JD11.2. Avoid totaliztic sins of behavioural sacrifices...
#1
@ Dr. Ing. Jan Pająk

JD11.2. Avoid totaliztic sins of behavioural sacrifices, which are not accompanied by powerful "moral" feelings

Out of the complete list of totaliztic sins described in subsection A5.2 /?/, behavioural sacrifice is inducing the most controversy. The probable reason is that Christianity includes "sacrifice" to the category of "good deeds", not to the category of "sins". Therefore, to understand better principles of totalizm, I explain in this subsection the totaliztic understanding of (behavioural) sacrifice. For example, I explain here why purely behavioural totaliztic "sacrifice" (to be distinguished from the emotional one), which is not accompanied by any emotional good deed, in fact must belong to the category of totaliztic sins, not to the category of totaliztic good deeds. I am going to explain also, why totalizts should avoid committing behavioural "sacrifice", which is not accompanied by any significant emotional good deed that would compensate the outcomes of the sacrifice, and that would justify committing it.
A (purely behavioural) totaliztic sin of sacrifice, which is discussed in this subsection, must be clearly distinguished from an emotional sacrifice, to which the deductions from this subsection do not apply. The behavioural sacrifice depends on voluntary doing something for someone else, who is fully capable to do it personally, and who is not going to reward us for it. In turn the emotional sacrifice is to accept unpleasant feelings for (or from) someone, who without our sacrifice would need to personally experience these feelings, but who do not even know that we experience these feelings for (or from) him/her. Examples of typical (behavioural) sacrifice can be mothers, who work hard only to prepare something tasty for their adult sons, while these sons are mindlessly watching TV or playing music. In turn an example of emotional sacrifice, is a son, who is experiencing financial problems, or work-related setbacks, but does not want to worry parents, about which he knows that they would not be able to help him, therefore he does not share these problems with them.
Totalizm indicates several reasons, why totaliztic (behavioural) sacrifice in principle is a sin, and why in normal circumstances we should avoid committing it. (Notice, that an emotional sacrifice is also a sin in the light of totalizm, and also we should avoid committing it.) The most important out of these is that according to the totaliztic definition, a behavioural "sacrifice" represents only a victim-sinner reversal of exploitation. Thus, from the social point of view, it is equally condemnable, as the exploitation is. After all, wherever there is a behavioural sacrifice, there an exploitation must also exist. This means that a victim of an exploitation commits a sacrifice, while the subject of a sacrifice commits a sin of exploitation. From the point of view of totalizm, exploitation is already a serious sin. Therefore for totalizm, also the sacrifice, which inspires this exploitation, must be a sin, although ethically it is more tolerable to commit sacrifice then to commit exploitation. The second important reason why totalizm recommends to avoid sacrifices, is the problem of addiction. People who frequently commit sacrifices (e.g. some mothers), with the elapse of time develop an addiction at the receiving end. This addiction is so overwhelming to the receivers of the sin of sacrifice, that later they start to expect that all other people around them should constantly commit sacrifices for them. After all, an English proverb says that "favour repeated becomes a habit". In the final effect these people who are on the receiving end of sacrifices (i.e. these people who exploit the ones that commit sacrifices), with the elapse of time are learning not to listen to their own conscience, and they become convinced that everyone around them should constantly make sacrifices for them. This in turn is a large leap into the marshes of parasitism (as explained in subsection KA4.2 /?/). From this addiction, intellects that got used to other people constantly sacrificing for them, usually later are not able to free themselves - see chapter KB. Thus one of the destructive effects of sacrifices is that they actively push the recipients of these sacrifices, out of the path of moral living, and straight into the claws of parasitism.
Of course, by the recommendations of avoiding (behavioural) sacrifice, totalizm does not claim that we should not make sacrifices at all, but only claims that we should not commit behavioural sacrifices - if they are not accompanied by simultaneous emotional good deeds accomplished at the feelings level - as this is explained in next subsection. (After all, even in case of writing this monograph, it was created in the result of committing a sacrifice, only that this sacrifice was accompanied by a powerful emotional good deed of the progress type.) By revealing that the behavioural sacrifice always qualifies into the category of "immoral" sins, totalizm also does not claim, that we should not help other people, but only claims that "helping" with the aid of sacrifice is not a help at all, but only a "licence for committing exploitation at the receiving end". For this reason totalizm recommends that we should help other people with the use of totaliztic good deeds of inspiration and progress, which are described in subsection A5.1. In final effects they are quite similar to sacrifice, although they do not cause the dissipation of moral energy in the doer, and also they differ drastically from the point of view of motivation, scenario, and also the manner in which they are conducted.
The dilemma of moral categorising of sacrifices, brings our attention to another matter, namely to the fact of simultaneous acting of people in two levels: (1) action or behaviour, and (2) feeling or emotion. As this is described in subsection A7.2 /?/, behavioural sins (i.e. immoral actions) are usually accompanied by powerful feelings (and vice versa). These feelings, depending on their character, can constitute emotional good deeds, or emotional sins. Thus, if we are committing a behavioural sin, while the feelings which accompany it represent a significant emotional good deed, then the effects of this good deed may compensate the effects of the sin. Frequently just such a situation takes place in cases of (behavioural) sin of sacrifice. If this sacrifice is linked with a significant emotional good deed, together they can still represent a good deed - means give a "moral" final effect. (Exactly such a situation takes place regarding the research on totalizm and writing this monograph.) Before we take a decision to commit a given sacrifice against all odds, because it is in fact accompanied by a significant emotional good deed, we should firstly analyse the situation and check whether in fact the condition of simultaneous generation of the emotional good deed is fulfilled. This is because in usual cases only sacrifices which are committed for large group intellects (country, nation, civilization), and which serve some very important and morally correct idea (fight for freedom, elimination of injustice, improvement of situation for a number of people, etc.), fulfil this condition. In turn (behavioural) sacrifice, which is committed just for individual people, usually is a pure sin, which motivates these people to the habit of exploiting others.

=> JD11.3.
Antworten to top



Gehe zu:


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