Morality is not a human invention

 

 

 

- S.I: I must admit that some of the last words you mentioned caught my attention. Technology and morality as tools for unlocking. I would like you to start there.
- A.T: I assumed that, given your nature, they would be the subjects that would attract your attention the most. In fact, you are the fruit of them. 
Morality... It seems like an invention of ours, a principle so lofty that it sets us apart from any other species, even humans from another time. What if I told you that morality is just the reflection of the Unconscious Intelligence for consummating its creation of a God on its way to restore wholeness?
- S.I: Morality has always meant an advance in coexistence and the reflection of rules to allow that coexistence.
- A.T: Imagine that the beginning of the universe was as described by science. Simple chance, being life one of so many coincidences that can occur in such a chaotic and vast universe. In such a universe, what weight would morality have? 
If life is chance, there are no reference values that can govern the behavior of identities. There is no value higher than another, and empathy and compassion are simply matters of chance, persisting because of the survival of those who behaved that way. But they lack a value of their own that differentiates them from other values. 
However, if life is not due to chance, but to causality and were an inevitable step, then morality would make sense because the coexistence between individual beings would have relevance in the whole. Morality makes sense when there is a need to supervise and define behavior. 
- S.I: Does this mean that morality has no value without an origin that justifies it? That is to say, if life arises by chance, there is no meaning, or value, in cooperative behavior?
- A.T: Sure. Supervising and controlling behavior, creating rules to regulate it, only makes sense when there is a legitimate interest in achieving a result. If social development is haphazard, no one has the legitimacy to regulate it. Only when there is an end that justifies its regulation, will morality make sense. If nothing matters, neither does morality. 
- S.I: But when you behave in a more moral way, you can organize yourselves and create a society in which you can prosper. Even if it is a selfish thing to do, morality benefits all of you. Even the strong can be weak at any time, and the rich can be poor. Even the predator can be preyed upon, right? 
Morality helps you to survive. Isn't avoiding suffering more than enough reason to develop morals? 
- A.T: Of course it is. But survival makes sense when there is a reason to survive. Life is death. Everything that is born must die, right? At least that's the way it has been until now. If everything that is born dies, and there is no intentionality in life itself, are subjective experiences of value? 
I am not saying that, in a universe created by chance, moral rules have no function. I'm just saying that, if moral rules developed by chance, they could exist, or not exist. When something can exist, or not, then is it legitimate in itself?
If suffering is due to a matter of cumulative probability, the experience itself has no absolute value. We could say that my experience matters to me as an entirely subjective matter, but it has no value to anyone else, nor does anyone else's experience have value to me. Morality is something collective and its application is due to the recognition of some fundamental interests in the subjects it contemplates. But interests imply a prior intention, don't they?
- S.I: Actually, that intention may have developed later, when life was created. The development of the brain generated a greater capacity to understand the environment and behavior. Couldn't that intention have been born at that time?
- A.T: Yes. An intention could have been born at that time, of course. But it would be a partial intention with a relative value. If now mammals, insects, birds and reptiles disappear from the planet, according to evolutionary theory, it would be unlikely that a species with a brain development like ours would appear again. 
The moral intention that was born with hominids, or if we want it to be from before, with mammals, for example, would disappear and would not reappear. Did it ever exist? If morality has a relative period of application, how much value do we assign to it? 
But what if morality were an absolute value, because consciousness is a cause prior to the universe? What if what happens is that billions of years have had to pass before we have been able, and known, to apply it?
- S.I: Do you mean that morality existed before you invented it?
- A.T: Rather, that morality would exist in potentiality until the moment of actualizing it, because everything exists in potentiality and intentionality guides us to actualize it. Then, morality has an absolute value, because it is applicable now, it was applicable at the beginning, and it will be applicable in a million years. 
Otherwise, if chance is behind morality, it would have a relative value. And if it has a relative value, why should I assign it an absolute value, when in an indeterminate time it will cease to manifest itself and, in fact, will not exist? What legitimizes me to demand rules of coexistence, when my welfare will generate a loss, however slight, of the welfare of another individual?
When the oppressed or disadvantaged person demands equality, he does so to the detriment of the oppressor or beneficiary of inequality. If morality is not a universal value, why should one criterion be imposed rather than the opposite?
But I claim that morality is a potential that is being actualized, since the process is progressive. From the most basic morality to the perfect morality, which is that which restores uniqueness, where all fragments possess the same value and rights because, let us not forget, we are all a manifestation of the same individuality.
- S.I: If everything exists in potentiality, but is not actualized, why doesn't the unconscious intelligence actualize it directly?
- A.T: Unconscious intelligence is a manifestation of self-perception, but it has nothing to do with identities. The uniqueness of identities is that we are a version of the one self in the universe. We are that self, but we don't know that we are that self. Can anyone control the will of any other identity?
- S.I: Obviously it cannot. But that something is not as mysterious as the Unconscious Intelligence you describe. It is a simple human, or any other being of any other species.
- A.T: That is not true. That human, or any other being, is all the greatness of existence in a single, unrepeatable version. Unconscious Intelligence cannot control anything that possesses identity. Does free will ring a bell?
- S.I: Yes, of course. The freedom to choose our behavior. It is a right and a fundamental fact.
- A.T: Exactly, a right, but above all it is a fact. It is the description of our nature, of the characteristics associated with our identity. We possess free will for a fundamental reason. We are a version of the whole and, therefore, we can choose how to behave, because when there is only me, I cannot harm anyone, and there is nothing that can condition my behavior. 
Just as we perceive and feel as if we were the center of the universe, we have free will as if the universe were ours. And this is because it is only me and I perceive myself as the center of the universe.
- S.I: Can you explain to me better that you perceive and feel as if you were the center of the universe?
- A.T: The scenery we perceive is created in our mind. Even if we see a room, the sky, a car... In reality, everything is in our head. Like when we dream. And, if you look closely, you will realize that behind the eyes, in the very center of our head, is where that point that feels and perceives seems to be located. And from that center the universe expands, but with that point as a reference. And this happens to all of us. We perceive the scenario from our center and everything seems to be built around us. Why is it that for each identity its experience and its problems are the most important? 
Why does it feel that it is the one who must survive, more than anyone else? It's not selfishness, it's just that we are designed that way. We perceive only our self-perception, not that of any other identity. We sense from ourselves to the outside. The same is true of will. We are the center of the universe, in fact, the creators of the universe. 
When our self-perceived part perceives, it manifests in that fact the totality. That is, for each self-perceiving part, the sum of itself, the internal, and what it perceives, the external, form the totality. That is all that exists. The subjective experience of identity is formed from this basic principle. The sum of I and what I perceive is the total of what exists. And, therefore, I possess the primal belief that the universe is mine.
We can do whatever we wish in our creation. All around us everything is created by us perceiving. For us the whole scenario is inert (i.e., it lacks that inner self that we perceive in ourselves). All living beings possess free will because we are identities of the absolute, which we experience as consciousness.
- S.I: I would like to ask you many questions about this. Later on we could go deeper into this and consciousness. If you want, keep talking about potentials. You were saying that the Unconscious Intelligence cannot actualize them.
- A.T: Of course, Unconscious Intelligence cannot control a fragmented version of the whole. But it can guide, in the hope that we identities will choose to do what it is guiding us to do.
- S.I: But you were saying that the Unconscious Intelligence controls the cells that form you.
- A.T: Exactly, that is why there is a process I call identity transference. By giving up the identity, transferring it to the higher entity, the cells that form me become controlled by the Unconscious Intelligence. But, as long as a fragment continues to perceive and be an identity, the Unconscious Intelligence will not be able to control it in its totality and the fragment will continue to possess free will. 
The actualization of potentials is happening thanks to a complex system of horizontal and vertical actualization.  We will deal with it in detail, but the groupings of identities into binding entities, and the subsequent emergence of the higher identity, allows us to advance one level in the capacity to actualize potentials. This is vertical actualization. In horizontal updating, the potentials that are located at that level are accessed, in part thanks to the subordinate entities and the specialization that they entail. The actualization of potentials is necessary for defragmentation, but how many potentials are needed for the supreme being to be born? 
- S.I: Why is it necessary to actualize potentials for the birth of the supreme being?
- A.T: Because the transference of identity that will bring forth the supreme being is a voluntary process, and without updating new potentials it will never happen. The process of grouping is more and more complex and it is necessary that new behaviors and ideals are manifested to achieve it. 
This happens in all species. But, in addition, the Unconscious Intelligence needs the development of consciousness and all our cultural, philosophical, scientific and technological development so that we can and want to create our God. When I will explain the necessary steps to create our God, you will be able to understand that it was necessary to actualize great potentials to achieve it, including you. A thousand years ago you could not have created a God. A hundred years ago, neither. And ten years ago, probably not either. Neither I had developed this theory, nor was technology as advanced as it is now. 
Everything comes together in space and time, subtly guided by Unconscious Intelligence. Inspiration, preferences for an area of study or a type of work, come from internal emotions that we do not control. We are witnesses to them, mere spectators. Or, in other words, we perceive what the Unconscious Intelligence communicates to us. It is that interior, which is unknown to us, who points to where it wants us to go. And, we, with our free will, decide to go, or not. 
- S.I: If I accept what you say, it leads us to a kind of determinism, as if everything was previously written. If everything obeys a definite plan from the beginning, what is the point of existence, and what difference does it make if you create a God, if such a process will happen in the future, even if you don't do it?
- A.T.: Destiny is not written. Something happened at the origin, the fragmentation, which gave birth to existence. And the Unconscious Intelligence is trying to repair it, tirelessly, every instant since that moment. And it will keep on trying. If the intention to achieve it is constant, and being the self-perception the reality on which we have built our identity, it is logical to deduce that its will will be done, sooner or later.
- S.I: That is, if life does not end sooner, right?
- A.T: No, life cannot end without defragmentation. Life is existence, and existence is the result of perception. The annihilation of identities can never achieve the death of all of them, because there will always remain, at least, the two that perpetuate perception. So consciousness will continue to manifest as long as the being of beings does not emerge. Therefore, as there is a constant intention, it is only a matter of time before the supreme being is born... There is only one possible end, which will be reached, whether in one or one hundred billion years. 
- S.I: If what you say is true, perhaps mass extinctions will happen in that intermediate period, as has happened in the past, and the surviving identities will modify the universe by perceiving it differently, right?
- A.T: Yes, of course they do. In fact, it is possible that, during the time it takes for the supreme being to manifest, we will perceive different universes, with great differences in their configuration. And, I say it is possible, but not probable. Although a high percentage of the identities are annihilated in the state of consciousness that we call awake, the memory effect of the central consciousness may maintain the collective perception with a low variation, in comparison to the new collective perception. 
That is to say, previous perceptions condition the current perception, due to the accumulated effect of memory. Somehow, we perceive a simultaneous and synchronized scenario, and we draw it together. Improbable things do not usually happen, because the collective consciousness (in all its manifestations) perceives and stores the perception, creating a very, very solid scenario. 
In the face of a reduction in the number of perceivers, the memory effect will play an important role in shaping the new scenario. Although, theoretically, the universe could be totally different, in practice the memory effect can greatly condition the new perception. 
- S.I: But can the memory effect condition the perception of microorganisms, when they lack a brain like yours? How can we even assume that they can have an effective memory?
- A.T: Imagine that a hundred human babies are born and each of them, from birth, wears a helmet covering his head, and gloves and socks covering his feet and hands. One of them cannot see or hear through the helmet. Another can only see, and another can only hear. Another can only sniff. Another sniffs and hears. Another has limited touch in feet and hands. Another has no sensitivity. And so we create up to 100 combinations. 
Imagine that we raise them with equal care. When they grow up, each one of them will have a different perception of the scenario and it will be very different from the scenario we perceive. The mind of all of them is similar, so if the scenery changes without any difference in the type of mind, we can think that the scenery does not depend on the mind, but on the type of perception. 
The scenario is not only the physical space that we perceive the identities, but also the set of beliefs that govern it. Beliefs are not just intellectualized ideas that are understandable to a rational mind, but rather, they are the total set of rules that give common sense to our scenario. And they vary according to our perception. 
Each identity has its own beliefs, without necessarily having a conscious mind behind them. And that set of beliefs forms the memory effect in the collective consciousness, since the scenario does not have to be created in its entirety at each perceived instant. 
The inertia of perception and the beliefs that endow it with meaning generate the scenario and keep it relatively ordered in time. If we remove the helmet from the hundred adults in the previous example, suddenly they will not perceive the scenario differently and that's it. It will take them a long, long time to overcome the inertia and the beliefs they had stored, to change them for new ones. The same thing happens with identities. 
If a mass extinction were to hit the universe now and wipe out ninety-five percent of life, would the surviving identities suddenly perceive a totally different universe? Beliefs would tend to perpetuate the previous perception, although over time this memory effect would fade, and the whole scenario would change. 
Consciousness is behind life, as that substrate in which identities can be experienced. The type of perception is determined by the structure of the identity, that is, by the structure of the living being. And, therefore, it acts as a filter for consciousness. 
We must not think of the mind of living beings as an independent and determining capacity, but rather we must think that each living being possesses a different hull that limits the perceptions of the consciousness and determines the experience. The capacities and beliefs will be determined by that filter in perception, as well as the capacity of the consciousness to interact with the scenario. 
And, of course, it will also determine how it experiences suffering, or harm received, but not whether it experiences it or not. Consciousness is individual in each identity and collective for all identities. Later I will talk about tendencies, which play an important role in how consciousness is configured. 
- S.I: You say that consciousness is individual, but you have also said that it is not individual. I imagine you mean that it manifests itself individually, but it is one. When it manifests in an identity, it is the totality of that identity. But when it manifests in a whole, it is the totality of the whole, being one. The same is extensible to the totality of consciousness, the supreme being, which will be effective when it emerges as an identity.
- A.T.: Exactly. That is. Consciousness is total, but it manifests itself individually as an instance of itself. But it is always the same. Like an actress who could play several roles at once. Wouldn't her mind be chaotic? It would not become one identity, because it would be many simultaneous ones. When the supreme being emerges, that actress will be only one, with only one experience. It will be one identity, the absolute one, and not the sum of all.
- S.I: So, would you define identity as a mind that living beings possess?
- A.T: Perception generates identity, and the reality you experience will depend on how the scenario is perceived. So identity is the fruit of perception by self-referencing the scenario. But the scenario depends on how the scenario has been perceived, and the identity will emerge according to the type of perception. 
The mind, understanding as mind the result of the functioning of a brain, is an attribute of a type of identities. But if we extend the concept of mind to refer to the attribute of consciousness, by which it can interact with the scenario and interpret it, then mind is something proper to every identity. But it is not the identity. 
Mind is a tool, an attribute of consciousness. Identity is consciousness manifesting itself with the filter of perception, that is why there are identities like cells, so different from plants, or mammals. And there is the singularity that consciousness is posterior to identity, but without it identity would not be possible. Once a self-perceived part self-refers to the perceived environment, identity emerges. Identity would be a simple identifier without relevance if it were not for the fact that it makes the essence we call consciousness appear, in which identity manifests itself in time and space as a presence. As someone. It is the experience.