JA8. Let us take the personal responsibility
#1
@ Dr. Ing. Jan Pająk


JA8. Let us take the personal responsibility

In totalizm and in the Concept of Dipolar Gravity, "responsibility" (in this monograph labelled with the symbol "A") is immensely important moral quantity. This is because it represents a moral equivalent to the idea of "acceleration" from the classical mechanics - for more details see explanations in subsection JE3.5. The reason is that it causes our motivations (S) to accelerate. In turn, by being an equivalent of "acceleration", according to a well known equation of classical mechanics (i.e. Newton's Second Law of Motion: F = ma), a product of that responsibility (A) and of a mass of an intellect (I) must form together a feeling (F):

F = IA                    (1JA8)

Note that moral mass (I), in totaliztic mechanics represents intelligence of a given intellect. This intelligence, or moral mass, in fact is the carrier of that responsibility (A).

If anyone looks deeply inside himself/herself, the sole fact that responsibility appears in us, always is connected with simultaneous appearance of an unique feeling, which usually is named the "sense of responsibility". This unique feeling, which appears in us always when we assume some kind of responsibility, is in fact the outcome of the action of equation (1JA8), in which (I) is the moral mass, or our intelligence, while (A) is responsibility.
Responsibility we can assume on ourselves. Then it represents an equivalent of acceleration (A) for our motivations. As this is clearly indicated by equations of totaliztic mechanics (E=FS=IAS), in case of such acceleration of our motivations (means in case of such assuming our responsibility), our moral energy (E) is generated. Responsibility can also be pushed on someone or something else. Then it begins to constitute an equivalent of deceleration (-A) for our motivations. As this is clearly indicated by equations of totaliztic mechanics (-E=-FS=I(-A)S), in case of such deceleration of our motivations (means in case of such pushing away of our responsibility), our moral energy (-E) is being depleted. The situation in these two cases is an exact reflection of situation from classical mechanics, when we either accelerate (a), or decelerate (-a) some mass (m). In such cases, this mass (m) is also going to either increase its energy (E), according to equation (E=Fs=mas), or disperse this energy (-E), according to equation (-E=-Fs=m(-a)s).
Whenever in our life we encounter a problem of responsibility, we must remember, that pushing responsibility on someone else, or something else, is an equivalent of introducing a deceleration (-a) to a situation from classical mechanics. Thus such pushing our responsibility out, directly leads to the dispersion (-E) of our moral energy. For totalizm, this practically means that a given our action decisively runs against moral laws. As this is explained in subsection I4.1.1, moral laws clearly attach the responsibility for everything to doers, putting this responsibility directly onto these people who are completing a given action, or in the presence of which a given event took place. Therefore, all attempts to push responsibility onto someone or something else, is the conduct decisively "immoral". As such, those who push responsibility onto others, are affected with appropriate punishing consequences served by moral laws. Therefore the findings of totalizm are very clear: in everything that we do, or in which we take part - but we fail to do anything, we take on ourselves the personal responsibility for all consequences that may raise from it. For example, if we take a part in a bank robbery, and during this robbery someone is killed, according to the findings of totalizm moral laws will charge us with responsibility for this death, even of in fact the person who killed was someone else.
In itself, responsibility alone is a separate "indicator of moral correctness" - see subsection JA2.3. If it is used as such indicator of moral correctness, then as "moral" is qualified everything, for which we willingly take responsibility onto ourselves. In turn as "immoral" is qualified everything, for which the responsibility we try to push onto someone, or something, else. According to such definition of responsibility, in every life situations, in which we try to undertake an action, for which the responsibility we later try to push on someone, or something, else, this action runs sharply against moral laws. Also we should be aware that an action, which in itself is the pushing of responsibility on someone else, or on something else, runs sharply against moral laws as well. In such an immoral case, we should refry from the completion of this action, replace it with another action, for which we willingly are to take the entire responsibility onto ourselves, and then complete this replaced action.
Responsibility is immensely important moral quantity, which carries numerous meanings for totalizm. For example, there is a whole group of moral laws, which are based on responsibility. (After all, in Physics there is also a whole class of physical laws, which utilise acceleration in their operations.) Some of these moral laws, which describe the action of responsibility, are already identified and explained in subsection I4.1.1.
One of the most significant consequences of the moral function of responsibility is, that it defines very unambiguously various models of totaliztic organising of public and social life. Because of the function of responsibility for moral motivating of people, as this is explained in subsections JD4.1 /?/ and JD4.2 /?/, totalizm strongly recommends that everything that we do in public and social life, must be done in the manner which inspires and maintains the sense of responsibility in individual people. Therefore totalizm must promote, amongst others, the following models of public and social life, which directly result from the morally motivative function of responsibility (these models are additionally described in subsections JD1.2 /?/ and JD7.1 /?/):
- Totaliztic model of governing. It is based on leadership of moral and wise individuals (selected in a democratic manner), and decisively it rejects the group governments conducted by all sorts of committees, councils, juntas, cooperations, etc. After all, governments of individuals stimulate and maintain the sense of individual responsibility, as this is explained in subsections JD1.2 /?/ and JD4.1 /?/. In turn all group governments are gradually dispersing, diminishing, and killing out, the sense of individual responsibility. Therefore the model of government, which is already in existence, and which is currently the closest one to totaliztic model of governing, is the so-called "presidential democracy". However, in the totaliztic model of governing, the ruling person is continually accountable for the precision, with which in all decisions and actions he/she is fulfilling moral laws, instead (as this is the case in current presidential democracies) being accountable for the extend in which he/she pleases the governed masses. After all, only the pedantic fulfilment of moral laws in everything that one does, leads to the development of totalizm and to the increase of quality of life, while the present pleasing of governed masses, always must finish with the development of parasitism and with a fall down - see subsection JD1.2 /?/.
- Totaliztic model of ownership. It is based on the ownership of individuals, and decisively rejects the group ownership, which presently takes the form of various companies, shares, communes, committees, boards, etc. After all, totalizm states that only individual ownership stimulates and develops the feelings of responsibility over owed properties. In turn group ownerships always gradually erode and eliminate responsibility. More on this subject is explained in subsection JD1.2 /?/.
- Totaliztic model of family. It is based on the traditional model of family. The family bounds are permanent and final (as previously people used to say: "blessed by God", and therefore in the initial assumption - for a whole lifespan), while every member of a given family shares the full responsibility over the fragment of family's fate that is assigned to him/her. This model reinforces the traditional moral values that were assigned to families. Also it promotes the clear division of roles and responsibilities in each family - so eagerly dismounted in recent years. For example it reinstates roles of "head of family" and "bread winner", although it leaves to individual families to decide, who is to fulfil which role. Moreover, it emphasizes the importance of "work over the quality of coexistence" and the value of marriages for a life, while disregards the temporary relationships and frequent changes of partners.
- Totaliztic model of justice. In this model everyone is personally responsible for good deeds, or destruction, that caused. There is no such things as bad influence of parents or environment, acting under the influence of drugs, acting while mentally unfit, group prizes, etc. It is based on the moral laws "you did, so you are responsible", "you did not prevent, so you are responsible", "you accomplished, so you rip rewards", "you managed to prevent a disaster, so you are awarded", etc.
By informing here about these models, which are resulting from the morally motivative function of responsibility that totalizm discovered, I am fully aware that they are exposed to attacks of all sorts of armchair critics. These critics most probably are going to argue that totaliztic models, by returning to traditional values, are actually ignoring the accomplishments of modern sciences and latest social movements (about which, unfortunately, we do not know how much in them is human influence, and how much is manipulation of evil parasites described in subsection A3. But all these critics should be aware that totaliztic models are based on moral laws, while all the modern sciences and social movements, quite decisively ignore the existence and action of moral laws. In turn we exactly know what happens, when someone starts to systematically ignore the action of laws of the universe, as this was well illustrated by the history of communism, feudalism, or slavery. For example, communism fell down in spite that it was ignoring only a small fraction of the laws of universe - namely it ignored only economical laws. In turn when one analyses the modern sciences and social trends, they ignore a whole large area of very important moral laws. Thus the outcome for them is rather predictable.

=> JA9.
Antworten to top



Gehe zu:


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