[Discipline][Love I][Love II][Religion][Grace I][Grace II]
Problems and Pain
Life is difficult.
This is a great truth, one of the greatest. It is so, for once we truly recognize it, we can transcend it. Once we accept this, the fact that this is so no longer matters.
In as far as this is not understood life indeed becomes a burden where the enormity of one’s personal problems can seem insurmountable. In fact, life is a series of problems that we can moan about, or choose to solve.
Problem solving is made difficult by the pain evoked and the effort that is required. Yet in the very process of meeting and solving problems, life has its meaning. Problems are the cutting edge that distinguishes between success and failure. They bring forth our courage and our wisdom. It is only because of our problems that we grow spiritually and mentally.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those things that hurt, instruct”. This is why problems should be welcomed and not ignored.
To solve life’s problems requires discipline. It is a means of experiencing the pain of problems constructively.
When we teach others and ourselves discipline, we are teaching them and ourselves how to suffer and also how to grow.
The techniques of suffering – these means of experiencing the pain of problems constructively – are: delaying gratification, acceptance of responsibility, dedication to truth, and balancing.
The problem does not lie in the complexity of these tools, but in the will to use them, for they are tools with which pain is confronted rather than avoided, and if one seeks to avoid legitimate suffering, then one will avoid the use of these tools.
The will to use them, being love.
Delaying gratification is a process of scheduling the pain and pleasure of life in such a way as to enhance the pleasure by meeting and experiencing the pain first and getting it over with.
In doing so, to live freer more contented lives without the burden of knowing that we still have painful unfinished business to attend to.
It is the only decent way of living. However for some reason or other, a significant minority never learn this ability.
Why is this so? Why do a majority develop such a capacity to delay gratification while a substantial minority fail?
The answer is not absolutely scientifically known, and that there may be a genetic component, but that most signs clearly point to the quality of parenting as the primary determinant.
Parents frequently serve as unsatisfactory role models for their children.
Since one does not have the benefit of comparison when one is young, parents become godlike figures in the eyes of a child.
If a child sees his parents day in and day out behaving with self-discipline, restraint, dignity and a capacity to order their own lives, then the child will come to feel in the deepest fibre of his being, that this is the way to live.
If the child witnesses the contrary, that becomes the supreme example to live his own life.
Though, even more important than role modelling is love. For even from chaotic disordered homes with genuine love can come self-disciplined children. And not infrequently parents who lead lives of strict orderliness and decorum, but yet lack love, send children into the world who are as undisciplined and destructive and disorganized as any child from a chaotic home.
Ultimately love is everything. When we love something it is of value to us. And when something is of value to us we spend time with it—time enjoying it and taking care of it. Good discipline requires time—time to observe and understand, time to give the most appropriate response to the needs of our children.
The feeling of being valuable is essential for mental health and is the cornerstone of self-discipline. When one considers oneself as valuable one will care for oneself in all ways that are necessary. Self-discipline is self-caring and is a direct product of parental love.
Unfortunately such a conviction must be gained in childhood and is extremely difficult to acquire during adulthood.
Many people simply do not take the time to solve many of life’s intellectual, social or spiritual problems.
And the reason is due to a defective approach to problem solving that is even more primitive and more destructive than inadequate attempts to find instant solutions. It is the hope that problems will go away on their own accord.
Problems do not go away. They must be worked through or else remain forever a barrier to the growth and development of the spirit.
The inclination to delay problems is a simple manifestation of an unwillingness to delay gratification. It is because confronting problems are painful.
And to willingly confront a problem early, before we are to confront it by circumstances, requires we put aside something pleasant or less painful for something painful. It is choosing to suffer now for the hope of future gratification and that future suffering will not be necessary.
We can only solve life’s problems by solving them.
This is because we must accept responsibility for a problem before we can solve it. We cannot solve it by saying “it’s not mine” with the hope that somebody else will do it for us.
One can only solve a problem by saying “it’s my problem and it’s up to me to solve it,” instead of pointing the finger at other people or social circumstances beyond one’s control by saying “It’s not really my personal problem”.
Neuroses and Character Disorder
These two conditions are disorders of responsibility. Neurotics assuming too much personal responsibility; the person with a character disorder, too little or no personal responsibility.
When neurotics are in conflict with the world, they automatically assume that they are at fault. The opposite applies to individuals with character disorder.
Few of us can escape being neurotic or character disordered. The reason for this is that the problem of distinguishing what we are responsible for is one of the greatest problems of human existence. It is never completely solved.
For the entirety of our lives we must continually assess and reassess where our responsibilities lie in the ever-changing course of events. Nor is this assessment and reassessment painless.
To perform either process adequately and conscientiously, we must posses a willingness and the capacity to suffer continual self-examination.
This capacity or willingness is not inherent in any of us. It is only through a vast amount of experience and a lengthy maturation that we gain the capacity to see the world and our place in it realistically, and thus are enabled to realistically assess our responsibilities for our world and ourselves.
Almost all of us from time to time seek to avoid – in ways that can be quite subtle – the pain of assuming responsibility for our own problems.
The difficulty we have in accepting responsibility for our behaviour lies in the desire to avoid the pain of the consequences of that behaviour.
By avoiding the pain associated with the consequences of the behaviour many unwittingly seek other people to assume control over their lives. In this way attempting to escape from the potential pain of freedom.
To turn this around, one must learn that the entirety of one’s adult life is a series of personal choices and decisions. If they can accept this totally, then they become free people.
To the extent that they do not accept this, they will forever feel themselves victims.
Dedication to the truth is a discipline that is constantly required to deal with the pain of problem solving in order to be healthy and for our spirits to grow.
The more clearly we see the reality of the world, the better equipped we therefore are to deal with it.
While the less clearly we see the reality of the world – the more we are befuddled by falsehood, misperceptions and illusions – the less able we will be to determine correct courses of action and make wise decisions.
Our reality is like a map with which to negotiate the terrain of life. If the map is true and accurate, we will generally know where we are. And if we have decided where we want to go, we will generally know how to get there.
However if the map is false and inaccurate, we generally will be lost.
While this is obvious, it is something that most people to a greater or lesser degree choose to ignore.
They ignore it because our route to reality is not easy. First of all, we are not born with our maps and the making requires effort. By the end of middle age, most people have given up the effort. They feel certain that their maps are a complete course, is correct (indeed, even sacrosanct), and are not interested in new information.
Only a relative few continue until death exploring the mystery of reality, ever enlarging and refining and redefining their understanding of the world and what is true.
The biggest problem with map making is that, if our maps are to be accurate, we have to continually revise them. The world itself is constantly changing while the process of making revisions is painful, sometimes excruciatingly so.
And herein lies the major source of many of the ills of mankind. When confronted with a radically new view, many resist and often vociferously crusade against it denouncing it as evil. Such a person might spend more energy defending an outmoded view of the world than that required to revise and correct an outdated view.
Transference: The Outdated Map
The process of active clinging to an outmoded view of reality is the basis for much mental illness. Psychiatrists refer to it as transference.
Roughly put: transference is the set of ways of perceiving and responding to the world which is developed in childhood and which is usually entirely appropriate to the childhood environment, but which are inappropriately transferred into the adult environment.
To avoid or minimize transference, we need to revise our maps more readily. Usually, truth or reality is avoided when it is painful. We can revise our maps only when we have the discipline to overcome that pain.
To have such discipline, we must be totally dedicated to the truth. That is to say that we must always hold truth, as best we can determine it, to be more important, more vital to our self-interest, than our immediate comfort.
Conversely, we must always consider our personal discomfort relatively unimportant and, indeed even welcome it in the service of the search of truth. Mental health is an ongoing process of dedication to reality at all costs.
What does a life of total dedication to the truth mean?
It means, first of all, a life of continuous and never-ending stringent self-examination. We know the world only through our relationship to it. Therefore, to know the world, we must not only examine it but we must simultaneously examine the examiner. The life of wisdom must be a life of contemplation combined with action.
A life of total dedication to the truth means a life of willingness to be challenged. The only way that we can be certain that our map of reality is valid is to expose it to the criticism and challenge of other mapmakers. Otherwise we live in a closed system.
Yet, because of the pain inherent in the process of revising our map of reality, we mostly seek to avoid or ward off any challenges to its validity.
The reason people lie is to avoid the pain of challenge and its consequences. Insofar as the nature of the challenge is legitimate, lying is an attempt to circumvent legitimate suffering and hence is productive of mental illness.
The tendency to avoid challenge is so omnipresent in human beings that it can properly be considered a characteristic of human nature. But calling it natural does not mean it is essential or beneficial or unchangeable behaviour. Indeed, all self-discipline might be defined as teaching ourselves to do the unnatural.
Another characteristic of human nature – perhaps the one that makes us most human – is our capacity to do the unnatural, to transcend and hence transform our own nature.
For individuals to be open to challenge, it is necessary that their maps of reality be truly open for inspection. A life of total dedication to the truth means, therefore, a life of total honesty. It means a continuous and never-ending process of self-monitoring to assure that our communications – not only the words that we say but also the way we say them – invariably reflect as accurately as humanly possible the truth or reality as we know it to be.
White lying is considered socially acceptable in many of our relationships because “we don’t want to hurt people’s feelings”. Yet we bemoan the fact that our social relationships are generally superficial.
Sometimes though, the expression of opinions, feelings, ideas and even knowledge must be suppressed from time to time in some circumstances of human interaction. What rules can we follow if one is dedicated to the truth?
First, never speak falsehood.
Second, bear in mind that the act of withholding the truth is always potentially a lie, and that in each instance in which the truth is withheld a significant moral decision is required.
Third, the decision to withhold the truth should never be based on personal needs, such as a need for power, a need to be liked or a need to protect one’s map from challenge.
Fourth, and conversely, the decision to withhold the truth must always be based entirely upon the needs of the person or people from whom the truth is being withheld.
Fifth, the assessment of another’s needs is an act of responsibility which is so complex it can only be executed wisely when one operates with genuine love for the other.
Sixth, the primary factor in the assessment of another’s needs is the assessment of that person’s capacity to utilize the truth for his or her own spiritual growth.
Finally, in assessing the capacity of another to utilize the truth for personal spiritual growth, it should be borne in mind that our tendency is generally to underestimate rather than overestimate this capacity.
All this might seem like an extraordinary task, impossible to ever perfectly complete, a chronic and never-ending burden, a real drag.
And it is indeed a never-ending burden of self-discipline, which is why most people opt for a life of very limited honesty and openness and relative closed-ness, hiding themselves and their maps from the world.
It is easier that way. Yet the reward of the difficult life of honesty and dedication to the truth are more commensurate with the demands.
By the fact that their maps are continually being challenged, open people are continually growing people. Through their openness they can establish and maintain intimate relationships far more effectively than closed people.
Because they never speak falsely they can be secure and proud in the knowledge that they have done nothing to contribute to the confusion of the world, but have served as sources of illumination and clarification.
They are totally free to be, not burdened by the need to hide. They do not have to slink around in the shadows. They do not have to construct new lies to hide old ones. They do not waste any effort covering tracks or maintaining disguises.
And ultimately they find that the energy required for the self-discipline of honesty is far less than the energy required for secretiveness.
By their openness, people dedicated to the truth live in the open, and through the exercise of their courage to live in the open, they become free from fear.
To a greater or lesser degree, all people suffer from inadequacies of their flexible response systems. The tendency for instance is to act either too angrily or with too much restraint, or they may either be too generous or not generous at all, as if the response had already been hardwired in their brain.
Balancing is the discipline that gives us the flexibility necessary for successful living in all spheres of activity.
The essence of this discipline is giving up. In order to negotiate the twists and corners of our lives, we must continually give up parts of ourselves. The only alternative to this giving up is not to travel at all on the journey of life.
Most people choose this alternative and elect not to continue with their life journeys – to stop short by some distance – in order to avoid the pain of giving up parts of themselves.
In its major forms, giving up is the most painful of human experiences. The giving up of personality traits, well-established patterns of behaviour, and even whole lifestyles, are major forms of giving up that are required if one is to travel very far on the journey of life.
Inasmuch as giving up or loss of the old self is an integral part of the process of mental and spiritual growth, depression is a normal and basically healthy phenomenon.
It becomes abnormal or unhealthy only when something interferes with the giving-up process, with the result that the depression is prolonged and cannot be resolved by its completion.
Because people are not consciously willing or ready to recognize that the “old self” and “the way things used to be” is outdated, they are not aware that their depression is signalling that major change is required for successful and evolutionary adaptation.
Many “crises”, or critical stages of development in life – such as the “mid-life crisis” – occur naturally. What makes crises of these transition periods in the life cycle – that is, problematic and painful – is that in successfully working our way through them we must give up cherished notions and old ways of doing and looking at things.
Many people are either unwilling or unable to suffer the pain of giving up the outgrown which needs to be forsaken. Consequently, they cling, often forever, to their old patterns of thinking and behaving, thus failing to negotiate any crisis, to truly grow up, and to experience the joyful sense of rebirth that accompanies the successful transition into greater maturity.
It may seem the ultimate requirement – to give up one’s self and one’s life – representing a kind of cruelty on the part of God or fate, which makes our existence a sort of bad joke and which can never be completely accepted.
This is particularly so in present-day western culture, in which the self is held sacred and death is considered an unspeakable insult.
Yet the opposite is the reality. It is in giving up of self that human beings find the most ecstatic and lasting, solid, durable joy of life. And it is death that provides life with all its meaning. The secret is the central wisdom of religion.
The discipline of Bracketing – balancing the need for stability and assertion of the self with the need for new knowledge and greater understanding by giving up the self, putting oneself aside – illustrates the most consequential fact of giving up and of discipline in general: namely, that for all that is given up even more is gained.
Self-discipline is a self-enlarging process.
The pain of giving up is the pain of death, but death of the old is the birth of the new. For us to develop a new and better idea, concept, theory or understanding means that an old idea, concept, theory or understanding must die.
It is clear that the further that one travels on the journey of life, the more births one will experience, and therefore, the more deaths – the more joy and the more pain.
Is it then possible to spiritually evolve to a level of consciousness at which the pain of living is at least diminished?
The answer is yes and no.
Yes because once suffering is completely accepted, it ceases in a sense to be suffering.
It is also yes because the unceasing practice of discipline leads to mastery, and the spiritually evolved person is masterful in the same sense that the adult is masterful in relation to the child. Matters that cause great problems for the child and cause it great pain may be of no consequence to the adult at all.
Finally, the answer is yes because the spiritually evolved individual is an extraordinarily loving individual, and with his or her extraordinary love comes extraordinary joy.
The answer is no, however, because there is a vacuum of competence in the world that must be filled. In a world crying out in desperate need for competence, an extraordinary competent and loving person can no more withhold his or her competence than such a person can deny food to a hungry infant.
Spiritually evolved people, by virtue of their discipline, mastery and love, are people of extraordinary competence, and in their competence they are called on to serve the world, and in their love they answer the call.
They are inevitably, therefore, people of great power, although the world may generally behold them as quite ordinary people. It is because more often than not they will exercise their power in quiet or even hidden ways.
Nonetheless, exercise power they do, and in this exercise they suffer greatly, even dreadfully. For to exercise power is to make decisions, and the process of making decisions with total awareness is often infinitely more painful than making decisions with limited or blunted awareness.
Decisions affecting the lives of others must always be made. The best decision-makers are those who are willing to suffer most over their decisions but still retain their ability to be decisive.
One measure – and perhaps the best measure – of a person’s greatness therefore, is the capacity for suffering.
This, then, is the paradox.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
podunkmarte
TheBadScot
Frank Apisa
ordinaryjoe
Jan Sand
Drewonimo
Salon.com
Comments
These are lifelong lessons Newton and each of us will be lucky to achieve a majority of them by the time we leave this earth.
denese
A fine encapsulation indeed. A profoundly moral work, in times where morality is up for grabs. It will resonate for those ears it is meant for....
Jim.
much more later....
Thanks James. About it being profoundly moral, that always has other connotation—usually associated with self righteousness, being patronizing and sermonizing, which the book is not about. It’s good old back to basics stuff which we’ve lost along the long and winding road of life. Good to take them to heart, and see where a little mental tweaking may be needed. I’m about to answer your gestalten rant in Be With the Storms. Don’t know whether I’d be able to fit it in, but will try.
Let me get back to logos mode, and first take on James on a previous input. Some powerful words, but I have a few issues/comments.
Firstly, I generally agree with your view “Neurosis basically is a blocking of the energy of the organism half of the field we live in... no... the field we are.... the organism/ environment field. So, yes, it is a separation of the organism from the whole reality the organism participates in, flows into, IS...”
For me that is crucial, we are born completely connected to this field, we are one with all reality, and we cannot distinguish our self from all else, we are in a cosmic union, the ultimate nonduel state, Nirvana, but we are not conscious of self. At birth there is no ego, but as we become more competent and confident, we begin to develop a greater and greater ego. The thing is, this ego still does not perceive separation, all else and itself are one, its emotions and the emotions of everyone else, is yet its own, but it is all important, all else serves it. This is the Narcistic phase of childhood development, and comes to a head with the terrible twos. A very important and healthy stage of childhood development which should not be repressed.
This though, is where the problems start for the “omnipotent” youngster as it begins to perceives the limitations of its perceived power to control the environment. Gradually the narcissistic infant begins to realize the sickening, and becomes increasingly separated and unsure of its place in the greater universal scheme. This is a very important development stage, Neurotic stage. Becoming a neurotic teenager therefore is a very important developmental stage out of narcissism, and those who fail to make this transition invariably may become narcissistic adults, and in the extreme case, psychopaths. Interestingly there are two completely divergent ways the pathology develops, the one being because of extreme abuse, the other being extreme spoiling of the child where their anarchistic terrible two year old ego were allowed to flourish, and not brought to a realistic and manageable size.
Thus the separation of the organism is a vital pathway to psychological development. One of the primary aspects of neurosis, guilt, being the important early indicators of an ability to develop a mature conscience. In doing so, that one once again become aligned to the environmental field, but as a healthy mature and powerful ego that contributes to the field, and not in opposition to it. Others neurotic conditions such as self consciousness, allows such an individual to have an appropriate sense of self caring that they may nurture and develop their physical aspects that they may become thriving and vital young adults equipped with the best tools to ensure survival in a oftentimes harsh and unforgiving world.
The interesting thing is that this state of neurosis or insecurity remains for a very long time, oftentimes for life. The ideal though is that we outgrow it and find a meaningful alignment with the organism/ environment field, but as a unique and thriving individual. The reason many do not get to this ideal is that many seek strategies to avoid existential guilt, so to avoid taking responsibility for actions one were responsible for. Usually men are reared to become this way, conscienceless, they are taught to be hard headed, not to feel their emotions, and so not capable of any true remorse or compassion. The other is that one perpetuates in one’s neurosis, usually when one incorporates a fear-based religious belief, and one’s sense of right and wrong comes from the fear mongering dictates of the monster one has nurtured in one’s head. This false sense therefore perpetuates neurosis as it becomes a demon lurking in the murky subterranean depths of our psyche – see The Enforcer and The Vortex.
The latter brings us to the issue of conscience.
In the above you said “what we call ‘conscience’ is nonsense. It is an energy dynamic. If you get away with something, you feel good. If you get caught, your conscience scolds you. Why? Cuz your anger at those who caught you is turned on yourself. Build your mighty moral edifices all you want. It is all about being caught. Of course, the concept of "caught" is a very complex one. I suppose you could "catch" yourself...”
Thus you are saying that conscience is not an intrinsic part of our human beingness, and rather develops in response to what we get away with, a survivalist mechanics of sorts. This is correct in one way in that we can nurture a child’s ability to develop conscience by indeed inculcating in them a moral compass, largely through the process of punishment and reward.
However I maintain that there is a deeper aspect to ourselves that we can refer to as conscience, or higher truth, or Truth. I’ve explained this in Paradox Lost and Found, the follow up book to Understanding Existence which explore the fundamentals of time and space—even delving into and explaining synchronicity(refer to left menu for link) .
I cannot engage on that discussion as it will take too much time, however in the beginning you alluded to an “organism/environment field”. In Paradox Lost and Found I indicated that this is the deepest aspect of our reality, and that its fundamental nature is, that it seeks integration, in other words, Truth, or if you will, conscience. It also is the driver of complex evolution and that it is not a mere survival of the fittest random mechanical process.
The thing is, how can I prove that that such a thing as a Truth seeking field exists?
Not definitively, but there are enough circumstantial evidence to support such a premise. Perhaps the best place to start is that their indeed is a function apparatus such as a lie detector. Basically what it tells us is that we have a biological response to falsehood, it being an anxiety response which is detectable using a number of biosensors. What however is most remarkable is that in numerous scientific studies since 1974, it was conclusively shown that there is no deviation in the accuracy of the tests when applied to measuring the deceit of psychopaths—individuals who are pathologically deceptive and apparently not capable of guilt or remorse, and who have extremely low levels of anxiety. In fact there is no difference in the capacity to detect deceit between a psychopath and one suffering from an anxiety disorder either. And moreover, in a doctoral study by David L. Hammond, it was found that the accuracy for psychopaths were higher than a normal control group.
What does this point to?
It simply suggests that, even for those who have no apparent cognitive regard for truth such as psychopaths, there nonetheless is a conclusive biological (or unconscious) imperative yet capable of discerning truth which responds in a biologically predetermined way to any form of deception. This in the very least shows our biology is perhaps programmed in this way. And perhaps furthermore, if one can align one’s actions towards this in-built Truth field – in other words, to be in integrity – may in fact be beneficial on a cellular level as well. Or as you indicated, when we are out of integrity there is “a separation of the organism from the whole reality the organism participates in, flows into, IS”.
Phew, I’ll leave it there for now.
Your theory is true, anyway. We both know it. I am really intrigued by the way you equate "truth" (that much studied concept!) with "integration. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realize you have given me a most excellent ....little gem to mull. On e of your pearls can usually change my entire paradigm! Well, no, that's not accurate: enrich it. For we are operating with the same paradigm here, just express it differently....more proof for your truth=integration idea....
Truth, then, is sought. Not just mentally. Biologically. On that level, it is certainly not "syllogistic truth"...though I do remember Hegel going on at length (most incomprehensibly to me, at the time...) about how syllogisms are the key to understanding alot. And Whitehead actually names "propositions" of all damn things as "lures for feelings".Not emotional feelings, but ....generic prehensions...Fascinating....you have given me insight into two of my favorite philosophers which I shall use to re-consider them.
Now, how does James' Pragmatism relate? That theory of truth always rubbed me the wrong way, yet simultaneously attracted me....
Re. Conscience. I guess what I am insulting is the popular notion of it as some kind of pristine little moral compass given out at birth. I always disliked the idea that it was something other than my own. I believe I am a very "moral" man...moral in the good sense, again not the popular....and I still have what others would call "lapses". I think what I am trying to say is that there is no "absolute" code of ethics, like a little book given at birth...or, modernly....one of those blasted silly-con chips.....e.g. "rule 4567....when you see a dollar bill on the street, what do you do..."
Energy fields must have laws. Laws are laws of nature. We are natural. Nature is not pretty flowers and photosynthesis and the carbon cycle only. It includes us, and so it is very complex and sophisticated, as well as "red in tooth & claw".
I like the metaphor of "openness" and "closed-ness". Very Bergsonian. And Gestalt-ian. The flow is to contacted, not restricted. You could almost build an ethics around "open" and "closed", hm? Define sin as restriction of energy, in oneself or others...if you were so inclined...
Our beautiful comrade A. is off on a most secret misssion, I hear...we lumps---- thee, me & our mad poet-disciple-comrade-brother Jimenace---- are pretty sad & lonesome w/o her electic erotic pt of view , eh? I hear she is in Rumania, looking for Dracula's mother....hm
Jim, in Logos himself , why not...
PeeCe,
Dj
Here's a question for you re. the Lie Detector Stuff:
I asssume the lie detectors are monitoring the person regarding questions of FACT...like , "did you steal this loaf of bread, mr. le miserable-ee..."....
What if you go to more....abstract questions of right & wrong, such as, "is it wrong to steal?" How do you propose the Body knows the answer to a question like that?
Could it be: we must concentrate not just on the body per se, but the whole organism, a a moral/emotional unit? hm...
jim
See, the lie detector test would be able to detect whether you answered truthfully from your own perspective, and that perception had been nurtured by the respective microcosm in which your humanity evolved, and thus right versus wrong would be different for any individual. So for instance the question “did you cheat on your partner?” is very different from “is having sex with someone else while in a relationship a acceptable thing to do?”, and is dependent on the worldview that person was brought up in. See, society largely dictates our perceptions of right or wrong, primarily through reward and punishment. This primitive sense of what is right or wrong which is governed by the dictates of our society then is our morality. So for instance in some cultures it is a great insult not to accept an offer to sleep with your guest’s wife, while it is an anathema to others. My president has four wives for instance. I don’t have a moral issue with that, albeit that I think it’s regrettable as it also is not the common practice anymore in his culture either. It certainly is not a value system I subscribe to as I believe in the essential equality of men and woman, and that a woman with this worldview would find it highly undignified. Not so for some woman from his culture, it appears.
In any event, it is nonetheless incredibly significant that our biology’s responds to truth and deception, whatever our morality may actually be.
Now, what about the issue of conscience?
I think the issue of conscience and compassion are largely related. Conscience does not preclude lying as this may very well be required, and thus truth is not an essential element. It relates to a far greater quality, that one’s actions contribute to the larger collective good. So for instance one’s conscience would dictate that one does not take what is not one’s own, or that one hands back what is not one’s own possessions if one finds a lost item, that is simply because it is not one’s own but somebody else's. The difference between guilt and conscience then, is that conscience is preventative, preemptive guilt if one likes, and thus obviates the requirement of guilt. Guilt being the primitive conscience, or the evidence of the seed of a mature conscience. All these having been discussed on the issue of discipline, and thus conscience of necessity required discipline, to indeed at times act against one’s own best interest for the collective good of the whole-a quality that is sorely lacking in the light of the current economic crisis.
The difference, therefore, being that one acts proactively, in other words that we suffer for what we can call a higher Truth, a truth beyond mere programmed right or wrong, but that we respond to a create inner sense of truth, or higher moral compass. In other words, we are responding to a capacity that allows our consciousness to expand beyond limited self interest. It allows us to transcend ourselves into a greater world beyond our insular neediness, to become more than a mere bag of flesh and bones that eventually will whither away to become the dust we are essentially made of.
See, the lie detector merely provides prima facie evidence that there is an intrinsic response to truth, whatever it may actually be. Conscience I believe is a collective impulse that over the many millennia has driven humanity to ever higher and higher levels of being, instead of fizzling out as mere self centered wanton beasts, as we now appear intent to do.