JB6. Why every "motion along the line of least resistance" always creates a ...
#1
@ Dr. Ing. Jan Pająk

JB6. Why every "motion along the line of least resistance" always creates a "black hole" where any motion is impossible
Motto of this subsection: "The biggest difference always make these tiny details".

In my life I was in a privileged position of organising and carrying out numerous controversial discussions, both public and person-to-person, with many conservative and close-minded people. The participants of many of them were people with highest education. Thus I had the opportunity to carry out discussions with university professors, scientists, people of industry, experts, hobby groups, etc. Many of them were my bosses, who used to give me orders, what I should not do, and also who used to decide about my fate. Some of them were my scientific colleagues, listeners to my presentations of new discoveries, people whom I encounter casually, and accidentally noted their conservative philosophy, etc. Whenever I had an opportunity to deal with such people, their unpleasant, strange, and painful for others way of thinking, expressing their views, and making their decisions, which hurt others, was always shocking me. After each necessity of dealing with such people, I had a bad taste and a moral hangover for a long time. Until around 1994 I did not know, that there is such thing as the philosophy of parasitism described in details in chapter KA /?/. Thus I had no idea that all these unpleasant people simply adhere to parasitism, while their hurtful behaviour is just an outcome of this highly immoral philosophy. I was only aware, that myself I never would behave in a manner that they did. However, the set of principles, which they demonstrated in their actions, thinking, and decisions, used to challenge me and induced the will to determine its roots. Therefore, after the formulation of totalizm, I started to systematically collect the information about the essence of behaviour of these immoral people. This information I used to wrote down in the form of "doctrines" of their behaviour. These doctrines were simply short statements, which I formulated in order to express the essence of a given their behaviour, that I observed at that point of time. Of course, before I carried out the recording of any of such doctrines, firstly I needed to observe in action the behaviour which it represents. Usually this took place on the occasion of a subsequent one, out of many painful experiences that the life was so generous to serve to me. After all, in case of every such doctrine, I firstly needed to make sure, that it actually is adhered by someone, whom I know in person. Thus these doctrines express "the dominating motivation that governs the decisions and actions of actually existing individual people in a specific type of situations, which is transformed from the form of a feeling or internat altitude, into the form of a general verbal definition". In the result of carrying out of these systematic observations, and recording them throughout many subsequent years, I managed to accumulate rather impressive list of empirical observations concerning doctrines that express everyday philosophies of people who adhere to what I later called "parasitism". In turn the accumulation of these observations created empirical foundations, on which was later possible to build gradually the concept of totalizm and parasitism. In this subsection I decided to present the selection of the most important and the most representative doctrines of this everyday philosophy of well educated people who practice a parasitic philosophy. At this point I should add that these doctrines do not represent a philosophy of a single person, or even a single group of people. They are rather a "model", means the collection of elements which I managed to find in philosophies of many real people that I used to know in person during my life. The key altitude of all these people is to not accept any new idea, and to act according to the philosophy of parasitism. Here are these doctrines:
#1. I learned long ago everything that was worth my attention. Thus if someone tries to teach me something completely new, it is not worth to interrupt the pleasure that I am currently indulging, just to listen what he/she has to say.
#2. The main purpose of studying and collecting diplomas, is to find a cosy job free of any responsibility and free of obligation to perfect ourselves further (or: "gaining education releases us from responsibility, while gaining a diploma releases us from the further increasing of our knowledge").
#3. The faith and knowledge are enemies, thus believers and knowers must fight with each other.
#4. Insisting on truth is not worth risking what we already accomplished. Much easier is to do what other people are doing, and to say what other people expect us to say.
#5. Only those things are possible, which we already know how to achieve. This doctrine can also be expressed with different words: "possible is only what we already know how to accomplish".
#6. Only what I do is really important. In turn subjects of interests of other people are not worth anyone's attention. Thus if I have any power, authority, or money, I do a favour to the world by forbidding or making impossible to others to go along their own interests.
#7. According to my standards, every other person can be charged with some serious fault. Thus I am going to grow in my own eyes and in eyes of people similar to me, if I point out this fault and start to oppress this person for not fulfilling my expectations.
#8. Everyone else is lying or is wrong, until he/she conclusively proves that his/her claims are true, or that he/she is right. (Another versions of the same: "I will believe you when I see it", "guilty until proves the innocence", or "prove that you are telling the truth".)
#9. The universe is not permitted to display any facts that extend beyond our horizons. Thus administrators of science have the authority to decide, which facts are "permissible" and thus should be investigated, and which are "heretic/taboo" and thus should be ignored or denied.
#10. Our present knowledge is perfect and complete - any further outstanding research is illegitimate and should be forbidden (or: all those scientists who do not conform and investigate "heretic/taboo" areas, should be "burned on stake").
#11. Truth only then interests me, when I am able to use it against others; but if any truth does not suit me, then myself I ignore it, and also disallow it to be learned by other people by hiding it from them, by distorting its meaning, or by making impossible for them to discover it.
Other version of the same: "I always hide and ignore this truth, which does not suit me, or does not suit someone important, dangerous, or noisy".
#12. Only I am always right, behave the most correctly, and have the monopole for the errorless knowledge and views. Thus I spend my life the most beneficially, if my main occupation is going to be forcing others to act according to my views and expectations, while I am so perfect, that there is no need to work on myself at all.
The same view, only that relating to a different object, can be expressed with the following words: "if any publication of a source of information contains the knowledge that is not agreeable with my views, or contains the truth that does not suit me, than I do a service to the world if I burn it, or in any other way stop it from getting into people's attention". (Readers probably believe that people with such views disappeared with the fall down of inquisition. Thus it is worth to know, that I was personally living in a country, which still on the turn of years 1996/7 carried out a public burning on stake of books, literature, and video tapes. In this country the use of satellite TV was forbidden until it purchased its own satellite, while now it is permitted only from this satellite, the programmes of which are subjected to a strict governmental censorship of that country.)
#13. The implementation of progressive ideas leads only to problems. Thus the less effort I put into new ideas, the more problem-free is my life.
#14. I experienced, that undertaking any activity always requires an effort and disturbs the comfortable life. Therefore the most willingly I stay inert, avoiding undertaking anything, that directly does not serve my interests.
#15. We do not want anyone in our closed company, because sharing what we have, would leave less to ourselves. Thus, if anyone manages to squeeze to us, we push him/her down by finding and pointing out his/her imperfections, discrepancies with our standards, and differences from us. The same but in different words: "what we have, we have for ourselves - others are only to be exploited, not for letting them to earn anything".
#16. The measure of my success is the number of people, whom I managed to distance from myself through getting power over them, making them dependent on me and  subjecting to my exploitation, accomplishing an education which they do not have, forcing for myself better salaries, earning better and more expensive devices and equipment that they have, constant securing for myself the larger amount of material goods, neutralizing their competitiveness, utilising every contact and capabilities to increase my advantage over others, etc.
In practice the above doctrine can be utilised in many different versions and detailed variations. Let us list here an example of another version, which is commonly utilised by people who act according to the line of the least intellectual resistance. "I noted that if I share with someone my knowledge, he/she uses it for getting an advantage over me. Therefore for keeping my distance, the most important details and the most important knowledge I am going to hide from others". A similar idea is also expressed in a popular belief that "poor are sources of wealth, incompetent are highlights of a success". According to this believe, people with parasitic inclinations make impossible for poor to work out a better position for themselves, and also they make difficult for those with incomplete knowledge or training, to gain the required skills, and thus to make possible for them to equal to those who accomplished a success. The same can also be expressed with a popular slogan used by parasites: "who knows is silent, who does not know does all the talking".
#17. The most important for me are differences, which divide people. Therefore in others I always seek, what makes them different from me, and when I find any such a difference in them, I immediately use it to start hostilities and abuse.
#18. In order to balance my guilty conscience, I am going to charge others with the guilt for my own faults. (This is the explanation of people's motivations behind the popular in Poland saying that "cook was guilty, but they hanged a shoe-repairman". This explanation results from my empirical observation, that people who used to continually follow the line of the least intellectual resistance "feel offended by us not for the errors that we committed, by for all this that for them would not come right, but for which our actions provided an excuse to balance their guilty conscience by putting all the blame on us".)
#19. If I do not pay, do not appreciate, or in any other manner manage to exploit others, than I become richer myself, while my life is going to grow into comfort. The same doctrine can also be expressed in a different way, for example with the words: "in everything that I do, my only goal is to gain for myself the highest possible benefits, for the maximisation of which I always try to receive as much as only possible, giving in return as little, as I only get away with it".
#20. Because you are weaker from me, I rob from you everything for what I find any use, I take away your living space, while yourself I allow to die of starvation, strained circumstances, and the lack of space, because in this world only the most fit ones survive. The same idea, only that expressed with different words: "the right to life and to own living space have only those, whom I consider to be equal or more powerful than me; but if I discover that someone is weaker from me, than I allow him/her to live only if I am able to exploit him/her, and I destroy him/her immediately, when I discover that he/she is unsuitable for further exploitation".
#21. The more I have, the more I am entitled to waste. (The same but in other words: no-one and nothing, has the right to limit me about the manner in which I treat everything for which I found an excuse to consider it to be my property.)
#22. My ideal of life is to indulge in pleasures and in rest. Therefore, my most important goal and the final outcome of all my efforts, is to be able to stop doing anything and to continue a prosperous life without carrying out any useful work.
If we analyze the above doctrines, we easily come to the conclusion, that each of them represents an implementation of the well known natural tendency for "taking the line of the least resistance". Thus the philosophy of people, who live according to the above doctrines, can be called a "philosophy of going along the line of the least intellectual resistance". In chapter KA /?/, this philosophy is described under the name of "parasitism".
The tendency to select the line of the least resistance is a characteristic of untamed nature, or more strictly to all objects and creatures with an extremely low level of intelligence. But the advanced intellects, including people, act according to a different rule of "selecting what is the most rational to select" - means always moving against the line of the least intellectual resistance. The principles of the philosophy outlined in this monograph and called "totalizm" represent an implementation of this rationalized rule. As totalizm discovered, the most rational way to follow, is to "climb always upward in the moral field".
If one tries to express in a single sentence the essence of all doctrines of the "philosophy of moving along the line of the least intellectual resistance", than it turns out, that their implementation in our lives always leads to the decrease of someone's moral energy. This decrease of moral energy has always such a consequence, that it decreases someone's freedom of choice, personal freedoms, rights to co-decide, the choice of own direction, the learning of publications in which someone is interested, viewing programmes or films, etc. In the sense of final effects, the outcomes of philosophy of parasitism are intellectual equivalents for outcomes of all phenomena of nature, that take a course along the line of the least resistance. After all, the phenomena of nature that occur along the line of the least resistance also always inevitably lead to the limitation of "freedom". For example, fall of a stone always decreases at least by one the amount of "freedom" that this stone has. After the fall is finished, this stone is not going to have the previous freedom to fall. In turn it is known from sciences, that when something follows continually the line of the least resistance, at some stage it must achieve the state of a complete lack of motion. A commonly known example of astronomical objects, which due to a long-term following of the line of the least resistance, lost completely their freedom, are old star systems popularly known as "black holes". The freedom of these systems fall down to such a level, that not only nothing can move in themselves, but even light is unable to come out from them. The above allows to draw a very important conclusion, which can be expressed with the following words: "the line of the least resistance is a suicidal line, because in the final effect it always leads to the complete restraining of freedom, and thus to making any further motion impossible".
In the manner identical as this happens for physical phenomena, also following the line of the least intellectual resistance must inevitably lead to the loss of freedom. Thus also in these phenomena, people who constantly move along the line of the least intellectual resistance, must gradually loose their free will or freedom of choices, thus in the final effect they must turn into moral "black holes". This moral "black holes" put given people, country, or civilisation, into the state of a complete stagnation, fall down, and death. Such a death, which is caused by the complete exhaustion of someone's moral energy, totalizm calls the death by "moral suffocation". Examples of it include: the fall down of a communistic system, and also the previous fall down of feudal system. The communistic governments, in the final stage of their activities were carrying out almost exclusively movements, which deprived everyone free will, thus causing that at some stage moral energy was completely exhausted in their countries.
As the above tries to illustrate this, the philosophy of parasitism, which follows the rule of always going along the line of the least intellectual resistance, is directing the adherers of this philosophy into the increasingly larger stagnation, moral suffocation, and complete fall down of our civilisation. This philosophy, unfortunately, impedes the promotion of anything that is new, and maintains a lazy, grasping, and selfish style of living. It gradually deprives people their free will, freedom of choice, initiative, etc. According to subsections I4.1.1 and KA2 /?/, it runs exactly opposite to the action of moral laws. It seems that our civilization has now reached the point, where any further progress is extremely difficult, if not completely impossible, without replacing the principle of "taking the line of the least intellectual resistance" by the totaliztic one, which is oriented towards progress. In this monograph, a justification, and methods for such a replacement are presented, and described the essence of this new, progressive philosophy of totalizm.
After I formulated totalizm in 1985, I was also undertaking significant efforts to discover principles, which would describe the most advanced philosophy possible, that could be
developed on Earth. I was interested in discovering such progressive principles, about which it would be known for sure, that they actually prove themselves in real life. Thus I was especially interested in philosophy of people, who were widely known from their progressive views, from accepting new ideas, morality, cordiality, goodness, consistency, honour, etc. Thus I started to discretely observe such people in my environment, and started to scrupulously analyse their principles of acting, system of values, views, etc. In the result, with the elapse of years, also for these especially liked by their environment and highly respected people, I started to identify the most vital missions of their everyday philosophy, which ruled their motivations, decisions, and actions. By the term "mission" I understand here a definition which expresses "an internal conviction what is correct, and thus conviction which determines the main direction of positive motivations, decisions, and actions of some real individual person in a given life situation". As it later turned out, everyday philosophies of these positive people are composed of missions, which represent an exact reversal of doctrines of philosophy of "going along the line of the least intellectual resistance". Listed below are the more important of these positive missions. (Compare the list ' that follows, with the previous # one.) As this is to be explained later, the list of missions of these generally liked and respected people, actually also represents the list of typical altitudes of totalizm. Here are the most important of these missions:
§1. Life depends on the continuous learning about the operation of laws of the universe, and depends on our effort of obeying these laws in everything that we do (or: life is a constant learning, learning is a more perfect knowledge, the more perfect knowledge is a better life).
§2. Knowledge is responsibility. Thus while having any knowledge, I feel responsible for everything that has a connection with this knowledge, e.g. that it should be also available to others, that it is utilised for the good of people, that whatever this knowledge concerns do not turn against other people, that it is not misused by other people, etc.
§3. The knowledge is to be extended by faith, faith is to be transformed into knowledge. §4. Do what you believe in, believe in what you are doing. 
§5. Everything is possible - we only need to find out how to achieve it. The same
mission is frequently expressed with the use of different words, e.g. that "every goal is accomplishable, we only need to discover how to reach it".
§6. Everything that is important for you and is not harmful to others, is also important for me. By supporting your interests and goals, about which I know that they do not serve deprivation of anyone of his/her moral energy, I also support your most elementary right for the free will in thinking, views, actions, and the choice of own path. The same can also be expressed in a popular form: "even if I do not agree with your opinion, I am still ready to fight for your right to have the freedom of expressing the opinion that you have".
§7. Every person know something, which I do not know, and what can improve and enrich my life. Thus it is a honour and benefit, if he/she wants to share this with me. (The best expression of this mission is the Chinese proverb stating that: "every mole has something to teach the philosopher about digging a hole".)
§8. All statements of others are true unless they are proven to be untrue. (The same but expressed with different words: "all are innocent until it is proven that they are guilty", or "if any statement induces the disagreement, it is the listener/receiver who has the duty to prove it is incorrect, not the reporting to prove that it is correct", or "reporting always officially receives the credit of telling the truth, while the annulation of this credit requires the conclusive proving that what he/she claimed was untrue". In turn when taken from a different point of view it states that: "if I did not meet or experienced something myself, it does not mean, that this does not exist or cannot happen".)
The totaliztic mission discussed here (usually described as "innocent until proven guilty", or "true until proven untrue"), by many people is NOT understood correctly. These people believe, that it orders them to have no own opinion, to always agree with opinion of others, or to accept as truth the obvious lies of people who are famous for telling untruth. Means, that these people believe that the giver with the use of this mission have the right to take the moral energy from the receiver. Therefore it is better if I explain here more extensively, how this mission should actually be interpreted, and what differentiates it from the parasitic doctrine "guilty until proves innocence" or "lie until proven truth".
The most simple difference between these two opposites is their position towards moral field. The mission of totalizm is directed uphill of moral field. After all, it introduces a healthy balance to the amount of work that both sides must do (i.e. the giver must carry out the observation and formulate his/her explanation, while the receiver must either prove their incorrectness, or treat them as a truth). Thus the implementation in real life of the principle "innocent until proven guilty", or "truth until proven untruth" allows us to move uphill in the moral field. In turn the parasitic doctrine "guilty until proves innocent" or "lie until proven truth" is so oriented, that it always disturbs the balance and takes moral energy from both sides. Thus it moves all parties downhill in the moral field. After all, the giver must do the double work of not only observing and formulating the explanation, but also proving the correctness of what is stated. In turn the receiver does nothing - and only negatively and continually disagrees with everything. Thus practically in this doctrine the listener does not need to accept the truth which is inconvenient for him/her. In real life this causes that all those affected by this doctrine loose their moral energy.
But in order for the totaliztic mission to be able to cause the increase of moral energy in all parties involved, it must be implemented in such a manner, that it allows to exercise the free will by both sides. This means that it must not be used to deprive listeners the right for having a free will, and thus to disagree with the person who claims a given matter. Only that this different opinion of receivers, before it is formally proven, should not be a basis for any action which would deprive the giver moral energy. After all, totalizm encourages to have a difference of opinions, as this difference is the motive force for every progress. Only that totalizm forbids to so use these differences of opinions that they could divide people, or could take moral energy from them. Thus, in order to express the need for a balanced treatment of the mission discussed here, it is best if at the thought level it is supplemented with the principle as follows: "now, when we know your opinion, and we know that it differs from ours, let us get together to the centre of this matter and find out the truth, as this finding the truth is going to increase moral energy on both sides".
§9. All facts are equal - each of them deserves the same consideration. (The same in different words: "a discrimination of facts is leading to similar negative consequences as a discrimination of people".)
§10. Everything can be improved further - and the obligation of every person is to leave things better than he/she found them.
Other formulation of the same idea: "knowledge is infinitive, and our learning never ends".
§11. Truth and only truth is what I intend to learn, what I make available for others, and what I promote with all my energy. By learning and promoting truth, whatever it would be, I am fully aware, that as everything in the material world, incorrectly motivated people may use it for doing evil deeds. But it does not stop me from standing by truth, because what other people do with it is going to charge their karma, while I am responsible only for what I do. (The same but in other words: "truth revitalises, so let share it like bread".)
§12. The improvement of people we should start at (and limit to) ourselves. If you are not actively attacked and thus forced to act in self defence, or if you do not meet someone, whose intellectual limitations or moral illness disallow to realize the evil that is doing, than the only allowable ways of causing changes in other people is the personal example and logical argumentation. (Note, however, that it is impossible to change "morally ill" parasites just only by our own example or by logical argumentation. Thus this manner of changing others is applicable only to people with totaliztic-type philosophies.)
The same mission, but related to a different subject, can be expressed with the following words: "if someone wishes to share my motivations, views or actions, should do this from his/her own will, not because I force him/her to do this. In order to make this possible for
him/her, I always respect and support as I can his/her right for learning the motivations, views, and actions of other people, and for the access to publications or resource materials, which represent them". Expressing this in other words: "burning or destruction of any publications, and also censorship and limitations on dissemination, are serious moral crimes because they deprive someone of free will".
§13. The life without problems is impossible, thus it is better to actively choose positive problems, the solving of which will benefit other people, than passively await until negative problems are going to find us. (This is a positive interpretation of my empirical observation that: "these who managed to escape in life from real problems, still invent for themselves some imaginary ones, so that they can satisfy their need of having problems".)
§14. The decision of not doing good is equivalent of a decision of doing evil. (Or in other words: "morally we are responsible not only what we did, but also for what we decided not to do, when the situation asked for our action".)
§15. With open arms we welcome everyone, who trusted us to join our team and to share with us fruits of his/her work, while to honour his/her efforts, dedication, and loyalty, we are going to acknowledge his/her strong points and to give to him/her a status, which is proportional to the real accomplishments and contribution to our team.
§16. The measure of my success is the number of people, whom I managed to get closer to me by offering them my friendship, supporting their path to independence, sharing with them my knowledge, allowing them to learn my skills, enabling them to have a rewarding work, helping in purchasing the necessary devices and equipment, supporting their effort to accomplish the prosperous and fulfilled life, supporting them in difficult situations, using every contact to help them in needs, etc.
The above totaliztic mission, can be used in many versions and wordings. Let us review some of them. "Sharing knowledge is the purest form of helping others, while helping others is the need of our souls". The same in other words "knowing is teaching".
§17. The most important for me are similarities, which link people. Therefore in others I always try to find these similarities, simultaneously tolerating the differences, which could divide us, if we would not respect the right of others to have them, and if we would keep these differences under control.
§18. I approve the indications of my conscience and accept my personal responsibility for all failures that I committed.
§19. Exploitation of others is charging the karma of exploiters. Thus to save myself the unpleasantness of the future paying back my karma, better I give today to all around me exactly what they deserve.
§20. I never intensionally and in the premeditated manner rob anyone from his/her property, means of living, or living space, because in my opinion weak deserves exactly the same rights as powerful. The same idea, but expressed in other words: everyone has the same right to live and to have own space; thus I am going to direct my actions in such a manner, that this right is not taken away or destroyed for anyone.
The above, extremely vital mission, is expressed by a whole range of various proverbs. In my opinion, the best such proverb is the Chinese one which states "never break (destroy) somebody's rice bowl" - means "never take away or destroy whatever keeps someone alive".
§21. In our treatment of the good that is given to us, we are morally responsible also for those, who are deprived of this good (i.e. our own prosperity does not release us from the responsibility for suffering of those starved people, whose bread we wasted).
§22. My ideal of life is the action, reaching goals, and leaving behind the positive signs of my existence. Therefore, my most important goal is to direct all my efforts so that I give from myself as much as I am able, and I take for myself as little as necessary. In order to explain this in other words, "history at all times reminds us that people are remembered and appreciated for what they did, not for what they managed to avoid doing".
All people who can identify their personal philosophy with the above list of missions of totaliztic behaviour, are going to conduct the life, which is characterised by attributes unique for totalizm.
If one tries to also express the common attribute, or essence, of all above missions of the totaliztic behaviour, than it turns out that they all increase the level of someone's free will (means the freedom of choice, co-deciding, etc.). Thus in the sense of the final effect, their mechanism turns out to be an exact reversal of the mechanism of previously listed doctrines (#) of the philosophy of following the line of the least intellectual resistance. Thus, as the final result, this mechanism must lead to gradual increase of free will and freedom of choice. Means that it must encourage the revival, spiritual growth, and intellectual ascend. Thus totalizm represents the philosophical pole exactly opposite to parasitism.
In many everyday philosophies, especially in the parasitism described here, the searched for qualities of life are usually understood as money and material prosperity. But, as this monograph explains this, actually these searched for qualities depend on the accumulation of moral energy. The more of this energy someone has, the more happy is, the more his/her life is fulfilled and satisfied, etc. The accumulation of money and material wealth, without simultaneous increasing of moral energy, is an absurd activity. This is because the lack of this energy makes impossible the joy of having whatever money can buy. (As an example consider a case of an egoistic person who has no friends, but who bought an expensive cellular phone - money spend on this device still do not bring friends, with whom this person could talk with the use of this device.)

=> JB7.
Antworten to top



Gehe zu:


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