---------------------------------------------------
Comments & Questions? Email: womenbefriends@yahoo.com

Prime Directives

Journal July 9, 2006

In the search for the universal human “laws”, a recent article came up in the newspaper suggesting there are four approaches. There is probably some validity to that Ethics 101 being taught in University, but I have another observation.

There are two primary directives. The first is to survive. The second is to be compassionate so that all can survive, in short, to promote the common good. This is the genesis of “ethical” behavior, Buddhist, Christian, Native American, practical atheist or any other.

Most rules of community life moderate the ‘survive’ rule, which in itself allows murder and mayhem and rape to insure survival at the biological level. Those rules deal with property and marriage (which is also property), and they are very intolerant of deviancy. Thus we have “thou salt not” steal, kill, lie, covet. All of this first directive is embodied most strongly in traditional male psychology, with its need for action and tolerance for violence and consequent necessity of very specific laws to hold it in check. Calling on God to sanction these laws gives them legitimacy. When the rule of law is totally disrupted, and survival itself is primary, humans experience the chaos of Iraq or Uganda or Bosnia. Re-establishing order is very difficult. Women and children suffer.

Compassion is put forth by Jesus, Buddha and others, as the law of the heart. “Do unto others” and “Love God, love others as yourself” sum it up, and do include all of the necessary parts of other written codes. This is most embodied in the traditional female psychology and employments, caring for children, elderly, ill, nurturing all and sundry. Order grows, farming, home arts, commerce and eventually decorative arts emerge in security. The male need for action finds this stifling, longing still for the excitement of hunting, contact sports, gambling, and executions, any excuse for controlled violence. “Male” and “female” psychology is not meant to be exclusive to gender, but more a general mind set.

Among animals, survival of the fittest is the only law. Humans may participate consciously in their own evolution, choosing (or not) to be compassionate and loving. Evolution is uneven and confusing, so that in contemporary times we are growing in tolerance and care of the disabled and non-conformist (such as homosexuals, extremely premature, ageing), yet glorifying sports and manufacturing ever more weapons, unable to resolve the difficulties of Iraq or to help those suffering in Somalia, for instance, where rule of law has totally broken down. The extremist call for a return to “fundamentalism” has some validity in those circumstances.

Nature is driven first to survival, seen in its hardest edges at the micro level, but also at the macro level, the overall survival and evolution to higher levels requires compassion. “Nature” and God are co-existent. All is one. Anything can be done in the name of “God” because “God” presents opposing faces at different times, both just and merciful. The Hindu images of Creator/Destroyer are as accurate as the conflicting stories of our “one” God, who seems to have a split personality, angry punisher and compassionate father.

And NOW, both Israel and Lebanon see themselves fighting for their “survival”, and therefore the rules of ethical fighting and compassion are suppressed. Syria and the Muslim nations are just “helping” or supporting whichever side they favor in the “survival” mode, describing this as a conflict in defence of God. Do they have a perception of the danger of this conflict to the rest of the world? Especially if they use nuclear weapons of any kind? Since the Muslims seem to think of the next glorious life as won through the fighting and death of the warrior, the rest of the world rightly fears the spread of the conflagration. The conflict has many proponents: who will benefit from this war economically? Certainly the manufacturers of weapons, constantly being replaced, will benefit. Certainly those will benefit who expect to seize more territory, more goods, or more resources, as the balance of power shifts. Certainly the “holy men” who call upon others to die in conflict bask in the attention they get. Certainly those who enjoy vetting violence anywhere get what they want. Christians are colluding with this insanity too. It is really not about religion but money, in one form or another.

Is there a “right” side to this conflict? No. Whatever our religious persuasion, we can pray for peace, vote for peace, push for non-violence, restrict the sale of arms, and send humanitarian aid where we think it might reasonably reach the people who need it and not be diverted to the support of war. Mostly we can only watch men (mostly males) destroying the very fabric of their own societies, their own women and children, while they chant their allegiance to some “God” who loves them more than others.


Aug 27

At the physical level, the primary directive is biological survival. Life eats other living life to avoid death. But death of each is inevitable. Death of all is probably impossible. Nature will convulse, and evolve again.

The second directive is to contribute to the common good, which also supports the primary directive.

When the individual no longer contributes to those two (survival or common good), it ceases to have purpose in the physical universe. Biological weaknesses inherent in its makeup overtake it, till it disintegrates and its very being is recycled.

Thus all manner of “diseases” have their purpose, for individuals and for societies. War is a social “disease”, a self destruction.

For instance individually, “hot flashes” are arterial flushes, a boost to continued life because the “old” physical being still contributes to the common good. But eventually life recycles itself.
At the soul level, there is another analysis. Biology sets the limits, the parameters, but it too is evolving, so we have not yet reached the limits of what a human can do. The “paranormal” is the growing edge for individuals.

The soul inhabited the physical being so that it could communicate, act, reflect and evolve to higher being. Soul-growth is the individual’s purpose.

Individual personal growth and development of the psyche is its purpose beyond biology. Every story is individual then. Choice is real, within limits. Free will is real.

So Mike S. after age 60 wants to retreat further into the country, away from society. Why? He is beyond the need or desire to biological survival, beyond wanting to only contribute to the common good, hungry just to learn. Why?
Mary R. after age 60 learns to meditate, to sit quietly and do nothing. Beyond survival and the common good, what is she driven to do? Be?

Good question!!!

Older people remember their youths better than what they ate for their most recent meals. They ruminate on their lives, perhaps gain insight or perhaps not. It is grey haired men and women who go to church faithfully, who attend again to the details of life (watering house plants or pursuing hobbies or making memory books or blankets or cookies for their grandchildren).

Assumption: Everything contributes and nothing is lost. What is going on? Something important to soul growth IS going on.

What is the function of later life???











---------------------------------------------------
Comments & Questions? Email: womenbefriends@yahoo.com