Science Forums 2

[HydrogenBond]

Thanks for the replies. By knowledge of good and evil, I was making a general statement. There are certain laws, which do not come down to good and evil in any moral sense, such as breaking the speed limit. Speed limits are sort of relative, in that the next state could have a higher speed limit for the same road conditions. But all law, both moral and social sets up a polarization between what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior, resulting is dual data storage. It is still based on the coin analogy. The coins of moral law have a higher denomination than civil laws. Although some civil laws attempt to depreciate certain coins .

The example given about speeding, to rush someone to the hospital, actually came down to weighing two different laws. Speeding is just a social law, while the other other is more moral connecting to preserving life. That was the bigger coin, with respect to the emotional impact, so it trumped the little coin of the speeding law. The police or judge could have been by the book, and still required one to pay a speeding ticket. There were two laws and two behaviors in competition. The better one won.

There is another consideration that was alluded to. The good-evil, right-wrong, acceptable-unacceptable, etc., of moral or social law, does not have to be based on a rational criteria. One can call evil good and good evil, right wrong and wrong right, or acceptable unacceptable and unacceptable acceptable when one compares two different cultures. During war, what is evil at peacetime, is good. Thou shall not kill, is evil, during a battle, when the enemy is approaching. One may have a strong resistance against killing, but the herd says go, under those conditions.

The way to add that to the model, the coins of law still store the data in two different locations but it is the same rational location. During war, the irrational dynamics of the process, calls tails, the heads. Nature is trying to balance out the tails. It is helping to restore the balance that was distorted due to laws. This balancing allows what is wrong to feel like it is right at the gut level. It is wrong with respect to the law, but right with respect to natural balance. It can often lead to social peace.

Let me give a different example, say between husband and wife. They may both try to do good, being understanding of the differences during the early part of the marriage. But inside, they both may have their own laws of what they want the other to do and be. Eventually, the head of their inner law coins are consciously made to come up too much, so there is an unconscious need to restore balance by letting out the tails. So they have a big fight to clear the air. In the ideal case, these irrational laws of the mind, find a compromise, that creates less inner polarization. Either both try to conform to each others laws, or their laws change. If nothing changes internally or externally, the head-tail cycles. The restored balance allows one to build up heads, until the angry balance is needed.

In the bible symbolism, Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil first and then Adam ate. All this means is that the coin of law is more natural for females, since it defines the cultural zone for security. One does not have to guess where the security zone is, law makes that clear. The males don't fair as well under these conditions and eventully need to vent. They are more likely to fill prisons, rebel, or start war. That, in turn, increases the insecurity of females, requiring new laws. The male psyche then starts to gain potential, requiring another cycle of venting. The goal is laws that minimize male inner potential and maximize female security.

Because of the way the brain is polarized ,due to law, sometimes using the tails, associated with minor laws, gives one a way to vent so they don't build too much polarization potential. Although this could create a sense of balance, the idea of using the tail side of any law, causes some people to feel guilty. For example, it may be healthy for a person to vent their anger. But using that tails side of the social coin, could cause one to feel guilty so they avoid it. Anger is sort of wrong in one sense, but if done properly it could be healthy. But guilt could set up a wall where one does not give themselves even healthy tail side outlets for venting.

The bible talks about a sacrifice for guilt. What the guilt sacrifice is suppose to do is take away guilt. It is not designed to take away the guilt associated with breaking any law one wants. This is a little tricky, since it can become difficult to know where the line is. For example, one may be taught the law of building a model plane. But one should not feel guilty about doing it a different way, even if the social law is trying to enforce conformity. One does not have to feel guilty about hurting these irrational feelings, since it is healthy for them to deal with this irrationality. But on the other hand, one could also lose guilt about things that can cause real social problems. For example, adultry can lead to murder and suicide. In modern culture, the guilt line has already become distorted, where one can not say certain words, but adultry is considered a form of dating. It could be due to adultry being a better venting process for law.

The practical problem with lowering the potential between the two sides of coin, via a guilt sacrifice, is it can cause the natural potential to gain momentum so it become a snowballing push to remove the potential due to original sin, so thousands of years of neural programming, is removed in a short period of time. The guilt sacrifice will open up a can of worms. One could have natural and extreme good and evil expressions, all at the same time, but it may not be clear which is which.

Let me give a possible analogy to the confusion. Say the body has a natural instinct for eating specific food. That is one set point. Social law is also around, defining its one size fits all for eating properly. This is the second set point, which may not be the same, due to marketing. If one follows the social laws, there are now two inner potentials, one natural and the other due to the tails of law coin. The tails can reduce the overall polarization potential, so it might be felt as natural. Whereas, the natural could increase potential by going outside the coin. The potential is now with the entire coin, looking for a new law to make sure this unknown is safe. But once it enters the law grid, the natural lowering of potential is reset again. So one tries to follow the impulse without any expectation, but it is uncertain whether it is natural or just the tail end of laws. The result will be the mind having to learn to think in 3-D, since there will be three axis of potential pulling the mind in three directions.