Friday, April 20, 2018

Civilisation: which community's or Nations's claim has substance? Or none's?

This short post ( 2500 words around) tries to show that mankind is yet to define what is civilisation in its true and sensible meaning.  It tries to show that, what mankind claims now as her ‘civilisation’ is not IT in any sense, but only a make-over of his animal way of life in a sophisticated way!

She thinks that whatever she achieved since man’s departure from the animal stage was all her upward steps in civilisation. Can his changing the style of open field-defecation to closed toilets, or changing the habit of washing bottoms after defecation to rubbing the place clean with toilet paper be identified as civilisation? Or change of his travelling style from bullock-cart to hi-tech cars and aeroplanes? Or, changing to fork, spoon and knife from the habit of eating with hands?

He was able to improve a lot in the field of material knowledge, that is, his knowledge about the external world and its immediate, cause-effect working. He analysed his body in detail, hence could develop systematic methods to repair it when diseases infect him. That was a real achievement!
(medical science!)

But we should not forget, that as a result of his improved material knowledge, he was able to build-up a highly sophisticated manufacturing industry, and produced more and more ‘consumable’ and life-easing products. It had harmed the very material world in the form of atmospheric pollution, pollution of the water sources including seas, then also mountains and valleys. This new development had caused emergence of new climate-patterns, microbes and disease causing pathogens. This changes had indirectly caused like cancer like many new diseases, thus nullifying the effect of his earlier referred improvement in material knowledge. Ever increasing diseases of the mind added up the said new health issues!

His invention of gun-powder had improved the strength of his weaponry. He was also able to probe into the micro-world of matter, and was able to produce extremely destructive atomic and nuclear weapons like atom-bombs! He was ready to use this destructive weapons in great wars he fought between his own men across countries and continents, causing death of millions in every such war! Now, can all these achievements be called ‘civilisation’ in any sense?

When his industries improved in gigantic proportions, he sought markets across the globe. To sell these products in large scale and small scale, he needed a polite and friendly general atmosphere in society. So he was compelled to invent certain basic social courtesies. In many parts of the world, people started wishing each other referring to the freshness of morning and evenings, and grand ‘thank you’ etc after every social and commercial deal. Can such superficial social courtesies, which was emerged and used for selfish (marketing) purposes be called ‘civilisation’?

Man’s jungle time animal habits like attacking other animal-habitats, displacing them and then claiming the lands as own etc had just ended in history; I am talking about European Colonisation. It ended just half a century ago, say by 1950s! Most of the European colonies got freedom during mid 20th century!  

We realise that ‘colonisation’ cannot be viewed differently from man’s early stage extermination of animal habitats, that is forests, and converting them into large scale human settlements. Both acts showed our still alive animal nature! Can our recent leaving of such regular trait (colonisation ended in mid 20th century!) of animal behaviour makes us eligible to claim civilisation? Once again remember, it was all over just 50 years ago! 

Even now in the world, powerful Nations show no mercy or least sense of ‘civilisation’ when a need of attacking and occupying other weak nations arise; America’s recent attack and occupation of Iraq is the best example. Earlier, Iraq attacked Kuwait in a similar animal fashion.  In modern Syria, people are warring against their ruler for many years in an attempt to dethrone him, wherein the bloody war has caused death and displacement of millions of men, women and children.  All powerful nations in the world are siding either the Ruler or the people, thus increasing the intensity of the internal war.

Imposing own ways on others is interpreted as civilisation!

When Europeans are confronted with stories of atrocities they had committed against the erstwhile 'colonies' during the now ill-famed 'colonisation', they offer a standard reply; 'it was not colonisation or imperialism of any kind, but an act of 'civilising' the 'savages' of those lands'.

In 1845, see how a European settler to Australia, Charles Griffiths sought to justify it: "The question comes to this; which has the better right—the savage, born in a country, which he runs over but can scarcely be said to occupy ... or the civilised man, who comes to introduce into this ... unproductive country, the industry which supports life." (

The claim in a nutshell reflects the general attitude of the Western block, that whatever the 'progress' modern world witnesses today was, as once stated above, the result of the industrial progress, achieved by following her capitalistic traditions!

Civilisation for the Western block is the material ‘good life’, as once described above,  brought by the industrial revolution; the hi-tech phones, ‘the difficult to believe’ digital advancements, ever increasing liberation from manual labour, the fast-food, the nuclear war-heads, and space-crafts that might help man to ‘colonise’ neighbourhood planets in near future!

Can we, the open-minded strata of the world silently agree with the said view of the West, that their ways are the 'civilised' ways?

In the above story and the account of one of the Western settlers of 19th century in Australia, we have another account from another similar settler (Dutch, Edward Curr) who said:  “Aborigines suffered less, and enjoyed life more than the majority of civilised men"

Historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote that the material standard of living for Aborigines was generally high, higher than that of many Europeans living at the time of the Dutch discovery of Australia.[31] (

Can we forget the rest story of what the settlers had done to eliminate the native population? Let us now read the story and strategy of how this elimination was achieved:

A smallpox epidemic was recorded near Sydney in 1789, which wiped out about half the Aborigines around Sydney. Opinion is divided as to the source of the smallpox. 
 Research by Craig Mear,[45] Michael Bennett,[46] and Christopher Warren[47] argues that, despite controversy, it is highly likely that the 1789 outbreak of smallpox was a deliberate act by British marines when they ran out of ammunition and needed to expand the settlement out to Parramatta.[48] Smallpox then spread well beyond the then limits of European settlement, including much of south-eastern Australia, reappearing in 1829–30, killing 40–60 percentage of the Aboriginal population.[49]

In modern India of today, the entire world might know how her present Hindu majority govt tries to establish
that Hindu culture and civilisation was the oldest and  greatest in the world. She says, the Western and the Left leaning historians had deliberately down played her contributions to all branches of science and philosophy! 

So there is now a systematic attempt to rewrite the history, showing India's ancient contributions to medicine, aircraft engineering, plastic surgery etc. A state minister in India recently claimed, that India also had 'internet' in the days of 'Mahabharata' epic war: (3000 BCE) proof is, a sage called Sanjay's ability's to narrate the far away war scenes to the blind King Dhritarashtra'!  

Syllabus of school books are also under revision, incorporating such contributions. There is an open animosity towards people of other faiths and culture, like Muslims and Christians!

All the world knows the conviction of the Islamic world, that theirs is the latest of religions in the world, (7th century AD) so the most modern. They believe, the entire world will be Islamic one day in future, eradicating all 'infidels' or non-believers! Islamic world is still severely nostalgic about their ‘golden age’, under the famed Caliphates. 

Even Christianity believes that the Christ will come again, to make the entire world under his faith.

We know that each religion has created its own image of an Almighty God. If we count them, such God’s total number will cross thousands!  We thought these religions and their Gods will bring in some respite to man’s still alive animal nature seen above, because all the above described Gods are epitomes of every imaginable goodness, morality and virtues! But it was of no avail! These religious followers frequently fight each other, especially over one God’s superiority over that of the other! History of many such bloody wars are recorded in history. It is a still going on in fact; Islamic religion is constantly in a war mode, as she believes their God demands simply death of all ‘infidels’, that is, of non-believers!

We read daily in current newspapers and hear from TV channels, stories about Muslim population fleeing Myanmar fearing onslaught of the State, which is Buddhist in majority. Stories from India unfolds similar daily stories of onslaught upon minority Muslims and Christians, and also upon low-caste Hindus by Hindu fanatic believers with the blessings of her State, who believes in the superiority of Hindu religion and culture.  We hear such stories now from Sri Lanka also.

Fights are very regular in Arab region also, wherein one sect of Muslims fight with a different sect ( Shias and Sunnis) over slight difference in the history and culture of the other sect.   

Patriotism, the love towards own country that every Nation in the world demands from citizens as a duty, is nothing but an indirect belief in the superiority of own country and its civilisation. Can patriotism be defined separated from the territorial and herd sense of oneness of animals species? Can it in any sense, reflect civilisation?

Lastly, let us take up the still active sense of ‘enemies’ among people and nations; how terribly the Western world look up at Russia and the old communist block as their opponents or enemies? The base issue was the opposite economic and political ideas both blocks kept; capitalist and democratic West hated communist way of economic and political system.

Though the prolonged ‘cold-war’ ended decades ago, still the Russian block and the Western block look at each other with suspicion. Each block covertly attempt to influence major decisions of the other, via dark means like hacking of internet devices and through paid propaganda agencies. When there are permanent declared enemies, flare-up and wars can happen at click of fingers. A sign of civilisation?

But open minds in the world observe, that state of freedom of people and economic inequality is same in both regions!

Love to share a write-up on this particular threat to world-peace here:https://m.journal-neo-org/2018/03/08/why-the west-cannot-stomach-russians/

Yes, civilisation has no universally recognised and accepted definition or criterion. It simply shows an element of 'narcissism', like patriotism, that is, loving one's own culture and civilisation above that of others'! For each person, his parents, his village or birth place, its local culture, his religion etc are tied-up with his sense of selfhood. Naturally, when all ‘others’ accept one’s ways and civilisation, naturally its ‘masters’ or original followers get a massive EGO boost! Me, mine, was right, always! I, my ways are the most ‘Nature chosen’. ( hinting at Darwin’s theory of Nature’s choice of the smartest for survival!)

If one look at the ancient history books, civilisational progress is measured or classified on the basis of the kind of tools and weapons each age had used; so we had stone age, iron age and copper age. Then it moves to the discovery of fire, then wheels followed by the steam engine and gun-powder etc. Our historians have also not bothered much to measure civilisation on the basis of the development of intellectual, moral and ‘spiritual’ ideas of each stage in history.  

Can we continue our deliberations more on the above three aspects of so called civilisation, that is, intellectual, moral and spiritual sides of human growth?

Can we define civilisation in the intellectual, moral and spiritual sides of man’s growth?

No doubt, mankind has achieved ‘intellectual’ growth if we consider its self-evident meaning in human terms. His developing rational analysis skill of every situation in his life is the proof of it. Whether it is a disease, flood like natural catastrophe, poverty like socio-economic issues, or the issue of a bullying neighbouring country, man analyses each such issue to the minutest detail and find the most effective solution. Rational here should mean only adhering to all available ‘evidences’ before him before taking action. He goes on studying his environment non-stop and then institute policies and programs to face problems, both present and future.

But can it make him civilised? He is nothing but a more sophisticated and learned animal!

What about morality? Of course he has acquired some good sense of ‘self-reverence’ long ago. He started burying his dead respectfully. This sense of self-reverence often compels him to respect the similar sense of self-reverence of others also, thus establishing certain dignified social-norms. No doubt, every man keeps some or other kind of ‘sense of morality’ and goodness within, and often suffer from a vague, strange repentance over not being able to conform to such inner needs and standards, though no clear idea as to what is the source of such landing of the ‘sense of morals’ in human psyche.

Please observe, how the entire mankind nodded in silent approval when American revolutionists declared, ‘man’s liberty is inalienable’? They declared, this axiom is ;
‘self-evident’ in Nature, and no one objected!

But such inherent sense of goodness and morals does not prevent him from behaving like animals when his or his community’s honour, freedom or property are under attack, or simply even at perceived threat!

So, how and when man developed the need to be civilised,  &how the sense of morality and goodness have landed in his mind are great puzzling questions before mankind!

2000 years ago, what the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ offered, though was a revolutionary solution to the above puzzle, it doesn’t have much takers today, nor were any during the time during his own life or later on history. Majority of world accepted him as a prophet, but his teaching are yet to be accepted as a real counter-way to man’s original animal nature yet, despite the celebrated existence of the Church he had established and its elaborate, world wide network of parishes and faithful communities all over! 

Christians are the most populous community in the world, but Christ’s solution of offering the left cheek to those who slaps at your right cheek couldn’t rise as a workable solution to man’s animal nature! He asked his followers to forgive their enemies! He asked them also not to amass wealth, but give out all one’s possessions to the have-nots. Of course such an attitude if adopted by the entire world population would definitely have paved way for ‘civilisation’ in its true sense. After all, the provider of food and shelter to every man and every living being is the Almighty God, not own toil, he distinctly taught mankind.( 'look at the birds in the sky, who do not sow and reap'....famous parable)

So, can we conclude that what draws back man from achieving true civilisation is his inability to develop his spiritual side? What is spiritual side of man? Is it not keeping faith in an Almighty God, and attend the respective religion’s rituals, as believed and practiced today?

As what we see today, the truth of Religious faith (see the existence of 1000s of Gods and our constant fights and war over them narrated above!) is simply ending in above narrated ‘narcissism’, ie, communities that warring each other about superiority of own Gods and faiths.

Was ‘civilisation’ not anywhere in the plan of nature for mankind?

Darwin’s theory exemplified the existence of certain ‘plans’ that Nature keeps. He simply ‘observed’ one of them, about how she intended species to survive. It was, as we all know, more akin to the way animals survive, by competing each other for resources to live. There was no clear element of any morals or spirituality in his theory of survival. He has not distinguished humans much different from animals in this game of survival. So we really have a vacuum of a sensible ‘foundation’ for the origin of man’s moral and civilisational sense, though many a scientific and men of philosophy had attempted to link it with his ‘survival’ needs.

This necessitates us here to create a new model that could explain, why Nature had indeed planned for man to gain civilisation in the ‘moral’ way.

It is a tedious task, needing many more pages of this short write up. So, this author seeks apology from readers for redirecting them to one of his dedicated blog-posts on the same subject, named: ‘’

 It comes somewhat obvious now that, there was no ‘ideal’ society envisioned in the scheme of things of Nature! Society or human collectives were simply ‘metaphysical means’ for Nature to give a particular , perhaps conflicts filled, ‘experience of life’ to man, so that he turns a truly ‘knowing’, enlightened entity, recognising his role in existence, and finally recognising his moral or spiritual way towards others! 

Individual man will turn out to be ‘responsible’ for his moral mind-set, and also bear with all negative behaviour of his neighbours. When all the men adopt such 'own' existential responsibility, it will pave way for an ideal, civilised society. 

In other words, this end product, the ‘enlightened individual’, naturally will create or form ideal societies! It was never seems the other way around, that is, ideal societies paving way for virtuous individuals. Individuals should resist institutions' (political, industrial) efforts to club them together into herds or crowds. It is the lesson modern world must learn.

 END- - - -

Authored by : Abraham J.Palakudy

He is a philosophy, mind, Reason and polity researcher and seeker. 

Contact the author:

Twitter: Voice of philosophy@jopan1
His other blogs and profile:


Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Is there an inherent MORAL element behind existence and life ?

The question that we have taken-up above might have relevance equal to the ultimate question about the existence of God; that is, ‘is He there or not’?

If we answer in negative, we might have to provide an answer to subsequent questions, as to what was the source of some of our most obvious moral principles such as 'human freedom and liberty' that the founding fathers of America had described as 'SELF-EVIDENT'. We will be also asked for the source of human-empathy, that always emanate in most human-hearts when we encounter helpless-victims of dangers, diseases, and catastrophes, or general human suffering. The inherent sense of justice and injustice also will demand an answer for its source. Love, an all swaying emotion, that often makes the human-beings sacrifice even their own life for the ones they love, also will demand an answer.

Now, in case the answer we receive is YES, that is, there is an inherent element of MORALS in existence, an equally difficult question will face us; what is its source, and how could we vouch for its existence, and where are evidence?

The task of this attempt is to answer the question of this post in affirmation, ie. to share few observations with the enlightened readers and help them to conclude that, yes, some kind of moral or virtuous element exists at the core of, or along with the phenomenon of existence, or at least with HUMAN-EXISTENCE.

Some of the dilemmas, unanswered-questions on human-life etc that we would take-up here for deliberation are listed below:

1) The most serious question that mankind still is in total darkness, that is, the 'why' question; a sensible answer to the 'why' question only will help us to answer, is there any 'moral' element in Life, and if yes, what for?

Yes, if we go by the ready answers given by leading religions, about a most moral and virtuous God, who always looks for approbation and worship from her 'creation', because He is the ultimate abode of all the goodness, virtues and morals in Existence, hence expects all her intelligent units of creation to abide by them, and then return to Him after death, for receiving adequate PRIZES and rewards!

Above is an argument that is difficult to refute. It is simple and straightforward. But we know, there is no adequate sense in that view; those who live piously, certainly are not immune to all the uncertainties of life! Often we observe, that it is these class of people who face the typical uncertainties of life like diseases, misfortunes, untimely death etc. more frequently! That is why perhaps Christianity has covered this aspect very smartly, by saying that, those who are loved by God most, are tested for their forbearance!
But is the 'sense' explained here makes any real sense?  Can God, supposed to be the abode of all the intelligence and 'sense' of the world be a silly 'worship' seeking idiot? We know, seeking worship and adulation is the usual sign of the most 'egoistic' person in the world, who seek it from others to feel good about himself! Can the ultimate essence of Existence be such a contemptible, egoistic entity?

So, above arguments compel us to conclude, that morals and ethics might not have been installed in the life of individual man and societies to make human beings to abide by them, and claim individual Prizes of adherence after death.

2) Are morals and Ethics, an outcome of man's Reason?

Ever since the Greek masters time,( Plato etc.) mankind started believing, that human individuals are bestowed with this special faculty called Reason. Greek masters believed that man shares the mind of God, and this special faculty, Reason, is the proof that his mind 'mirrors' the mind of God! There are morals and ethics in God's mind, hence, through this faculty of Reason, man shares it while leading his life.
‘Parmenides describes the Goddess who governs all things as saying  “I will tell you” the order of the universe, “ and you listen and receive my word”. Human beings will be able to receive her word because human mind mirrors her mind’ (Prof. Carlo Cellucci, the Sapienza University of Rome in his book  ‘Rethinking Logic’ 

We know that modern man does not believe in the above Greek theory of Reason. He understands it as his 'survival aid' provided by nature, to sharply distinguish his survival needs from false routes. 

“Indeed, the Reason is a matter of the ‘relation’ of means to given ends. ( word ‘reason’ directly derived from the Latin root   ‘ratio’=relation) It can be defined as the capacity to choose appropriate means to given ends” ( ibid)

It means, man adhere to moral and ethics because he knows by his Reason, that it will avoid many unwanted fights and tensions in his inter-personal interactions with the fellow beings, that otherwise would waste his energy into futile pursuits. In other words, man has decided to adopt certain moral and ethical behavior pattern simply to avoid unnecessary, futile, wasteful fights and controversies.

Aristotle's 'happiness' argument cannot be considered different from the above Reason argument, as it was by Reason that man opted to be moral and ethical, for being 'happy'. Aristotle believed, what ultimately guides human behavior is his desire to be HAPPY. 
Stoics believe, Nature has an inherent moral order. So, man's reason inherently try to follow such order of Nature.

"The Stoics think, the Reason is the highest authority and in tune with the rational laws of nature. Since nature is rational, we should accept things for how they are and not try to change them. Thus, we should rationally analyze and adjust our emotions until they are in harmony with things as they actually are"(

3) The evolutionary angle: This point of view is simple; it argues, that being moral and ethical 'reduces' the pressure of selfishness and individuality, and increases the chances of the life unit's survival. 

'Human morality, although sophisticated and complex relative to the moralities of other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon that 'evolved' to restrict excessive individualism that could undermine a group's cohesion and thereby be reducing the individuals' fitness' (

This argument has nothing to do with the virtuous' side of morals and ethics. It is simply a practical ploy of nature to ensure chances of better survival in intelligent life-units. 

4) The imitation, or the mirror argument: If morality stands an accepted, dignified and good way of behavior in any society, let the reason of its origin be immaterial, individual units tend to imitate it for the sake of being 'seen' by others as his act of 'conforming'. This is only a ploy for life-units, as they 'pretend' compliance to enjoy its particular social approval. It has nothing to do with its actual 'origin', our chief point of inquiry.  

5) Strange empirical evidence shows, that communities with least religious faith tend to be more 'moral and ethical"! Phil Zuckerman's 2008 book, Society without God, notes that Denmark and Sweden, "which are probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world", enjoy "among the lowest violent crime rates in the world [and] the lowest levels of corruption in the world". Though this has also nothing to do with the actual 'origin' of morality in the world, it is better to be explained as non-religious persons' lack of 'cushions' to lessen the effect of their immoral actions; the religious person can always take the route of seeking forgiveness from Gods for his immoral actions, he tends to commit more of them whereas, a non-religious person has no such loopholes. 

There are many similar and different arguments, that from old Torah to Kant, but none offers a final and conclusive account of its source. So, the task remains as it is. Let us attempt to go deep into certain not so often discussed angles and facts of human life, and try to arrive a sensible conclusion about morals and ethics. As hinted in the beginning, a final answer should be around the question 'why' man is in life? Who placed him in life and why?

Obviously, it was this 'why' aspect that set morals and ethics in human mind, and it might have a lot to do with the 'why' life question. In other words, morals and ethics might have a lot to do with the very meaning of life. 

Life; Existence's one and only 'means' to originate 'knowing' beings: 

We have hinted at the beginning of this deliberation, that a sensible answer to the question of the origin of morals and ethics lies in an answer to the 'why' question of life. Let us straight away plunge into that question. If morals and Ethics are around us always, without any clear answer about its source, it should be closely related to the very rationale of the man being here in life. It must be related to life's very 'rationale'.

To answer the above question, the inquiry must start from 'who' is the one that raises the question. Who are we? What gives us our sense of 'self', and what makes us ask this question?   

What we first take up would be, how, and on what ground man feels his independent 'sense' of 'self'? 

Had he any role in his 'chance' emergence in life as a self-conscious entity? He just 'happened' to born into life, without playing any role in it. So, his sense of being an 'independent' self is fundamentally 'irrational' in human terms of logic, as it doesn't have any ground! Noone's life belongs to him, be it the life of a man, an animal or a plant. We all were forced to 'own' our life on account of the smart ploys Nature had played!

Let us attempt to go deep into the very difficult question of 'how man started developing his sense of self'?

A sensible theory is there, and love to share it with all enlightened minds! 

It is around the 'others' around us, who similarly feel the independence of their 'selves'! You are, hence I have to be also a similar 'self'. Wasn't it a very smart ploy of Nature or Existence to create the sense of 'self' in every living unit this way? By just making a man experiencing his sense of 'self' because of the similar 'owning ' of life by 'others' around him? 

Artificial intelligence now tries to create a sense of self in Androids. Following link says about their success. One Android was able to develop a 'consciousness' of herself! Means, sense of self is a 'synthetic' sense. It has nothing to do with any non-physical mystery. 

But the ploy used by Nature can't be called 'physical' in its science given meaning. We must find a new concept for such 'organizational' miracle or smartness of nature. Following blog-link will explain, how Nature or Existence was able to achieve this feat, by creating a sense-of-self in man, fundamentally working on its interpersonal dynamics:

Can we, or Science, explain the above feat of Nature in the physical term? 

The 'other' in the story need not be always some persons. It could be any impersonal 'collective' of them too. Yes, the notion of 'WORLD' we live with is really the WOMB from where 'selves' of man usually take birth and then use it as a 'space' for its existence. Following blog-link will explain this unheard fact elaborately:

This lack of any soul like 'essence' in its religious sense for human beings, at least in their normal walks of life, or at least at the present stage of their spiritual development, is evident from what we have seen about its quite 'empirical' origin. The sense of 'self' is a simple product of an interpersonal dynamics of the plans of Existence. 

Once we are convinced of the above, morality can have a new meaning. As Hindu scriptures say, death is of the body only. The soul never can be killed or harmed. That is perhaps, why millions of microbes, insects, animals and even men die in the world every moment of the day! Even when we breathe and walk, microbes die in the process. We cant prevent it. When Doctors give antibiotics to patients, it kills millions of disease-causing bacteria. Use of pesticides kills similarly millions of insects and their larva. Earth quacks, floods, and wars kill millions of men in the world. Man kills millions of chickens, goats, and other animals every day for meeting his food needs.

Every study reveals, even plants have life, and feels pain and anguish. Can we avoid the immorality of eating vegetables, use of antibiotics, and eating curd etc? Curd, as we know, contains millions of life-supportive bacteria. So, if God was a moral God, in the given human meaning of morals, He would have never allowed such a massive annihilation of life-units, that is, His own creation, even if what died was a 'false' sense of the 'selves' of these beings!  

So, death and harm, in nature's eyes, not a serious matter of moral or ethical violation. For Her, it has a different meaning that we do not yet know. Perhaps, she was the one responsible for giving life, and life, except the time-bound sense of 'ownership' given to all living beings by her, loss of life may not be a serious matter to her! Life, after all, is owned by her. We were fooled by her to believe, that we were the owners of it!

Units of life in the world simply experiencing only a synthetic 'sense' of life provided by her! So, their moral and ethics, imaginably less relevant to her, at least till these living units develop to a stage or a day when they will be able to share the sense of the 'miracle' of life with her, the way she looks at it! 

Now let us take up the sexual morality. We know, in Western countries, having sexual relationships outside the marriage is a common practice. It is considered an immoral act only when personal commitments are broken, that is, when two partners in an intense love relation, and if one breaks the TRUST, then the other partner feels pain. In conservative non-Western communities, such relations are mostly kept secret. Issues arise only when someone is caught in the act. People experience no sense of guilt for such relations if things remain secret forever! Having four wives at a time is allowed in Islam. So, morality in sexual relations is, like in animal kingdom, does not seem to break any natural moral-law!

This might perhaps be blasphemous to religious ears, and difficult to believe! For most religious societies, God is ultimately a moral God! Another dimension of the story, out of question! It might shake traditional belief and faith. It might even force Science to rethink their own prejudice about God of the Religions; she so far has been feeling comfortable, that such a moral, Almighty God is not their cup of tea. It might now force her to review her stand, and think further on the forces in Existence beyond her 'physical' dogmas!  

Next moral question is about the interpersonal acts of cheating and causing harm to others. We can observe a distinct factor here. One who keeps a certain sense of divinity about himself, or a sense of personal integrity and inner freedom within, will never attempt to harm others, physically or otherwise! The ones who were cheated in the past, their rights and sense of self-dignity violated and abused in the past, might have had lost their sense of morality, and might have had lost their reluctance to indulge in any such 'immoral' act. Such men always stand deprived of their sense of good and bad, whether society instilled or inherent, in their basic Nature.

Be it rape, corruption or stealing other's possessions, those who indulge in these anti-social activities have, at some point in their lives, might have had lost their sense of dignified self-hood. They have become like animals, exclusively living with their 'biological' instincts of self-survival. Love to share below a link, that explains TWO fundamental causes behind man's  adopting way of violence and rights abuse:

Now, what conclusion we should arrive at from what has been observed above? That killing, rape, stealing and sexual immorality is permitted in society and lives?

Here comes the fundamental, spiritual or metaphysical question of what life is? Why we are here in life, as individuals, and in communities? Is Nature a dead phenomenon, or is there a 'mind' with certain likes and dislikes, intentions etc behind Existence? With certain predilections or predispositions of her?

 Why we are here in life, as individuals, and in communities? 

There may or may not be other intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe. But it shouldn't alter our basic conviction that Existence of each person is simply unique and central. There is nothing to compare the unique 'fact' of our Existence! Emerged from nowhere, (we don't know from where!) having been able to 'sense' an 'own self' in the course of life!  We often are forced to adopt the versions of our existing age and its past, as to what is life! Like the language we have learned from our parents and from our schools, we have also learned certain pre-set 'images' of ourselves and certain behavior patterns. We use it to play our pre-set roles in life. One day death comes to take us away. We have blindly accepted this inevitability too, as per our pre-knowledge about this end, learned from our age's stories and myths, and also from that of our past generations.

But in between this role-play, at least for some of us, a burning awareness possess us, as to what is behind this 'role-play'? Who are we? What is existence? This burning awareness often leads us to realize the uniqueness of each life. A is A, and B is B. No two lives are alike and comparable. Individuals in their physical features, their circumstances of birth, circumstances of growing up, the company of others they get, education, relations, health, love, and finally death; each person maintains his uniqueness of entity and course of life!

Our science believes in 'objective' philosophy, that is, our wholesale identities have emerged from an objective universe as homogenous commodities. There exists, irrespective of all observers, an independent reality of the world. She had her own physical, or energy level compulsions for the evolvement of us, human beings, and a similar compulsion for the emergence of our intelligence. It is due to this intelligence that we have become able to gather all the biological and physical information about us, and about the universe.

But often our said intelligence refuse to accept the above view of Science, and what we know as 'physical', that is, an inorganic something. Can a typical physical universe ever produce  'intelligence' from blues! If that is possible by the 'inorganic' something, it can not be termed as something inorganic, dead and mindless matter, in it's popular, generally accepted meaning and sense!

These men with the above-narrated burning sense of 'self-awareness' often have an inner compulsion to doubt whatever is 'senseless' around them.The inner-compulsion they experience for 'sensible explanation' for everything is real, but it does not mean that fantastic stories similar to that of popular Science, or similar fantastic stories being taught by the various religions about the whole of existence etc should be blindly adopted/bought by them!

This hidden faculty of 'sense' is still not a fully known concept to man. Love to share with intelligent readers, as to what exactly is this hidden 'faculty of 'sense', and why it is a sign that Existence never wanted to conceal her secrets from man forever!

Kindly read with all seriousness, the contents of the following links: 

 ( this initial link has info about all other sub-links, and also on a book on the subject) 

My 'self' wouldn't have been known to me without your 'sense of self'. If one is born like Robinson Crusoe, without anyone around, still he would have other objects around him, from what he could realize his 'separateness' from others. A link that explains this unique plan of nature was already given above, that 

explains Nature's ploy, or well-thought-out organizational plan behind the emergence of 'selves' in life.

What is the above-observed facts' possible relation with our concept of morals? 

Remember, you and I stand blessed with a 'sense' detecting Faculty. So, we are capable of arriving at the final 'sense' of Nature's leaving man here in life, using our inherent such faculty, with all the above-observed features, that is, the uniqueness of each individual, with his unique 'relation' with Existence, ( he is not an 'object' of any sort in existence) the nature of his primary 'self' originated from 'others' around him, and it's being 'synthetic' in this meaning, and finally, the absence of any 'objective' reality in the universe.

The most central observation was the relevance of all realities remaining null and void in the absence of sensible perceivers. Nature, when she has been observed as the ultimate abode of all the intelligence and sense in existence as far we can conceive, must be extremely anxious to have 'intelligent' and sensible 'knowers', or perceivers also in existence, so that her own being or reality becomes 'real'! We have seen that nothing can be 'real' without some perceivers being there, before whom they appear real! This mutuality of observer and the observed is a 'new physics' of Existence.

Take the plain example of human 'love-partners' to easily grasp this very difficult existential theory. They were two independent, unrelated individuals until they become love partners. 

Let us leave here the physics or biology of why man and women, or two homosexuals fall in love. Once the event of falling in love takes place, it is some kind of 'blossoming' of own life for both partners! The chief reason is, one starts getting perceived by the other as the most central object in his/her or life thereafter! He was the same person before and after, but after the falling in love, the way the partners look at own selves and each other, undergo a very different chemistry! Mornings and evenings, flowers, season, the cry of birds etc appear to them as divine! They long for each other every moment of their wake life. The touch of the other becomes magical. Kisses, just divine!

All these might not be true with the modern, exclusively sex oriented love relation, wherein partners are in relation only to enjoy physical sex abundantly, without any trace of the above described 'love' angle. But, it is sure, in the first encounters between two mutually attracted persons, both will experience the above magical movements! 

What was the cause of such 'altering of the selves' in love entanglement? The different kind of 'perception' by the other changes the image about own-self. This is not an imaginary, highly speculative theory as far as the very metaphysics of existence is concerned. Existence, for her to be real, she needs intelligent knowing entities to perceive her in her wholesomeness!  

This might be an extreme opposite view to the 'objective' viewpoint of classical science. For her, as we know, attributing anything beyond 'physicality' to anything in existence is sheer blasphemy! This new proposition might take away the very ground of classical science, and also that of classical religions. Yes, mankind and her knowledge system badly need a revamp, and certain new dichotomies.

It is here that we will look at the 'moral and ethics' factors in life.  We see here a certain specific aim of Nature or Existence of life. It is all about causing the emergence of independent, knowing, intelligent entities! To achieve this end, she has schemed to keep every person in a unique set-up of life, in every respect. We have seen above, details of this uniqueness of each person and his/her life.  

For Existence, those men/women who have not established a very sensible, direct relation with her might be similar to inorganic matter for her, lifeless and relevance-less! For establishing such a very sensible relation, one has to transform himself into an enlightened entity, transcending himself/herself from his/her 'ego' level self-identity. Only at such transcended stage, that human entities become real living beings in her eyes, as she too attains her sense of BEING meaningfully revealed! Then only she achieves her existential goal!

Some plants and trees blossom only once in one or two decades. Similar might be nature's willingness to wait for ages and centuries for a few human being to turn enlightened, and then again after so many centuries, the entire human race becomes capable of transcending from their ego stage. Then perhaps, Nature might be wishing that the entire human society lives in a living relation with her, moment to moment!!

The ultimate onus of living his life fit the ways of Existence is entirely on the shoulders of individual himself. Society is not an objective reality. It has no independent existence or entity, except its mystery role like the role of the false sense of EGO for individuals. World notion or the 'collective' notion is, hence the exact replica of the false sense of the 'self' that man experience.( above given link to the blog on the 'WORLD' may be referred once again;

So the content of his 'consciousness', or the events in his/her life have no fixed pattern. Nature's exclusive goal is to evolve 'knowing', independent beings from this exercise. She never wanted to have 'robots' in life, but let the waiting be for many centuries and ages, but her insistence on independently emerged enlightened entities was final. 

Moral and ethics were not her 'primary' goal, but it is not that she never wanted men to evolve-out from moral-less animal stage. She seems to have set moral and ethical laws in a very different way. When man emerges as an independent entity, a fully enlightened knower who grasp his/her integral tie with existence, transcended from his synthetic 'sense' of ego-self, feels an inner compulsion to be moral and ethical! The primary and exclusive condition for the evolvement of this moral and ethical man is, that he remains absolutely free, liberated and independent, free of all controls over his 'self' by any external social or political institution or agency!

In other words, when man is free in every respect, a free spiritual being, he will be under severe compulsion to observe moral and ethical principles; as outlined in the following blog-post: 

If we look closely at the development of man's evolvement from his animal stage to the stage of a social being and then an individual, it shows this clear existential direction. Kindly view this blog-post that describes this very empirical stages of development: 

So, the ultimate goal of mankind is to evolve into ideal societies wherein men can turn really independent, free, mutually respecting spiritual beings! Morals and ethics will the hallmark of such societies. They are inherent in Nature itself but it will bless human being only when she/he turns truly free and independent. 

An important 'new physics' on how entities emerge, is hidden in the above organizational plan. To be in existence, one needs to have an 'other' to perceive it/him! Please do not confuse this theory with Bishop Berkely's theory that, nothing exists outside some one's perception. He had a clue to this theory, but he seems not fully explained it. Nature's organizational plan for whatever that exists involved a perceiver's special eye and mind. Without my eyes, sun, in her popular human image, would not have its existence. It is first and foremost formed as an object of man's eyes. It must be some other subjective object in the sense organs and mind of an alien in a different corner of the universe!

Latest Scientific finding, her Quantum theory, very specifically spells out this existential fact. Quantum theory had long ago discarded the 'objective' philosophy of classical science, who believed in the existence of an 'objective' world 'out' there, independent of any observer. But, classical physics is not yet temperamentally ready to fully adopt the said theory, as it takes away the very ground she has been standing for long!

But the evidence presented by the Quantum physicists are very strong; they showed that measuring the velocity of a subatomic particle is almost impossible, ignoring its energy level interaction with the 'observing tool' of man! In other words, events do not happen independently of the observer in cosmos. He is always a partner in every act he observes. Knowledge is impossible outside this 'observer-observed' dichotomy! Means, man's every knowledge is nothing but his collective subjectivity!

Kindly be patient; we shall arrive at it at the end of this deliberation.

Here, both the partners turn new 'beings' in such love relations! Love will stand, without doubt, the most swaying emotion for every human being! 

Consolidation of what has been said above

1) It is not a moral or Almighty God who is behind existence: We have seen that what Existence seeks is to be TANGIBLE and REAL, by having more and more enlightened beings in existence, knowing each other; she is not interested in morals and ethics directly. But when enlightened beings emerge, and when they acquire/share the basic divinity or reverence about the miracle of existence, they always turn moral and ethical. It is the natural state of existence!

2) Existence stands devised by her, using her CREATIVE CHOICES, that is, divided into its 'structure' and 'essence' dimensions Following blog-post is a dedicated one, that explains what is structural and 'essence' realms:

Structural is the physical universe, with its own self-working laws. It was essential for having a kind of 'tangibility'. Living units had been provided with suitable 'sense' organs to perceive this tangible part of existence. This realm has its own self-working laws, perhaps cause-effect ruled. When man and animals are not enlightened, they are not different from who is in the non-conscious structural realm, as explained in following blog-post:

3) Existence is kind of 'indifferent' to morals and ethics, it should be believed ( we have seen evidence of frequent annihilation and emergence of life every moment! ) until man develops into enlightened beings, and acquires 'LIFE' in its real meaning! ( see the following blog:

When man acquires LIFE by being enlightened, sharing the sense of the miracle of existence, he naturally adheres to morals and ethics, as they are in the most natural state of the fact of existence.   

4) For world and individuals to be moral and ethical, what our socio-political institutions MUST remember is to keep every individual FREE and liberated. Like when plants are groomed providing them adequate sunlight, water, and manure, they naturally produce abundantly! The following paper was sent to the father of Indian Metro rail, Dr.E.Shreedharan in 2008 when he and RatanTata, India's top industrialist together had initiated a 'VALUE inculcation' drive in the country. He replied this author, appreciating the arguments presented:

In other words, morality and ethics naturally arise within individuals when he is FREE, enjoying civil, political and personal liberties. Man’s collectives must be formed solely and exclusively to ensure the above central goals, and it should not at all for meeting any other purpose. We know that today’s governments of man are NOT formed to meet the above spiritual and metaphysical needs of man, but that of professional men and groups who desire to keep the entire citizens of the country under their control, often enforcing their ideologies and idiosyncrasies upon them! This is the chief threat to the natural evolution of man and mankind into moral and ethical communities!

We have read through a complete philosophy of life, as to what is life in the world, the end purpose of mind and self, what is the difference between the 'structural' and 'essence' realm of existence, and finally, the source of our morals and ethics. 
Comments of enlightened minds are solicited.

Authored by: Abraham J. Palakudy

He is an independent seeker and researcher in the fields of Mind and Reason, philosophy and metaphysics, spirituality, democracy, and polity

email contact:
Twitter: Voice of philosophy@jopan1
His profile and other blogs: