and each of its major constituent processes are cyclical and self-feeding they either directly or indirectly build and reinforce themselves. Accordingly, the sub-processes are also interconnected in cyclical and self-feeding ways.


A Basic Process:


The basic transformation process involves three closely tied sub-processes taking place inside a framework of dedication to purpose.



               |                                        |

               |    Intellect              Emotion      |

               |           ----------------             |

               |            \            /              |

               |             \          /               |

               |              \        /                |

               |               \      /                 |

               |                \    /                  |

               |                 \  /                   |

               |                  \/                    |

               |                                        |

               |                 Will                   |

               |                                        |


                         Dedication to Purpose



The basic process is one of generating sufficient will to drive the intellect to direct the emotions to generate will. The intended result is behavior towards purpose.


The Major Supporting Structure:


In order for the processes to accomplish their function, a major supporting structure must be in place: feedback. Feedback is an evaluation or measurement structure which indicates success or failure of process by comparing the resulting behavior against the desired outcome. Without rigid and objective feedback, the transformation processes can not succeed.









In seeking ethical growth or expansion of ethical behavior, we must identify and overcome each of the factors which limit us. As the scientific generalist benefits from expanding the total volume of his or her "sphere" of knowledge and skill (see Garcia), each of us benefits most by improving most the factors which limit us most.


The identification of these factors and their improvement is largely an "intrinsic intellectual" process which is triggered by feedback and cognitive dissonance.




The first factor which limits ethical growth is the failure to recognize the factors which limit growth and the potential for growth itself. Although everyone senses the influence of these factors and often realizes their failure to discipline themselves, they refuse to recognize the degree to which their "weaknesses" are limiting their ethical potential.


To the large extent this is due to the general failure of the culture. Unless the behaviors which are only possible through more advanced discipline are valued and modeled, there is insufficient motivation for many to recognize the need for greater discipline. The farther one moves from the norms of their culture, the greater the need for self recognition of the limits and potentials.


Unless we perceive a reason for discipline, there is generally insufficient will to perpetuate it. I doubt if it is possible to generate this will solely from intellectual rationalization.




We have all been taught that self-discipline is a prerequisite to social acceptance and contribution. Because the impetus for the continued expansion of self-discipline tends to stop once one achieves a minimum level necessary to produce reasonably consistent "legal" behavior, many people stop maturing at an early age. Without continued discipline, one may not achieve self-actualization. Some thresholds in the development of discipline are:


   1. Cooperation over selfishness

   2. Education over entertainment

   3. Contribution over possession

   4. Growth over comfort

   5. Purpose over passion

   6. Commitment over fear


Once the level of self-actualization is attained, one may turn their will to discipline themselves on more abstract domains such as disciplining intellectual processing, perceptions, and autovolition.




When we talk of the unused portion of the human brain, we conceptualize the possibility of becoming "smarter" by "tapping" that potential. That effort and concept is based upon a misunderstanding. The more real and tangible waste occurs in the area of will.



The human brain is difficult to characterize. No matter how much we may want to relate its function to objectified physical interactions, we eventually come to terms with non-objective, non-physical attributes. "Will" is a very general term which is used to describe that manifestation of consciousness which invokes or results in predictive or controlling behavior. We will ourselves to think and to act, and our actions influence our physical surroundings. This "miracle" defies any explanation, but is so fundamental to our nature that we each recognize its

importance to our being.


Ironically, we invest vast amounts of time, energy, and resources in our effort to prolong and improve health which we equate with life while we simultaneously fail to recognize that to self-conscious beings, life is will. We do not value life without will. For many of us, life in a "vegetative state" would be considered worse than death.


We have failed to recognize the nature of our will, its origins, or its potential. If there is an untapped human resource, it's will. Each of us has experienced times of great will. In response to external motivators (danger) or internal desires (desire to win), we have willed ourselves to a higher level. When practiced in physical activities (sports) we find that we can soon develop will which exceeds the capability of our bodies, often producing damaging results. I know of no parallel risk in willing our intellectual mechanisms.


The results of overwilling our intellect are stress and exhaustion. Even when our goal is simple and direct, we may easily overtax ourselves by willing excessive intellectual activity. We may run out of will or we may tire those mechanisms which respond to willed thought.


Thus, the factors which limit our will are the limits of will producing structures and the number and endurance of the mechanisms which are driven by it.


In at least one way, we may equate this to a runner who wishes to run farther faster. By developing more muscles and training those muscles through stressful practice, a runner builds better mechanisms for implementing his or her will. Of course, the runner must also produce the necessary will to drive those muscles despite the pain and exhaustion which the body perceives when stressed greatly. In knowing his limits, a runner paces himself at an optimal speed to achieve his destination.


The runner example is appropriate, but insufficient to explain the willing of intellectual activities. If we limit ourselves to one mechanism for producing the desired outcome, then we tire based upon our conditioning of that mechanism. Our intellectual structures are not as limiting  as our physical structures. Whereas we only have one pair of legs, we have almost unlimited intellectual mechanisms. If we will ourselves to use alternate mechanisms and rest those which have been taxed, we greatly expand our intellectual throughput.


By willing more intellectual mechanisms, we soon discover that our access to will is overtaxed and we simply "run out of gas". We're not tired or stressed, just unable to continue willing thought towards purpose. Our discipline wanes and we daydream or distract ourselves.


This familiar process is so common and natural that we generally fail to relate it to insufficient will. We respond by changing projects or resting until our "will reservoir" refills. Unless we develop new sources of will, there is little reason to expand our intellectual mechanisms because doing such would only drain the reservoir faster.


The processes and mechanisms for expanding will are topics of other essays. Suffice it to say that one of the principle outcomes of ethical growth is an increase in will and the principle methodology for accomplishing such is the elimination of limiting factors.


Intellectual Mechanisms:


There is no minimal level of intellectual potential which underlies ethical growth. However, a broad "multi-channeled" mind offers many opportunities for recognition, perception, and awareness. Ultimately, our creative ability becomes very directly dependent upon our ability to understand and apply conceptual processes to problems.


Our untapped intellectual potential is only made available if we will such and if we actively discipline our thinking process to develop alternative mechanisms. Each of has developed dozens, hundreds, or perhaps thousands of primary channel thinking processes (PCTPs). Our bottom line intelligence is determined by our ability to select the most appropriate PCTP or PCTPs when confronted by a problem.


We tend to develop many PCTPs, but utilize only a few for the vast majority of our needs. We habitually use those which offer workable solutions in the shortest time. We also have available secondary channel thought processes (SCTPs) which we have yet to add to our repertoire. These SCTPs are "hard wired" into our mind mechanism as a structural result of our neural networks. We find them somewhat randomly when confronted by new problematic situations. If none of our PCTPs seem to offer workable solutions and we issue sufficient will, SCTPs may be invoked. Once a SCTP is utilized successfully, our memory catalogs its access pattern and it becomes a PCTP. When confronted by challenging problems, our mind searches its memory for a problem category and recalls the cataloged PCTPs which were utilized for previous solutions.


Although this mechanism is described in more detail elsewhere, for the purposes herein, we need only understand that we may discipline ourselves to seek SCTPs as part of any problem solving situation and to thus add to our catalog of PCTPs. The limiting function is the failure to expand the number of PCTPs by disabling the natural function of mind (We "give up").


Logic & Strategies:


To the extent that "pure logic" is structured into our brains, there is universal acceptance of its basic notions. It is unfortunate that the application of logic to less "pure" situations is so difficult. The methods by which we implement our logic are known as strategies.


We learn strategies as we advance through life's experiences. Since strategies are maintained and administered separately from values and beliefs, it is quite possible to hold and implement strategies which are in conflict with our ethical paradigm. The more successful the strategy has been in meeting our basic needs and providing emotional comfort, the more likely we are to implement it even if it opposes our ethical paradigm. This conflict is the fabled "Angel vs Devil" or conscience struggle which is so common to human experience.



Reason acts as a mediator between our strategies and our ethics paradigm. When both are in accord, reason tends to emphasize implementational details. When they are opposed, reason tends to get re-directed towards rationalization unless we are sufficiently disciplined to surmount the emotional drive which underlies the conflicting strategy.


The limiting factor in our logic and strategies is the failure to discipline our mind to use logic when evaluating strategies. Thus, we create a false logic which may seem very reasonable at the time. This reason is then used to delude us into misbehaving.


Ethical Awareness:


The primary benefit of culture in human ethical advancement is its ability to perpetuate and update ethical awareness. The collection of knowledge which is transpersonal and transcultural serves to challenge and contribute to overall perception and awareness. To the extent that this naturally produces truth, we become more ethically aware.


As we consciously integrate this awareness into our value system (or paradigm), we become more able to rationally direct our behavior towards purpose. The better we grasp the role and operation of ethical systems and moral purpose, the better we integrate awareness and direct our behavior.


As an effect of this awareness, we are able to rationally deduce the steps involved in achieving even higher states of awareness. As become more and more able to predict and control our total environment, we are able to focus more of our will on non-physical aspects of our existence.


When we lack ethical awareness our behaviors become focused upon entertaining, stimulating, and comforting activities. We find purpose in menial and trivial endeavors which are supported by delusions of meaningfulness.


Values & Beliefs:


Those experiences and perceptions which combine to form our values guide us in prioritizing which behaviors or thoughts are most likely to produce ethical outcomes. When we accept as true those things which have no basis in experience or perception, we form a belief. The combination of values and beliefs is our ethical paradigm and is used to structure reasonable responses to external stimuli.


The basic mechanism of value structuring is a sequence of identification, acceptance, and prioritization. We evaluate our experiences in comparison with our expectations based upon social maxims or intrinsic righteousness.


When our ethical paradigm is based upon wrongly perceived or greatly limited perceptions or when unethical social maxims outweigh our intrinsic sense of right and wrong, we have insufficient or misleading values and beliefs to base our reasoning upon.




Our contact with physical reality is based upon direct sensory experience. The collecting, selecting, sorting, and storing of those sensory experiences is neither an automatic nor a quasi-mechanical process. To the contrary, our perceptions are greatly influenced by our expectations, sensitivity, and primary channel thought processes. (Although a background structure for danger response bypasses our perception processes, it is insignificant for this discussion). To an astonishing degree, our perceptions are intermingled with our imaginations and self-images.


To effectuate ethical growth, we must vastly improve the objectivity and the scope of our perceptions. We must learn to separate the sensory experience from the event and to distinguish the sensation from the expectation. Finally, we must block the ego from interjecting its imaginary perceptions into the sensory memory.


With sufficient will, we may greatly alter our non-physical perception and integrate significant new forms of empirical or subjective information into our thinking. We may perceive subtlety, sublimity, and vastly greater scope and depth. When working with more advanced ethical skills in other areas, our perceptions allow us to predict the effects of our behavior over greater reach and time.


If we fail to develop our perceptual skills, then our focus is narrow and short. We become centered on the here-and-now. We make mistakes over time (like polluting our environment) because we fail to perceive the long term effects of our actions. Life becomes a series of many short disassociated events instead of a highly integrated continuum. Perceptual limitations keep us from seeing the truth.


Emotional Control:


The dominant factor which limits the ethical growth of most humans is lack of emotional control. Our deeply seated and highly refined emotional-self works to "protect" us from harm and acts as a will generator. Instead of working to remove or reduce our emotional responses, we want to enhance their positive effects while re-directing the negative effects towards positive behaviors.


Emotions are critical to our will producing centers. We make invoke reasoning as a will producing mechanism, but never with the intense and long lasting results of emotional drives. The problem is simple, we need our emotions, but we pay dearly for their effects. The greatest of the emotions and the one which has the most profound effects is fear. Aside from fright or scare oriented responses, fear is generally very long term and very deeply rooted. Fear of failure and fear of rejection are two major examples of such.


At more advanced ethical levels we still deal with these fears and add several new ones, such as the fear of creative loss and the fear of truth. In some cases, the amount of will required to control these emotional responses may exceed the requirements of all other factors combined. For most, emotions are the cause of perceptive failures, delusions, and reduction of will. (Often, the will required to deal with an emotion exceeds the will generated by the emotion).


Gaining control over one's emotions is largely a perceptual challenge requiring a primary channel thought process which, at first, toggles the emotional center when the first signs appear. In time, one learns to enhance their positive emotions and re-direct the will generated by negative emotions to more positive responses.









It is critical to view these factors as closely interrelated or integrated. To maximize our ethical growth, we must push ahead in all areas and yet we must focus on the "weakest link in the chain", the area which limits us most.


The "train" which takes us to the destination of ethical advancement must be kept on the right track, is driven by the power of human will, and is stalled by the "cars" which have their brakes locked. Once we release the brakes and get the train moving, we can do much to reduce our load and refuel our engine. Once we reach the next station, a brand new engine awaits us.


Measuring Our Progress:


As we overcome our limiting attributes we advance ethically. The signs of such are clear within each of the limiting domains...


Recognition: Those who chose to play the game of life versus the game of pleasure have begun to recognize their ethical potential. To remember our mental state before we made the choice or to observe the behavior of those who've chosen the game of life makes it quite clear when recognition has occurred. The will to read a document such as this may be as good an indication as any that the process is underway.


Discipline: Having more control over our behavior is a clear sign of improved discipline. This change may take many forms which are reflected within each of the limiting areas.


Will: The single best indication of ethical growth through the elimination of limiting factors is an increase in personal will-towards-purpose. Although this increase is often offset by the will needed to control emotions or drive intellectual processes, its greater level is clearly evident to the individual.


Intellectual Mechanisms: The development of new intellectual mechanisms can range from super subtle to outlandishly blatant. In general, this area is most difficult for the individual to recognize and most apparent to others who know the individual well.


Ethical Awareness: Changes in the level of ethical awareness are reflected in new thinking priorities, new behavioral priorities and a drive to seek refinement of this awareness.


Values & Beliefs: A restructuring of one's lifestyle may result from a change in values and beliefs. It may be increasingly difficult for the individual who is growing rapidly to continue behaving in accord with social custom, especially when those customs are unethical or obviously trivial.

Perception: As our perceptions improve, they become more predictive. One's grasp of the totality of the environment and its interconnectedness becomes almost overwhelming. Thinking extends to the longer term effects of actions and behaviors become more affirmative.


Emotional Control: Stable and mature individuals will not demonstrate significant outward manifestations of enhanced emotional control. As the control progress towards re-direction as well as enhancement of positive emotions, clear signs of compassionate behavior will become apparent. Time on task will increase and there will tend to be an increase in sensitivity.


Transformation Levels:


Ethical growth follows a gradient which has no ending point. There are plateaus, and perhaps ridges and valleys along the "trail", but no "heaven" or "hell" as a final destination. Ethical growth has little to do with life and death. Creative individuals understand that life is merely an opportunity to focus will towards purpose in a very physical and direct manner and that the time after life is simply lacking in the same opportunities. We have no way of relating to what opportunities, if any, exist after "life". It is therefore obvious that we should strive to make the most of this opportunity.


Intermediate objectives are described as "transformational" because they produce a "quantum" leap in will and awareness. As we recognize and approach transformational levels of ethical growth, great changes occur in each of the areas described above. The preparation and balancing of them is the key to successful transformation. A failure in preparation and balanced growth within any of the limiting factors may block transformation and produce serious negative side effects.


It is therefore imperative that individuals be encouraged, but neither pushed nor forced towards transformation. Encouragement and assistance is sufficient for those who have chosen the game of life and seek morality.




The problem with ethics is not in definition, but in application. We think that we know what is right and wrong and that we can apply rules when they clearly apply to the problems before us. Unfortunately, our ethics fail us in our daily needs for two simple reasons


1. Rules can not be developed for every situation.


2. We lack the skills necessary to assess situations



I'd like to explain...


We say that we live in a society of laws. Our "rules of engagement" for social interchange and human interaction are highly evolved and extremely formalized. In fact, it is hard to believe that our unwritten rules could possibly outnumber our written laws, guidelines, codes of ethics, and rules, but they clearly do.


Conversely, we constantly rediscover that you can't have a law which covers every circumstance or situation. Fixed rules for ethics are folly and a poor substitute for ethical intelligence. We have sacrificed the aspect of ethics which might allow us to unify our acceptable response to the variety of ethical dilemma. Ethical intelligence has little to do with "IQs" or training in philosophy or theology. In fact, there seems to be an inverse correlation between them.


Ethical intelligence is like "intellect" in that it is more related one's ability to solve meaningful problems than it is to how much one "knows". It is directly associated with the ability to compare one's value system or "paradigm" to a situation and derive appropriate solutions. In this case, a value system is analogous to an intellectual knowledge base and deriving appropriate solutions is tied to choosing behaviors. The skills of ethical intelligence are much like the skills of "mental" intelligence analytical and deductive reasoning, patterning, association and disassociation, perspective, and integration.


The application of ethical intelligence is much like the application of mental intelligence in solving word problems in mathematics. Ethical intelligence was masterfully taught by Plato and applied by Spinoza. Perhaps our general fear or word problems and our lack of understanding of Plato are good indicators of our lack of ethical intelligence.


As a society of individuals, we have been loosing ethical intelligence because of cultural indoctrination and a shift in values. We will only regain our skills if we choose to do such and begin the process of educating those who will control the future.


Our first task is to grasp what we have lost.


We have lost the ability to analyze complex interactions in order to factor out the fundamental ethical principle and then to apply simple ethical principles to formulate appropriate courses of action (responses).


For example, consider the dilemma of "panhandlers". Given the range of character types and perceived sincerity of need, we confront a range of desirable responses. Is there an underlying ethical principle? Can we use this principle to determine a universal course of action for responding to all types of panhandlers?


I hope you will give this some though before you read on.


Before we can agree on an answer to the question, we need to agree that there are few, if any, absolutes in the domain of ethics. We can however provide a universal stratagem which should yield the best result in the widest variety of circumstances. By focusing on such strategies, we avoid rules while gaining simplicity and efficiency in resolving ethical dilemma.


One of the best techniques in deriving ethical strategies is to refocus the issue with a different, but linked ethical issue. In our example, I would choose to ask "between you and the panhandler, who is more likely to make the most ethical use of the money involved?". This question subsumes the question "what is the most ethical use of money?". Fortunately, we don't have to answer this question in detail to answer the previous one.


If we believed that the panhandler would be seriously harmed if we didn't "contribute" or if we believed that they would be ethically enriched by our "donation", then we might have a more serious dilemma. It is highly probable that neither of these would be the case and thus we may reasonably assume based upon a cursory objective evaluation that we are more likely to make ethical use of the money than they.


If we decide that the most ethical use of our money is to contribute to the needy, we clearly have more effective means to facilitate such than giving it to panhandlers. If we seek the truth of the matter, we are likely to resolve that charity in this form is often harmful to the long term ethical behavior of the receiver and we may indeed be doing the wrong thing in our false belief in the "compassion" of giving.


The use of ethical intelligence in resolving an appropriate behavior for this simplified example is identifiable in the following sequence...


  1. Assessment


  2. Analysis


  3. Comparison


  4. Integration





Ethical intelligence is that aspect of thinking which yields the most ethical decisions. As of all types of human intelligence, it is partly intrinsic and largely learned. Distinct from other forms of intelligence, it is mainly self taught.


Its major perquisites are commonly known. They are:


                  1. Perception

                  2. Reasoning

                  3. Will

                  4. Purpose





Acute sensory awareness contributes equally to all forms of intelligence and as the first stage of perception becomes an essential building block for ethical intelligence. The single most significant contributions are in the areas of beauty and communication.


The linkage between perception and reasoning is well established. Ethical intelligence requires an openness and breadth of perception that is uncommon. An "open mind" is just the first step. "Probing" and "searching" must follow. These lead to the "grasping" level which culminates the perceptual gradient.





Reasoning is impossible to define and impossible to misunderstand. It is the fundamental process of human consciousness. If we don't understand reasoning, we are not human. On the other hand, the intrinsic and natural reasoning which is common is accentuated by "tuned" or "harmonic" reasoning which must be learned and practiced. We can assess this learned reasoning with such descriptors as analytical and deductive logic, but such attempts fall short of elucidating the real nature of ethical reasoning.


Ethical reasoning has two primary functions, to build and maintain the individual's values paradigm and to assess perceptions and outcomes in accordance with that paradigm. The specific skills and methods used to accomplish this formidable task is the larger part of what self taught ethical intelligence is about.







The will to act is central to human life. It is the focus, the pivot, and the force which gives us life. But that is not enough. It is intrinsic to human nature to have excessive will will that must be focused towards ethical ends.


One of the most productive uses of our natural excessive will and the purposeful will that we may generate through conscious effort is to drive our intelligence. The more complex the intelligence, the greater the demands. Ethical problems tend to be very complex and thus require vast amounts of will and energy to resolve intelligently.


To support and bolster our ethical intelligence, we need to devise mechanisms and structures which enhance, enlarge and focus our will.




Energy which is neither directed nor committed is wasted. Energy which is channeled toward ends which lack ethical purpose invariably leads toward destruction. There can be no more ethical intelligence than there is ethical purpose to focus it. Ethical purpose is the catalyst of ethical intelligence.


Purpose is learned. We have an intrinsic sense of ethical purpose, but it is always dominated by the acculturated purposes of our peers. The best application of ethical intelligence is to refine and expand our awareness of ethical purpose. This in turn catalyzes greater ethical intelligence.




One can learn ethical intelligence through patterning and modeling, but it is best to learn through introspection. Such introspection requires two important mechanisms to produce meaningful results discipline and feedback.


Self learning is inherently self disciplined and generally self motivated. But the type of self discipline generally associated with self learning is not enough. We must rationally and willfully develop discipline in three key areas:


              1. Emotional Control

              2. Perceptive openness

              3. Self assessment




** Compare transformation to phase transition in condensed matter .... more energy in to overcome phase transition.


A Challenge to the Species






Why Bother?


Finding the motivation for any undertaking is the result of some combiantion of the following...


  1. Assessment of the reason for doing such

  2. Probability of contribution towards purpose

  3. Fulfillment of some personal need

  4. Lack of better things to do


Moral Transformation is a requirement for survival. As a species, we MUST grow and advance. Failure to do such has only one possible outcome, we die.





In as much as the answer seems obvious to me, I am frequently reminded that what is obvious to some is obscure to others