JA4.1. In all actions always choose the solution that is opposite to the line of ...
#1
@ Dr. Ing. Jan Pająk

JA4.1. In all actions always choose the solution that is opposite to the line of the least intellectual resistance

As this is explained in subsection JA1, a major problem with the moral field is that similarly to the gravity field it remains completely invisible to our eyes. The course of it is disclosed only by the set of temporary circumstances, which surround a given our activity. Therefore, not in all situations it is exactly clear, in which exactly direction this field is rising, and in which direction it is descending down. After all, not all circumstances that surround the situation that we are in, are always known to us. To make it even worse, the configuration of the moral field is dynamically changing, following the momentary outcomes of human activities and intensions. Therefore, before we learn how to climb upwards in the moral field, we first need to learn how to recognize, in which exactly direction is this "upwards". Fortunately, our natural reactions reveal the direction in which it raises, thus by utilizing these reactions totalizm managed to work out first indicators as to where this "upward" direction lies.
Totalizm discovered that "upward" in the moral field always lies in the direction, which is opposite to the so-called "line of the least intellectual resistance". This means that "upward" in the moral field always lies in the direction, which coincides with the so-called "line of the greatest intellectual effort". Because the line of the greatest intellectual effort is simply an extension in the opposite direction of that line of the least intellectual resistance, it is quite easy to find. In order to establish where it goes, it is sufficient to find out, what our natural impulse asks us to do along the line of the least intellectual resistance, and then simply we need to logically deduce, what would be our action, if we do the exact reversal of whatever this line of the least intellectual resistance asked us to do. In a similar way we could determine the direction downward in the moral field. This "downward" always lies in the direction, which coincides with this "line of the least intellectual resistance", and is opposite to the direction which represents an extension of that line of the least intellectual resistance, means opposite to the "line of the highest intellectual effort".
Totalizm find out also that human nature includes build-in mechanisms, which in every situation indicate to us firstly the line of action, which always coincides with the line of the least resistance that dominates a given situation. These build-in mechanisms are similar to that one, which in mountains tempts us to effortlessly go downhill according to the action of gravity field, instead of laboriously climb upwards. Therefore, after we involuntarily realize what this line of the least resistance is, we can deduct logically from it, which direction lies "uphill in the moral field". However, we must be very cautious with the use of this finding. We must remember that according to totalizm almost every human activity includes three different components, namely (1) intellectual, (2) physical, and (3) feelings. These three components actually represent three basic dimensions of totaliztic mechanics - see subsection JE3. In turn each one of these three components has its own line of the least resistance. But the direction uphill in the moral field is coinciding only with the single line of the highest "intellectual effort" (and opposite to the "line of the least intellectual resistance"), not with a line of "physical effort", or "emotional effort".
(This is similarly as the direction "uphill" in the gravity field is always coinciding only with the coordinate "height" of the physical three-dimensional space, and is NOT coinciding with the remaining two coordinates of this space, means “width” or “thickness”.) Fortunately, in the moral field the line of the highest intellectual effort is always perpendicular to the line of the highest physical effort, while the third line of the highest emotional effort is always perpendicular to the previous two. Similarly is with the extensions of these lines in opposite directions. The line of the least intellectual resistance is always perpendicular to the line of the least physical resistance, and to these two still is perpendicular the third line of the least emotional resistance. All three lines (i.e. intellectual, physical, and emotional), for moral phenomena are forming three basic coordinates of the moral space, which are equivalents of three basic axes of the three-dimensional physical space, i.e. height, width, and thickness. A part of information on this topic was already presented in subsection JA1. The line of the least intellectual resistance could be defined as "the path of solving a specific situation, which in given circumstances requires from us the least mental effort to work out how to implement it". This intellectual line significantly differs from the line of the least physical resistance, which is utilised by untamed nature. The line of the least physical resistance can be defined as "the path which to be followed requires the least physical effort". Finally these two must be distinguished from the third line of the least emotional resistance, which can be defined as "the behaviour in which a doer invests in feelings the smallest possible emotional contribution".
It should also be remembered, that natural human impulses always are indicating only the lines of the least resistance, not the lines of the highest effort. But on the basis of the lines of the least resistance, our logic is able to determine the extensions of these lines in opposite directions. These extensions are called lines of the highest effort. We always find them practically through the logical deduction of actions, which are exactly opposite to actions indicated by the lines of the least resistance.
In order to provide here an example, which explains differences between these three lines, let us say that we are in a room with someone, and this someone offends us. The line of the least intellectual resistance would be to leave the room slamming the door. The line of the least emotional resistance would be to hit this person or to shoot him or her. In turn the line of the least physical resistance would be to faint, or to drop down to the floor, so that we would not need to do any physical effort - neither the effort of hitting, or walking out. The real-life situations, in which the "upward" direction of the moral field can be discovered the most easily, are all situations, in which the outcomes of our activities directly affect other people, without steering strong emotions in them. This is because in all such situations involving other people (but no feelings), the lines of the least physical and emotional resistance seem to somehow disappear, and the only visible becomes the line of the least intellectual resistance.
People most frequently confuse two out of three of these lines, i.e. confuse the intellectual line with a physical line. Sometimes they additionally confuse with them this third emotional line. Therefore, life situations to be solved most safely with use of the line of the least intellectual resistance, are these, when people are direct receivers of our actions, and when situations do NOT induce strong feelings. Then we usually do not notice that three lines of the least resistance do exist (i.e. intellectual, physical, and emotional), and we see only the intellectual line. When our actions interact e.g. exclusively with inanimate objects, then the line of the least physical resistance becomes more obvious from the intellectual one, even if these actions do not induce strong feelings in us. Practically this means that in situations, when the effects of our actions are going to affect only ourselves, or affect only inanimate objects, or going to concern something that induces strong feelings, the direction "uphill" in the moral field is not so clear or so easy to determine. The reason is that we then start to confuse the physical line, or the emotional line, for the intellectual one. In turn the ascending slope of the moral field does NOT lie opposite to the line of the least PHYSICAL or EMOTIONAL resistance, and actually is exactly perpendicular to these two lines. For example, when we dig a trench, then for circumstances not involving other people nor feelings, it clearly turns out that the use of a bulldozer is lying more upwards in the moral field, then the use of a shovel. In such circumstances the use of shovel is clearly more opposite to a line of the least physical resistance, then the use of a bulldozer. In turn a bulldozer is the most opposite to the line of the least intellectual resistance, because in order to use it, we need to overcome the largest number of thoughts and formalities. (Note that this is the line of the highest intellectual effort that corresponds to the highest rise of the moral field.) Similarly is for example, when we look up a word in an encyclopaedia. Then looking directly onto a page, where this word is described, is more "uphill" in the moral field, then e.g. a laborious reading this encyclopaedia from a cover to a cover in order to find this word out. This is so because looking up straight at the correct page, requires from us the highest intellectual effort, means requires to use our knowledge, memory of the alphabet, ability to resist a temptation to look at pictures on our way, etc. What I try to explain here is that the use of "the line of the least intellectual resistance" or "the line of the highest intellectual effort" as the indicator of the direction, in which the moral field climbs up the most steeply, gives the fast, sure, unambiguous, and correct results. This is especially true in all cases, when our actions do concern people, but do NOT induce strong feelings. This is because in such cases our judgement is not obstructed by lines of the least physical or emotional resistance which in these situations can be clearly identified and cannot be confused with the line of the least intellectual resistance.
An extremely effective recommendation of totalizm is based on the method of detecting the slope of the moral field through the searching for a course of this "line of the least intellectual resistance". If is used in a correct manner, this recommendation is indicating, how to behave "morally" in all real-life situations. This recommendation generally states that:
"In all actions always do the opposite to whatever the line of the least intellectual resistance prompts you to do".
As it was explained during previous analyses, the most easy to apply the above recommendation in all life situations, which relate to human relationships, but do not induce strong feelings. In these situations, the line of the least resistance that immediately reveals itself to us, is the line of the least intellectual resistance. Thus, in order to find for them a "moral" course of action, it suffices to complete the reversal of whatever our natural impulses tell us to do.
The situation becomes more complicated, when a given situation induces strong feelings, or concerns our physical activities. In such situations we need to search for the line of the least intellectual resistance, because it does not appear just by itself. In order to show how to practically do this, let us consider an example when someone (other person) offended us in the office, and we have to work out logically what our "moral" response should be. In order to solve this problem, we firstly need to ask ourselves, what these three existing lines of the least resistance prompt us to do in this situation. Let us assume that they prompt us to: (1) leave the office, loudly slamming the doors, and never again speak to the offender, (2) sit by our desk and do nothing, (3) slap the offender. Then we need to establish, which one of these three impulsive actions represents the line of the least intellectual resistance. After a brief thinking we probably notice that these three impulses are the outcomes of the following three lines of the least resistance (1) intellectual, (2) physical, (3) feelings. Because only the intellectual line is parallel to the steepest gradient of the moral field, we ignore impulses (2) and (3) and concentrate on finding the reversal of the impulse (1). As it turns out there can be several such reversals, depending on actual circumstances. But each one of them requires we reply somehow the offender and either (1a) change the matter into a joke, (1b) propose we discuss the problem together in depth during a nearest lunch, (1c) find a weak spot of the offender and publicly prove that his or her logic is wrong, etc. Note that in spite the working out of this moral behaviour may appear to be laborious and too long, practically we need to go through this process only once. Later, each time this situation repeats itself in the office, we only re- implement the moral solution that we once worked out. In order to do a practical exercise on the use of the method described here, let us now consider ourselves, what should be our moral reaction, if we found a loaded wallet (i.e. a wallet full of money which belongs to someone else).
As it is with everything that we meet for the first time in our life, the recommendation of totalizm "in all actions always do the opposite to what the line of least intellectual resistance prompts you to do", can be misunderstood by some people, or can be used beyond the scope of its applicability. For example, I was asked rather funny questions, whether this recommendation means, that instead of e.g. going to another city by a train, we should go there on foot, or instead of sending an e-mail to someone, we should go to him or her and deliver a message in person. Of course, if we are able to distinguish the line of the least intellectual resistance (or intellectual effort), from the line of the least physical or emotional resistance (or effort), then the reply to this questions is simple and easy. After all, much higher intellectual effort is required when we use a train instead of walking, and when we write an email instead of telling a message verbally. But even without the ability to distinguish between these three lines, these type of doubts may have only those people, who concentrate the whole attention on this one tool of totalizm, and loose from the sight other tools, forgetting the fact that this one tool cannot be considered in separation from what other tools of totalizm have to say. For example, according to what was explained in subsection JA2.3 and JA2, the recommendation discussed here we should implement only in cases, when we have no slightest internal doubt, that it indicated to us the line of action, which is the most "moral" and correct in a given situation. But if we have any such a doubt, then we should the same decision subject also to other indicators of the moral correctness, and check what these other indicators have to say about a given situation. For example, if we consider this funny decision, whether we should walk to another city on foot, or to go by a train, then it would turn out, that the walking would cause a loss of non-proportionally more moral energy, then we would accumulate because of this walking on foot. (I.e. in normal circumstances, going to another city on foot, according to subsection JA6, would represent the so-called "immoral work".) It would so happen, because our walking on foot along the line of the highest physical effort, would on one hand generate for us a lot of moral energy because of our physical effort, but because it lies perpendicularly to the highest gradient of the moral field, thus according to the content of subsection JC11.8 /?/ it would introduce the highest level of so-called "side effects". These side effects would be a cause of the simultaneous loss of a significant amount of moral energy, because of a loss of time, a damage to our shoes, and the exposure to inconveniences of such a trip. Furthermore, it would also cost the loss of our moral energy because of the drop of our motivations resulting from the doubts, and from nagging thoughts (these doubts surely we would experience, because we would not use the effective technical means of transport, which is offered to us by present civilization). Thus, if we in fact took a decision to walk on foot, then even if because of the misunderstanding of the recommendation described here, this decision could be incorrectly seen by some, as a "moral" one, from the perspective of other indicators of the moral correctness described in subsection JA2.3 and JA2.1, this would turn out to be decisively an "immoral" decision. The above example realizes, that during a practical implementation of every recommendation of totalizm and every indicator of the moral correctness, one needs to bear in mind, that every recommendation, and every indicator, have their recommended "range of applicability". A use of anything outside of its range of applicability, leads to the absurd outcomes, which could be recognized fast. The appearance of such absurd outcomes is a signal for us, that for a given situation we rather should use another recommendation, or another indicator of the moral correctness.
There are numerous real-life situations, when we do not deal directly with other people, so that whatever we are doing affects directly only us, or inanimate nature. In such situations, during the search for the course of the moral field, the most noticeable is the line of the least physical resistance. So during the searches what we should do, this physical line starts to dominate over the intellectual one, usually completely hiding it from us. Of course, for these situations, we still are able to determine, what is "moral" according to totalizm. However, in such situations we must use such a procedure, that it is going to highlight for us the intellectual effort, above the thoughtless physical work. Here is what in such situations the recommendation of totalizm asks us to do:
"In all real-life situations, the solution which in these situations climbs the most steeply upwards in the moral field, and thus which is the most "moral" amongst all solutions feasible in a given set of circumstances, is this one which requires the highest intellectual effort to be worked out, and which simultaneously is well balanced physically and emotionally".
Let us explain the above on an example. We assume that we are a manager in a park, and that our current activity - which we would like to complete in the most moral manner, is to install a newly purchased bench in the park. The placement of such a bench is a typical situation, when the outcome is not directly affecting people. (It affects people only indirectly. This means that only afterwards, i.e. some time after we install this bench, people are going to sit on it.) Therefore, in this case, the line of the least resistance that is going to reveal itself first, is the physical one, not the intellectual. So if we think, what is coming to our mind first, as such a line of the least resistance for this instalment of the bench, then it probably will be to install it in the point nearest to the area, where our track can arrive (e.g. nearest to the entrance gate of the park), so that we do not need to drag this bench on our backs too far. The action, which is opposite to this line of the least resistance, would be to install the bench in the middle of dense bush at the top of the most distant hill of the park. Of course, in practice this place (i.e. in the bush, at the top of the hill), does not turn to be the most moral, because it is a place indicated by a thoughtless physical effort, not by intellectual one. Thus, in order to establish which point of the park totalizm in fact indicates for us as the most moral one, we must use the above recommendation. For this, we firstly need to prepare for ourselves a list of all feasible points, in which our bench could be installed. Then, from this list, we need to choose that one, the exact determining of which is going to cost us the highest intellectual effort (not just a thoughtless physical effort). For example, it can be a place, which requires from us intellectual verification that it has a sun in mornings and shade in middays, that it has the most beautiful view, that is close to nice smelling flowers, that is close to a frequently walked path - just after passers by finish climbing a local hill, etc.
People who are used to thoughtless completion of formulas, probably are going to have a difficulty with understanding, that the morality of the universe was so programmed, that it requires constant thinking and use of intelligence. Evidently, the universal intellect (God) is so much interested in the development of intelligence and capability to think in all creations, that it hardwired the promotion of these qualities into the morality of the universe. Therefore also all the recommendations of totalizm, including also these described here, are forced to require from people the continuous use of intelligence and capability to think. Therefore totalizm must not be interpreted in a thoughtless and automatic manner. This philosophy should be understood, not just followed. The recommendations of totalizm do not order anyone to dismiss the efficiency of his/her actions, to ignore the development of science and technology, or to climb trees again. It is just the opposite. Totalizm recommends that everything should be done in the manner, which is the most intelligent, the most effective, the most modern, and possibly the most utilizing of new tools, technologies, and achievements of science, that are currently at our disposal. Our actions should also be fully agreeable with our personal habits and priorities. Of course, totalizm does not mean by this to follow "immoral" impulses of emotions and temporally temptations. It asks to complete only those things that are "moral". In a significant number of cases this means actions that are exactly opposite to these temporally impulses and temptations.
At this point of our considerations, we should remind ourselves that our civilization is decisively oriented towards parasitism, described in subsections JA1, JB4, JB5, and in chapter JD of this monograph. Therefore, almost everything that our civilization worked out, implemented in everyday life, and now promotes in present educational system, publications, and mass media, is oriented towards "going along the line of the least intellectual resistance". As such, frequently it runs exactly opposite to what totalizm recommends. For this reason, implementing totalizm in our lives requires a drastic change in our manner of thinking and in the way we look at the world around us. Thus, the totaliztic way of living, in spite that it is so agreeable with the laws of the universe, so logical, so simple, and so moral, in fact is rather hard to implement in everyday life. After all, it requires from a totalizt to almost continually run "against the flow" of whatever the present parasitic society considers to be "normal".

=> JA4.2.
Antworten to top



Gehe zu:


Benutzer, die gerade dieses Thema anschauen: 1 Gast/Gäste