JA5.2. Totaliztic (behavioural) sins
#1
@ Dr. Ing. Jan Pająk

JA5.2. Totaliztic (behavioural) sins

"Totaliztic sins" are defined as "all actions and their circumstances, which either decrease amount of someone's moral energy directly and actively, or decrease this energy passively by holding back someone from increasing this amount". These "behavioural sins" must be clearly distinguished from "emotional sins" discussed in subsection JA7.2. Note that depending on circumstances in which a given activity takes place, the same activity in one set of circumstances can belong to a category of totaliztic good deeds, while in a different set of circumstances it can belong to a category of totaliztic sins. Therefore, when deciding on the category, to which a given activity belongs, one needs to consider activity together with the complete set of circumstances, in which this activity takes place (these circumstances define the current configuration of moral field).
Totaliztic sins are subdivided into several different sub-categories. Each of these sub- categories differs from others by ways in which the amount of moral energy changes in the person who carries out a given sin, and also changes in other people who are affected by this sin (i.e. how moral energy changes in a sinner and in the victims of this sinner). Each one of them has its mirror reflection regarding who is the sinner and who is the victim. Also each one of them represents an exact reversal of appropriate sub-category of totaliztic good deeds. These sub-categories of sins are listed below in the order from the sin which is the most venial, to a sin which is the most heavy. To emphasize the logical connection of sins discussed here, and good deeds discussed previously, the first sub-category of totaliztic sins explained here, is numbered 5. The numbering of subsequent sins is supplied with symbols 'prim' and "bis" to highlight that they are remaining in a mutual partnership. During defining these sins, for a higher simplicity of descriptions, the precise (and therefore unnecessary lengthy) terminology is cut short. Therefore, in definitions provided below, the phrase is missing which emphasizes that "a totaliztic sin also includes a passive reduction of someone's moral energy, through wasting opportunities for an increase of the amount of this energy, when there were circumstances which facilitated such an increase". Therefore in all definitions listed below by the word "decrease" we should understand "decrease, or fail to increase when there are favourable circumstances which facilitate such an increase,". Definitions do not include also a phrase which explains the action of "Principle of Counterpolarity" explained in subsection I4.1.1, and also they do not include the explanations which illustrate the consequences resulting from this principle. Therefore under the word "instantly" we should understand the phrase "instantly and in the manner resulting directly from a given action". Furthermore, from the definitions below for simplicity the explanation is also eliminated, that in totalizm many activities, depending on the circumstances in which they took place, may represent either a totaliztic sin or a totaliztic good deed. For example, an extra-marital sexual intercourse, in totalizm is a sin only in some circumstances (e.g. if it has a character of a rape, or an imposed intercourse of a boss with a subordinate), while it is a good deed in numerous other circumstances (e.g. if it has a character of reaping fruits of love by a couple which intends to get married). Therefore, in the definitions provided below, under the word "activity", we should understand the phrase "activity, and the complete set of circumstances in which this activity takes place,". So here are, the basic categories of totaliztic sins:
(5') Sacrifice - this is an activity which instantly decreases the amount of moral energy in the sinner, while it instantly increases the amount of moral energy in other person (or people) who is (are) the subject of this sacrifice. Note that the totaliztic sin of sacrifice maintains a victim-sinner relationship with the next totaliztic sin of exploitation (i.e. whenever one intellect commits the sin of sacrifice, the other intellect, which willingly creates circumstances that leave no option but to carry out this sin, or which intentionally forces this sin to take place in order to benefit from the outcome, commits the sin of exploitation). An exact opposite of the sin of sacrifice is a good deed of progress (setting directions).
(5") Exploitation - this is an activity which instantly increases the amount of moral energy in a sinner, at the cost of instant decrease of this energy in other person/people (victim/s of exploitation). The name for one type of sins of exploitation, which takes place at the emotional level, and thus which belongs to so-called "emotional sins", is a "moral vampirism". It is described in subsections JA7.2 and I5.5. Note that the totaliztic sin of exploitation remains in a sinner-victim relationship with a totaliztic sin of sacrifice (i.e. whenever one person commits the sin of exploitation, the victim of this sin, who willingly accepts this exploitation, commits the sin of sacrifice). An exact opposite of the sin of sacrifice is a good deed of progress (helping).
(6') Self-destruction or self-aggression - this is an aggressive activity directed at oneself, which instantly decreases the amount of moral energy only in the sinner/victim, while this energy remains unchanged in all other people. (Self-destruction is a sin that is routinely committed in the result of a deadly moral illness called "parasitism", described in subsection JD4.2. /?/) Example of this sin include suicidal mania, or ignoring the actual danger. Note that the totaliztic sin of self-destruction, as every other sin, has also a corresponding sin, which represents the sinner-victim partnership to a self-destruction. We could call this corresponding sin a "self-victimising". An exact opposite of the sin of self-destruction is a good deed of self- improvement (inspiring oneself to take action).
(6") Self-victimising - it is falling a victim of oneself. It is a partner to self-destruction, in which instead of aggressiveness towards oneself, someone is a victim, or a slave, of oneself. Examples include anorexia or any complex. In the majority of cases of self-aggression and self-victimising, two separate location of sources of moral energy loss can be distinguished, which correspond to one of these sins and to their partners. For example in the first of these, self-destruction, the source of zwow loss is the gaining pleasure from causing a self-damage (usually characterised by a feeling of power over oneself, or anger towards oneself). In other one, the source of zwow loss is the result of the self-inflicted destruction (frequently characterised by the feeling of complex of the own inferiority). An exact opposite of the sin of self-victimising is a good deed of self-improvement (pulling oneself out of problems).
(7') Being caught - this is a state, or an activity, which instantly decreases the moral energy in sinners (i.e. in these intellects who do wrong and allow others to catch them on this), without any immediate change in the level of moral energy in these intellects who caught them. Note that the totaliztic sin of being caught keeps a sinner-victim relationship with another totaliztic sin of suppression (i.e. whenever one person tries to commits a sin of suppression, but the victim of this suppression made an avoiding move, and would not accepts this sin, than the committing person is caught on this sin). Note also that the sin of being caught differs in intensions from the sin of self-destruction or self-victimising. A person that got caught had bad intensions towards other people, and only by an accident was damaging itself, while a person who committed a self-destruction or a self-victimising, had bad intensions towards itself. An exact opposite of the sin of being caught is a good deed of stimulation for taking action.
(7") Suppression - this is an activity, which instantly decreases the moral energy in victims, without any immediate change in the level of moral energy in sinners. Note that the totaliztic sin of suppression stays in a sinner-victim relationship with a totaliztic sin of being caught (i.e. whenever one intellect wishes to push down, or to force into something, or to deprive of something, or to imprison, someone else, then the outcomes of such activities are going to represent sins of suppression - when they are successful, or sins of being caught - when they are unsuccessful or exposed). An exact opposite of the sin of suppression is a good deed of inspiration (pulling someone out of problems).
(8') Slavery - this is a state, or an activity, which instantly and directly decreases the level of moral energy in sinners who allow themselves to be enslaved, as well as decreases the amount of energy in these oppressive intellects, who imposed the slavery and who benefit from the fruits of it. Note that slavery keeps a relationship with another totaliztic sin of oppression. Oppression is a sin committed by intellects who oppress others, while slavery is the sin committed by these intellects, which willingly accept the position of being oppressed. An exact opposite of the sin of oppression is a good deed of self-defence.
(8") Oppression - this is an activity, which instantly decreases moral energy in all people who are affected by them, i.e. it decreases this energy both in the sinners, and in the victims. Note that oppression also has a related sin, which is slavery. Oppression is an activity carried out by the sinners who oppress others, while slavery is another activity carried out in response to oppression by these victims, who willingly accept to be oppressed and do not oppose it. An exact opposite of the sin of oppression is a good deed of defending others.
The above list reveals several interesting rules, which apply to totaliztic sins. For example, it shows that every totaliztic sin has a sinner-victim partner, and that this partner is also a sin - if it is willingly accepted by the other side. Furthermore, every totaliztic sin has an exact reversal, and this reversal is a totaliztic good deed. It also realizes that intellects which willingly allow a totaliztic sin to be committed on them, actually are also committing a totaliztic sin (thus totalizm promotes an active opposition against any attempts to commit on us totaliztic sins). For example: quietly standing in a queue, when these who should serve are gossiping, waiting on someone being late without protesting, or accepting money which one unearned, all these represent totaliztic sins, because all of them decrease someone's moral energy. In turn intellects, which disallowed totaliztic sins to be committed on them, for example by disobeying restraints imposed on them, in fact are doing totaliztic good deeds, because they increase someone's moral energy. For these reasons totalizm strongly recommends: always discreetly withdraw your cooperation, whenever you are sure that a totaliztic sin is being committed on you, so that on your side of the situation you subtly transform this sin into a totaliztic good deed.
On the list of totaliztic sins above, the most controversy induces "sacrifice". It is so controversial, that for a logical dispersion of the controversy that it induces, a whole subsection JC11.2 /?/ is devoted. This is where the reader finds further explanations on it.
To reinforce a better understanding of the definitions of totaliztic sins, let us now analyse, how in the light of totalizm actions would be qualified, which in the light of many religions are qualified as sins. In this understanding, for example a sexual intercourse of a couple who took only a civil wedding, or an engaged couple, who plans to get married soon, is not a totaliztic sin at all, as it does not decrease moral energy in any of the partners. In turn a rape, a sexual intercourse of a boss with a subordinate, or a forced intercourse of a church wedded husband with a wife who does not want to have a sex and protests against it, is definitely a totaliztic sin, as it decreases the amount of moral energy in both parties involved (thus it would belong to a category of oppression). Similarly, in the light of the above definitions, in most of normal circumstances, killing anyone, even during Crusades, or aggressive wars in the name of religion, or from the verdict of religious institution (e.g. inquisition), would also represent a totaliztic sin, because it would eliminate in a single action the whole amount of moral energy that a dying person had. (Note however, that killing an aggressor to defend others, or in self-defence, is a totaliztic good deed.) In turn helping someone who is terminally ill, in bringing to the end his/her suffering, through organizing the possibility of committing a suicide, is not a totaliztic sin for the person who helps to commit it (i.e. such helping does not deprive anyone moral energy, and even gives to someone an additional choice to live, or to die), although the act of committing a suicide is a totaliztic sin, as it eliminates the remaining moral energy that the dying person still had.
For a scientific exactitude let us consider also some activities, which in the light of many religions would not be considered to be sins, but they are in the light of totalizm. For example, lighting a cigarette in a compartment, in which there is a non-smoking person, in totalizm belongs to a most heavy sin of oppression, as it reduces moral energy both in the smoker (e.g. it accumulates in the non-smoker, who is tortured with the cigarette smoke, the feeling of revenge, which will be realised one day at a completely unrelated occasion), as well as in the non-smoker (e.g. exposing him/her to the danger of getting a lung cancer). Similarly, burning any book, which is in a good technical state, as well as forbidding, or making it difficult in any manner to read such a book, or even just not informing that such a book does exist, when we have an opportunity to do so, is also a totaliztic sin from the category of suppression. Someone coming late to a meeting, when all others are waiting for him/her, is committing the totaliztic sin of suppression, because such a person decreases moral energy in all those that wait. Similarly a bureaucrat, who is having a private conversation on telephone, while a long queue is waiting for him/her, is also committing a totaliztic sin of suppression for the same reasons. A parent, or a teacher, who neglected the need to punish a naughty child for an action, which is turning into a bad habit, or a bad addiction, is also committing a totaliztic sin of exploitation. In a similar manner a person, who is aware that someone else (e.g. a boss) is reducing moral energy in some other person (e.g. by smoking in presence of a non-smoker who reacts with allergy on cigarette smoke), but has no courage to notify the trouble-maker about the non-acceptability of such a behaviour, is also committing a sin of exploitation. A boss who forbids a subordinate to carry out some action that would increase moral energy in numerous people, is committing a totaliztic sin of suppression. A person or institution which would publicly reprimand, or in any other way limit a freedom of action of someone, who is working on a project that is to increase someone's moral energy, is also committing a totaliztic sin of suppression.
Independently from the above general examples, let us now illustrate examples of totaliztic sins that belong to specific categories listed before. And so, examples of the most heavy totaliztic sin, i.e. oppression, would include: having an argument with someone, throwing swear words at someone, or physically attacking someone in the public place. These totaliztic sins are reducing enormous amounts of moral energy in all people affected, therefore totalizm recommends to refrain from committing them. In turn allowing to be oppressed in any possible manner, is a sin of slavery. Examples of slavery include: to accept bullying, to continue to work while the employer refuses to pay us, to allow a robber whom we recognize to take our belongings, etc. A next serious totaliztic sin is suppression, means an activity which does not instantly change moral energy in the sinner, but it decreases this energy in victims. Examples of totaliztic sins of suppressions are: pollution of the natural environment, vandalism of a public property which the vandal is not going to use, a test explosion of a nuclear bomb by a neighbour country (such an explosion, but carried out in the own country, would be a totaliztic sin of oppression), construction of a new nuclear reactor on someone's border, closing down a non-polluting factory in spite that it does not make losses, as well as almost all answers "no" to requests, which are easy to fulfil (therefore, according to totalizm, the unconditional and final "no" answer, should be completely eliminated from the everyday use: if someone is forced to say "no", he/she should simultaneously define the conditions, the fulfilling of which would turn this "no" answer into a "yes" answer). Examples of sins of suppression include: accepting the situation when in the neighbourhood there is a source of a powerful and continuous smell, accepting when someone forbids us to read a book that we are interested in, accepting when a boss is forbidding us to do something that is not affecting the company but would be beneficial to many people. In turn examples of activities which represents the totaliztic sin of a self-destruction are: leaving behind an umbrella when it obviously is going to rain, not asking about something that we are not sure, while there is an opportunity to ask, not buying something that we really need and can afford (e.g. new shoes, which are to replace the old ones that just show a hole in them), not doing our homework, spending time on doing nothing (idleness very rapidly decreases our moral energy; but it should not be confused with an effective resting, which increases our moral energy), emigration to a different country (this is especially valid for people with unique languages and cultures, like citizens of Poland, for which does not exist any other country in which their language, education, culture, and other values which carry moral energy, would be fully utilised). Examples of a totaliztic sin of exploitation include: making people to work for us, but not paying them adequately, taking favours without repaying them, etc. In turn a totaliztic sin of sacrifice (from the sinner point of view, because from the receiver's point of view it represents an exploitation), would be for example: giving to someone our money, not putting a lock in our flat - thus allowing robbers for an easy robbery, or allowing our employer to employ us for the salary, which is much lower from our real contribution to a given institution, to accept, without any pay increment, working hours, which are inconvenient for us, but are convenient for the employer.
Of course, as this was clearly explained before, in definitions of subsequent totaliztic sins we always should consider the sum of all short-term effects of a given action, not just one of these effects. For example, in one of the letters I received, a reader is claiming that in his opinion every scientific discovery is a totaliztic sin, because it disables other scientists to made this discovery. In such a thinking, this particular person misses out a few vital points. The first of them is that other scientists had their opportunity to made this particular discovery, but they have not utilised this opportunity - so it is them, not a discoverer, who commit totaliztic sins (according to totalizm, a sin is also not to do something, when we have opportunity to do it). Then the reader that we are discussing, missed out also the point that a given discovery only moves forward the border of unknown to another area, so that it opens to other scientists the additional opportunity to discover something that lies beyond a given discovery (so a scientific discovery does not deprive anyone moral energy, but actually generates it). Furthermore, the claim in question fails to address the matter of applications: after a scientist makes a new discovery, this discovery can be applied and therefore it directly generates (not reduces) moral energy. Therefore, from the instant moral effects point of view, every scientific discovery does not decrease anyone's moral energy, but to contrary - it increases it for everyone. Therefore to make a scientific discovery is to do a totaliztic good deed (of the progress type).
To all the above it should be added that totalizm, and also the Concept of Dipolar Gravity, are recognizing a different type of activities, which are not carried out at the physical level, but which involve above-threshold feelings. Examples of physical effects caused in this way, include "black magic", "psychokinesis", etc. Similarly to physical actions, also these non- physical activities can belong to the category of totaliztic sins, or to the category of totaliztic good deeds. After all, from the point of view of totalizm, it is not important how given effects were accomplished, but important is how these effects influence moral energy in a doer and in other people affected by them (e.g. in victims). For this reason totalizm also recognizes a group of emotional sins, which are caused by our feelings (e.g. jealousy), our attitudes (e.g. proud), our motivations (e.g. being "not interested"), etc. More on this subject is going to be presented in subsection JA7.2.
Otherwise then this is with the religious sins - the punishment for which arrives only after someone is dead, totaliztic sins are punishing the doer instantly - when he/she still lives this life. This is because their committing causes the removal of invisible life-giving fluid (energy), which is named here "moral energy" or "zwow". This fluid could be compared to life- giving oxygen, because if we are deprived it, we need to die from the moral suffocation. Each totaliztic sin that someone commits, removes a portion of this life-giving fluid. In turn as the amount of this fluid is reduced in us, we gradually begin to suffocate. I am of the opinion, and hope to prove it somehow in future, that a large proportion of idle retired people dies presently just because of such suffocation from the lack of moral energy. This moral suffocation is also a reason for the death of at least two intellects about which we learn in our history textbooks, namely communism and feudalism. (Very interesting results is giving the comparison of the circumstances, course, and results of deaths through the moral suffocation, with allegorical pictures about torturous events taking place in hell, that are painted by various religions.) According to my knowledge, many present countries, including very close to my heart Poland and New Zealand, also currently display all signs of the state which proceeds the death through the moral suffocation. For example, some of symptoms of such moral suffocation include the repetitive thinking by an increasingly large number of people that "whatever I do, I am still not able to accomplish the goal that I am striving to, although it seem to be almost in the range of my hand", the increasing discrepancy between what people say officially, and what the are doing, the domination of form above the content, the reign through pilling up restrictions instead of assistance, galloping bureaucracy, increasing frustration affecting practically everyone, the disappearance of people from footpaths in big cities, increasing moral vampirism (described in the third paragraph below), and many more - see subsections JB6.3 /?/ and JE6.
There is a possibility that, because of the life-giving properties of moral energy, some "magical" ways of tribal execution in so-called "primitive societies", such as "pointing the bone" or "singing out", which were used instead of the death penalties by Australian Aborigines, technically represent a kind of total reduction of moral energy in the executed person. I also believe that the majority of human behaviours are determined by the average level of moral energy existing in a given society. For example, I believe that there is a linear dependency between average level of moral energy and the birth rate (i.e. societies, which reached low levels of moral energy, are stopping to multiply), and also between moral energy and suicidal tendencies (i.e. people who are deprived of moral energy, are falling in depression, which frequently finishes with a suicide). Also there is a correlation between moral energy and the crime rate (i.e. people who have the reduced amount of moral energy, are loosing the sense of morality, and therefore they easily commit crimes).
So far we were used that a philosophy is something that can be used for conducting disputes, while in the matter of death and life we should go to a doctor. But totalizm tries to show that this is just an another myth. For this reason totalizm carries out the knowledge which for many people may turn to be a saver of their lives. For example according to totalizm (see subsection JD1.6.3 /?/) "committing a suicide is a reaction of someone's intellect to the situation that his/her amount of moral energy is reaching the level very close to zero". This means that a suicide is one of manifestations of death by the moral suffocation. This claim of the totalizm is fully supported by empirical evidence, which indicates that the majority of suicides are committed by people who do not generate their own moral energy, for example by teenagers whose moral energy originating from the original good deed (i.e. from the fact that someone was born) was fully dispersed, while they have not learned yet how to generate their own zwow energy, by retired people, by unemployed, etc.
When the life-giving function of moral energy is concerned, it is necessary to also mention the so-called "moral vampirism". Similarly as this was the case with legendary vampires, which used to suck blood from their victims in order to boost their own power and vitality, also moral vampires are sucking moral energy directly from other people, and use this energy to compensate for the results of their own idleness and moral decay. The moral vampirism is a deadly sin conducted at the level of feelings. It depends on connecting directly the counter-organ of compassion in a victim, to the same counter-organ in a vampire. This direct connection allows moral energy to be transferred directly from the counter-body of the victim to the counter-body of the vampire. The requirement of this energy flow is, that the vampire must steer in the victim a deep feeling of sympathy. Therefore, to steer such a feeling, moral vampires always use the trick of acting as casualties of the cruel fate, and tell their victims all about the tragic situation into which they currently were put. To make the victim even more sorry for them, usually they hint that actually they suffer only because the victim contributed somehow significantly to their tragic situation. The mechanism which explains how exactly this transfer of the moral energy happens, is elaborated in subsection I5.5. The moral vampirism can also be a side effect of every situation when totaliztic sins of exploitation and sacrifice are committed (i.e. the moral vampire is committing the sin of exploitation, while its victims are committing sins of sacrifice, and the victim commits this sacrifice with a very strong feeling of compassion for the vampire). Even the more sinister form of this moral vampirism takes place when such a sucking of someone's moral energy is carried out without any visible physical exploitation, but solely by creating a kind of emotional trap, which steers feelings of the victim, and forces him/her to open the counter-organ of compassion to send own moral energy directly to the vampire. (Sometimes, we can notice this very sinister form of vampirism, when even a short period of time spend with a given person makes us very unhappy, exhausted, and emotionally destroyed.) Moral vampirism can also be carried out via psychokinesis, or via black magic (see subsection I5.7). The most frequently, a moral vampirism, which is accompanied by an obvious physical exploitation, is committed by idle teenagers on their parents (especially on mums). Sometimes it is also committed by ruthless employers on their employees, or (rarely) vice versa. In turn older people are frequently committing the purely emotional type of vampirism, which reduces moral energy from their victims without any signs of a physical exploitation (e.g. some retired parents commit it on their offspring, some wives - on their husbands, in some cases also husbands - on their wives). I noted that in recent years this extremely destructive phenomenon is intensifying, as in the situation when our moral energy is fast diminishing globe-wide, the vampirism increasingly is starting to become a source of this life-giving fluid. Unfortunately, it does not disperse the danger of moral suffocation of the whole our civilisation, because it only transfers moral energy from one intellects to others, but it does not causes the generation of new amounts of this life-giving fluid.
It is worth to mention that moral energy, is just only another form of energy. Therefore, most probably, at the more advanced level of our development some devices will be constructed, which will allow to transfer this energy from one person to the other, in a manner similar as presently we can transfer electrical energy from one cell or battery, to the other. If at that time our civilization is still going to follow the path of parasitism described in chapter JD, then such devices will allow in future that instead of forcing slaves to do something to their master, this master can simply rob them from their moral energy. This most advanced form of moral vampirism is carried out by the advanced civilizations, which in subsection A3 are called "evil parasites". They vampire on less advanced civilizations, and literally "milk them out" from their moral energy with the use of special energy extracting machines. (Such a machine is described in treatise [3B] as a "freezing chamber", as it firstly freezes a victim before it extracts his/her moral energy.)
The above should be supplemented with the information that moral energy is unique for people (i.e. in the form required for humans it appears only in people, and possibly also in some space beings which would be almost identical to people), and it is not available in the same form in animals. Although animals are generating their equivalent of moral energy, their energy is much more primitive, and cannot be used by people. Therefore, moral energy extracted from an animal, is not going to be suitable for sustaining people. This bears a special meaning for the moral vampirism, as such a vampirism cannot be carried out on animals, and must be committed on people. Therefore, if an advanced civilisation chooses the path of parasitism, as this is described in subsections JB5, A3, and in chapter JD, it must carry out this vampirism on another civilisation, as it is unable to carry it out on animals.
Similarly to the concept of totaliztic good deeds, also the concept of totaliztic sins is based on a simplifying assumption. But the assumption for totaliztic sins states that we live in a "world without a will", in which the other party always willingly accepts what sinners serve to it. Of course, in reality it does not need to be so, as the other side has a free will, and it does not need to passively accept someone else's sins. And totalizm actually teaches us to not accept sins, but to transform them into totaliztic good deeds (e.g. as this is explained in subsection JA5.5, totalizm itself was born only because a totaliztic sin was not passively accepted, but it was transformed into a totaliztic good deed). However, it should be noted, that otherwise than this is the case with the assumption for totaliztic good deeds, the simplifying assumption for sins does not decrease the usefulness of the concept of totaliztic sins, and does not decrease the accuracy of moral categorizations accomplished via this concept. (After all, totalizm uses the concept of sins only to avoid committing totaliztic sins in life. Thus, if someone's activity on the other side, helps us in this avoiding, this is even better for our morality.) It only has this effect, that the concept itself is much simpler, and much easier to implement, then it would be if we assume that everything happens in a real and very complex world.

=> JA5.3.
Antworten to top



Gehe zu:


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