Motto: „The hell is paved with ‚good intentions’.”
In Poland we have the idiom „bear’s favour”. It originates from the folk fable in which a huge and a powerful bear had good intentions towards the man with whom the bear was friendly. So when a fly sat on the forehead of the man, the bear wanted to give him a favour and to kill the fly. But when the bear hit the fly with his paw, its blow was so powerful, that it shattered the skull of the friend. So if we would define the Polish folk expression „bear’s favour”, then we would state something along the lines: the „bear’s favour” is an activity carried out with good intentions of helping, but without the required consensus of people being helped, which activity, however, due to commitment of the various mistakes or over-simplification of the analysis of its actual consequences, in practice turns out to be highly destructive for those to whom it supposed to serve and help. Unfortunately, all of us are only human, while committing mistakes is a human thing. Therefore, the art of living does NOT depend on total avoidance of giving „bear’s favours”, but on the skills of repairing such disservice when we discover, that what we are doing turns out to be undesirable – that is, depend on the ability of changing „bear’s favours” into „true favours”.
Unfortunately, in the real life, many people unintentionally give to others just such a „bear’s favour”. As an example, consider this „anti-smacking law” described in item #B5.1 from the web page named „will.htm” – the „good intention” of which was to prevent the abuse of children, but which actually deprived decent parents of the right to discipline their own children.
I scientifically researched why so many actions of decision-makers and politicians turn out later to be „bear’s favours”. As I determined, the main reason is, that such actions are NOT checked whether they meet all the criteria of being „moral”. It turns out that if something is NOT „moral” (in the sense of the definition of „morality” provided in item #B5 from my web page named „morals.htm”), then it causes so-called „side effects”, which in most cases eliminate, and often exceed, its beneficial consequences. This is because only acting which meets the criteria of being „moral” typically does NOT introduce various undesirable side effects. Unfortunately, most people do NOT know about these facts. After all, the direct link between morality and side effects was revealed only through the research of the new „totaliztic science” carried out in compliance with the philosophy of totalizm – so still only a few people knows about this link. In turn, people who do not know about results of such research of totalizm, make a lot of decisions that have NOT been verified whether they meet the criteria of morality. Many of these decisions were NOT consulted with people whom later they affect, thus having a character of „forcing happiness onto someone” accordingly to the belief of many politicians and decision makers, that „I know the best what they need to be happy”. The implementation of such decisions turns out later to be a kind of „bear’s favours”. So in order to indicate here what kinds of checking with moral criteria is required in all human actions, I summarised what such checking should be all about in the „part #J” of my web page named „pajak_for_mp_2014.htm” – available at addresses provided near the end of this post.
Subsections JA4.1 and JA13 from volume 6 of my newest monograph [1/5] explain broadly reasons for which all decisions and actions, that have NOT been confirmed as meeting the criteria of morality, after completing turn out to be loaded with unwanted „side effects” turning them into the „bear’s favour”. This explanation reveals, that every human action (and every decision) is a kind of three-dimensional process performed in the human mind first, and only later being projected to the physical world. On „Fig. #I1” from the web page named „pajak_for_mp_2014.htm” this process is illustrated as vector P. This process shows a kind of „mirror similarities” to the three-dimensional process of „physical work” that is already well described for us by sciences of physics and mechanics. Namely, these human actions and decisions that occur in our mind, also are kinds of displacements Px, Py and Pz carried out in three-dimensional force field formed by three forces of environmental oppositions aligned perpendicularly to each other (i.e. at 90 degree angles) – i.e. aligned similarly to the set of three coordinate axes X, Y and Z in a three-dimensional physical space. Onto these displacements Px, Py and Pz taking place in our minds, act the following three kinds of opposing forces of this three-dimensional force field, namely: (X) forces F=ma formed by the so-called „moral field” (e.g. external pressures and forces formed by our conscience, by intellectually learned requirements of God given to us by religions, by the content of the Bible, by the methods and effects of God’s actions, etc.), (Y) opposing forces and commands of feelings and judgments of other people (e.g. human prejudices, dislikes, habits, emotional needs of egos, etc.), and (Z) opposing physical forces (e.g. resistances of our body, consequences of fatigue, physical needs of the body, etc.). Out of these three forces the most primary is the „moral field” (F=ma). In turn forces of feelings (Y) and physical forces (Z) are secondary towards the „moral field” and depend on it in many ways – some of which still require researching. It is for that reason that we can state, that forces of feelings and physical forces are „side effects” of the moral field. For example, we already know, that actions Px which are „moral” (means which run uphill of the axis X), in people who act morally generate positive feelings Py (i.e. feelings which also run uphill of the axis Y, as it is indicated in parts (a) and (c) from abovementioned „Fig. #I1”). But in people who act immorally (e.g. in criminals) someone’s moral acting Px generates negative feelings -Py (i.e. feelings which run downhill of the axis Y, as it is indicated in parts (c) and (d) from abovementioned „Fig. #I1”). Similarly we already know, that every effective „good deed” (such as the one illustrated in part (a) from „Fig. #I1) always requires contributing into it a significant physical effort (e.g. lifting a load, pulling someone from water, completing a work for someone, etc.). Of course, every human action (or decision) P can be arbitrarily inclined relatively to these three force coordinate axes X, Y and Z. With such an inclining, the action (or decision) P itself becomes the physical „action” which induces secondary „reactions” of not only a moral, but also an emotional Py and physical Pz character. These secondary „reactions” of the emotional or physical kind, the source of which is the action (or decision) P inclined at some angle to the emotional and physical axes, in our physical world is then manifested just as the abovementioned „side effects” Py and Pz of whatever has been done or decided. For this reason, only the actions and decisions that run exactly upward of every axis of the coordinate system described here, do NOT induce reactions in the form of unwanted „side effects”. Therefore, in order to carry out actions and make decisions that will NOT bring to us punishments -Px for breaking „moral laws”, that will NOT stimulate later other people neither to the strong negative feelings -Py, nor plague us with unpleasant physical consequences -Pz, it is necessary to carry out routine checking of each of our action and decision that it actually fulfils the criteria of being moral, i.e. checking whether it actually climbs exactly upward in the „moral field” and also upward along the axis of feelings and physical work. Only such actions that meet strict criteria of morality do NOT turn out to be later kinds of the „bear’s favour” described here.
In the above explanation I often use the name „moral field”. Although this field is partially described in a number of items from the web page named „pajak_for_mp_2014.htm” (e.g. in the items #F5, #J2, #N2, or (2014/4/19) from #M2), to be sure I explain precisely at this point what it actually is. Well, the so-called „totaliztic science” (i.e. the science described in item #F4 of the web page named „pajak_for_mp_2014.htm”) discovered that people are constantly subjected to two different kinds of invisible primary fields with characteristics very similar to each other. The first of these two fields, identified already relatively long time ago by the official science, is the well known to us „gravity field”. It acts only on the „physical masses” (e.g. on our bodies), and its action most clearly we experience e.g. when we climb up the stairs or along a slope. In contrast, the second of these two primary fields has NOT yet been detected by the official science, while the author of this post is the first scientist who discovered and described it. The author named it the „moral field” – because it creates force interactions with only „moral masses” (i.e. with human minds). On the illustrations from abovementioned „Fig. #I1”, this „moral field” is shown as a yellow arrow exerting the force F=ma. Its action also can be noticed relatively clearly when it comes to doing something that is morally correct, and thus that in the future will bring many benefits (a) for a large number of people (m) – for example, when we carry out actions described on the web page named „pajak_for_mp_2014.htm”. In such cases the action of moral field typically manifests itself to us as something that induces in us various intellectual resistances, threats, discouragements, attitudes, etc., felt in our minds as they discourage us to take such moral actions and that we need to consciously overcome by yielding a significant effort in the realization of our intentions. Examples of various manifestations of the action of „moral field”, which so far have already revealed themselves during the completion of my intentions described on the web page named „pajak_for_mp_2014.htm”, are provided in item #N3 of it. If we tried to provide here a formal definition of the moral field, then the field could be defined, for example, as follows. „Moral field” is a primary force-field very similar to gravity, which, however, instead of the „physical masses” acts on the „moral masses” (m) represented by our minds, with the force (F=ma), which is proportional to the number of human minds (m) that are affected by the consequences of a given action, and proportional to the amount of the benefits (a) of progress (or to the amount of suffering (-a) of a degeneration) caused by this action. It is worth to emphasize here, that in order to effectively educate people for „soldiers of God” (as described in item #B1 from the web page „antichrist.htm”), God in his infinite wisdom so programmed work of the „moral field”, that everything that is „moral” must with a significant effort climb uphill of this field (i.e. in the direction +Px, like it is indicated in parts (a) and (b) from the abovementioned „Fig. #I1”). In turn everything that is „immoral” slides down in this field, in short term generating for us some kind of pleasure (i.e. slides down in the direction -Px, like it is indicated in parts (c) and (d) from the abovementioned „Fig. #I1”). As a result, in the sense of short-term (immediate) effects, the „moral field” (F=ma) always immediately hinders every our activity which is morally correct, while it immediately makes easy and pleasant every our action that is „immoral”. (Note that such short-term effects of the moral field allow for a very simple and quick identification of actions and decisions that have the potential to turn „bear’s favours” in the future. Namely, if a given action or decision comes easily and/or gives pleasure for us, in fact it means that in the future it will probably be just a „bear’s favour”.) Fortunately for the humanity, the „moral field” has also its long-term operation, which is the multiplied reversal of its short-term action. In this long-term operation, the moral field abundantly rewards morally correct actions, and severely punishes actions that have qualified themselves as immoral.
So in order that any action (or decision) is NOT turning out later to be a „bear’s favour”, before its implementation we have the duty to verify whether it meets the criteria of morality, means whether it climbs possibly the most steeply up in this invisible „moral field” – following along the so-called „line of the highest intellectual resistance”. Only such action does NOT form later the „moral reactions” in the form of various punishments served to us due to actions of „moral laws”. In turn making sure, whether the action (or decision) is actually progressing uphill in the „moral field”, and along this required „line of the highest intellectual resistance”, is obtained by analyzing whether it fulfils the already known to us criteria of morality described in „part #J” of the web page named „pajak_for_mp_2014.htm”.
Giving of „bear’s favours” can be easily avoided in practice, if only in our decisions and actions we respect the three basic rules that should be included in every human process and every decision. Because the political decisions affect the largest number of people, so it is extremely important that the complying with these rules is automatically assigned (and required) to every political decision – including every decision of parliament. These rules impose the following requirements:
(1) After the initial decision, but before taking any action, you need to consult carefully your intentions with people who will be exposed to their consequences. Although many democracies, including that of New Zealand, makes broad gestures that supposedly uses pre-acting consultation, but over time these consultations were typically deviated due to the habit of their facilitation through conducting them with the wrong people – i.e. usually with local authorities and with institutions which will later implement given decision, and hence with which only negotiations of the final quality and price should be carried out, NOT the type and nature of the action. It is known that these local authorities and institutions will later implement these actions and decisions, means that their participants and representatives will later distribute lucrative contracts or will be drawing profits arising from such implementation. Thus, in their business lies NOT to change anything, only because it does NOT meet the criteria of morality and hence later it turns to be a „bear’s favour”. Thus, such improperly addressed consultation can be compared to the conduct of a husband, who is going to buy a car for his wife, but instead of the wife he consults for this purpose a car dealer – of course, landing with the model which is the most expensive, least comfortable, and the most unwanted by his wife. (As a result of such a „bear’s favour”, typically he is later punished by the adverse „side effects” of his decision, throughout the entire period of ownership of this car, and sometimes even through the rest of his life.)
(2) If the people who will be exposed to the consequences of the given action, in their majority begin to protest and urge the abandonment of it, „do NOT force them to be happy”, but rather change your intentions into a different action that will better serve these people. However, do NOT proceed hastily with finding out what should replace the unwanted action, but put a lot of thought into whatever you choose. For this, you should start by examining what was the true goal to be achieved by the original (abandoned) action, then prepare a list of other possible actions that also can accomplish the same, or very similar, goals.
(3) From the list of possible actions that can accomplish the true goals intended by you, select the one that best meets the criteria of morality, then again repeat for it the consultation process from the item (1) above. How you should then check whether that action fulfils the criteria of morality, I will indicate for you in more detail in „part #J” of the web page named „pajak_for_mp_2014.htm”. This process shall be repeated until a vast majority of people affected by the intended action is pleased to approve its completion. Note here that although it is known in advance that in a large group of people always some individuals are present who are to protest against virtually everything, typically there is very few such individuals – hence always can be found an action (or a decision) so moral, that it will content a majority of people that will be affected by its consequences. Only after obtaining the approval of the vast majority of people affected by it, you can start negotiations with contractors who will implement them in real life. This is because contractors will accept everything what is presented to them, only that negotiated with them will require the form, quality and price of their final product.
Politicians and decision makers are NOT the only people, who in every their proceedings, the outcomes of which are to affect other people, should comply with the above rules. In fact, everyone of us has a moral duty to work out for own use, and then systematically deploy in the actions, a version of these rules. Especially item (1) – i.e. the „pre-acting consultation”, and item (2) – i.e. the „change of unwanted actions into moral and wanted actions that will be accepted by the great majority of people affected by their consequences”. In other words, in whatever we do, we should: avoid making „surprises” (surprises by definition are immoral – unless they were proceeded by a discrete checking of their recipients, whether whatever is to be served to them is agreeable with their wishes), consult everything we intend to do, and be ready to make changes – if these are suggested to us. Of course, such a procedure of action goes against whatever the fuelled by „egos” philosophy of parasitism tells us vociferously that we should do on daily basis – as an example consider numerous advertisements and announcements of the type „make your loved one a surprise and buy for her a diamond ring”, or „organize for him a surprise party”. But we must remember that these advertisements are developed and disseminated by the companies and institutions that in item (1) above are indicated as „inappropriate” to consult with them our decisions. If we will consult our plans with the right person, for example, with the loved one, then it may turn out, for example, that instead of drowning our savings in a diamond ring, she would rather prefer we purchase a table that we need in a shared flat, while e.g. the consulting the person for which is to be organized a surprise party may for example reveal that this person has on that day an urgent need to go to another town. So there is about the time that we understand that whatever is advertised noisily and imposes itself upon us, according to the iron rule of morality always runs down in the moral field – as such, it introduces more adverse „side effects” than the benefits. If we do NOT want that such thing later turns out later a „bear’s favour”, then it must be designed wisely and in consultation with the majority of people who will be affected by it, so that it runs „uphill”, NOT „downhill”, in the moral field!
* * *
The above post is an adaptation from item #I1 and from „Fig. #I1” of my election information web page (in the English language) named „pajak_for_mp_2014.htm” (updated on 7 May 2014, or later). Thus, reading of the above descriptions would be even more effective from that web page, than from this post – after all e.g. on the totaliztic web pages are working all (green) links to other related web pages with additional explanations, texts are printed in colours, the content is supported with illustrations, the content is updated regularly, etc. The most recent update of the web page „pajak_for_mp_2014.htm” can be viewed, amongst others, at addresses:
Notice that every address with totaliztic web pages, including all the above web addresses, should contain all totaliztic web pages – including web pages indicated in this post. Thus, in order to see any totaliztic web page that interests the reader, it suffices that in one amongst the above addresses the web page name „pajak_for_mp_2014.htm” is changed into the name of web page which one wishes to see. For example, in order to see the web page named „will.htm” e.g. from the totaliztic web site with the address http://energia.sl.pl/pajak_for_mp_2014.htm , it is enough that instead of this address in the window of an internet explorer one writes e.g. the address http://energia.sl.pl/will.htm .
Also notice that a complete list of (and links to) totaliztic topics discussed in various internet forums is provided in item #E2 of the web page named „faq.htm” – also available at every address listed above.
It is worth to know as well, that almost each new topic that I am researching on principles of my „scientific hobby” with „a priori” approach of the new „totaliztic science”, including this one, is repeated in all mirror blogs of totalizm still in existence (the above topic is repeated in there as the post number #244E). In past there were 5 such blogs. At the moment only two blogs of totalizm still remain undeleted by adversaries of the new „totaliztic science” and of the moral philosophy of totalizm. These can be viewed at following internet addresses:
With the totaliztic salute,