JA5. Totaliztic (behavioural) good deeds and totaliztic sins
@ Dr. Ing. Jan Pająk

JA5. Totaliztic (behavioural) good deeds and totaliztic sins

A next group of several effective tools of totalizm, is based on the concept of intelligent moral energy "zwow". To this group several different tools belong, for example (1) already mentioned in this chapter totaliztic ideas of "behavioural good deeds, and behavioural sins", together with their numerous applications, (2) similar concepts of "emotional good deeds and emotional sins" explained in subsection JA7.2, together with their numerous applications, and also (3) the concept of "moral work and immoral work" discussed in subsection JA6. Each one of these tools of totalizm is applicable to different circumstances. Therefore each tool requires separate descriptions. These descriptions we start here from the idea of "totaliztic good deeds and totaliztic sins", which are to be explained in two subsections that are to come now. It is worth noticing that the qualifier "behavioural" which proceeds these two names, is introduced to distinguish them from another group of totaliztic good deeds and sins, which in subsection JA7.2 are proceeded with the qualifier "emotional" - because they are outcomes of feelings and therefore in order to affect people they do not need any actions.
In subsection JB3.3, I4.3, JE3.7 /?/ , and JE7 the concept of intelligent "moral energy" is explained. Amongst many definitions, which could describe what this energy actually is, one of the simplest definitions states that "moral energy is simply an intelligent form of energy, which is accumulated in our counter-bodies each time when we obey moral laws". Moral energy differs from physical energy because it is intelligent. (As we know physical energy is "stupid".) Moral energy always completes our mental commands, it obeys moral laws, and it proves the intelligence on tens of different ways. When we consider moral activities, which move us within the moral field, then intelligent moral energy is a potential energy that is assigned to a given position, that we have in this moral field. Thus, if we move upwards in the moral field, this movement must increase the amount of intelligent moral energy that we accumulated. In turn when we move downwards in the moral field, this movement must reduce the amount of the moral energy that we accumulated. This subsection is to give us a simple tool for qualifying human activities. The outcome of this qualifying depends on the influence these activities have on the state of moral energy that we accumulated, and also that is accumulated in other people who are affected by our actions.
From the point of view of influence which a given activity has on the accumulation of moral energy, only two major categories of human activities can be distinguished, namely: (1) activities which increase the amount of moral energy in every person involved; and (2) activities which disperse moral energy from someone (i.e. which reduce this energy in at last one person involved). For the reason of convenience, totalizm needs to give some names to these two major categories of human activities, so that later they can be refereed to by their name. Of course, they could be named with any possible name from the wide range of words and specialized terms currently available in various languages. For example, the activities which generate moral energy could be called "contributions", "generators", "legalities", "gifts", "releases", etc. In turn activities which reduce someone's moral energy could be called "crimes", "withdrawals", "reducers", "deviators", "hold-ups", etc. However, after thinking this matter over, I decided that for an everyday use, it would be much easier to remember these names, and to apply them in totalizm, if they utilize the old names, which were given to them by religions, namely names "good deed", and its opposite meaning "sin". The reason is that they are already etched in languages and everyone knows exactly what these two names mean. Therefore their meaning does not need to be explained by totalizm again, while their use do not need to be etched again. Furthermore, the activities which are representing these two names, in totalizm are performing exactly the same functions as their religious equivalents, i.e. we need to concentrate on doing in our lives so many "totaliztic good deeds" as we can, simultaneously we should avoid committing "totaliztic sins" in our all actions.
After we defined the concept of totaliztic "good deeds", and the opposite concept of totaliztic "sins", they allow us to carry out a very simple qualifying of all our actions, into two basic categories "moral" or "immoral". This is because according to definitions of these two concepts, "moral" is everything that qualifies as a totaliztic good deed, while "immoral" is everything that qualifies as a totaliztic sin. Because totalizm teaches, that obeying moral laws depends on doing in life only these things, which are "moral" (see subsection JA2), this means that according to totalizm obeying moral laws boils down to carrying out only these activities, which can be qualified as totaliztic good deeds, and avoiding committing any activities, which represent totaliztic sins. Subsection JA5.5 explains that in order to avoid committing totaliztic sins, each time we realize that we are about to commit such a sin, we should transform it into a totaliztic good deed, and complete this good deed instead completing this initially intended sin. How to transform totaliztic sins into totaliztic good deeds, is explained in subsection JA5.5.
While totalizm reintroduces to use the ancient concepts of a good deed and a sin, it simultaneously stresses that in totalizm many aspects of good deeds and sins are defined differently than in their religious counterparts (this is because of these significant differences, totalizm adds a clear identifier "totaliztic" to their names, thus calling them "totaliztic good deeds" and "totaliztic sins", instead of just good deeds and sins). There is several reasons for these differences. Let us list here the most important of these reasons:
1. Moral energy, which represents a major outcome of activities, which in totalizm are called with these two names, is affecting people instantly, and influences them definitely during this current life (as we remember, consequences of our religious sins and good deeds are affecting us only after we die).
2. According to totalizm, everything that we do in our lives represents either a totaliztic good deed, or a totaliztic sin. This means that according to totalizm there is not even a single human activity, that occurs in a specific circumstances, and that could not be qualified to one of these two main categories. A totaliztic good deed, or a totaliztic sin, represents even a most banal activity, such as breathing, eating, going to a toilet, crossing a street. But in religions only some of our activities are called with names of good deeds, or sins (not all of them).
3. Depending on specific circumstances in which a given activity takes place, theoretically speaking in totalizm every possible activity can belong to any of these two basic categories. This means that for totalizm, depending on the current configuration of the moral field, in one set of circumstances a given activity is a totaliztic good deed, but in a different set of circumstances the same activity is a totaliztic sin. (For example, a well behaved going to toilet is a totaliztic good deed, but defecating in a public park, or at a footpath, is a totaliztic sin). Therefore in totalizm the process of categorizing a given activity to the group of totaliztic good deeds, or totaliztic sins, must be carried out only when we know the complete set of circumstances, in which a given activity takes place, means when we know the current configuration of the moral field, in which this activity moves us. In turn religions usually do not look at a set of circumstances, in which an activity takes place, and judge an activity just on the basis of its name.
4. Totalizm defines good deeds and sins very precisely. So there is no any unambiguity, to which one of these two basic categories, a given human activity belongs in a given set of circumstances. Also in totalizm there is a very clear indicator (i.e. the increase, or the decrease, in moral energy zwow) which unambiguously shows, with what outcome of a specific activity we are dealing in a given set of circumstances. In turn religions are rather imprecise, as they use a lists of activities which are declared to be either good deeds, or sins, without concern to circumstances in which these activities are carried out. Then religions tend to alter these lists of activities, and redefine some of them. For example killing is a sin in almost every religion, but killing in the name of that religion is declared an exception, and in many religions it represents a good deed for which faithful are promised to be rewarded by "going directly to heaven" (meaning, that for such a religious killing, the believer is going to also be killed according to the Boomerang Principle, but after the death, he/she is going to get a "special treatment").
5. Totalizm is fully aware the imperfection and approximation of these two concepts of good deeds and sins, therefore it describes exactly reasons for these imperfections and explains how to avoid their consequences (see descriptions in subsection JA5.6). In turn religions pretend that their concepts of good deeds and sins do not contain any imperfections and do not take any simplifying assumptions.
Of course, if the use of these "ancient" words inhibits to someone the understanding and accepting of the concepts presented in this chapter, then I would propose that for a private use such a person introduces his/her own more "modern" or "scientific" names, instead of using names "totaliztic good deeds and sins". After all, independently of what names are assigned to these two concepts, their meaning and influence on our lives still remains the same important.
There is one more matter, which needs to be mentioned here, in spite that it is explained in more details in subsection JA5.6. This is the problem of simplifying assumptions. Totalizm is fully aware that in spite of large usefulness of these concepts of totaliztic good deeds and totaliztic sins, and also in spite of their handiness in the fast qualifying of thousands of small chores and intentions, which we need to do everyday, in fact these two concepts are very crude. They are based on very significant assumptions, which are discussed in next subsections. Thus everything that is qualified with them as a good deed or as a sin, is carrying a significant error. Therefore totalizm recommends that these two concepts should be used only for non-significant activities, means for activities, which religions do not qualify at all (e.g. washing hands and teeth, eating, breathing, cooking, work, crossing a street, greeting a neighbour, etc.). The use of these two concepts should be limited to cases, when we are more interested in the speed and simplicity of qualifications, than in the precision of the outcome. Examples of situations, when in spite of a significant margin of error, these two concepts are still useful, are all these thousands of small chores, which we need to do every day, which do not take much time and effort - thus do not involve a lot of moral energy, but which according to totalizm still need to be done in a "moral" manner. Because these chores and intentions require a handy tool to be precisely qualified, as to whether they are moral - and thus they should be completed, or immoral - and thus they should be changed into other ones, these two concepts prove to be extremely useful. But during their use we must remember that they represent a quite naďve view of reality, because they are based on the simplified assumption, that the outcome of our chores and intentions does not depend on the morality of other people involved. However, as it is to be explained in sections JA5.6 and JA6.8 /?/, actually the moral outcome of our actions can be altered, if these actions are completed in the sight of people that have different from us views, about what we are doing (after all, views of these people shape the course of moral field). Therefore, apart from the crude concepts of "totaliztic good deeds and sins" described in this section, and applicable to small everyday chores, totalizm introduces also another and more precise concept of the "moral and immoral work", which is explained in section JA6. This more precise concepts of "moral and immoral work" we should use instead of the "totaliztic good deeds and sins" in all cases, when we are especially interested in the precision and in the low margin of error of the qualifying of a given action, and when we wish to eliminate the spoiling potentials of immoral receivers of very laborious endeavours.

=> JA5.1.
Antworten to top

Gehe zu:

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