Dignity Simplicity Virtue

A Living Ethic for Every Person

Joseph Jones

Ruinoll Impressions

For Love:

Greatest Power

Greatest Gift

Greatest Sacrifice

Those who speak, do not know.

Those who know, do not speak.

I know nothing; this work is good.

Contents List

Introduction

Part One  The Ethic In Brief

1a. Brief Description

1b. A Virtue List

1c. Brief Explanation of the Ethic

1d. Short Virtue Definitions

Part Two  Everyday Ethic

2a. Why You Should Practice and Live the Ethic

2b. On Arriving at the Principles

2c. On Dignity

(1) Aspects of Dignity

(2) Place of Dignity in the Ethic

(3) Dignity in Practice

(4) Mental Stability

2d. On Simplicity

(1) Aspects of Simplicity

(2) Place of Simplicity in the Ethic

(3) Simplicity in Practice

2e. On the Circles of the Virtues

(1) Reasons for Virtue

(2) Other Reasons to Develop Strength and Alignment of Spirit

(3) Organization of the Circles

(4) Meaning of the Circles

2f. On Virtues and Vice

(1) Virtue In Practice

(2) Definitions

Part Three  The Ethic in Depth

3a. Principles and Terms of the Ethic

3b. On How the Will Can Be Freed

(1) Essay Intro

(2) Structure of Choice

(3) Model of Consciousness

(4) Competing Influences Model Restated

(5) Limits and Failures

(6) Philosophical Points

(7) DSV Integration

3c. On Spirit

(1) Field-State Theory of Consciousness and Links with Spirit and Life

(2) Dimension-State Theory

(3) Field-States and the Body

(4) Back to Spirit

(5) A Note on Evidence

(6) Recursive Self-Amplifying Spirit

3d. On Consciousness and the Mind

(1) On Memory

(2) On Channel States

(3) On Tuneable Perceptions

(4) On Pride and Knowledge States

(5) On Trinary Thinking

(6) On Implications of Free Will

(7) On Oneness

(8) On Fixations that Sunder Dignity

(9) On Substances and Consciousness

3e. On Vices and Virtue

(1) On the Middle Ground

(2) On What Vice Brings Us

(3) On the Benefits of Virtue

(4) On the Use of Vice to Control Others

(5) On Priority of Virtue

3f. Other Points

(1) On the Collapse or Corruption of Society

(2) On Expansion of Consciousness Directed Inward

(3) On Five Elements Theory

(4) On Sovereignty

(5) On Love

3g. Speculation

(1) On Afterlife

(2) On Transmittal of Life

(3) On Scope of Spirit

(4) On Collective Mind

(5) On Power

(6) Regarding Worship

(7) On Sovereignty, continued.

Notes and References

Introduction

Truth and power. Power and truth. That is what this book offers. Don’t believe me? Read on and find out. Prove me wrong if you can. Or gain that which you seek, if I’m right. Or both—I’m not perfect and neither is this book.

Are you impatient with your current part of the book? Keep reading—the work starts off with fundamental ideas but also progresses into some very interesting derivations.

Words themselves are not necessarily meaningful. This work attempts to use words to describe true things about human reality. Mostly with accurate meanings, but sometimes using older meanings for terms and sometimes altering established meanings of terms. Please keep in mind that the language use in this book is all quite deliberate, barring the odd mistype that makes it past editing. Reality is what is meaningful. This work attempts to describe reality using words, but you should try to see past the words to what is meant. The complexities of the written word remain the best way to model the complexities of life, but only if the living mind reading them mirrors and takes off with the models of reality being described by the words. Also, this entire work is contextual—my use of language both reflects and stresses this. I have my reasons when straying from proper grammar or sentence structure.

The book is organized into three main parts, which are semi-repetitive but also build upon one another. Part One is very brief and is intended to give a short overview of the ethic. It is not complete and there is much more to the ethic than you will find in Part One. Nonetheless, it can be read quickly and it hits some main points.

Part Two contains everything the reader needs to know to practice the ethic. It is much more complete than Part One, but is kept intentionally positive and somewhat shallow in order to constitute understandable instructions for a working ethic. It will take some time to read well. The reader is enjoined to do so carefully and with intent to learn—it is meant to be studied. But it is also organized such that a quick read, even skipping over the denser parts, will still be adequate to convey much of the intended meaning and will enable the speedy reader to practice the ethic. Part Two is mostly instructional and provides only limited arguments for the truth of the ethic and the claims being made. It also limits definitions of some terms to that which is useful for practical ethics.

Part Three attempts to complete understanding of the ethic, to provide further argumentative proofs, and to address a number of subsidiary points that arise concerning the ethic. It is dense and sometimes scholarly and should be read and considered slowly. Part Three is not a quick read; those who attempt to move through it quickly should not expect to understand the intended meaning. Furthermore, while intended to complete understanding of the ethic as such, it is not complete as a description of reality according to the philosophy of the ethic. No single book can be, really. There are many trailing ends, many suggestive claims, and many incomplete subsidiary arguments. But the core of a living ethic is all here. The work is self-consistent in human terms and can be taken up by any dedicated reader. All of those trailing ends, all of those suggestive claims, and all of those incomplete arguments provide potential avenues for future inquiry. This is a fundamental work that attempts both to provide a true depiction of human reality and to provide practical instructions on living well, according to that depiction. It is a finished work in itself but there is also much potential work to follow up on, to both further explore living reality and to shore up the warrant of the claims being made.

*

A note on organizational pattern: there are no chapters. The work is organized into Parts, sections, and discussion points. In a number-letter-number pattern. As in- Part Two, section c, point 3, or 2c3. This is the only meaning intended when the word ‘section’ is mentioned in the ethic. Though ‘part’ is also used in the common sense, on occasion, as is ‘point’. So section 2c, On Dignity, is the third section in Part Two, and has a number of discussion point divisions within the section. Within individual points, a separator (*) is occasionally used to improve clarity of reading. The ethic is not indexed, as such, for this first edition, but one can quickly refer to any place in the book by Part, section, point, paragraph, sentence, etc, as for example, 2c3 paragraph4 sentence2. Which begins with “Provided below…”. I suppose that can be further truncated to 2c3-p4s2.

*

This is not a religious work, nor is it anti-religious. It is not a secular work, nor is it anti-secular. It is not materialist or positivist, but does acknowledge the assertions of those philosophies. It is not an exercise in mysticism, but draws upon some useful and repeatable fruits of mysticism. It is not an imaginary effort, but does acknowledge the imagination as an important faculty of the mind. It is not science, but still draws upon useful scientific methodology. This work is human art. This is a nonfiction work of living philosophy that seeks to explore the human meaning of the greater reality in which we exist and to draw conclusions and offer advice therefrom. A great deal of rigor has been applied to the thought presented.

Because this work deals in fundamental truths of human existence, it can be and may be useful to science, to religion, to philosophy, and to any other field of human endeavor. Including and especially in regards to the daily choices of an average person who just wants to do the right thing and to be a good person.

What are we? How shall we live? What is it that makes for right choices? These are some questions that this ethic attempts to answer. The ongoing questions in the thinking mind as to what a person is and what things are right for a person to do. This work is guidance for individuals, both singular and in collective, to make right choices in their lives—it is an ethic. It is hoped, and designed, that such right choices will lead to good, both for individuals and for the world.

The work utilizes argumentative forms to both propose and teach the ethic of Dignity Simplicity Virtue (DSV). In part that is, because this is the work of a single human mind, fallible as all such minds are, and it should be made clear that there is always potential for change—for a better argument to come along. No human work is perfect or ever will be perfect. In part, these forms are utilized because though I reject certain norms of secular academic conglomeration in western philosophy (such as neo-scholasticism), it should be made clear that this is a work of human philosophy in the pursuit of truth. Tools of human philosophy, such as argumentative forms, will be drawn upon for the sake of the work. No distinction is made between continental and analytic schools of thought, as this work draws upon both traditions but also rests on fundamentals prior to each.

Nevertheless, the premises laid out, even more so than the conclusions drawn from them, are held to be true. As true as human wisdom can derive, but thoroughly and repeatedly tested by means of personal insights and intuition, direct perceptions of the consciousness, empirical and non-empirical observation, pattern matching and analysis, logical constructs and other constructs of thought, and direct sovereign projection of the consciousness into the world, to enable both sensory perceptual feedback and direct consciousness perceptual feedback. These methods are some of the tools of an awakened, but still human, mind. They will not all be directly taught or explained in the work—some will be left to those with the wisdom to learn for themselves. Know, yourself, dear reader, that I hold the premises laid out in this work to be true, in the fullness and firmness of my stated belief. Aspects of human science, human mysticism, other efforts at philosophy, logical thought, historical studies, and various religions are drawn from and utilized as appropriate.

Is this work complete, as an ethic of living? Yes and no. I have focused the work on those aspects of life and living that are neglected or glossed over elsewhere, but have myself neglected or glossed over some aspects of ethics that are better discussed elsewhere. Ethics is an entire branch of philosophical thinking and has been extensively treated, discussed, and argued. This particular ethic seeks to point out missing factors and misplaced relative priority in other attempts at ethics—it does not attempt to fully redo all of ethical thinking within the text. Because of those missing factors and inadequate priorities of importance, general ethical thought does require overhaul. Let this work inform further efforts. In itself, this ethic is complete as a personal ethic of living; regarding ethics in general, it answers some questions but not others.

As a special note, much of the ethic is informed by concepts of 1- equality of equivalent being and 2- reciprocity. These concepts are further developed throughout the ethic, but the reader should take care to understand the implications of reciprocity in particular, whether stated or implied.

*

To close this introduction, a friendly note on substances and consciousness. This book was written sober. It was written absent the use of any mind-altering substances whatsoever. No drugs, no alcohol, no pharmaceuticals, no artificial hormone or peptide compounds, no nicotine, no caffeine, nothing. Though I will note for honest disclosure that I do take vitamins and other dietary supplements, to support good health as necessary given that mass food is becoming less nutritious over time. These vitamins and supplements can impact brain function, but none that I use are directly psychoactive.

The work itself may not make clear sense to a reader that is altering their consciousness by drugs or other means. Of particular note, I include the use of caffeine in this category. Caffeine is a mind altering drug that both shallows and narrows conscious perception and conscious thought. See Part Three, On Consciousness and the Mind, for more details. Before you become dismissive of my notions, such as ‘spirit’, consider that caffeine use or other drugs may be precluding you from adequately grasping my meaning, or fully utilizing your own intuitive faculties or even your full perceptions. Spirit, as discussed herein, is in no way a simplistic or simple idea. It is a very real aspect of reality.

I wish you all well and hope for good reading. To those that are addicted to a substance that regularly alters their consciousness, I advise you to stop that use. Be sober and find yourself. Find the joy of life that is only possible for a self-balanced and clear mind.

Part One: The Ethic in Brief

1a. Brief Description of the Ethic

The ethic is intended to offer moral guidance for most aspects of the life of an individual person. It is also intended to be equally applicable to every person who chooses to follow it. So it is both particular to individual use and universal among thinking individuals.

DSV is partially a type of virtue ethic. This means that it identifies traits of character—virtues—that a person should choose to ingrain into themselves, in order to be an ethical person. In order to be a good person. Instead of trying to set rules of behavior or looking for common units of moral measurement, a virtue ethic defines the character of a good person. A virtuous person, or one that is seeking to become virtuous, is able to make ethical decisions in their life by developing their understanding of how a person should be and how a person should act. That is, in a virtuous manner. Every choice to act in a virtuous manner then becomes another step toward shaping character to be virtuous, which makes it easier to make virtuous choices, and so on.

The ethic educates and sets ideals to follow, but does not tell you what to do. Your choices are always your own—what you choose shapes who you are. With better knowledge, we can make better choices. The ethic attempts to provide you with better knowledge.

DSV is more than just a virtue ethic. It attempts to identify everything that is important about a person in terms not only of ethical conduct, but also in regards to the worlds in which a person lives their life. Both the common world we all share and also the worlds that a person traverses alone. The path laid out by the paradigm of Dignity Simplicity Virtue is a philosophy of life. One that describes the character traits of a good person as a matter of course, along the way as it defines what a person is and how a person should interact with reality. That is, how a person should interact with the greater reality in which we all exist, that is formed of matter, spirit, and soul—but don’t stop reading just yet; as noted, this is not a religious work, and it is both productive and rewarding philosophy. These things are all usefully defined later in the ethic.

The ethic does not tell you what to do; it helps you to choose in better ways. Your choices, as always, are yours. The ethic explains the meaning of some of your choices and details potential consequences. Regarding some of your choices, that is, because there are many choices and many things to do in this life that do not touch directly on ethical matters. Though DSV is a way of living, it is not a philosophy that consumes your life. Rather, it helps you to organize thinking and choices on important parts of life, and in so doing enables you to live better in the rest of your life. The ethic enhances your capacity to choose. It increases your freedom. It does not bind you—only you can do that.

The next section is a listing of virtues identified by the ethic. They are organized into whether they define good interactions among the members of a society, good states of mind and the greater individual spirit of which the mind is a part, or true good being at the very heart of the individual from which all else flows.

After that bare listing of virtues, the following section is a brief explanation of the overall ethic. Do keep in mind that the explanation section, though somewhat dense in places, is kept intentionally brief and does not provide what I consider either a full explanation or any real depth of argument. Part One is kept as brief as possible, by intent. Part Two of the ethic will endeavor to explain more fully. Part Three of the ethic will dive deeper into meaning and justification. Part One closes with a section providing abridged definitions for the virtues listed.

Next, the virtue listing. Note that I do not claim these as THE virtues, only virtues that I have identified as such and think may prove to be both adequate and complete for ethical purposes. Full definitions are provided in the last section of Part Two. There is also more virtue discussion in Part Three. Note that the definitions provided are not necessarily the common understanding of these words, that I label as virtues, so do not judge the merits of the ethic on this brief list alone.

1b. Virtues

Of honor, in the Circle of Society

discipline

duty

frugality

integrity

loyalty

nobility

respect

valor

wholesomeness

Of spirit, in the Circle of Mind

charity

chastity

diligence

humility

kindness

patience

temperance

Of soul, in the Circle of Being

faith

hope

love

1c. Brief Explanation of the Ethic

The virtues define goals of character, grouped into the distinct but related Circles of outward behavior (Society), mental states (Mind), and core being (Being). These are the virtues of honor, spirit, and soul, respectively. Choices become habits; habits become character.1 A person that wishes good character, or better character, must do so one choice at a time. Loosely speaking, a choice made in accordance with virtue should be morally good, while a choice made against virtue, or in accordance with vice, is likely morally wrong.

Because of the sheer complexity of life, there will almost never be certainty of the moral character of a given choice, as judged from outside of a person. There are too many variables, and too many unknowns, unless a situation be simplified to the point of practical uselessness or, worse, painted over with an overly simplified parody of reality. Thus I reject both rule-based and utility-based ethical systems. This ethic does provide for some ethical judgment of others, from the outside. The virtues of honor in the Circle of Society are patterns of outward behavior that can be seen and known by other people—honorable choices and honorable acts are mostly indistinguishable, according to this ethic. Choosing to act with honor is the outwardly visible aspect of the ethic.

But the direction of causality of those outward choices flows from inner to outer. Ethical actions that others can see can be made at any time by sheer effort of will, but mostly occur more naturally if a person has cultivated a virtuous character. Which can only come about if a person has chosen, over time, to make virtuous choices, one after the other or at least as possible. The virtues of the Circle of Being, those of soul, denote choices that are always with us, no matter what. Choosing to be according to those three simple but profound virtues is the way to a virtuous soul. The virtues of the Circle of Mind, those of spirit, denote choices that are with us whenever the mind is active. Choosing to think according to those seven virtues is the way to a virtuous spirit. From there, outward actions of the body that are virtuous follow naturally, though still require deliberate choices. These are the gradations and manifestations of the very force of our lives, flowing from within to without, changing with each level of emanation, that lead to the actions that people make in the outer world.

Much of the value of this ethic rests on the particular virtues identified. Which virtues are chosen, how they are organized, and relative priority effectively form an overall characterization of what is good and valuable and what should be scorned and rejected. Except for the virtues of soul, these virtues as selected for this ethic are not necessarily correct. Not necessarily, but great care has been taken to make the selections as correct as possible. Some traits long held as virtues have been integrated into other terms. For example, one may note that 'prudence' is missing. It does not really fit into the paradigm of Circles that I have organized and also the contemporary understanding of prudence, or 'prudentia', is somewhat vague. Though I hope that I have accounted for the essence of that long-held virtue and think that every person should be a prudent person, as possible.

I hope also that the lists of virtues that I have chosen are close enough to correct to make the ethic good overall. The nature of soul does not change, so that part of the ethic is good and need not be corrected, unless I have made mistakes in cognition or communication. The spirit, taking place between constant soul and changeable body, also has relatively constant virtues—or at least those I have identified seem to have held as good for the thousands of years that we have historical records. Though with the caveats that language and meaning will shift over time and every word is only as good as its definition and how people understand it.

In contrast, the virtues of honor, within the Circle of Society, will not necessarily hold constant. Instead, I have chosen a list of virtues of honor that effectively depict what I consider to be a good society. Also, that are outward standards of behavior that are in alignment with the inner foundation of the ethic. A given society will have its own ideas about what constitutes honorable behavior, which will be shaped and modified by the environment and historical occurrences that have shaped society itself. I have attempted to assemble a list of 'virtues of honor' that is as universal as possible and that I hope will hold good for most societal interactions between people, but this aspect of the ethic can and should be modified to fit dynamic reality. The key here being that honorable behavior, and the virtues that define it, will always be the best compromise that a virtuous spirit can arrive at given the constraints and limitations of the physical world, as modified by necessity for the needs of other people, available technology, resource limitations, periods of conflict and war or plague and famine, and etc. Virtuous acts, in contrast to internal virtuous spirit or virtuous being, must always try to account for a pragmatic understanding of the likely consequences of those actions.

This is not to say that I am abandoning outward behavior to relativism—far from it. Overall, society will prosper and people will be better off if honorable behavior is the norm and that honorable behavior closely echoes the virtues of soul and spirit. Do keep in mind that the specific virtues of honor chosen for this ethic are derived from the virtues of spirit and follow, directly, from the moral foundation of the ethic. Given that, there is a moral imperative, though not an unlimited one, to act in accordance with these virtues of honor even if a harmful outcome is anticipated. This forms a competing burden of choice, between acting virtuously and acting more pragmatically. The ethical person is mentally equipped, with both balance of mind and clarity of mind, to assess a complex situation and make the best choice possible in any given situation. The flow from virtue of soul and through virtue of spirit provides the motivation and orientation of those choices. The virtues of honor themselves are also defined in such a way as to account for necessary flexibility of action in a dynamic world.

The two other main aspects of the ethic, Dignity and Simplicity, are what provide the necessary mental balance and mental clarity, respectively, to enable us to make virtuous choices. They have equal weight with virtue in the ethic, and for good reason. The ethic is person-based and mostly occurs within the individual person. These two principles are a recognition of how a person can be virtuous, of how a person can be ethical. They define the core aspects of personal agency for choice, both within the spirit of the individual person and in interpersonal interactions. Dignity and Simplicity enable our choices to be virtuous, both within ourselves and out in the world.

The principle of Simplicity is a recognition and moral legitimization of human limits and limitations—we can only do so much, only comprehend so much, at any given time. We are fallible and make mistakes; it is still possible to be an ethical person, to be morally good, despite this. Even in ethics, small moves in the right direction are acceptable and good. Seek virtue within your means and as possible—that is enough. Simplicity serves as catchall moral guidance for ethical decisions not covered by the virtues. It enjoins us to try to do the right thing, always, but to understand that we can only do as much as we can.

Simplicity used as an active principle reveals that human limitation of cognition can also be a strength. Indeed, this principle encompasses a powerful tool of mental focus. Put simply, it is the active principle of the mind, the momentary focus of the consciousness itself. As ethical behavior is a matter of conscious choice, and the focus of the individual consciousness is limited, Simplicity is in fact the principle of active ethical agency. The mind is limited; we can deliberately focus all of that limited capacity in order to have clarity of mind on what is focused on.

One may object that this is a bit of a fusion of ideas, but I consider it more a matter of looking at the same thing from different sides or perspectives. Thus I unify both forgiveness for human limitations, including our being prone to failure, and the ethical agency of the sharp focus of the human consciousness, with all the choices that a person uses that focus to make in the moment, into the single, fundamental, principle of Simplicity.

Dignity shows how the active agency of Simplicity is possible, by defining who and what we are as individual people. It is the core of who we are. That is, each person is a self-sovereign individual, completely free to make choices—in potential. Dignity, as understood in terms of the three spheres of interaction that the Circles of the virtues define, is the principle that, absent limiting factors, the self has complete power over itself. My discussions on Dignity explain how we can push back those limiting factors and increase personal freedom. We are all free in spirit or are capable of becoming so; we are all sovereign over our own being.

Which means that we are also responsible, ethically, for the choices we freely make. This is the other side of the nature of Dignity. It is the weight and responsibility of the power of our freedom. Understanding the limiting factors of freedom of choice, in terms of inner being, mental limitations, and body or physical limitations, as well as the limits imposed when multiple people who are all self-sovereign in themselves must interact, is key to ethical being, ethical thinking, and ethical conduct. Your personal dignity is the foundation of your power, but it also demands personal responsibility. Human dignity is an inception point of this entire ethic, from which most of the other principles may be derived.

The mental balance that enables virtuous choices is obtained by finding and strengthening personal dignity. But this idea will be further developed in Part Two of the work, Everyday Ethic. For now I will close this hopefully brief enough explanation of the ethic with these simple encapsulated instructions of the ethic:

Find the dignity of your life and hold true to it. Focus yourself on what matters. Identify virtuous choices. Seek to cultivate virtue as a habit and then as part of your character, by making those choices for virtue.

This is the path of Dignity Simplicity Virtue.

1- A maxim that may be attributed to Aristotle, or to many other observers of human nature.

1d. Abridged Virtue Definitions

This final section of Part One provides brief definitions for the virtues of the ethic. Keep in mind that full definitions also require knowledge of the opposing vice and are to be found in the final section of Part Two. These extracts are provided here for the convenience of the reader and to help introduce concepts that are more fully developed throughout the ethic.

Virtues of honor, in the Circle of Society

Discipline: Acting with the deliberate use of self-control in your pattern of behavior or conduct over time. Imposing a chosen order over your own actions. SYN Self-confident, nerving, self-command, self-control. ANT Disordered, enervated, uncontrolled.

Duty: Acting to fulfill your chosen obligations. Being as promised. SYN Reliable, steadfast, upright, meeting agreements and accords. ANT Default, derelict, untrustworthy, not meeting obligations.

Frugality: Acting with careful economy of resources or energy. Using what is needed but no more, without waste. SYN Prudent, careful, sparing, thrifty. ANT Profuse, lavish, prodigal, wasteful.

Integrity: Acting to maintain undivided good moral character. Acting in wholeness of self in the moral sense. Staying true to yourself. Being of sound character. SYN Upright, honest, merciful, just. ANT Cheat, unjust, fraud, deceitful.

Loyalty: Acting in good faith toward the self and toward those to whom fidelity is due. Acting with constant or firm support or allegiance. SYN True, keeping faith, honorable. ANT False, treacherous, traitorous, perfidious.

Nobility: Acting in an uplifting or excellent manner. Being generous of spirit as shown by action. To treat well or uplift others. SYN Righteous, sublime, eminent. ANT Sordid, vile, petty, degraded.

Respect: Acting with consideration, esteem, and/or politeness toward yourself and others. Maintaining civility of interaction. SYN Cherish, polite, mannerly, civilized. ANT Contemptuous, disregard, inconsiderate, scorn.

Valor: Acting for the sake of the good regardless of danger or damage to the self. Being willing to accept harm to self or loss of goods to do what is right or needful. SYN Tenacious, courage, brave. ANT Timorous, cowardly, lacking tenacity.

Wholesomeness: Acting to achieve and maintain health, cleanliness, and physical and mental capability, over time. SYN Salutary, healthy, clean, able, care for the being of the self. ANT Dissolute, noxious, unhygienic, unhealthy, incapable.

Virtues of spirit, in the Circle of Mind

Charity: The choice to think benevolently toward others; generosity and goodwill as a state of mind and habit of thought. SYN Altruist, grace, benevolent, giving, mercy. ANT Avaricious, grasping, miserly, stingy.

Chastity: The choice to manage the drive for pleasure-seeking; choosing joy instead as the goal. Purity of self. SYN Whole, content, decent, modest. ANT Rapacity, eagerness to possess, carnality, salaciousness, wanton.

Diligence: The choice for steady and earnest application of effort toward either doing what is right or bettering oneself. The state of mind that tracks the present moment and asks what one should be doing with the time, if anything. SYN Persevering, assiduous, industrious, careful. ANT Lazy, indolent, idle, slack, remiss, negligent.

Humility: The choice to see the self and the world for what it is; maintaining an awareness of personal being and its place in reality. SYN Subdued, modest, deference, submission to the greater. ANT Vanity, vainglory, static self-esteem, arrogant, egoism.

Kindness: The choice to view others in a considerate and friendly manner; helpfulness and goodwill as a state of mind and habit of thought. SYN Forbearing, compassionate, sympathetic, benign. ANT Coveting, begrudging, unsatisfied, intolerant.

Patience: The choice to be forbearing or tolerant despite delay, strain, trouble, provocation, or suffering; remaining calm in the face of trials or pain. SYN Fortitude, persistence, forbearance, sufferance. ANT Rage, fury, uncontrolled anger, mad.

Temperance: The choice for moderation in thought, feeling, and appetite—not denying such passions, but restraining their scope and play to reasonable extents. SYN Balanced, moderation, abstinent, sober. ANT Voracious, ravening, rapacious, unending hunger.

Virtues of soul, in the Circle of Being

Faith: The choice to trust. SYN Conviction, belief, certitude, agreement. ANT Disbelief, dubiety, unending skepticism, never trusting.

Hope: The choice to expect the good to endure and eventually succeed. SYN Assured, trust, await, expect. ANT Forlorn, hopeless, desperate, barren, nothing is left, empty.

Love: The choice to sacrifice of the self for the sake of another; the choice to join other unto self, as one. SYN Joining, unity in being, giving self-sacrifice. ANT Abhor, antipathy, final separation, anti-union, abominate.

Part Two: Everyday Ethic

2a. Why You Should Practice and Live the Ethic

The burden of consciousness is ours to bear. Practice of the ethic can transform this burden, consistently, into glory.

There are other reasons, ranging from the pragmatic to the uplifting, but transformative reasons remain the first and most compelling. Those who are willing to turn to ethics, despite all of the distractions of the world, despite competing philosophies or other promises of fulfillment and purpose, have come to a state of self-awareness, of self-acknowledgment, and know something of their ongoing responsibility. To make the burden of the responsibility of consciousness into a privilege instead is the first and best reason to be ethical.

The consciousness, choice, is power. Our power. The power to choose, the power to change, either oneself or the world. This is also our burden. As we have the power to choose, so do we bear the responsibility for what we use that power for. The ethic offers the means by which we may transform our burden of responsibility, consistently, into purpose, fulfillment, and even glory.

Glory, which I am using as something of a blanket term for the rewards we find through the transformative process but do not yet have a clear understanding of the value of. Only the hint, the promise, of something worth working toward, worth sacrificing for. I will not attempt a better definition here, as this is something that each of us must discover for ourselves. Within the self, not told through an external communication such as this book.

On to other reasons. Next are a couple practical or even pragmatic reasons for living according to this ethic.

Ethical behavior in social interactions will increase your worth to others in society and pretty much guarantee ongoing acceptance for you, an individual, within the society of the larger group of people. Those who behave honorably (by my definitions) are not only acceptable to have around, but also valued. Trustworthy people, who keep their word, fulfill their responsibilities, and otherwise behave in an honorable fashion provide ongoing benefits to other people that they interact with. If you benefit others they will accept you and value you.

Beyond mere acceptance or even value, by and for those around you, the ongoing practice of this ethic effectively makes you fit for leadership in society. Leadership is something earned, a trust placed in you by those who are led. Leaders make broad decisions, sometimes correct and sometimes not, but regardless of those decisions that they make on behalf of others they are expected to provide an ongoing example to follow. To be someone worth emulating. Behaving honorably within society will display the qualities of leadership that cannot be reliably trained or easily learned—virtue of character and dignity of self. Developing Dignity and Simplicity and choosing to be virtuous in being and in mind is the path to consistent honorable behavior, to consistently displaying good leadership.

Which brings us away from the practical and on to the uplifting. That is, practice of this ethic uplifts the self, in that bad habits become good habits and bad, or just unformed, character becomes good character. You will become better, in and of yourself, far beyond just the matter of what others think of you. You will find unity of being and a basis for clear purpose and stable choices, regardless of what the outer world might throw at you.

By recognizing our dignity of self, which provides us with the power of will, of choice, we are able to intentionally take up the responsibility for our actions. By finding and choosing virtues that align with the type of beings that we are, soul, spirit, and body, we are able to set a clear standard of character to strive for. By coming to understand our limitations, and deliberately staying within them, we are able to unify our fragmented selves into effective and whole beings.

From this process, you will be uplifted into a lasting state of joy—beyond happiness, far beyond mere pleasure. True joy of the spirit must be experienced to be understood, but it is a great reward. While joy can spring forth from the virtues of the soul alone, indeed from love alone, consistent joy throughout life requires pursuit of the virtues of the soul, which requires a virtuous spirit, which cannot long remain in conflict with conflicting worldly choices, thus also requiring honorable behavior. The ethic is a path to enduring joy in your life. Which is a very good reason to practice it.

In short, the ethic is a path to transforming yourself, so all of these reasons are really about transformation. Transforming an individual into a valued member of society, and even a leader within society. Transforming the uncertainty and emptiness and apathy within a living spirit, adrift in an endless universe, into purpose and joy. Transforming the burden of what we are into the glory of what we can be.

Some Other Purposes of the Ethic to Consider

One- pragmatic guidance on good behavior. It does not matter if you disbelieve or even actively reject my theoretical framework of soul, spirit, and matter, by which the ethic is organized and the virtues arrived at. This ethic works even so, either just as an entirely external materialist measure or also one incorporating human mental states. Act with dignity, act in understanding of human limitations, act in accordance with the generally recognized virtues of honor, and you will be acting in a manner accepted as good behavior by those around you. No one else can perceive your inner states; they will only see that you behave as a moral person. You will be missing out on a lot of the value of the ethic, but even so it will still work. Those who choose this lesser path will be following similar behavior to what might be derived from a rules-based Kantian ethic. Though I think my virtue approach is much less complex to practice and thus more practical to implement.

Two- an ongoing pursuit of the truth of this existence. The principles of Dignity and Simplicity, or the virtues listed, are not being claimed as unchangeable or as any sort of divine mandate. Instead, they are arrived at from human observations and by human efforts of cognition. They are arrived at by human effort to determine what we, humans, are in reality and what that reality itself is. The ethic, that is designed based on some conclusions of those efforts, is itself part of an ongoing pursuit of truth, an ongoing pursuit of true knowledge that humans may comprehend. Truth, and meaning. What does it mean that we are autonomous beings? That we are capable of exercising Dignity, in some measure. What does it mean that some patterns of thought and behavior serve both us and others, while other such patterns harm us or harm others? That there are virtues of character to be defined and practiced. These questions and others, the ethic both poses and seeks to answer. Some answers will be wrong, undoubtedly, but that is why we must continue to question. Why we must continue the cycle of question and answer, but also try to hold on to true answers when we find them.

Three- an attempt to gather and collate accepted wisdom, or in any case true guidance for human behavior. The ethic seeks to critically integrate a number of different traditions and paradigms into a cohesive, coherent, and practical bundle of guidance on human choices. That is, on how a person should be, should choose, and should shape themselves, if they want to seek happiness and a good life and also to contribute to happiness and good lives for other people. The world we live in is rapidly changing and human experience is confronting a number of new problems for which answers must be found. This ethic seeks to draw upon the wisdom of the ages in order to confront and find answer to the problems of today. To provide a matrix of thought through which to understand the world. To offer guidance on choices that must be made.

Four- an ongoing reminder that spirit is real. Some people are more sensitive to reality beyond the physical senses than others. Sometimes those who do have such sensitivities lose touch with them. Furthermore, any perceptions of spirit rely on shifting mental states combined with both internal conjecture and on having a mental framework of interpretation in place. This is because perceptions of spirit rely on calibrating and using the field-state of the mind itself as a sensory apparatus. The ethic attempts to utilize some collected wisdom of humanity regarding perceptions of spirit beyond the basic material world to put in place a framework of understanding spirit and what it means for the individual. As such, the ethical guidance offered is oriented toward the greater reality in which we exist, including spirit and the soul beyond. In following the ethic a person can account for that greater reality, day to day, without needing to be in a mental state of direct perception of spirit.

Five- an orderly structure of thought to rely upon. Spirit, and mind as a type of spirit, is dynamic. Absent imposed order, it is ever-changing and unpredictable in motion. While not really chaotic, for spirit does exist within certain boundaries, there are aspects of chaos to it. The ethic, while itself incorporating elements of the dynamism of spirit, is also an orderly structure that can be relied upon not to change. Or not to change very much, relative to the ongoing dynamism of spirit and of the world in general. It is, or attempts to be, a bulwark of order that can be relied upon, an orderly framework to guide your choices. Without actually telling you what to do. It is, or attempts to be, a bulwark of truth, as to the nature of things and of ourselves, against the many falsehoods generated by others in the ongoing chaos of the world.

2b. What We Are—Or, On Arriving at the Principles

This section lays out a starting point for the logic of the ethic and how I have arrived at the principles of the ethic. It is about defining what a person is, where they originate from, and the nature of a person’s interaction with the world.

Lest I lose readers at this point, I ask that you read this section in full. Especially take note of the last two paragraphs. To gain partial but ongoing benefit from the ethic, you need not accept belief in my underlying theory. I understand that most of academia is currently predicated on rejecting some of these ideas. The practice of the ethic remains good and valuable even absent this underlying theory. Though to gain full benefit from the ethic you must at least provisionally accept my assumptions and arguments.

It all begins with mind. That is, the individual consciousness of a single person, but simply ‘mind’ can also denote the inception of the ethic. Mind is the balance point between soul and body, as spirit is the place of conjunction between soul and matter.

Human consciousness is special. It is the initial element of ethics—an act, or a choice, has moral character because it is made by a conscious agent. At the heart of what we are, each of us, is the awareness of our self and of our senses (consciousness) and the power to make choices and exert the will (the active expression of the conscious living spirit) to turn those choices into acts.

This ethic is centered on the agency of the consciousness, with the principle of Dignity and its expression. The ethic is softened and guided by recognition of the limitations of consciousness and human action, with the principle of Simplicity. Then, the judgments of what makes for right being, the choices of and organization of the virtues listed, have been decided upon by utilizing a theoretical framework of morality. That framework is derived from an examination of human consciousness as it exists in the world and as it has existed in the world over time, over the ages of human memory and record.

The consciousness is clearly part of the human mind. From mind, all else follows. It is only the human mind that is capable of perceiving or determining that there is spirit beyond the flesh and within the flesh.

The living mind clearly has an intrinsic relationship with the brain and the human neural system. There is general agreement on this, because material science has provided technological measures of correlation which are sufficient for proof. There is no such agreement regarding the distinct spiritual quality of the mind, but this is because no such technological measure has been publicly devised that can measure or track spirit.

Instead, the only measure we have of spirit is mind itself. This is because the mind is capable of tune-able and variable perception, by means of altering itself to partially co-mingle or resonate with the object, or focus, of its perception. This is distinct from the physical senses of the body (though may blend itself with them in the individual sensorium) and is the so-called ‘sixth sense’. Not that it is a single extra sense but rather the potential for many different senses, though only a specific range at a given time because it is literally mind-altering to ‘tune’ or ‘variate’ the mind to be able to perceive in such ways. Few people are capable of regularly so altering their mind in a reliable fashion. More people, however, are naturally ‘attuned’ to what I am terming ‘spirit’, or living spirit, and many people have been so attuned within the history of humanity. It seems to be a natural state. Which is little wonder, given that the mind itself is composed of spirit. Although, this natural attunement may be altered to limit or exclude perceptions of spirit, and has been most notably so altered in a historical sense by the adoption and widespread use of the drug caffeine.

So, what are we? Living spirit. Living spirit, that inhabits and permeates the body and has a constant ongoing relationship with the body, but is also more than the body. I denote the human consciousness to be an aspect of the living spirit, as the conscious mind alone is obviously not all of the mind. What is my initial measure of what spirit is? The mind—as begun with the examination of human consciousness. This is somewhat circular reasoning if you adhere solely to materialist or analytical logics—which I do not. Such logics are useful in their place, but for the ethic are synergized with intuitive reasoning and historical wisdom in an attempt to derive truth, rather than just facts.

Theoretically, I suspect that spirit is what arises when you combine (or co-mingle) ‘soul’ (for lack of a better term) with that which our physical bodies are composed of. Two very different fundamental substances (or state-interactions in themselves) that may not directly interact with each other but give rise to a mediate ‘something’ which I am terming spirit. Possibly, a spark of soul is passed from each parent into their respective seed. When combined, and a child begins, a new living spirit also begins to arise from the new ‘soul-in-flesh’. Though this is a very crude way of putting it and these ideas are further developed in Part Three of the ethic, as informed by the gradual build-up of knowledge of the ethic as a whole.

Thus, theoretically, spirit arises, and continues to exist, because of the co-mingling of two otherwise foreign ‘substances’—matter and soul. This ongoing union gives rise to an in-between state/substance which I term spirit. The spirit of an individual exists, grows, and develops over time as a hybrid state between soul and matter, that may interact with both. The consciousness is a particular and special part of the mind; the mind is the core part of the living spirit of a person.

This is my own independent theoretical work, though it cannot be considered entirely original. I draw upon material science, secular traditions, religious traditions, and other sources, in this attempt to integrate active personal evidence, contemporary understanding, and historical belief systems. To the best of my understanding this is truth, within the framework of explanation provided by this entire ethic.

For this section of the ethic, that is all I will say directly on these matters. But, this aspect of the theoretical basis of the ethic only has relevance to the practitioner of the ethic if you do not agree with the principles of the ethic—the virtues chosen, the importance of Dignity, and accounting for human limitations with Simplicity, among others. Those principles are derived in part from this theory which finds inception in human consciousness.

Derived in part, but not in whole. There are multiple supports for those principles that do not rely on this theory, ranging from the pragmatic to the intuitive to the historical. If you are willing to agree with the principles themselves, or at least accept that they are good overall, then you need not concern yourself with the complexities of the theory or belief in the components of the theory. Components such as spirit, which many people have been trained to reject as imaginary—though falsely so, for it is real enough. This explanation of how the principles of the ethic are derived is placed here, in Everyday Ethic, because it is considered necessary to support understanding of the practice of the ethic. But the ethic is still good even if you choose no belief in the theory supporting the ethic.

2c. On Dignity

This section will discuss aspects of what Dignity is (1), its place in the ethic as a whole (2),  how Dignity works in practice (3), and a summation on mental stability (4).

It is a much longer section than those previous, but there is a lot to say about human dignity. These ideas are worth reading and worth studying. Though impatient readers may wish to skip down to 'Dignity in Practice', at least at first.

(1) Aspects of Dignity

The aspects of Dignity discussed here are those of individual sovereignty, potential agency of choice, and personal integrity.

Every human being is self-sovereign. That is, they rule over their own mind and body. Effectively, they own themselves and the body they inhabit and can make decisions in regards to self and body without recourse to anyone or anything else. Those decisions may impact other people and that impact may have ethical implications, but each person yet retains the power of their own self-sovereignty.

This power of self-sovereignty, the power to decide what we think and what we do, is integral to the nature of human consciousness. We are conscious, and we can express our consciousness as will. We can will our bodies to move or to not move. We can will our minds to shape themselves or to react in a certain way. The principle of Dignity is an acknowledgment of the self-sovereign power of the human will and a statement that therein lies the potential for free choice, for personal agency of choice.

By exterior observation, all that can be claimed from self-sovereignty is independent will—that each person can independently move themselves. This ethic does not limit itself to exterior observation alone, so is able to make the stronger claim that we are capable of free will—that each person can make truly free choices. This potential agency of choice is the second aspect of Dignity. It is argued in theoretical terms in Part Three, but the practical means by which a person can exercise free will has to do with active personal integrity.

Which is the third aspect of the principle of Dignity described here—personal integrity. That is, the freely chosen and enforced self-honesty of the will. Self-honesty, not just as a virtue of character, but also as a core choice of personal being, which requires consciously willed awareness of all aspects of the self, over time. This means trying to see yourself for who you are, rather than who you want to be. It requires focusing the direction of the consciousness primarily inward upon the self, rather than outward upon the world.

Thus in practice only the self should be experienced directly, by direct perception of the mind, and all else experienced indirectly. Indirectly through the physical senses or indirectly by impact upon the mind or other aspect of the self. This may seem backward, or inverse, to how a person concerned with others and with the world should seek to exist, but it is not. Rather it is a true unification of the self, which is required in order to be and act consistently in an ethical manner. To be and to act thusly is good for the self, good for others, and good for the world. Note that staying within the experience of the ‘self’ coupled with ‘inward focus’ does not mean dividing yourself from the world. It is instead denoting a form of personal mental unification, in that the reach of the ‘self’ may be unending and encompass all of the world. Far from division, true Dignity is oneness with everything. You may be ‘looking inward’, mentally speaking, but that allows greater and undivided access to your senses, not less, and allows a coherence of sensation, both physical and mental, that you do not otherwise have.

Taken all together, having the direction of consciousness focused inward upon the self combined with determined self-honesty, this state of personal integrity frees the consciousness to be able to make free choices. That is, the mind is stripped of illusions that interfere with its agency of choice. The self can be experienced with clarity; reality beyond the self can be experienced without distortions of the being of the self that bring about false perceptions of that reality.

A final element that needs mentioned here is the balanced state of dignified will. That is, using the will itself to nullify the force of all influences upon the consciousness in order to achieve a state of balance from which truly free choices may be created. True dignity of self, dignity of being, and freedom of choice, may thus be achieved. With determinedly honest perceptions of both self and reality coupled with the independent will of self-sovereignty, the balanced state of dignity of the self may be established; with dignity of self, free will may be exercised, in both its power and its burden.

(2) Place of Dignity in the Ethic

Dignity is the first ethical choice. One can easily forgo Dignity and so forgo the burden that it entails and that free will entails. Without this dignity, we cannot be truly free in our choices, and so many people might claim that we are not culpable for the consequences of the choices that we make. But we are so culpable, for we hold the power to claim our dignity and thence to make free choices. More than being the first choice, dignity is also the primary ethical choice. That is, it is a continual decision and the one which enables further ethical choices to be made. To be ethical, you must first become free to choose, or at least more free to choose.

For the ethic, Dignity serves as the basis of all else. Individual dignity is the source from which all ethical conduct is derived. Without personal dignity, we may be able to act, outwardly, in a manner that can be described as ethical, but we cannot be ethical within ourselves. We cannot be whole and free within ourselves. With personal dignity, having achieved a state of Dignity, we are capable of exercising free choices and of choosing to exist and act ethically.

Dignity of self marks the beginning of the principle of Simplicity, in regards to the direction of consciousness and also in regards to living in the present moment. First, with the direction of consciousness focused inward, as is required for Dignity, active self-sovereignty can be enabled. But to invert that direction and force the consciousness outward toward the world or toward other people, directly, is to attempt to assert sovereignty over whatever that outward focus may be. In so doing it is possible to gain some small powers of outward control, but much more is lost within. This is not a hard either/or, as the flow of the force of consciousness may be split to flow in both directions, but it is the case that the more it is directed inward the stronger and more unified our being becomes, and the more it is directed outward the weaker and more divided against our self we become. By the principle of Simplicity we should recognize these limitations, forgo as much as possible the division of the self, and seek to be more dignified in being. Rather that than to seek the lesser powers granted by inverting the flow of the force of consciousness outward.

Simplicity enjoins us to live in the present moment. For Dignity, this is much more than a trope. It is a firm requirement for establishing and maintaining personal dignity. That is, Dignity is concerned with the flow of consciousness, which is granted force by the flow of life in and through a person. By both turning the direction of consciousness inward and becoming more aware of and ‘living in’ the present moment as it occurs, consciousness may become better aligned with its ongoing source of energy. This both reduces wasted energy and permits amplification of that flow of force. The extra capability, thus enabled by both better alignment and enhanced personal energy, is necessary to create and maintain a center of peace within the self from which free choices can be made—a center of peace that is your place of personal dignity.

In regards to virtue, Dignity is a requirement for the virtues of the soul and the virtues of the spirit, which denote inner states, but is not, necessarily, a precondition for the virtues of honor. This is because the virtues of honor are entirely measured by outward acts, and do not, necessarily, require any particular inner state of being. However, as directing the flow of the force of consciousness inward provides the power to seek true dignity, so the inner power that dignity enables is the force behind the ability to choose to act virtuously. While it is possible to be vicious within, without Dignity, and to be virtuous in action… why would anyone want to live like that, unless forced to? It would be a constant struggle against the inner self. Dignity in itself is a self-rewarding state that is desirable to be in. Using the power that Dignity grants to be virtuous both in being and in action is also self-rewarding. There is a similar pattern here with that of choosing virtue, in that lesser powers and childish fixations are forborne in exchange for greater powers and inner joy, with Dignity as with virtue.

Dignity Simplicity Virtue. Dignity enables Simplicity concurrently as Simplicity enables Dignity; both together enable the choices for the virtues. Dignity is the gateway to personal potential. It is both the beginning of ethical choices and the continuous requirement of an ethical life. It is the way to know yourself.

(3) Dignity in Practice

As a matter of daily practice, Dignity might best be described as stability of mind, or peace of mind. Though to do so is a simplification, it is a useful one. So, call the daily practice of Dignity, as part of the daily practice of the ethic, stability of mind—that is, holding a place of balance in the mind from which the consciousness can make better decisions. This is the stability of mind which enables the individual, you, to stand firm in yourself against the world, come what may.

To establish that stability of mind, the process goes from identification, to practice exercises, and then on to practical usage.

First, one must be able to identify, within the self, what is meant by 1- mind, 2- consciousness, 3- flow of force of consciousness, and 4- the direction of that flow of force. Concurrently as you learn these, you will be identifying and understanding the flow of life within yourself. Consciousness is directly fed by the impetus and then processes of life as they occur within the self and the body; to know the consciousness and its force is to know the force of life within you.

Second, one must engage in mental exercises to reinforce understanding of the capacities and processes involved. Provided below are exercises to aid understanding of the flow of consciousness and to help comprehend the force of life within.

Third, having established a sufficient beginning, you will be enabled to start deliberately utilizing the strength of your personal dignity in daily life—intentionally. You will have been using it all of your life already, in some form and with less intention. The purpose of these exercises, the purpose of Dignity as a principle, is to increase your understanding of your own personal dignity in a more pure form than otherwise and to better enable its use for all of your activities—though particularly for ethical activities.

The process does not stop there, of course. Dignity is the primary principle of your free being. Use of it and developing your understanding of it are both lifelong endeavors. Though I do not claim that you have not already found your personal dignity and made intentional use of it. Hopefully everyone has, at least a little bit. Although from my observations it seems clear that this is not always the case. Regardless, this section of the ethic engages in meta level consideration of the principle of human dignity in order to help the reader develop a better understanding of it and to be able to better utilize their own personal dignity in the practice of the DSV ethic, and otherwise in general. But the ethic itself is a paradigm for living a more fulfilled and fulfilling life, as personal dignity is how we utilize and express our capacity for free will, so I hope the reader will attempt these exercises for ethical purposes first.

Regarding the following exercises, do keep in mind that every person is different and these specific exercise may or may not work for you. Be safe, be careful, and do not strain yourself overly. If these particular exercise are ill suited to you, then either design your own exercises from theory or seek out others.

The key to finding Dignity and turning it into an active state of use for yourself is to remember that you already have it. You are already there. In order to be a conscious person, you must already have some active personal dignity. But you also have the potential to be much greater in personal dignity, to enlarge that seed of active dignity into far more strength and stability of mind. So when attempting these exercises, or others you may find or design that work better for you, remember that you are not trying to distort or alter your consciousness but rather trying to better discover and enhance the innate potential you already have.

Also, do not attempt to achieve perfect dignity of self without also utilizing a commensurate level of simplicity of being. Despite my stress here on an inward focus of consciousness, there is no severance from the rest of the world in a dignified state. Instead, just as Simplicity embraces infinity, so too must Dignity seek to encompass all of the world in the scope of the balance of the mind. Attempting to direct the flow of consciousness directly outward upon something in the world is a distortion of natural processes and a division of the self. Dignity requires that the flow of consciousness be directed inward, but in so doing the consciousness is able to sunder limits imposed by an outward flow and so become able to encompass all of the world at once, as one. All of the senses, and all of the mind, become unified into a coherent whole of personal being.

Exercise forms for flow of consciousness:

:Cycle between conscious focus inward upon the self and the inversion of that to project consciousness out into the world. Back and forth, fast or slow, shallow or deep. Do it sufficiently to develop a feel for the mental mechanism being inverted and reverted. Dwell upon each state—better understanding will follow.

:Another way to put this is to look within, and then to look out on the world. Then look within again. Notice the differences and learn what they mean. This does not really mean looking, with your mind, inside the body, although that is one way to start. Rather, it means perceiving your own state of mind—so to speak.

:You could also try first focusing outward on something you like or that is important to you—which will direct the flow of consciousness outward somewhat—and then closing your eyes and just breathing and being aware of your own body. Try to notice the difference in your conscious awareness, in how your mind is, not just what your mind is aware of.

This exercise, in whichever form you use, blends identification and practice together. In the beginning such is often necessary. It is always a lengthy process to develop new patterns of thought.

Exercise forms for conscious alignment with your own life force:

:Sit and breathe. Slowly, thinking only about your breathing. Take a slow breath in, hold, and then slowly exhale; hold with no breath, and then slowly breathe back in to complete the circle. Spend some minutes doing nothing but this. Try to feel the change in the feeling of energy within your body as you breathe. This is to develop an initial awareness or perception of the process of the flow of life within you. It is not meant to equate air or breath with life force—that is only one facet of a complex whole.

:Practice the same exercise, but in motion. While walking. While running. While using a stationary bike or a treadmill or another exercise machine. While dancing. Do this instead of listening to music or watching TV or otherwise distracting yourself. Feel your change in energy as you breathe, but also try to feel the flow of energy through and around your body. As your blood pumps. As your muscles work. As your motions move through the air surrounding you. As the sun strikes you. From the earth beneath your feet.

:Fast for twelve hours, or fifteen, or ten. This can include a night’s sleep, but no eating or snacking and preferably no drinking, except a little water, for these hours of the clock. During the fast, and when getting ready to eat after the fast, spend some time being aware of your body and how you feel in terms of personal energy. While breaking the fast, eat very slowly, fully chewing and slowly swallowing each bite. As you do this, focus your awareness on how you feel, not just in your guts but also in your muscles, your skin, your mind. Feel the reach of your mental awareness unfold and extend as the processes of cellular digestion within you increase the flow of life energy that the mind and the consciousness depend on and use.

:Repeat one of the exercise forms for ‘flow of consciousness’, whichever is easier or most productive for you. While doing so, track changes in the flow of life within you. Notice how the inward orientation but infinite expansion of consciousness can strengthen that flow, while an outward orientation but limited scope of consciousness draws from and weakens the flow. Learn how to deliberately align your state of consciousness in order to strengthen, and even amplify, the flow of the force of life within you. This can take some time and effort to learn but is well worth it.

This exercise, in whatever form you use it, is meant to increase your conscious awareness of something that most people never really think about—the flow of life within, the force of life as it moves through the body and into the mind. In so doing, you learn something of how the energies of life are transmuted from one form to the next, eventually into the subtle spirit that the mind over the body both uses and is composed of. By these energies of life and the processes of transmutation, consciousness comes about.

Using these energies of life, the consciousness is able to carve out a state of peace and personal balance—personal dignity. Keep in mind that normally, this all happens prior to the consciousness, or any conscious intervention upon the rest of the mind or body. Both of these exercises bring you to some conscious awareness of normally non-conscious things in order to develop and better form the processes. So unless actively trying to do that, you should not always be keeping these things in your conscious mind. There will be many other things to think about and oneness of mind (as Dignity) must flow with the moment. In other words, these exercises are to bring normally unconscious things to conscious awareness, but you should also practice in the opposite direction, to allow those things to slip back into unconscious flow and control, though perhaps altered and enhanced a bit by your exercises.

Consciousness itself is relatively easy to find and identify, for a conscious person. It is you, or at least your awareness. Force of the flow of consciousness and direction of that force can be identified by starting just with what you are paying attention to, at any given time. Are you paying attention to how you feel? That is generally an inward flow. Are you ignoring how you feel and instead focusing all of your attention on another person, or your phone, or a video, or a game, or an object in the world? That is generally an outward flow. With an outward flow the scope of consciousness is distinctly limited and thus there is a division of the self. With an inward flow the consciousness can be expanded to encompass everything, however tenuously, and thus can unify the self both with itself and with the greater world.

*

Sometimes an outward flow of the force of consciousness is a good thing, or just necessary. It is a partial, or complete, sundering of personal dignity, but there are good reasons that we have the ability to do this. The best good example of this is when you meet the eyes of another person and form, in the moment, a personal connection with them. You surrender part of your dignity in order to recognize, in a committed and communicative manner, the equality between yourself and another person. Ideally, such a connection, however long it lasts, exists on an equal basis for both people. In that equal and shared sacrifice of self, something greater than that which each loses may come about. Try it, if you don’t believe me; but try it with someone special, or who could become special to you.

The best necessary examples of deliberately utilizing an outward flow of consciousness occur in cases of extreme need. Such as when a person has limited mental resources available but must focus all of them upon a single external focus in order to accomplish a goal—like keeping themselves alive. Children in extreme situations often seize upon the benefits (lesser benefits) of sundered mental states in order to help them survive those extreme situations. Though the mental habits formed tend to cause them problems later in life. Some adults in extreme situations do the same, but are more readily able to return to healthy mental states afterward, having previously developed healthier mental states as habits.

Sometimes, people that have some reason to reject parts of the outer world also fall into the habit of directing their flow of consciousness outward, which has the effect of limiting the scope of consciousness to a particular area. A child with poor social skills or a disappointing home life might fixate upon video games, or books. Social outcasts bound into a hostile or indifferent high school might fixate upon science or math or computers or drugs, etc. Athletes that struggle with academics might fixate upon sports. This is always a personal choice that must therefore be accepted by others, but it should not be encouraged or supported. Such fixations are always a sundering of personal dignity and are always harmful to the individual, to a greater or lesser extent. Far better that they find their way to Dignity than to maintain harmful fixations over time. Note: this does not mean giving up those activities; it only means changing the way that a person perceives them and interacts with them, mentally.

Barring important exceptions, the flow of the force of consciousness should instead be inward, as is necessary to maintain and strengthen personal dignity. But it is not the case that sole direct attention should be on the feelings and the mind, the emotions, and all of the more subtle states of being that arise within us. To do such is actually another way to sunder personal dignity, though in a lesser form. Rather, all of these things become part of a greater encompass, which takes in all of the world using subtle enough perceptions that you can also track your own subtle states of thought and emotion alongside gross receipts from the physical senses. So Dignity does not mean ignoring the outer world, only that we must learn how to track and respond to the outer world indirectly, by analyzing and tracking impacts upon both physical and mental senses. The foundation of which should be a mental sense that takes in and incorporates everything into a unified whole. Your eyes can be looking outward as your consciousness is oriented inward—you can still see. The inward flow of the force of consciousness permits unifying the self in order to integrate all of your world as one whole—one whole perception, one whole being.

Which is how we work best, after all. Truly, everything that the consciousness experiences is part of the mind of the person. The experience of the sensorium of the consciousness is formed, moment to moment, by the living mind. Which is greater than just the consciousness. The mind, in close cooperative use of the brain and the rest of the neural system, receives and processes an enormous amount of constant information, some of which is then amalgamated into the conscious sensorium. Most all of what a person will ever experience in their life is part of that indirect furnished sensorium that approximates the outer world. Generally, this is good. It is protective and nourishing and sanity-preserving, of the conscious mind.

So our natural state is a dignified one, or potentially so, where the outer world is experienced indirectly and the force of conscious attention is directed inward and aligned with and amplifying our life force. To actively complete our dignity we must also demand self-honesty and utilize that force of consciousness, of life, to balance out all influences upon the consciousness. This is possible because of the natural mental potentials of a human being. There will be more discussion on this in Part Three.

But we do have the ability, and for important reasons, to invert the flow of conscious attention directly outward instead. Used for good reasons and for short duration, such an outward focus and flow of consciousness is fine. Dignity can be reclaimed. The drain on life energies is manageable. Conversely, dignity is compromised, the mental balance of a person and the ability of a person to exercise free will is compromised, when that outward flow becomes the normal state of a person.

Even worse than this occurs when children are taught to direct their flow of consciousness directly outward in some fixation or another, and it becomes their enduring state of consciousness, and they never fully develop personal inner dignity of being. They may never form the capacity for free will or be able to make balanced free mental choices. So the children are led astray. So people are harnessed into lifelong mental slavery, for their mental state will always be dependent upon something outside of the self. In converse, Dignity is freedom, as it frees your mental state from absolute dependence upon external stimuli.

(4) Mental Stability

Mental stability requires learning about and knowing yourself, to be able to identify the aspects of the mind and consciousness and how they move and how they interact with the outer world. This necessarily entails practice of mental states and self-reflection on those states and, indeed, upon all aspects of the self. There are various ways to work on these things, starting with the exercises provided above. They are lifelong endeavors and should not be neglected—there is always more to learn about yourself and how you interact with that which is not yourself.

Mental stability requires the determination to be honest with yourself, to look at who and what you are as you are, without painless lies or comforting illusion. Honesty is often painful or uncomfortable, but it is also required for mental stability and a number of other important things. The truth will truly set you free, for without it you cannot have mental stability and cannot exercise free will. If you would be free, seek to be honest with yourself and then continue to seek truth throughout your life.

Mental stability requires that the direct focus of the conscious mind remains, normally, inward upon the self. This does not mean trying to focus some mental gaze toward the inside of the body; rather, it means willing the conscious mind to be aware, first, of the movements of the self and its life, and only through those movements, and the physical senses, of the world outside the self. Within the ‘self’ is a full and infinite expression of reality as it is, or can be, known, as the ‘self’ has no limits of expansion. All of the world is still experienced, just in a safer, fuller, and more fulfilling indirect manner. Nor does having the direct focus of the consciousness inward mean that a person is being selfish by focusing their mind upon the self first; rather, the mental stability and greater efficiency and capacity of personal energy that a state of dignity provides enables you to be more caring of other people and to do more for them.

Those adult people that seek out or require the feeling of charge, or energy transfer, granted them by being the direct focus of the conscious force of life of other people, have internal problems of their own and should look to their own personal dignity instead. Personal energy should be sourced from within (or channeled through the inner self) and almost never from other people, though there are exceptions. Small children, to some extent, may rely on direct energy transfers from their parents for protection and to aid development.

Finally, mental stability, or Dignity, in your daily practice, your daily life, does not require anything approaching perfection. A little bit is enough. More is better. Hopefully, this means progress over time. Carve out as much mental stability as you can hold throughout the day—it will get easier the more you try to do it. Use that space you have carved out, that island of peace within your mind, to make better choices than you otherwise might. And then when you rest the consciousness, in sleep, you also get to relax your personal dignity and recharge your faculties.

In the everyday practice of the DSV ethic, use the mental stability of your personal dignity to remember to act within your limitations, to choose virtue over vice, and to be a better person.

2d. On Simplicity

This section will describe the aspects of what Simplicity is (1), its place in the ethic as a whole (2), and how Simplicity works in practice (3).

Despite the name, this is not a simplistic principle. By the principle of Simplicity, all ethical decisions not covered by the virtues or the other principles may be made. All conscious decisions, really.

The organizational pattern of the section is the same as the previous section on Dignity, for impatient readers who wish to skip down to 'Simplicity in Practice' for the time being.

(1) Aspects of Simplicity

The aspects of Simplicity described here are recognizing human limitations, a balancing mechanism, and an active tool of focus.

The world is vast and we, as individuals, are small. We can only do so much, we can only comprehend so much, and we only have so much time to live. Really there are more human limits, and limitations, than I have space here to describe. This is a primary feature of human beings and so, of course, has ethical implications.

Specifically, that a person cannot be held to a standard even approaching perfection. A person cannot be required to do more than one person can do. A person cannot be considered morally blameworthy for failing to meet a standard beyond their limitations or exceeding their limits. In short, Simplicity is the principle that accounts for human frailty and human failings.

Which is not to say that this principle is an excuse to ignore one’s own failures or to discount real possibilities of human action. It is not. Rather, recognition of the limits and limitations of an individual, as an ethical agent, tells us what kind of demands an ethic can put in place and how the meeting of that ethic can be judged.

That is, the goal of an ethic should only be as a standard of perfection to be aspired to, which may never, indeed which can never, be perfectly achieved. In the case of this ethic, that standard is to hold perfect Dignity, always, perfect focus of self, always, and perfect expression both within the self and with outward action of all nineteen virtues, always. An impossible standard, in other words. Which means that a person trying to live by this ethic will always have something better to aspire to, always have a goal ahead that they can look at and try to get closer to. They will never be perfectly ethical, so they will always have a goal to seek.

This is by design and very important, for at least two reasons.

Firstly, because the very effort and process of trying and failing and trying again, over and over, ensures not only that there will be improvement, but also that the ethic will continue to be practiced. There will be improvement because that is the very mechanism of human improvement—we get better at those things that we devote ourselves to. Seek, and you shall find. With practice, we improve both in achievement and in efficiency of effort—things get easier for the same result the more we do them. The ethic will continue to be practiced because the moral person will see, clearly, how much better they can become; they will also be able to look back upon their past actions and judge how much they fell short. Combined, with visions of the future to come and recollections of the past that was, these are powerful motivators.

Secondly, because complacency leads to corruption—always.  A complacent moral agent is one that is no longer actively seeking to improve—which inevitably means they are not standing still, ethically speaking, but rather backsliding or getting worse. This truism does not apply to all human endeavors, but it certainly applies to human ethics. When we stop trying to improve, when we stop seeking and questioning ourselves and trying to achieve that perfect standard, we reverse our progress. This is why ethics must remain a central facet of life. This is why an ethic must set an impossible standard to achieve.

Thus, instead of being a set of rules to follow, which we will fail at and so will be hit or miss, this ethic provides a standard of perfection to strive toward. One might say that those hit or miss rules offers the same, but if a rule is followed and met, then there is no more improvement to be made and complacency results. Which leads to corruption. If the standards of an ethic are lowered to the point that it is easier to achieve, and the rules are not hit or miss but rather hit all the time, then the corruption will be far worse… and the ethic won’t really do much for us as individuals, beyond a mild sense of kudos. Conversely, if the goal of an ethic is to maximize some basic principle, such as happiness, then the standard is certainly impossible to achieve and provides an ongoing goal, but that goal is also ambiguous, relative, and cannot be clearly judged in hindsight. Which means that you will not be certain what you are striving toward, not know how to get there, and be unable to look back and clearly see if you could have done better.

So consideration of the principle of Simplicity, regarding human limitations and human nature within our reality, helps to define what sort of ethic is best. One that provides an impossible standard while making clear that any progress is good, but also offers clear goals to be striven toward and well-defined standards of judgment. With the caveat that one can only truly judge one’s own self, because no one else can know your mind.

Much more than this follows from the first aspect of the principle of Simplicity, but because of human (and space) limitations, I will segue into the second aspect. What has been included here is sufficient for the purposes of the ethic. Though note that a derived principle, that of Forgiveness, is so derived from both the first and second aspects of the principle of Simplicity.

*

Simplicity functions as a balancing mechanism and relief valve for the rest of the ethic. Every attempt to be virtuous, every effort at personal dignity, and even every utilization of the principle of Simplicity, should be balanced out by awareness of limitations and working knowledge of limits. As Dignity is the core of the ethic, so Simplicity acts a balancing mechanism and limiting function upon the demands of the ethic for the individual. It is a balancing mechanism because it stops you from pursuing any one aspect of the ethic to the exclusion of others—which will lead to personal imbalance. It is a limiting function because, while ethics should always be part of your life, it should never be all of it.

Is virtue more important than Dignity, or vice-versa? Is Simplicity more important than virtue, or vice-versa? Which Circle of the virtues is more important than the others? No, no, and none of them. And etc. The different principles of the ethic are co-equal in importance, because they are all designed to work together and none of them make a complete ethic by themselves. Simply put, that is.

However, the different principles of the ethic are not equal in priority. Dignity is generally prior to the others, because it permits the balance of freedom that enables ethical decisions. Simplicity is almost never prior to anything, unless using it in the third aspect for immediate focus of being. The virtues may be an immediate focus, each virtue to its place and occasion, but generally the corresponding vice is prior to the virtue and the virtue arises to negate the vice—at least at first, though less so as the ethic becomes more ingrained in character.

Part of the balancing mechanism of the principle of Simplicity is to point out that the most important part of the ethic, the most important thing, is what is happening right now. We live, we only can live, right here and right now. The consciousness only exists in the present moment. Assess, judge, and learn from the past, but do not try to live there. Plan, train, and prepare for the future, but do not live just for the sake of it. Past decisions have already been made. Future decisions cannot be made, not fully and not always well, until they arrive. Our choices can only take place in the here and now. This is the limitation of time; Simplicity is having the grace to understand what that means for us.

Something similar is true for every other hard limit upon human beings and their choices. Simplicity is having the wisdom and grace to understand and live within those hard limits. Call the major ones time, space, and force, though there are many other hard limits once you get down into finer details, such as biological imperatives. We only live now. We only live here. We can only do so much; that is, we can only bring so much of our being to bear as force upon ourselves, or others, or the outer world.

There are also a number of soft limits upon us, but these limits are soft because they can be overcome—with sufficient effort, time, and etc. These are matters for individual judgment and personal need. Much of the process of human growth consists of overcoming one soft limit after another. Soft limits, as such, have ethical implications in that we should know what our current limits are and try to act within them. Also, remembering that each time we overcome a soft limit there is a cost, in time and effort and otherwise. Which may stop us from overcoming some other soft limit, or doing something else. There is always an opportunity cost for anything to which we commit our limited resources.

This brings us to Simplicity as the relief valve of the ethic. I group this as part of the second aspect of Simplicity, but really it gives rise to what can be considered a full principle of the ethic. That is, the principle of Forgiveness. It is a derived principle, from the first two aspects of Simplicity. Because of our all too human limitations, because we must keep balance in both the practice of the ethic and in our lives overall, it behooves us to be forgiving of others and also of ourselves, in order to not become entangled in the mistakes of the past. To be unforgiving, to hold on to slights and wrongs and foolish decisions and other mistakes, embroils the spirit in distracting conflict and troubles the mind in an ongoing manner. To hold a grudge is sometimes justified, but generally it harms the grudge-holder more than anyone else and is worth neither the weight of bearing it nor even the potential satisfaction of avenging it. To forgive is to find relief from the weight of the past.

More than this, the ethic will not work without forgiveness. In particular, self-forgiveness is what enables us to make mistakes, learn from them, and move on to start anew. Without the simplicity of being able to forgive oneself, one cannot fully live. Without being able to start anew, one cannot continually seek to improve and to work toward the perfect, impossible, standard that the ethic sets. To not be able to forgive is to instead be hung up on a single past circumstance or a single set of mistakes, which will halt growth in that aspect of the self. Instead, accept the mistake, learn from it, forgive yourself, move on, and try again.

This is not to say that we should forget the past, for we almost never should. Memory is one of the two basic tools of mind (coupled with will, or thought) and should (almost) never be deliberately clouded or obscured. Indeed we should all seek to remember our past in perfect detail in order to be able to revisit it, time and again, at different points of life and different levels of progress, in order to keep learning from that past. This is even more important for painful or embarrassing memories, for those are the ones with the most to teach. If a memory is still painful to you then you still have something to learn from it; you still need to change something about yourself or seek redemption in the world, or both, to alleviate that pain. To avoid even the memory of a painful past is to compound the initial harm by not learning or growing from it.

Note that forgiving another person for harm done to you is part of this, for that is a way to change and grow stronger in the self. Accept what they did, learn from it, forgive, and move on. Though note also that this is in regards to human mental states and does not override necessary justice in the shared physical world.

As a final point regarding the relief of forgiveness: it may be impossible to love, the true love that flows from within, without being able to forgive. To hold grudge against the past is to block off the pathway by which love flows. Perhaps not all the time, but whenever that which is unforgiven is brought to mind. Love is the font of joy; for love within the self alone it is worth forgiving the past. Even, or especially, if you must forgive yourself. For the love that flows from within benefits not only yourself but also every other person touched by your life, just as lack of love within you is quite often harmful to those around you.

*

The third aspect of the principle of Simplicity is as an active tool of focus. That is, the concentration of the mind, and all of the self, into a single focus. This is a powerful tool. It is not always appropriate to use, but there is quite often something in one’s life that should be simplified and brought into more manageable state. So this aspect refers to immediate focus of the mind in the present moment, but also to organizing ongoing aspects of life, both within the mind and without, to reduce complexity.

The ongoing advance of technological progress, coupled with the still expanding human population, makes for increasingly complex individual lives and a continually increasing burden upon the mental state of individuals. There are other factors of human mental burden, but these two are drivers of most of them. Reducing this burden is an ethical concern because ethical choices rely on mental state. Simplicity, whether by deliberately simplifying ongoing mental loads or aspects of life, or in working over time to increase the acuity and focus of the conscious mind, is one way this ethic seeks to reduce that burden.

Just how to simplify your life is a matter for personal judgment. That it is necessary to do so, and to do so periodically or in an ongoing manner, is not. Keeping your life manageable is a demand of the ethic, because unnecessary complexity in your life, pushing you beyond a state of mental balance, will also push you out of the balanced mental state needed to make good ethical decisions. Just how much complexity and in what aspects of your life that you can handle in a balanced manner, again, is a matter for personal judgment. Know yourself and do not exceed your limits. If you do, apply the principle of Simplicity where it is needed (or more likely when you do, given that we are all human).

That much is generally clear to most people and is a life lesson they pick up while progressing into adulthood. More important to explain here is the matter of immediate mental focus and concentration, as a developed skill. That is, Simplicity as an active tool of focus for the conscious mind.

An individual consciousness can only do one thing at a time, can only think of one thing at a time. This is how we work. Some people are better at multitasking than others, but they do so by slicing the effort of their mind into shifting time segments, or by utilizing emotion-state overlays to organize and categorize priority. Simplicity as a tool of focus is useful for every person, regardless of how they organize their thinking, because it is a way of concentrating the self into chosen effort.

Though I recognize that not everyone wants to go through life with a focused mind. Some people deliberately diffuse their mental state, because it seems to make time go by faster, because mental concentration seems to take more work and energy, or because they dislike the tasks they work at and so do not wish to be focused into the present moment. I acknowledge that sometimes one might wish to have a more diffuse or relaxed mental state; sometimes this is even a good thing. However, we still bear the burden of ethical choices made when we are bored, or uncomfortable, or trying to relax. The ability to focus the mind at will, whenever and wherever one might be, is incumbent upon an ethical person or upon a person that wishes to become more ethical.

As a final note here, do not confuse this focus to achieve clarity of thought, with sundering Dignity by focusing the direction of consciousness outward. Simplicity as an active tool of focus operates within a state of Dignity, which means an inward flow of the force of consciousness and a balanced mind. So it is not a fixation on something in the world. Instead, it is unity of self effort to align with the oneness of personal dignity.

(2) Place of Simplicity in the Ethic

As discusses above in ‘Aspects’, Simplicity can be applied to every other part of the ethic and even to itself as a principle. Passively, it is a recognition of what we are and what we can do, so it also shapes what an ethic should be and what an ethic can demand of a person. Actively, it is an expression of our very use of thought and so is a component of every choice we make and every deliberate thought we have—every effort to live in a state of dignity, every choice to work at virtue, every decision to organize your life. So while Dignity is the first ethical choice, Simplicity is part of every ethical choice we make.

For the ethic, Simplicity serves as the tool by which ethical decisions are made. We can only make one choice at a time; we must use the focus of active simplicity to decide where the ethical choice is to be made, prior to deciding what the ethical choice is. That is, is the concern a matter of personal dignity, of myself or someone else, or is it a question of virtue? Inner virtue or outer virtue? Which one? And many other contextual questions, which I will not attempt to detail here. In order to make a distinct ethical choice, we must first distill or focus the world to form an understanding of that choice. We must interpret the world, based on our own knowledge and understanding, into the framework of the ethic. Simplify very complex situations into an ethical choice to be made—then make it. This will never be certain, and rarely be easy, but is another skill to develop which will become easier and more certain with practice.

Simplicity of mind is how we are able to be dignified. If Dignity has to do with the direction of the flow of consciousness, Simplicity is how the consciousness focuses its being into will. Will, which is where conscious thought is derived, is the active expression of the being of the consciousness, of the field-state of and in which the consciousness exists. Simplicity, actively used, is the mustering of the will by focusing the field-state of the consciousness onto a single purpose at any given time. When that purpose is the balance of mind of personal dignity that enables free ethical choices, Simplicity becomes the enabler of Dignity.

I realize this language is somewhat convoluted and repetitive, but it is difficult to discuss Dignity and Simplicity as distinct principles in relation to each other because they are such closely related aspects of the living human mind. They are not really separate, in that one is human being in potential and the other is the active use of that being. They do have distinct places in the ethic, of course. In short, Simplicity helps build the personal dignity that makes us free and then Simplicity becomes the expression of our free choices.

Choices such as those of virtue over vice, or even virtue over the neutral ground between vice and virtue. Because there is almost always a third choice—life is never binary, not for human choice. But life can be organized and simplified, which is part of the reason for identifying and categorizing ethical virtues. The virtues listed in this ethic have been identified in part by utilizing the principle of Simplicity; their categorization into Circles likewise. Similarly, matching the virtues onto real life is a matter of utilizing the principle of Simplicity, combined with your own knowledge and developed understanding. Sometimes this is easy, sometimes not, but Simplicity as a tool always makes it easier than otherwise.

(3) Simplicity in Practice

As a matter of daily practice, Simplicity is useful in a number of areas, continually. Developing and maintaining clarity of mind. Interpreting the world as it happens. Organizing your thoughts and beliefs. And etc. The world, your own mind, and creation itself all throw continual complexity at you. Utilize thoughtful simplification in order to maintain clarity and balance in your life. That simplification should be thoughtful and deliberate in order to keep your own mental patterns a close match for the reality that you are simplifying into them—this is not an invitation to fantasy or self-delusion.

An exercise:

:Sit and focus your attention on a single object in the world. A dynamic object such as a candle flame or a dripping faucet works well for some, a static object such as a flower or an artwork works well for others. The point is that you are focusing your attention on the object, to the exclusion of other things, whether in your mind or out in the world. This does not mean inverting the flow of consciousness—maintain dignity but let the object become the whole of your concentration. Practice this until it gets easier, but more critically practice until you can call the image of that object into your mind without seeing it in the world. The second phase of the exercise is to do just that—call the image of the object into your mind. Create the image in your mind, without seeing it in the world. This can be done with your eyes closed at first but most practice should be with eyes open. But focus your attention on that single image in your mind and continue to practice until it gets easier and can be extended over time. The third phase of the exercise is to use that mental creation as a tool of general mental focus. This third phase may take two or more forms.

: If you chose a dynamic object, such as the candle flame, then feed all of your mental distractions into that flame. Burn them away. All of your fears and other emotions, good or bad. All of your concerns about the past or plans for the future. Everything except your single focus of intent. Feed the world itself into the flame, the overlay of the world within your sensorium, including your own body. Let the flame consume everything, until only it remains, and then let it consume itself… until only you remain. Not as a created thought pattern or an emotional state, but your being itself that you do not add to but instead your greater mind supplies to you.

: If you chose a static object, let the image of the object become more important than all other thoughts, emotions, senses, everything. Let yourself merge with the image until you become one with it, until it is everything within your mind. Then let that image expand into infinity, and beyond, until only you remain. Until you are no longer the story you tell yourself but instead just the pure spirit that is created as soul flows into your body.

*

The state of clarity of mind thus obtained is difficult to overvalue. It can help with everything you do, with every choice you make. It can make everything easier, make all of your perceptions sharper and more clear. It can make learning simpler and memories easier to recall. It can show you the way to overcome all of the soft limits in your life, as long as you are willing to pay to opportunity cost to do so. Really it is difficult to describe this sort of mental clarity to someone who has never experienced it. I urge you to try the exercise and find out for yourself. I also demand, as you should demand of yourself, that you only use this aspect of Simplicity as part of your practice of the ethic as a whole. It is far too powerful to utilize unbound by the moral constraints of an ethical framework.

Effectively, this is an altered state of consciousness. One achieved not through drugs or rituals or some other clumsy method, all of which lead to more problems and complications than any better results. Instead, this is a pure state of consciousness achieved by deliberate mental intent, which distills your conscious mind into its own essence. It is not some confused tangent mental state that psychoactive drugs are used to achieve, but rather the core mental state that everything else in your mind is additive to. I use the term ‘altered’ above simply to denote that many people never find this state for themselves. It is wholly natural, but also requires deliberate effort and a bit of specialized knowledge to achieve. Technically, it always exists, just normally overlain and cluttered with other mental states and threads of thought that we feel to be necessary and continuous parts of ourselves. Which they are not. We do not need to continually tell ourselves a story of our self and fit choices and perceptions into the narrative. We do not need to always be clouded by conflicting emotions. We do not need to allow the presence or the gaze of another person to alter our mental state. And etc.

Another exercise:

:As with Dignity, cycle between two mental states, spending time dwelling on the aspects of each and learning the differences and uses of each. Here, the mental states are focused and diffused. That is, learn a focused state of mind from the exercise above and then cycle between that state and a more relaxed, diffuse state of mind. Back and forth, shallow or deep, fast or slow. Learn the spectrum of possibility of your own mental focus. Learn how much effort that focus requires of your will and then how to achieve a desired level of focus with less effort of will. Learn how to maintain just enough focus, and no more, to accomplish a certain task, in order to conserve the limited force of your will.

*

The first exercise of Simplicity is for discovery of a pure state of mind, perfect focus, that you may never have experienced or realized possible. Also for use to return to that state as desired. The second exercise is for developing your understanding of the use of your capacity for mental focus, deliberately and by your own choice. Both of these exercises will take time and practice. Far more so than physical exercise and achievement. Take it slow and easy. These exercises develop new neural pathways in your physical brain, which grow only slowly. They also have to overcome a lifetime of mental habits, which requires gentle effort in order to be sustained. Don’t try to force your idea of what you are trying to achieve onto the exercises; these are pure natural states that take place prior to your conscious thought ideas. Lastly, be careful in your pure use of the will. The human will is powerful and has the capacity to shape and damage mind, brain, and body alike. When in doubt, be gentle with yourself. Listen to your own intuition and trust that guidance.

Above all, remember that you are attempting to reclaim your natural state of mental clarity, not forcing some idea of what it should be upon yourself. You are not building a new overlay for your mind—you are stripping away unnecessary overlays. You are focusing into the place that you already exist, without unnecessary mental overlays. You are already there; clear your vision and see it. The ‘alteration’ is to rid yourself of clouded ways of thinking and mental encumbrances that everyone develops and gathers as they progress through childhood and into adulthood. As virtue is about changing habits of character, so Dignity and Simplicity are about changing habits of mind.

The practice of Simplicity ensures that the consciousness and the greater mind work together, rather than being at odds; this is how you get out of your own way.

In your everyday practice of the DSV ethic, use the mental clarity of Simplicity to maintain the mental stability of your Dignity, to choose virtue over vice, and to be a better person.

2e. On the Circles of the Virtues

The organization of the virtues into their different Circles of representation, the meaning of the Circles, and the specific virtues chosen comprise the remainder of the ‘working’ ethic, after Dignity and Simplicity. There are other virtue-based ethics out there, both secular and religious, which might have pieces of what I have tried to put together here. I am aware of none with the whole of my organizational pattern and certainly not the whole of my basis of interpretation. One of my innovations for the ethic is the soul-spirit-honor pattern, which integrates what I identify as the important aspects of both secular and religious ethical thought; that is the focus of this first section on everyday virtue. The Circles of organization of the virtues are key principles of the ethic, both in what they contain and also in themselves.

The discussion points in this section are: reasons for virtue (1), other reasons regarding spirit (2), the organization of the Circles (3), and some discussion on the meaning of the Circles (4).

Virtues, and vices, will be defined in the next section. This section discusses organizational meaning and other details of the different Circles, but begins with reasons for choosing virtue and for developing a strong spirit. These points are placed prior to the virtue definitions in order to provide necessary context for those definitions. From reason for virtue and for that which enables virtue, we may proceed to the patterns of thinking by which we may organize and distinguish different types of virtue. Such steps provide the meaningful context in which definitions of the virtues may take place.

(1) Reasons for Virtue

Reasons other than to be a morally good person, that is.

One- to guard against vice. It might seem odd that this primary and important function of virtue would be negative, in that it opposes vice, but the consequences of vice are so severe that this remains the first reason for virtue. This is particularly apparent for the virtues of spirit and the virtues of soul, in that those virtues and vices are true inverses of each other, but it also applies to some extent for the virtues of honor, in that those vices and virtues are opposites. That is, the more you cultivate a virtue the less the corresponding vice can arise; the greater the influence of a vice is upon you, the less of that virtue you can evidence. It is as though a particular virtue/vice pair have the same potential source, such that only one or the other can be fully realized within a person. This is actually one way that the virtues can be identified and defined. The vices are easier to see; the virtue is that which not only opposes a given vice, but also destroys the vice when the virtue is chosen instead. There is more discussion on the consequences of vice in Part Three. The primary focus here in Everyday Ethic will be on the virtues that oppose vice.

Two- as an example to others. By the time we are of an age to be concerned about ethics, every single one of us stands as a living example to someone else. For good or ill. If you choose vice, and show that in your life, there will be someone younger or just someone who looks to you who will follow that example. To their detriment and to your shame. This is an individual ethic, most of which takes place within the person and does not directly show to the outer world, but no person lives in isolation. We are always in society with others, regardless of temporary physical isolation. It is a common trait of human nature to look upon others as an example to follow. This is a burden that we bear whether we choose it or not—we can only work at setting a good example rather than a poor one. In choosing virtue, we set that good example. In choosing virtue for ourselves, we can have a cascade impact toward virtue for the society of people in which we live.

Three- to confront the infinite. The confrontation of a finite mind with the infinity of existence, which includes confronting the imminence of death, is one of the most important issues in the life of a person. The fear and horror that this issue engenders in the mind in late childhood or early adulthood is a primary motivator for personal philosophy. Some people turn to religion. Others enter into denial. Many, most even, combine denial with the temporary oblivion to be found in vice, which magnifies the immediate senses and experiences of the moment and puts the greater mind that can perceive the infinite into retreat. Leading to all of the problems and complications that vice does. In choosing virtue instead, a person can find ways to strengthen the mind and living spirit against the apparent void of reality. In choosing virtue, one can find a path to a deeper understanding of reality, in which the apparent void of the infinite exists but is not a source of ongoing threat or horror.

Four- to strengthen and align the spirit. Vice weakens the spirit (and the body) and distorts the mind. Virtue strengthens the spirit by redirecting misplaced or siphoned off personal energies or resources away from bodily or mental dissolution and back into the natural alignment structure of the living spirit, which strengthens the person as a whole.

Alignment of your spirit is even more important than enriching or strengthening the spirit, though these do tend to work in concert. The living spirit is much more tenuous than the physical body and can be difficult to assess in terms of state of being, overall health, or capacity to exercise itself. Spirit is also highly malleable and can change ‘alignment’, or state of being, very quickly. The virtues serve to actively align the living spirit in a state of being that is enduring, self-supporting, self-generating, and overall enables outcomes of the self, and for the outer world that the self impacts, that are beneficial and desirable. As an additional benefit, the virtues reinforce self-identification as a living spirit, which we are, rather than as just a body, which we have and inhabit but is not us. Do recall that mind and spirit are closely related and in many cases can be substituted for each other in terms of finding meaning in these descriptions.

(2) Other Reasons to Develop Strength and Alignment of Spirit

One- because we are living spirit that inhabits a body. The relationship is very close, so close that it is often difficult to distinguish between impacts on the body, particularly the neural structure, and the independent substance of the spirit, but the conscious mind is definitely a thing that exists in the living spirit and not in the individual cells of the body. The stronger and better aligned the spirit becomes, the more apparent the distinctions of this relationship can become to the individual.

Two- a stronger and better aligned spirit leads to a stronger and healthier body. The spirit, generally, has a recursive impact on the body, such that a stronger spirit results in a strengthened body. Just as a body that is not dissolute in vice results in a stronger spirit. This feedback loop of personal energy is the single most important factor in the personal energy levels and being-state of the individual. Not just perceived energy, like feeling pumped or excited, but real energy to use and do work, in spirit or in body. The body transmutes base energy types, from gross to subtle, to furnish that subtle energy on the threshold of spirit to the living spirit of the person. In turn, beyond transmuting those energies further, the spirit has means to amplify the energy provided and to use it to alter and align the tissues of the body to boost vitality and even slow aging. In addition to other potential uses. In converse, the vices divert and hinder the natural energy processes of body and spirit alike.

Three- the possibility that a stronger and correctly aligned spirit will have an impact on outcomes for the self after the death of the body. This idea, which cannot be directly defended due to lack of complete evidence, but may be indirectly supported by the theories of the ethic, will be more fully explored in Part Three, Speculation. It is still worth mentioning here, undefended, as a possible reason for developing better strength and alignment of spirit.

(3) Organization of the Circles

Society, Mind, Being. These circles correspond to the virtues of honor, spirit, and soul, respectively. The circles are denotations or groupings of movements, interactions, choices, or just types of existence, which all have ethical character. Those who act in accordance with the virtues of honor are acting ethically in society. Those who choose to think in accordance with the virtues of spirit are living ethically in the realm of the mind. Those who choose to exist in accordance with the virtues of soul are being ethical in the core of their living being itself.

In terms of representation, the circles stand as inverses to their virtues correspondence. The Circle of Being takes place only inside a living being, but because life is the sole requirement of participation everyone and everything that lives is within the Circle of Being. It has the broadest circle of representation. The virtues of soul are the innermost virtues, but life itself is the only requirement to express them, however weakly or tenuously. Willful choice is required to express them fully, of course. Here, I am at least correlating life with ‘soul’ and nearly equating the two, though there are distinctions. Soul is the font of life, the impetus, but I doubt that embodied life is required for the existence of soul.

The Circle of Society covers all of those who engage in complex social organization and interaction. This is fairly rare in terms of all life so it is the most specialized Circle with the fewest members. Generally this denotes human beings and human societies, but only generally. Not all humans choose to be part of a society or show any sort of honorable conduct—some choose none of the virtues of honor, or not enough to be honorable. Conversely, some animals have been observed to show ongoing and complex interactions that may be termed social in nature. If so, those who act honorably according to the mores of that society may be showing ethical character and thus be an ethical ‘person’.

One may note again that the particular virtues chosen as virtues of honor, and the definitions chosen for those virtues, effectively constitute an ideal of behavior for people in a particular society. That is, the person who is perfectly honorable, who is the epitome of virtue in terms of outward behavior, is the ideal member of the society. In effect, this also defines the moral character of that society itself. The virtues that a society holds as ideals are both shaper of individual within it and the measure by which that society as a whole may be judged.

Though outward behavior alone is not sufficient for a good ethic. People may behave honorably under ethics that only concern themselves with outward behavior, but there can only be limited societal trust with such systems because all constraints are external—all order is imposed on people from without. When those constraints slip so too does honorable behavior, because of the inherent imbalance when people lack inner virtue. Absent reason to be ethical in mind as well as in action vice thrives within people. Societies that rely on external judgments and constraints alone must eventually encourage vice of the spirit to thrive within its members in order to weaken their vital spirit and render them more predictable and controllable… This last often heralding the dissolution and spiraling corruption of society itself, along with the spirits of its members, absent some sort of reformation. These are strong claims, but are discussed further in Part Three.

The Circle of Mind stands as a necessary bridge between the other two Circles. Absent the virtues of soul, honor is hollow and society degenerates; absent virtues of honor, chaos thrives and societies, and the living bodies they support, cannot hold together. Absent a mind that chooses aligned virtues of thought, the core being and links with the font of life that the virtues of soul represent cannot be expressed in the spirit or out in the world. Without reason to be virtuous in mind, ethics fail—we are, of course, living minds. These reasons can be derived from historical analysis of societal patterns, but can also be discovered by intuiting the nature and force of soul as it expresses itself within us. More properly, we find the virtues of the spirit, and the middle Circle of Mind, by meeting those two types of reasoning together—by bridging the gap.

The Circle of Mind covers all living things that also have minds. Roughly speaking, this means animals, as the Circle of Being means plants and animals (and etc) and the Circle of Society means complex social animals (people). More particularly, those within the Circle of Mind are conscious, are able to express will, and as such are at least potentially sovereign over their bodies and themselves. They have Dignity and are able to adhere to Simplicity. These conditions would seem to narrow the scope of the Circle quite a bit, excluding just about every animal except humans, but instead I prefer to say that any animal with a sufficiently complex neural structure has these traits in potential even if they are not observed to be expressed. I will not place a lower limit on how complex that neural structure must be, nor will I exclude collective organisms which may pool their resources together to form a joint mind. Remember that mind is spirit, not body. Any sufficiently complex way that soul meets matter over time forms spirit, which may in turn coalesce as conscious mind. Recursive self-conscious mind is a different matter, of course, and is a requirement for full expression of the ethic.

(4) Meaning of the Circles

This part of the section is more philosophical and may be skipped for a time if the reader wishes to go on to direct discussion the individual virtues. In that case proceed to the next section, On Virtue and Vice. This discussion point is important to read at some time—for a fundamental understanding of the meaning of virtue and the meanings of the Circles that the virtues are organized into.

Virtues reinforce being, reinforce the force of life in a person, by matching (or meeting) and reinforcing the ‘pathway’ by which life is impelled into being. This ethic utilizes a great deal of symbolism to explain the process and to attempt to describe the indescribable, but the process it refers to is not symbolic but is instead very real. This is the missing source of living reality that science cannot describe through empirical observation and analysis alone (not in terms of materialism, that is)—life has an impetus, a source-in-being, a force behind it, that I am calling soul. Though this reference name 'soul' is less important than usage concerns for the purposes of this ethic, the term ‘soul’ has real historical links to related human philosophical efforts in the past. The virtues of the Circle of Being, as habitual choices that a person makes on an ongoing basis in their life, serve to strengthen and increase the soul-life-force as it emerges into this reality and merges with the living cells of the body. The virtues of soul serve to align the joining of the living spirit of a person with that soul emergence to increase both the amount and rate of soul-force that emerges and becomes, in joining with our existing spirit and body, our ongoing life-force.

This will be further explored and argued in Part Three. These are very radical claims (in academic terms) but also a key part of the ethic and important for realizing the full value of the ethic. Though note that you do not need to believe in my theoretical basis to obtain that full value. Simply embrace the virtues as defined. Even with none of the others, love alone is sufficient to impart much of the value of these things that you might choose not to believe in.

So, in addition to the other rewards obtained from the individual virtues, the pathway of the Circles of the Virtues grants the reward of strengthening the very force of life within you. To deliberately align yourself thusly is to open up a potential bottleneck in personal vitality and to energize the correct pattern by which your body organizes itself. Done correctly, this ethic will increase your personal vitality, support good health, ward off disease, and even reduce the risk of cancer. Bold claims I know, but true nonetheless. See the Part Three sections, On Spirit and after, for more discussion of these claims.

The cells of the body, organized into organs and unified into the living body as a whole, have a long history of adaptation, of evolution, within the relatively stable dimension-state of this world-reality. Those cells themselves, living and adapting to forces and changing conditions as they live, must partake of some constant impetus that maintains the expression of life over time. Not may, but must. I am identifying that impetus as soul. Self-conscious beings, people, are capable of finding the source of that flow of life within themselves and both aligning themselves closer to it and magnifying the flow into themselves and thus into this reality-state that we call the world.

Such a path begins with the choices for the virtues of the Circle of Soul, but continues with the choices for the virtues of the other Circles. That beginning with the virtues of soul is relatively simple, though powerful, with but three sequential virtues needed—faith, hope, love. These alone are sufficient to align yourself with the source of soul that becomes living being and to magnify its force and flow. From there, your living spirit, which includes your mind, which includes your consciousness, must also both be aligned with that force of flow and made capable of receiving the increased force and continuing the ongoing transmutation of it into the type of life that your spirit, and then your body, uses or is composed of. It should also be noted here that these three virtues of soul, or rather this alignment path that is being labeled as three discrete virtues, are themselves identified by finding the movements of being within the self that align with and magnify the force of soul within. The correct alignment path and the correct soul source, that is. When in doubt, let love alone be your guide… but also use the other eighteen virtues to make sure that you are correctly defining love.

One purpose of the virtues of the Circle of Spirit is to continue that ongoing personal alignment, magnification, and transmutation of soul-being—into life force. The cells and organs of the body seem to partake of that life-force in one way and the living spirit of a person seems to partake of it in another way, but the initial source is the same. The relationships and movements become rather complex after the beginning of the emergence-state from soul, but the core of what a person should do with it is simplified by this ethic into virtues of choices made over time. The virtues of the Circle of Spirit so align the living mind and the virtues of the Circle of Society so align the actions of the living body.

From living beings reaching a sufficient level of complexity, mind forms and consciousness in turn arises, as a direct impetus from the force of soul transmuted into this world, which may also be termed the force of creation. The ongoing direction and outcome of that force of creation may be referred to as the purpose of creation. Self-conscious living beings exist within the Circle of Spirit, that which arises from matter imbued with the purpose of creation, and are become complex enough to both mirror that stuff of soul and to become free to influence both matter and the stuff of soul itself—by means of that recursive self-consciousness and by essence in common. The virtues of the Circle of Spirit are those of a mind that chooses to align itself with the purpose of creation and to use the force behind it to make the world as a whole a better place, rather than choosing to align itself with the selfish, self-seeking, and self-serving purposes of its individual body. The body must be accounted for, of course, and nourished and protected, as must its progeny. But we ride the body—it should not ride us.

Thus the virtues of the Circle of Mind are concerned firstly with that fundamental choice of alignment. All else that the mind does follows from or is encumbered by the choice to either align with the purpose of the soul within life, or instead to align with the ongoing drives of the individual animal body. These virtues are: charity, chastity, diligence, humility, kindness, patience, and temperance (C-C-D, H-K, P-T, as a mnemonic to help remember). Each one of these seven virtues serves to capture and transmute a fundamental drive that arises within the mind-body of every person. Every healthy person has a propensity toward the vices that these corresponding virtues oppose, because of the ongoing relationship between mind and body—the body makes continual demands upon the mind. As vice, those fundamental drives are amplified by a self-conscious mind into a state of insane self-detriment and self-destruction, when body is given priority over mind. These virtues serve to capture those drives and reinterpret them into balanced and sane patterns of thought that account for the needs of the body but also both support a healthy mind and align that mind with the purpose of the creation of life.

For example, gluttony is the vice that amplifies the natural body drive of hunger, into a self-destructive mental state of endless consumption. Temperance replaces gluttony, captures that ongoing drive of hunger, and nourishes the body but also chooses when the body should eat food and what food it should eat. The mental state of the vice of gluttony ignores everything but consumption in the endless attempt and failure to fill a mentally created void which represents the body’s hunger. The mental state of the virtue of temperance instead governs the hunger of the body, as part of a unified mental plan to address all of the distinct needs of the body and to also fulfill other mentally chosen goals and purposes. Temperance is how the mind exercises sovereignty over the body as it demands nourishment; the virtues of spirit are how the mind exercises responsible sovereignty over both the body and the mind itself.

The virtues of spirit, within the Circle of Mind, have a somewhat direct pattern of alignment with the force of creation. The virtues of honor, within the Circle of Society, continue that fundamental choice of alignment but in a less direct and more interpretive manner. The mind can be much more complex than the body, but the movements of the mind over time follow a limited number of patterns while the choices acted out by the body over time may impact all the matter of the world and all the other people in the world and so can be enormously complex in scope. The nine virtues of honor that I have identified for this ethic constitute one attempt, which seems sufficient but may be modified as necessary, to balance the goals to align with the purpose of creation, with life, and with the good, all against the complex requirements and needs of societal interaction.

For it is within the Circle of Society that such a balance is found between the varied needs of the many bodies of living people and the unified and constant drive of the soul. Virtues of honor are those of a person that serves and supports the society of people in which that person lives, but also accounts for, and in a balanced manner serves and supports, their own life and the lives of family and friends. Honor is not a call to endless sacrifice, but rather a call for balance between competing alternatives and an abjurement of unlimited selfishness. It is a reflection, an emanation if you will, of the more fundamental choices that take place within the living spirit of a person, played out among the complexities of the outer world. Honor calls upon you to navigate the exercise of your personal sovereignty through the movements of your body in the best ways you can manage that serve the needs of the many, not just the needs of the few or the one.

This list of virtues of honor may seem long and possibly redundant, but compressing issues of the complexity of societal life into just nine virtues is in fact elegantly succinct. The distinctions between them are sometimes close but also necessary and important. They are: discipline, duty, frugality, integrity, loyalty, nobility, respect, valor, and wholesomeness (D-D-F, I-L-N, R-V-W, as a mnemonic to help remember). Within the Circle of Society, choosing to act in accordance with these virtues is the path of honor, the path of alignment with the impetus of life. They are the outer action derivatives of the virtues of spirit, which are the mind-state derivatives of the virtues of soul, which are the direct amplification of the essence of soul as it manifests into this reality—of the essence of your very life, and all life.

So much, for now, for the Circles of the Virtues. The next section moves on to defining the individual virtues and discussing virtue and vice in the ethic.

2f. On Virtues and Vice

This section gets down to full definitions for the individual virtues and vices (2), to include explanatory notes. Prior to those, some remarks on practical use (1).

This constitutes the remainder of the 'working' ethic, of the knowledge required to practice the ethic in your everyday life.

(1) Virtue In Practice

Actual practice is the relatively complex part of the ethic in use, where a person uses the relatively simple tools of Dignity and Simplicity to actually make the choices for virtue. It is about making choices over time—forming habits of choice within yourself that eventually become enduring character.

Instructions to practice the ethic:

:Use the definitions provided here to identify virtue and vice choices in your life. One way to do so is to find a vice that you are having trouble with—as we all do—and think about how the vice is shaping thoughts and actions.

:At any given time, utilize Simplicity to focus on a critical choice and use the balance provided by Dignity to enable yourself to make that choice. So you must have some state of Dignity and maintain the ability to utilize Simplicity.

:Choose virtue. The cost may seem high at first, but the rewards are greater. One choice after another, you will improve your character—this is the practice of the ethic.

A simple way to get started

The virtues of spirit, in the Circle of Mind. If the ethic seems complex and you are looking for a good place to begin your efforts, start with the virtues of spirit. You already have a certain amount of mental balance and mental clarity naturally, and can work on improving them with Dignity and Simplicity over time. The virtues of soul and of honor will be easier by far to accomplish after you develop virtue of spirit. We are mind, first and foremost. That is the reality of the consciousness. Start by seeking to be virtuous in your habits of thinking, one choice at a time. The rest can follow, as the mind is the fulcrum for all of our choices.

Exercises:

:As with Dignity and Simplicity, exercises to better learn virtue involves mentally cycling between two states of mind in order to familiarize yourself with them and what they mean. This can be done for each of these virtue/vice pairs, so that you not only know their definitions intellectually but also understand them in your deeper mind. Cycle through a mentally projected state of virtue, then into the opposing vice. Back and forth, fast or slow, shallow or deep. Do it sufficiently to arrive at an understanding of the meaning of the state of the virtue or the state of the vice, within yourself, beyond just the words used to define them. As you grow and develop as a person you should repeat these exercises periodically. You will find that with each new effort you will understand more than the last time.

Virtue of mind is balance, peace, stillness. Vice of mind is imbalance, strife, false certainty.

:The exercise form above will work for the Circle of Being and the Circle of Mind, but not the Circle of Society. The virtues and vices of honor are concerned primarily with physical acts, so a mental exercise can only simulate. As such, there is no true practice exercise possible for the virtues of honor, as every virtuous act is just that and every vicious act is just that. Instead, ‘practice’ regarding the Circle of Society utilizes memory, observation, and study. Consider in your memory acts that you or others have made in the past that have been virtuous or vicious. Observe the behavior of others to determine the honor, or lack thereof, in their actions. Study records of the acts of other people, historical, famous, or otherwise—consider possible virtue or vice in their actions.

Consider also the contrast between the ways to study and exercise the virtues of the different Circles. Internal methods do not teach honorable acts; external methods cannot inform the virtues of mind or being. Despite this, there is always a progression, from inner to outer, in the true expression of virtue. Virtuous being enables the development of virtuous mind. Virtuous mind enables the practice of virtuous actions. Flaws of vice further within will lead to more flaws of vice along that progression outward.

Conversely, a disjunction between honorable acts, between living an honorable life, and holding states of vice within, can lead us to become more virtuous in mind or in being. Actions are easier to see and track and judge; feelings or mental states that are not aligned with those honorable actions can expose flaws within the self to those who are otherwise unable to see them. If your way of thinking makes it easier for you to start with the virtues of honor, then do so. Use what you learn from that practice to work your way inward to the internal virtues.

As a final note here on virtue on practice, it can be very useful to sequence or couple virtue states from the different Circles. That is, combining them together in your thoughts to match more complex states of interaction. The Circles distinguish between inner thought and outer action, but every outer action also takes place as inner thought, really, because it is the mind that moves the body. So consider the use value of pairing chastity and wholesomeness, for example, or patience and discipline. Or any appropriate matching of virtues between Circles to fit what is happening in your world. The temptations of the world will often cross over the boundaries of the Circles, so there will be blended choices ongoing. Noticing that something or someone is tempting you to be both impure and unwholesome can help solidify your mental interpretation. Feeling a need to drive angry can be met with both mental patience and controlled action. And etc.

(2) Definitions

Each virtue or vice listed will start with a brief definition. These are not perfect, so bear with me. The point is to use these verbal definitions to identify the state of your own being or your own actions that the virtue or vice refers to; verbal definitions will never be perfect.

To aid these definitions, each virtue will be followed by a list of synonyms (SYN) and then antonyms (ANT). These are not provided for the vices, as they would mostly be the same but in reverse as for the paired virtue. Read the synonyms and antonyms, not as part of the direct meaning of the virtue or vice, but rather as terms related in some way and present to help you zoom in on the meaning.

These definitions are specific to the virtue or vice in practice and for practical use—they do not attempt to define all of these concepts in full. There is further discussion on vice and virtue in Part Three.

The Virtues and Vices of Soul

Faith: The choice to trust. SYN Conviction, belief, certitude, agreement. ANT Disbelief, dubiety, unending skepticism, never trusting.

Generally, trusting that there is some purpose to all of this life beyond the apparent, beyond the limits of easy human comprehension. For the ethic, trusting that the purpose of life, formed by the impetus of life as the force of soul meets matter in this world, is good. The continual choice to trust, over time, amounts to faith. Simply choosing to trust that there is good in life itself may suffice.

Note that this does not necessarily refer to religious faith, although it does entail belief; the required belief may just be one of the relatively simple beliefs suggested in paragraph above. Though religious faith may also encapsulate the simple forms of ongoing belief required for this virtue.

Hope: The choice to expect the good to endure and eventually succeed. SYN Assured, trust, await, expect. ANT Forlorn, hopeless, desperate, barren, nothing is left, empty.

With the following caveats: One- that which is good may be beyond easy human comprehension. Two- the spirit in which mind and consciousness takes place is more important than material things or even the preservation of the physical body. We are spirit first, even though much of spirit arises through body. Good defined in materialist terms without acknowledgment of spirit is insufficient. Though, again, simply choosing hope for life itself may suffice—life is spirit, whether we choose to see that or not. If your chosen belief of faith is simply that there is good in life, your chosen expectation of hope can be that the good of life will endure and advance itself.

The distinctions between the first two virtues of soul may seem small, but they are still important; likewise, the requirements and rewards alike of these first two virtues may seem small, but they very much are not. Try them and find out. In no way the least of the available rewards is that they lead to the virtue of love, not just in my sequence here but also in the natural movements of the deeper mind.

Love: The choice to sacrifice of the self for the sake of another; the choice to join other unto self, as one. SYN Joining, unity in being, giving self-sacrifice. ANT Abhor, antipathy, final separation, anti-union, abominate.

Love is about union of spirit, about joining disparate spirit into one being. If we are living spirit, love is the union of two, or more, spirits into some shared state of being. This involves some sacrifice of the self. That is to a greater or lesser extent, but it necessarily involves personal sacrifice. But in a state of shared love, where two or more choose to mutually sacrifice of the self, the benefits that return are far greater than what is lost. Even alone, a solo choice for love transforms the being of the self and becomes a wellspring of joy. Indeed, choosing love itself, for its own sake and within your own heart, is the highest form of virtue of being.

There will be more discussion regarding love throughout the ethic, as it is rather important. It is the highest virtue.

Such are the core virtues of being that align the spirit with the source of life. These three virtues are sequential, as their opposing vices are each a stopping point or halt in that sequence. Faith makes hope possible. Love can take place because hope enables the conditions for it to do so. Without any hope at all, there can be no love. Without some leap of faith, hope cannot take place. The choice for love alone without anything else is possible, but to do so requires the compressed or unacknowledged choices for faith and hope. Though the sacrifice required to achieve love tends to be greater without explicit acknowledgment of the sequence of virtues that lead to it.

Why are these the virtues of being and why are they sequential? See Part Three for further explanation regarding these questions and others, but it has to do with how these inner choices alter the fundamental being of your mind, the very substance of your living spirit.

Faithless: Rejection of trust; refusing to choose to have faith.

For the ethic, this vice is the willful blindness to the truth of the other half of existence, the impetus of life as it comes into being and exists—soul and the force of soul that joins with matter to become life, or living spirit. As that initial trust in something that is beyond human comprehension is the basis by which we align ourselves with the good purposes of life, so refusing that initial leap of faith hinders all ethical efforts.

Even refusing to believe that life itself is good, such as by claiming that life has no inherent moral value, is an expression of this vice. Secular efforts to extricate morality from religion often fall into the trap of becoming counter to the fundamental truths of human existence that good religion seeks to teach. Can there be morality without life? No. Can there be concepts of goodness and morality that do not derive from a basic ‘life is good’? Yes, but ‘life is good’ was and remains the fundamental basis on which the very concept of morality was developed.

Those who choose to become faithless because they reject the religion that taught them faith are making a mistake. The virtue of faith is prior to any religion and is a fundamental choice of your being itself. Religions incorporate these fundamental principles into their socio-political organizations and their dogma—they do not invent them.

Despair: Rejection of hope, or a state occurring from the failure of some lesser thing or process which hope was mistakenly tied to.

This vice occurs when a person refuses to believe that there is something in which to place ongoing hope—usually following from faithlessness. It also occurs when hope is grounded in something other than the infinite and eternal and that thing inevitably fails. Where there is life, the force of soul always exists, cannot be cut off, cannot be lost. When someone dies… well, I have my theories, but in any case this should not be the end of hope but rather a life lesson and occasion for renewal. Other life endures and can fulfill similar potential—life itself endures. One’s own life will inevitably end; despair at this fact serves only for mental self-destruction. Celebrate the spirit of life and mourn its loss, but do not abandon hope in the face of death.

Hate: Rejection of union; refusing to sacrifice of the self or attempting to take some unwilling sacrifice from another.

Hate renders love impossible. While one can have love for one person and hate for another, they cannot coexist—sooner or later one will become more important than the other and extinguish its inverse. Far beyond mere dislike, hate, as with faithlessness and despair, is an extreme state of being that directly opposes the source of life. This vice destroys the self, first. It is never good and it is never worth either the direct cost or the lost opportunity for love.

*

The virtues and vices of soul are difficult to understand or even describe directly, because they denote fundamental mental choices that don’t really take place at the level of the mind where language occurs. I am using words here to communicate about them, by necessity, but they are deeper than words. They are also very important choices that we all should choose to consciously make. I enjoin you to choose the virtues of soul. Even if you are not convinced or dispute the logical gaps. These are matters that cannot be logically argued, not in full. But the rewards of these virtues are so glorious and the consequences of these vices so terrible that virtue is the only correct choice. As should be apparent by now, the system of beliefs represented by this ethic does not impair human inquiry or human thought. To the contrary, these virtues and others enable enhanced human capability, just as the vices reduce human capability.

The Virtues and Vices of Spirit

Despite there being more to say about some of these than about others, they are all equal in importance. Some of these vices and virtues are correctly identified by common knowledge. In those cases a concise definition is adequate. Others require more explanation or even re-defining in order to combat falsity in the common knowledge. For the purposes of the ethic, that is.

Keep in mind that these are all mental choices and do not denote physical actions in themselves. Note that these virtue/pair pairs are defined in couplets, rather than in sequence as above with the virtues and vices of soul.

Charity: The choice to think benevolently toward others; generosity and goodwill as a state of mind and habit of thought. SYN Altruist, grace, benevolent, giving, mercy. ANT Avaricious, grasping, miserly, stingy.

Greed: The selfish mental state of endless accumulation. Selfish and accumulative habits of mind that serve the self to the exclusion of others and seek only to fulfill the impulse to gather and accumulate property.

In terms of purely physical action similar choices that mirror greed might not always be wrong, depending on the means and method, but as a mental state that can never be fully satisfied greed distorts such resource and ownership concerns into vice. See Frugality below for virtuous actions that fulfill what people might consider the 'good' aspects of greed.

The choice here is the mental reaction to physical needs for property—to be able to have shelter, to eat, to have good health, and the other uses of physical property. We all have these needs; how we choose to organize our mind in response is the difference between virtue and vice.

As with the other virtue/vice pairs of spirit, charity is the death of greed within the mind, and greed inhibits attempts at charity (and the ability to love). Greed must be surrendered alongside the choice for charity instead—the two states cannot coexist in the present moment. Over time, one side or the other will become habit, then character.

Note also, again, that these states of spirit are mental states, that do not require or demand any particular outward action. Having the virtue of charity, mentally, does not mean that you must engage in behavior that society labels ‘charitable’. One- the societal label may be false or misleading or unjustly controlling. Two- outward action requires a different balance than mental states, in order to be virtuous. The world is very complex and requires careful thought and balanced action to seek a good result. Generally, of course, keeping to the virtue of charity in your mind will lead to charitable behavior as well. In a balanced and thoughtful way, and not just adhering to some rigid false principle claiming that you must give some of your money to people who have less money in order to be charitable.

Chastity: The choice to manage the drive for pleasure-seeking; choosing joy instead as the goal. Purity of spirit. SYN Whole, content, decent, modest. ANT Rapacity, eagerness to possess, carnality, salaciousness, wanton.

In part, chastity means integrating the sexual impulses and other sources of physical pleasure into a complete understanding of the self and interactions with others. It is a balanced stance on human pleasure that limits and rules over seeking and expressing it, that pleasure may serve overall goals rather than defining what those goals are. It also means maintaining unity of self despite the constant sexual drives of the body that seek to reproduce the body. More, it means seeking purity of self and purity of being despite all of the temptations of the world. That is, as a mental state and real current being of your living spirit—this does not refer to past actions, or mistakes, or things that have happened to your body.

Lust: The selfish mental state of endlessly taking from another, or other.

Lust often takes the form of imposing your sexual impulses on another person, but can be any state where there is an object of lust that becomes a tool for seeking pleasure for the self. Such as letting sexual impulses rule over you, rather than the reverse. Viewing others as mere objects to satisfy your pursuit of pleasure. Seeking pleasure from another as a goal rather than as a useful marker, to the detriment of the receipt of joy. It is any pursuit where physical sensations of pleasure are the sole goal or held as more important than the consequences of the pursuit.

The choice here is the mental reaction to the physical drive for pleasure seeking. For many people, the primary pleasure drive will involve sex, but human pleasure has a much greater range than sex alone. The common meaning of chastity has become almost exclusively associated with sex but that is a false perception. That exclusive association serves the purposes of those who encourage vice, by making the virtue seem simplistic and in direct opposition to a primary human drive rather than a virtue that seeks to govern and balance that drive.

Instead, the primary choice of chastity is to prefer joy of spirit over pleasure of the body. Second to that, it is the choice to manage the experience of pleasure such that it serves the purposes of spirit (your true purposes) rather than distorting and endlessly amplifying, mentally, a normal process of the body. Third, it is the ongoing pursuit of personal purity of being—meaning better aligned with the pure state of soul. Overall, this is the virtue of purity of self in spirit, while living in the world.

In contrast, lust places physical pleasure over joy of spirit. It wallows in the pleasures of the body, but does so by focus upon an outside object of fixation. The mind fixates upon an external source to stimulate bodily pleasure responses. This is empty; it is far worse than simply enjoying pleasure. Once in place, the mental drive can never be satisfied and so must continue to seek out an object from which to take its pleasure. This does not have to be sex or sexual, though that is common.

Lust can mean fixating upon and taking your pleasure from another person sexually. With direct contact, or using a representation like pornography, or just with mental images. Lust can also take many other forms, such as fixating that mental drive on eating ice cream (which is distinct from gluttony), or on the adrenaline boost of driving too fast, or on the pleasure response of gaming. In these cases, the object of lust is not another person, but ice cream, fast driving, and gaming. Drugs are another obvious example, though the lust does not occur in the drug use but rather the mental state of fixation upon and taking satisfaction from an object. Lust is creating an empty mind state that can never be filled because the object of fulfillment of the state is outside of the self.

Diligence: The choice for steady and earnest application of effort toward either doing what is right or bettering oneself. The state of mind that tracks the present moment and asks what one should be doing with the time, if anything. SYN Persevering, assiduous, industrious, careful. ANT Lazy, indolent, idle, slack, remiss, negligent.

Sloth: The selfish mental state of endless indolence. Taking the body’s need and/or the mind’s need for rest and recuperation and distorting that into a mental state of endless wasteful oblivion.

Diligence is not a call to always seek to be highly energetic in efforts, but rather one not to be wasteful of time, energy, or resources. More, it preserves more energy than it uses, as this is the mental state that keeps the mind exercising the mental energy required to be in proper alignment and to fully generate mental and life energy.

To be slothful is more than mere laziness, which I think we all have indulged in from time to time. It is a state of mind that separates itself from the unity of the greater reality and wallows in an idle state. It is ongoing laziness of thought and effort, in some aspect of your life or in all aspects of it.

The choice here is the mental reaction to limitations on the energy resources of body and mind. Which are always finite and will be exhausted and renewed countless times over the course of a lifetime. A diligent person will account for the need to recuperate and renew these resources, but also seeks to use them as fully as possible to serve the overall purposes of the self and of life itself. A slothful person instead creates a mental state that places the need to rest and recuperate higher than more important concerns. Such is wasteful and backwards, but even worse leads to a cycle of inefficiency and lack of energy. The blind mental state of sloth cannot be fulfilled, so will never be satisfied. The inability to closely track the resources of the body over time inevitably leads to waste and frustrated efforts. Too much rest reduces energetic function and potential, in both body and mind.

Humility: The choice to see the self and the world for what it is; maintaining an awareness of personal being and its place in reality. SYN Subdued, modest, deference, submission to the greater. ANT Vanity, vainglory, static self-esteem, arrogant, egoism.

Pride: The selfish mental state of substituting reality with falsehood. The illusory glorification of the self or other. Mentally replacing some aspect of reality with a false mental illusion.

As humility requires awareness of reality, pride is the insistence that reality is something other than what it is. It is willful mental blindness. That which you are proud of, you cannot perceive accurately.

The consciousness is a smallish part of the overall mind, your mind is just one among many, and the body that houses it is just a small part of a greater world. We are indeed very small and existence is vast beyond imagining in comparison—it is appropriate to remember this. Among other benefits, this keeps at bay a number of mental illusions such as those that arise from a state of pride. Keep in mind that the principle of Dignity already replaces many of the benefits people mistakenly attribute to pride. One can be both humble and dignified; one cannot be both humble and proud. The virtue of respect, defined below, also replaces some aspects falsely attributed to pride.

Another benefit of humility has to do with human knowledge. All human knowledge-states, as mental constructs, have potential connection with the vice of pride. By choosing humility over pride we are able to recognize knowledge as illusions within the mind and not become stuck in ‘knowing’ things. True knowledge is useful illusion, to be sure, but illusion nonetheless. Knowledge remains a mental construct that approximates reality. False knowledge is worse, by far, than acknowledging a lack of true knowledge, as you then have a mental construct in opposition to reality. The illusions of false knowledge divert us from true reality, whereas acknowledging ignorance retains the possibility for improvement.

I am aware that many people will claim that pride is not a vice and may even claim it as a virtue, but such is false. Pride is the worst and most dangerous of the vices, because it is also the most alluring and for certain purposes the most useful. Pride sabotages any honest pursuit of truth, but it can also be harnessed for the purpose of gaining cooperation or obedience from other people. After all, it is easy to fall into the trap of preferring comforting illusion over harsh reality.

The choice here is the mental reaction to the potential disjunction between actual reality and the mental understanding of reality that our minds create and maintain. Humility is the choice to seek as true an understanding as possible of actual reality and, further, to prefer acknowledging ignorance over claiming or establishing within the self possible false knowledge. Pride instead deliberately creates a state of false knowledge, illusion, in the mind regarding whatever you are proud of; the illusion overlays the actual reality and renders you unable to perceive the reality in full or to accurately track changes in it over time.

Consider this example, which seeks to showcase that pride is not needed or good: It is said that children will often seek, and struggle, to make a parent proud of them. But is that truly what they want? Do they want the parent to hold an idealized and unchanging image of them? Perhaps in some cases, but I think what they are generally seeking is something else. Children seek to become fully capable adults among a society of capable adults—or at least they should. Instead of seeking a state of pride in a parent, a child should seek to become fully capable and worthy of respect in the eyes of other people, as a capable and contributing member of society. To be respected and trustworthy. This is the urge that drives a child to perform and grow in the sight of a parent. Not every parent is a good parent and wants the same thing, but that is a different question.

There is also the possibility of confusion of terms. The word ‘pride’ is often used to mean things other than my definition here. A parent saying they are proud of a child may only mean good and right things by the word and not have a false mental state regarding their child. But the vice of pride, as defined here, is the deeper, older, and more accurate meaning of the word. Every time the term is used in confusion and good things are meant, the colloquial meaning may shift a bit toward the good, but the older meaning is also being partaken in, at least a little bit and maybe much more. Better to call a shovel a shovel. Better to acknowledge pride as the vice it is, and to seek humility instead, than to have good intentions tainted and pulled toward vice.

Kindness: The choice to view others in a considerate and friendly manner; helpfulness and goodwill as a state of mind and habit of thought. SYN Forbearing, compassionate, sympathetic, benign. ANT Coveting, begrudging, unsatisfied, intolerant.

This is similar in construction to my definition of charity, but the distinctions are important. Consider the different synonyms and antonyms and also the virtue/vice oppositions of charity/greed and kindness/envy. The former meets the need to have material things, this pairing meets the desire to have better things than other people do. Which is a potentially subtle but very important distinction, given the different objects of focus.

Envy: The selfish mental state of endless covetousness.

Envy can mean viewing others as opposition or competition in a zero sum game, such that anything you can have or can get must be taken from another person. It can also mean engaging in a false perception of reality arrived at by magnifying materialism into the mental realm of social interactions.

Kindness as a state of mind is not the same as kindness in action. Actions that are kind are covered by the Circle of Society virtues of honor, in particular those of respect, loyalty, integrity, and above all nobility. People might refer to someone else as a kind person, but because kindness is a virtue of the mind no one else can truly see if you hold this virtue or not—only you can.

Envy divides you from other people (and stops you from loving them). The truth is that we are mind, not just body, and that the best things in life take place in the mind. You cannot take these from another person, they cannot be taken from you, and you can only receive such rewards by joining with other people and not by dividing against them.

The choice here is the mental reaction to questions of social status. Material markers are often used to denote social status, and material things often accumulate to those who have more social status, but the relative status between people is what the core choice of this virtue/vice pair confronts. Absent the wiser recognition of the need to be kind instead, envy often arises naturally due to the many disparities and injustices in human societies. But the mental state of envy creates a void of covetousness in the mind that cannot be satisfied by events in the material world. To escape the self-harms of envy, you must instead invert your mental reaction to societal status imbalance, desire for a different partner, or a better house, and etc. That inversion is the choice to be kind, in your mind and in your heart, to those that you might otherwise envy.

Patience: The choice to be forbearing or tolerant despite delay, strain, trouble, provocation, or suffering; remaining calm in the face of trials or pain. SYN Fortitude, persistence, forbearance, sufferance. ANT Rage, fury, uncontrolled anger, mad.

Wroth: The selfish mental state of endless anger. Riding, using, or giving in to anger that arises because of injury, suffering, delay, etc. Might also be called rage, or wrath.

Patience is another mental virtue that may seem bland or not worthwhile, especially considering the apparent benefits and satisfaction of being angry or impatient, but it is as rewarding in its way as any of the other virtues.

Wroth is an unbalanced mental state that overwhelms much of the awareness and can make any violent or retributive act seem justified while in the state of wroth. It denies the possibility of good judgment, which patience instead preserves.

Wroth, as with pride and other vices, gives example of a lesser power that should be given up for greater possibilities. It is undeniably useful, or has been to many of our ancestors during times of violent struggle, but it is not nearly as useful as maintaining mental balance and clarity. Wroth erodes Dignity and Simplicity both.

The choice here is the mental reaction to physical or mentally perceived suffering, either for yourself or another person or thing that you care about or are responsible for. You can choose to react with anger, which generally means creating a state of wroth in your mind and thus ruining both mental stability and mental clarity. Which can be to a greater or lesser extent, but balance is lost nonetheless and your mind is clouded with anger. Or you can choose to cultivate patience as the reaction instead. Keep in mind, again, that this is not to counsel any particular action or response to the inciting event. Instead, the virtue of patience is to preserve mental balance and clarity despite the trials and travails of the world, thus enabling you to think and act in a better and more effective way than you otherwise might. One use of the term ‘patience’ or ‘have patience’ has become that of urging people not to act; this is in no way the meaning of this virtue.

Temperance: The choice for moderation in thought, feeling, and appetite; not denying such passions, but restraining their scope and play to reasonable extents. SYN Balanced, moderation, abstinent, sober. ANT Voracious, ravening, rapacious, unending hunger.

Part of temperance is similar to chastity; as chastity is to sex, so temperance is to hunger. There are many benefits to moderation in consumption, of food, drink, or other substances put into the body. Beyond that, this virtue entails moderation in indulging in the passions of spirit. Passions are an important part of mental experience, but they should not be permitted to threaten mental balance, stability, or focus.

Gluttony: The selfish mental state of seeking endless consumption.

Gluttony can take the form of overfeeding the body, or indulging in excess drink, or drug abuse. But it can also be any mental state where there is a perceived taking in or feeding—such as obsessions with social chats, entertainment, news media, or video games. Unbalanced voracious mental consumption is just as bad or worse than physical consumption, but often goes unremarked or is accepted. This vice, as others, takes an important natural function (eating, learning, or etc) and twists it into an unbalanced and harmful mental habit. One can also be a glutton of an emotional state, becoming an emotion junky.

The choice here is the mental reaction to the drive to consume resources and turn them to the purposes of the self. Resources that are physical or mental. Temperance is the virtue of addressing this need in a balanced and judicious fashion while not making the mistake of seeking to over-consume. Gluttony instead creates a void in the mind that seeks to take in the other in order to nourish the self, that cannot ever be satisfied because the void formed does not match the substance of what is taken in.

*

The virtues and vices of spirit take place within the mind, though not necessarily the conscious mind in full, so are easier to understand and describe than those of soul. Easier, but not truly easy or simple. They are more complex states than those of soul, and take place only within the mind so cannot be fully argued with logic or material evidence. Despite this, I enjoin you to virtue of spirit. The rewards of each are great and as a whole they reinforce the alignment of the mind with the source of life within you. Moreover, they permit the mind to reflect and amplify that source both into the self and out into the world.

The vices of spirit are quite harmful, to both yourself and to other people who care about you. Attempting to refrain from them is not enough, for they are driven by urges that are always with us. These virtues negate these vices as true inverses; one takes from the source of the other, which becomes either the virtue or the vice. Those who seek to simply refrain from vice will always have partials of those states in their minds; those who choose the virtues instead will extirpate the vices from themselves. For as long as they continue to choose virtue—but that becomes easier over time as choice becomes habit and habit becomes character.

The Virtues and Vices of Honor

Discipline: Acting with the deliberate use of self-control in your pattern of behavior or conduct over time. Imposing a chosen order over your own actions. SYN Self-confident, nerving, self-command, self-control. ANT Disordered, enervated, uncontrolled.

Undisciplined: Acting without thought in an uncontrolled manner, without deliberation. Refusing to rule over your own actions. Chaos of action by accident, rather than choice.

The need here is that to organize personal behavior into a rational, or at least deliberate, pattern over time. To exercise self-control. This makes you more reliable to other people and also makes you more effective in achieving your personal goals.

You will note that this first virtue/vice pair of honor are opposites, not inverses. The same is true for all of the virtue/vice pairs of honor. This will be discussed more below, but unlike the Circle of Soul or the Circle of Spirit, the Circle of Society in which the virtues of honor take place concerns itself solely with the external actions of a person. We track these things mentally, of course, but physical acts don’t really have true inverses as mental states do. Physical acts do have oppositions, which the definitions for the virtues of honor and their opposite vices take into account.

Duty: Acting to fulfill your chosen obligations. Being as promised. SYN Reliable, steadfast, upright, meeting agreements and accords. ANT Default, derelict, untrustworthy, not meeting obligations.

Not Dutiful: Acting against or ignoring your chosen obligations. Not keeping your given word. Forsaking your oaths. Defaulting on debts.

The need here is that to act in the manner that you agree to act in. One example is keeping your word, once it is given. Another is fulfilling a service that you have sworn to fulfill. Another is paying your debts. The service to others is obvious, if you do what you say. This serves you in that you establish that other people can trust you to fulfill your obligations and so they will extend more trust to you over time. Note that because it is honorable to fulfill your word, in order to protect yourself and your freedom you must choose carefully just what obligations you agree to take on.

Frugality: Acting with careful economy of resources or energy. Using what is needed but no more, without waste. SYN Prudent, careful, sparing, thrifty. ANT Profuse, lavish, prodigal, wasteful.

Frugality is distinct from being cheap or stingy, in that uncertainty factors can increase resource allocation. Budgeting ten or twenty percent extra as a safety margin is still frugal; budgeting exactly as much as you think you need, or less, is cheap. Though note this virtue includes all use of resources, not just money. Food, money, physical energy, mental energy, building supplies, vehicle fuel, electricity, and etc.

Beyond utilization of current resources, this can also cover actions such as investing that seeks to grow resources. A wise investor is frugal; they may take risks, but always for a purpose and with careful knowledge. We may also consider acts of gambling such as playing the lotto or sports betting: gambling with small relative amounts and in full knowledge of likely outcomes can still be within the realm of frugality. Especially if the gambling itself provides relaxation or enjoyment. Gambling with larger amounts or without true knowledge of consequences is likely wasteful instead.

Wasteful: Acting in a fashion that wastes resources or energy through thoughtless action, or by being deliberately excessive.

Note that this is a somewhat tricky distinction, in that acting lavishly is sometimes seen as beneficial for others. Barring specific thoughtful cases however, on the whole wasteful actions are bad for society and frugal actions are good. Also note that the frugal/wasteful dynamic is one place where prudence might come into play, if I were not separating virtues into the distinct Circles as I have. To be prudent in action is to be generally frugal, but also permits engaging in thoughtful waste on occasion. I use frugality as the virtue here because it can be defined to only apply to action, whereas prudence also applies to mental states.

The need here is that to exercise good stewardship of the limited resources that we all have available to us. It does not matter how much money you have—your funds are still finite. Money itself is only a marker and unit of exchange—it can be exchanged for things of value but has no intrinsic use value in itself. By taking care to use the resources of your body and mind in a frugal manner, you preserve yourself and your actions to be able to accomplish the most important things—there is always more that we can do, but we can only do one thing at a time and can only accomplish so much.

Every opportunity also has a cost. It behooves us to utilize all of our resources in a careful and deliberate manner, as possible.

Integrity: Acting to maintain undivided good moral character. Acting in wholeness of self in the moral sense. Staying true to yourself. Being of sound character. SYN Upright, honest, merciful, just. ANT Cheat, unjust, fraud, deceitful.

Honesty is a synonym, as are justice and mercy, but integrity is a complex concept that reaches beyond simpler notions of always telling the truth or always being just or merciful. You can maintain your integrity while lying, for example, provided that there is a sufficiently good overall moral reason for the lie.

Lack of Integrity: Acting against sound character. Betraying yourself. Being habitually dishonest, with others or with yourself. Failing or refusing to maintain good moral character. Being divided against yourself.

The need here is that to be whole and undivided in your actions over time—to develop and hold a character of action that is good. Integrity is the virtue that calls you to act virtuously. It is somewhat difficult to define beyond what I have put here, but I think that pretty much anyone who reads this will agree that it is a good and necessary thing. There is an intuitive meaning to it that most people grasp naturally. Be true to yourself.

Loyalty: Acting in good faith toward the self and toward those to whom fidelity is due. Acting with constant or firm support or allegiance. SYN True, keeping faith, honorable. ANT False, treacherous, traitorous, perfidious.

This is distinct from duty in that loyalty is to do with being faithful beyond explicit agreements or pledges, beyond chosen obligations. You may have a momentary duty to someone that you owe no loyalty to; you may owe loyalty to someone that you are bound by no explicit duty to serve in any way.

Disloyal: Acting against your faith or allegiance. Choosing momentary self-interest over long term friendship, or family, or your organization, or some greater conglomerate to which you belong and which you have drawn benefit from. Betraying those whom you should care for.

The need here is that to recognize and fulfill, as possible, the many obligations that we all incur in our lives without explicitly agreeing to them. This has to do with being in the society of others and drawing both direct and indirect benefits therefrom. The dictates of loyalty are looser than those of duty, but they are no less real.

Because these are not in regards to explicit agreements, there is also no certain or explicit way to discharge the dictates of loyalty. Certainly the bonds of loyalty are not endless and do not require endless sacrifice on your part. Remember also that this usually refers to collective obligations, not those that a single individual bears alone. Give back, as you have taken, but don’t feel that you have to give or sacrifice too much. The best way to discharge the obligations of loyalty is often to pay forward, rather than trying to pay backward. Remember that we were all young once—the adults that provided for you were in turn once children that other adults provided for. Though this is a narrow example and the scope of loyalty may be much broader.

Nobility: Acting in an uplifting or excellent manner. Being generous of spirit as shown by action. To treat well or uplift others. SYN Righteous, sublime, eminent. ANT Sordid, vile, petty, degraded.

Nobility has to do with striving to better the self, but also with our interactions with other people, regardless of whether duty or loyalty is owed to them. This virtue contains important moral concepts such as humanity and hospitality. One example is to treat well and meet obligations toward a guest. Another is to welcome as a guest some person that you need not so welcome. Another is to seek excellence in a field of study for the sake of being an example of excellence for others to follow. Another is to help out a person in need solely for the sake of shared humanity. There are many more possible examples.

Ignoble: Acting in a down-dragging or merely petty manner. Reveling or choosing to celebrate the base or degraded, and in so acting dragging others down along with you. Violating customs of hospitality. Scorning those you deem less deserving or just lesser than yourself. Being inhumane toward other people or toward animals.

The need here is that to attempt to uplift the material world and material interactions toward the more refined and sublime ideals of spirit and soul. It is the effort to reflect or emanate the ideals of the Circle of Mind and the Circle of Being into the physical world and physical actions. This is a continual and ongoing need. It is also a matter of value judgments, but ones that align with the entire value scheme of the DSV ethic. Note that this virtue of personal nobility has nothing to do with hereditary aristocracy or any particular type of political organization.

Respect: Acting with consideration, esteem, and/or politeness toward yourself and others. Maintaining civility of interaction. SYN Cherish, polite, mannerly, civilized. ANT Contemptuous, disregard, inconsiderate, scorn.

Respect has to do with maintaining civilized behavior regardless of whether it is deserved or merited. It is the deliberate refusal to engage in reciprocity with inconsiderate or impolite behavior, and in so doing working to maintain the moral character of those around you and of society as a whole. There are limits, of course, and you will have to decide for yourself where those limits are—physical danger, for example, can abnegate the need to be polite. Also, those who willfully reject civilized norms do not necessarily merit respect. Though it still may be morally good to grant it to them anyway.

Disrespectful: Acting without regard for others or yourself. Acting in a morally degraded manner without sufficient countervailing reason. Eroding the civilization of your society.

Notice the careful wording for disrespectful. Generally, acting with respect will be the norm and disrespectful acts will be obvious and unmerited. As with all of these virtues of honor, however, there will be exceptions for the greater good—this ethic attempts to state what normal good behavior is, but it does not claim to bind alternative actions by free moral agents.

The need here is that to preserve good interactions between people and to avert the need for violence. Also, to recognize your own own worth as an individual. Also, to preserve civilization. Good manners, which are a form of respect, act as a social lubricant that reduces friction and helps us all to get along with everyone else. Acting respectfully of yourself is to both recognize your own worth and to display to others that you do have worth and value. As of course you do.

Valor: Acting for the sake of the good regardless of danger or damage to the self; being willing to accept harm to self or loss of goods to do what is right or needful. SYN Tenacious, courage, brave. ANT Timorous, cowardly, lacking tenacity.

The double conditions of valor are very deliberate. First, the act must be for the sake of the good, the right, or the necessary, as judged by you, the moral agent. Second, you must be willing to accept danger, harm, damage, or inconvenience to the self in order to complete the act. That danger or harm may be physical or mental, material or spiritual. A valorous act is one of self-sacrifice for the sake of a worthy cause. Beyond that, valor embraces tenacity of purpose in the face of adversity—following through with right action despite opposition or inconvenience.

Dastardly: Acting to preserve the self or selfish purposes despite moral obligation to the contrary. Being unwilling to accept harm to do what is right.

The double conditions from valor are still present, but reversed. There is danger or inconvenience to you in the offing. There is a moral good, right, or necessity present. You act in favor of your own convenience or to avoid danger or harm, instead of acting to help. I realize that the name of this vice, as with its opposite virtue, is dated and doesn’t really have a firm meaning in contemporary society. I am deliberately resurrecting these older terms and clearly defining them in order to establish firm meanings that are independent of contemporary terms. This is because these distinct meanings have been lost or pushed out over time but remain important and integral moral concepts. As with the next virtue below.

The need here is that to accept risk for the sake of acting to preserve the good. Nothing is certain in this life, so there is always risk. That risk increases whenever something needs to be accomplished or changed or contended for. Valor is the virtue of accepting that risk and working toward a good outcome regardless of potential negative consequences. Risk can be mitigated, of course, and should be whenever possible, as is only prudent. So valor does not demand foolishness. Rather, it is the virtue that demands that we fight for the good when we can, as part of a balanced way to approach life and all of its problems.

Wholesomeness: Acting to achieve and maintain health, cleanliness, and physical and mental capability, over time. SYN Salutary, healthy, clean, able, care for the being of the self. ANT Dissolute, noxious, unhygienic, unhealthy, incapable.

Unwholesome: Acting against or ignoring the need to maintain health, cleanliness, or physical or mental ability. Imposing poor sanitary or health choices on others.

The need here is that of maintaining physical equilibrium to match the mental equilibrium of Dignity. Wholesomeness might seem a very broad virtue, or like it might not be a specifically moral concern, but both hygiene and the personal ability of the individual impact other people in large ways and small throughout our lives.

You might also call this virtue integrity of person, as the virtue Integrity is about integrity of self or character. This is the Circle of Society, which concerns itself with the outer world. Momentary physical states in the world are as important to that as actions over time. Being clean and hygienic, seeking good health, maintaining physical and mental ability—these all have moral character because they impact the choices that people make and the choices that are available to people. For others as well as for yourself. They are all of a piece, because they all have to do with integrity of person.

*

The virtues of honor are more general than the virtues of spirit or soul, because they seek to cover only right behavior. They are strictly judged by outward behavior, though may touch upon mental states and serve as outward extensions of the virtues of spirit, which themselves serve as mental extensions of the virtues of soul. Each tier from inner to outer is more complex than the last, as potential interactions and subsequent complexity rises as well.

By making these virtues and their opposite vices strictly a matter of outward behavior, an individual attempting to practice the ethic may reduce some of the complexity of living ethically. In this manner, the ethic can be practiced only in action, or only mentally, or indeed only in core being. Assessing, judging, and altering progress may take place at only one of those levels, or only one at a time—serving Simplicity, as good focus of mind is necessary to improve in any one area. Alternatively, one can approach the ethic from either inner virtue building toward outer virtue, or instead as outer virtue working toward inner virtue. Or use both methods at different times. This is a deliberate flexibility built into DSV to facilitate its practice as an ethic.

The generality of the virtues of honor also serves to account for the exceptions, always possible, in which engaging in an act that would normally be vicious becomes morally acceptable in order to avert a greater harm—or to attempt to do so, for our efforts are not always successful. These possibilities are noted in one or two of the definitions above, but they can apply to any vice or virtue of honor. We are living spirit that flows from the stuff of soul. We have bodies, and what we do with them does have moral importance, but soul, followed by spirit, is more important still. Life itself is more important still.

I will note again that the virtue/vice pairs of honor are not inverses, as are the virtue/vice pairs of soul and spirit. Instead, they are opposites. That is, they do not cancel each other out, but rather are mirror images each of the other. This is obvious in some of the names, such as wholesome/unwholesome or dutiful/not dutiful, but applies to all of them.

In order for a virtue ethic to have the necessary flexibility to cover the complex scope of outward behavior and human interaction, there must remain the possibility that a person can evidence or outwardly show both a virtue and the opposite vice. Indeed, pretty much everyone does over time.

Unlike mental states, actions over time form a traceable history of behavior. To acknowledge that a person can be vicious in action one moment and virtuous in action the next is simply to recognize reality. This does not mean that they are a vicious person or a virtuous one, necessarily, for that is a matter that can only be judged over a longer span of time and accounting for many such actions. It does mean that being ethical in outward behavior is not solely a matter of individual actions but also found in the constant effort to improve or to act well.

Finally, though the virtues of honor identify states of action, all chosen action flows from the mind. We are sovereign over the body and choose what the body does (in moral terms anyway). Consider that the distinctions between virtues of spirit and virtues of honor are not in regards to whether the mind is involved, for the mind will always be involved with both, but instead in regards to the object of judgment. Judge whether you meet a virtue of spirit by your mental state. Judge whether you meet a virtue of honor by your outward actions.

*

This concludes Part Two of the ethic, Everyday Ethic. As long as Part Two may seem to the reader, particularly this last section, there is quite a bit more that could have been said absent the need to keep the ethic brief and manageable. Just as the virtue definitions above are adequate but not really complete, so these sections on the everyday practice of the ethic are presented as adequate for practice but by no means complete or exhaustive. Nevertheless, I hope they are sufficient.

Next up, A Deeper Ethic, where much more in depth explanation of the ethic will be offered. You do not need to read Part Three for the purposes of practicing the ethic. Part Two contains everything you need to get started and to use the ethic to improve your life. Part Three is more scholarly and can be read to help deepen understanding of the ethic over time.

Part Three: The Ethic in Depth

3a. Principles and Terms of the Ethic

To begin Part Three, here are definitions of terms and short discussions of various principles and concepts of the ethic. It is expected that the reader is already conversant with Part One and Part Two of the ethic, as ideas introduced in the previous parts of the work are built upon and expanded hereafter.

These are the key ideas of the ethic, on which it rests or which it partakes in. These definitions are more complete than found elsewhere, but should not be considered fully complete in themselves in regards to the terms and concepts.

Ethic: System of organizing self and thought and behavior so as to adhere to the pursuit of overall good. Way of living. Standard by which to judge oneself or others.

Morality: Sometimes used interchangeably with terms such as ‘ethical’, the distinction is that morality may seek the good or not. To choose to be ethical is to seek the good. One’s morality is what one personally considers to be good. Which may not be good for others, good overall, or even good for the self. Morality is chosen way of life—thus there is good morality or evil morality, and many gradations between. Part of the purpose of this ethic is to transform personal morality from limited selfish perspective, that we all enter life with, into a balanced morality that serves both the good of the self and the good overall.

Dignity: Potential of the agency of the individual. The sovereignty of the self over the self. Integrity of personal being. In consequence, personal responsibility. The core of the ethic in regards to the individual. Balance of mind.

Balance: A derived principle from Dignity. In potential, a state of equality between interacting forces, such that no force overcomes another. In practice, obtaining a state of peace amidst conflict. This can mean internal dignity of self, or maintaining a relationship, or the interaction of the masculine and feminine principles, or placing one stone atop another such that they remain still despite the force of gravity, or dancing a hang glider through a windy sky, or any number of other possibilities. Balance is a fundamental principle of our reality, even though for the ethic it is derived from Dignity. Balance is a dynamic opposition of forces to obtain a null state, and thus a potential for chosen change where they meet.

Simplicity: Active agency of the individual. Acknowledgment of limits and limitations. Focus of mind.

Forgiveness: A derived principle from Simplicity. The willingness to acknowledge, accept, and even embrace the past for the sake of seeking a better future. The willingness to acknowledge and accept the limitations and flaws of other people and even yourself, without granting those limitations and flaws more than their required due.

Virtue: A choice aligned with the good that is recognized to be desirable to ingrain as personal character. An organized pattern of being, thought, or action that aligns with the moral good. Derived value judgment of the ethic. Instruction on right being, right thought, or right action.

Choice: Act of will between alternatives, which may include creating a new alternative. The path of the moment; every choice is another step along the path of life. May be active or passive—refraining from an active choice is passive choice. So, attempting to refuse to choose is still a choice.

Habit: Following patterns established by previous choices. May be altered by making different choices and establishing a new pattern of habit. Habits are established choices that are re-chosen over time, with each re-choice becoming easier and requiring less effort of will. In consequence, altering habits requires greater effort of will over time in order to overcome established predilection.

Character: Enduring patterns of personal choice. It has been observed long since that choices become habits and habits become character. Taking habits, hopefully good habits, one step further and embracing them as integral to the character of the self. Character is a meta choice in regards to habits. If the habits are good, that meta choice seeks the good. If those habits are not good, contrariwise. Can still be changed by the power of the will, but requires concerted action over time to do so as habits must be altered first.

*

Circle of Being: Category of all living entities. Recognition of the common essence that life alone is sufficient to impart. Fundamental category of the dimension-state that impels life.

Virtues of Soul: Patterns of choice for good as relevant to all entities in the Circle of Being. The three virtues of soul are those that enable any living thing to seek out and align with the essence of life. The fundamental choices to be good in being.

Soul: Identified as an aspect of reality, denoted as a dimension or dimension-state, that combines with matter to both enable and impel life. Fundamental aspect of reality without which life would not exist or continue.

Circle of Mind: Category of all thinking entities. Recognition of the common distinction that the presence of mind imparts. Living beings that have obtained sufficient enduring complexity of spirit to coalesce mind and some form of consciousness within that mind.

Virtues of Spirit: Patterns of choice for good as relevant for all entities in the Circle of Mind. The seven virtues of spirit are those that enable any thinking entity to seek out the essence of life and align their living spirit with it. These are fundamental choices to be good in self—as the mind composed of spirit is the self of being.

Spirit: For the purposes of the ethic, that which arises when soul meets matter. The mediate state or spectrum between material reality, alone, and the soul dimension or dimension-state that intrudes into previously material reality alone and in part forms the new balance of reality, with soul, and in consequence with spirit. The essence of all living things—life is living spirit. Living bodies are matter imbued with and uplifted by living spirit.

There may be much more to spirit than this. There are some mentions in Part Three of spirit that goes beyond the definition here. Perhaps such things may be denoted as spirit because it is through spirit that we  can perceive them, or for some other reason, but there does seem to be a relation with the living spirit of a person. Regardless, the definition above is sufficient for practice and most theory of the ethic. Though note that because life has existed for quite some time now, ongoing states or ‘realms’ of spirit, derived from life, may themselves exist and be ongoing.

The ethic posits that there may be material reality alone, where life is not extant, prior to an intrusion by soul dimension or soul dimension-state, which forms a new dimension-state balance where spirit is present. The suggestion of temporal priority is utilized in the ethic for explanatory and argumentative purposes only—there are indications that soul was part of the dimension-state balance of the universe prior to life, but it is easier to explain things by postulating temporal markers. That is, there must have been soul-impetus-intrusion in order to help bring about the conditions for life to exist, and quite possibly it was part of the dimension-state balance of universe from the beginning. But such speculation is not necessary for the purposes of the ethic.

As an alternative to considering spirit to be real, the reader may choose to treat it as a metaphor, or as a philosophical postulate of convenience. That is not how I think of it, but this is a potential line of thinking that does not directly conflict with a positivist or materialist ethos. In this way, a reader may gain some of the work and benefit that the ethic derives from incorporating spirit, without being forced to abandon established belief structures.

Circle of Society: Category of all social entities. Recognition of the common interests and limitations that social activity in a shared world impart. People that live in a shared world and interact with each other.

Virtues of Honor: Patterns of action for good as relevant for all people in the Circle of Society. The nine virtues of honor are those that enable any social person to align the actions of their outer life with the essence of life and the purpose impelled by that essence. These are strictly outer actions that account for the necessities of bodily life while seeking a balance that serves the good.

Honor: A thought construction of the ethic that imposes moral judgment on actions. Not accolades or recognition by other people—that is not how the term is defined for the ethic. One cannot honor another person in terms of this ethic. Instead, honor is adhering to the virtues of honor. This is strictly a matter of individual choice, as expressed by physical actions. It does not judge by the mind or the deeper being of individuals. To be honorable, to have honor, by the dictates of the ethic, is to act in an honorable fashion, which is to act in accordance with the virtues of honor, as possible.

Good: Something of a loose term, with multiple possible definitions or derivations. Can be that which is best or fitting for a certain context. Can be that which is materially useful. For the ethic, good is primarily a value judgment of moral alignment. Ultimately, good is that which is aligned with the essence of life, as determined from judgments made on the purpose of life. That ultimate good is difficult to argue successfully, but I attempt to do so throughout the ethic, particularly in On Spirit, Part Three. Lesser goods are also utilized throughout the ethic but are much easier to argue as acceptable.

*

Reciprocity: As to one, so to the other. As not to one, so not to the other.

The basis of moral commonality of application of the ethic.

This might be called a combination of the Golden Rule and the Silver Rule, or simple fairness, or turnabout. The ethic relies on identifying fundamental characteristics of a standard human being and applying the implications of those characteristics to all equivalent human beings. This is not, quite, a measure of equality among people. Instead, it relies on reciprocal natural rights and duties.

Those rights and duties are themselves equal and inverse. That is, every equivalent person has the same natural rights as every other equivalent person and every equivalent person has the same duties as every other equivalent person. Furthermore, rights and duties are like two sides of the same coin—they cannot be separated. To separate a right from the inverse duty is to render it empty, as it will not be recognized and enforced. To separate a duty from the inverse right is to place a burden that has no natural justification.

By equivalent person, or standard human being, the best measure that can be fully adhered to is something like: fully developed, healthy, mentally sound, human adult. Which might seem overly stringent but does include most of humanity. Those excluded by this measure are all special cases: they are protected by the ethic, but are not fully participant in the principle of reciprocity as it is applied and may not be fully capable of the complete range of human dignity or virtue. But to some extent, all life is protected by the ethic.

By reciprocity, the ethic becomes a universal system of morality. This is mostly implied in Part One and Part Two, as the focus there is on individual practice of the ethic. It will not be discussed extensively elsewhere as it is generally self-evident. Universal morality is obtained by reciprocal interactions of ethical people. Or interactions made in good will by ethical people with those people in special categories that are not capable of being fully ethical in themselves, or with other life forms.

Religion: A socio-political organization designed to maintain itself, with the secondary purpose of maintaining and practicing a system of beliefs. There are many religions. All of them claim a true interpretation of reality; it cannot be the case that all of them are correct, as they conflict. Regardless, a ‘religion’ is a self-perpetuating structure first, and only after that a system of beliefs. This is quite distinct from personal beliefs, such as the belief in the truth of the spirit, which may be repeated by some religions but in itself is not necessarily a religious belief. Religions attempt to identify fundamental truths of reality and integrate them into a religious belief structure; they do not define reality except within the context of the religion.

Spiritual: To adhere to a belief in the truth that spirit is part of reality. This is an aspect of the belief structure of an individual, which may or may not extend to being part of the religious beliefs of an individual. Regardless, spirituality is distinct from religion. One can be spiritual without being religious; one can be religious without being spiritual.

Mystical: Denoting that which engages in mysticism. Generally used as a derogatory label by materialists in order to marginalize or cancel ideas or explorations of reality beyond the strict, and false, definitions of reality utilized by materialists. Mysticism itself may be more properly defined as ideas or explorations by a single individual into the realms of the spirit or mind—which can be a good thing or a bad thing. To explore or channel corrupt spirit that has been turned against its true purpose is decidedly a bad thing. Historically, some forms of mysticism have been used as tools of control over other people. In reaction and as defense, the logical positivists chose to adhere to strictly empirical reality and turned against all forms of mysticism. Both good and bad, as they refuse to recognize the reality of the spirit and thus have no measure whatsoever by which to judge good or bad spirit, or good or bad mysticism.

Alignment: State of being. ‘Align’ may be used in the general sense of being in accord with or ‘lined up’ with something else, but ‘alignment’ also has a particular meaning in regards to spirit. That is, state of the being of the spirit. Which is to say, a current description or state of the spirit that is you. Because spirit is difficult to describe or denote with language, it can be useful to denote state of being of spirit in terms of its alignment with something else that is easier to describe or at least to denote. An example would be the Alignment System utilized by some tabletop roleplaying games, such as DnD. The grid formed by the two axes of good-evil and order-chaos is simplistic in some ways but also very useful in other ways, such as a denotation of the general spiritual alignment of human choices. Though such roleplaying alignment systems tend to lack adequate definitions for things such as ‘good’ or ‘evil’. For the DSV ethic, I have defined good but not evil, as I prefer to think of a simple ‘not-good’ in place of having a specific ‘evil’ denotation. That is, good is a specific thing and not-good is drawing away from that specific thing. I do occasionally use the term 'evil', but hope the meaning is made clear by context and by general or common understanding.

Channel: To magnify or bring into this world, this dimension-state reality, that which your spirit is aligned with. The main use of this faculty, on the whole, is to channel the source of life through your own being, spirit, and body, into this world. Beyond that main purpose of the faculty, there are myriad possible lesser uses. Some that support the good, some that are counter to the good, and some that are morally neutral. Because of the nature of spirit and of consciousness, we are all channeling something all the time. Part of the purpose of the ethic is to point out this truth and to advise on that which is good to channel. Practice of the ethic brings one more fully into alignment with the impetus of life, such that most or all of the channel-state of the individual is channeling that impetus, source, and purpose.

Materialism: The theory and claim that there is only matter, or that everything that exists is derived from matter and can be explained in material terms. Matter being defined as that which is composed of atoms, or protons or neutrons or electrons, or other exotic or more fundamental material particles. Materialism is an explicit denial of the reality of spirit.

Materialism is clearly false. It is also very useful, in that this ideology has been a major driver of invention in the material sciences, and also in that people become more predictable and controllable if they accept belief in materialism. For those who are spirit-blind, or have become so through drug use such as with habitual caffeine intake, materialism as a doctrine can be very convincing—scientific progress has furnished many interesting controllable phenomena that can be offered as ‘proofs’. These ideological ‘proofs’ are often more convincing than ‘proofs’ offered by older religions. And yet spirit is real—we are living spirit. Despite the usefulness of the ideological belief system that is materialism, beliefs that deny aspects of reality are self-limiting and self-defeating.

Positivism: Also known as logical positivism. This is a theory of knowledge that is often combined with materialism. It claims that useful knowledge, and perhaps all knowledge, is that which can be ‘positively’ known. The ‘positive’ is defined in terms of that which can be empirically observed, or derived from empirical science. That is, that which can be known by the physical senses or material instruments which replicate or extend the physical human senses. So generally some sort of material interaction or repeated natural phenomenon. Positivism is a philosophy that claims that math, logic, or scientific experiment are the only things that can verify any assertion as rationally justifiable. And so everything else is irrational or unjustifiable or both.

Positivism is also false, but does have its merits. It arose and grew in response to Romanticism and rampant chaotic spirituality, as a defense and a sanctuary for certain types of people. It is obviously false, as it denies the very existence of spirit, which is clearly real, but certain walks of life operate very productively within a positivist ethos. I think that it is possible to broaden the scope of positivism to incorporate acknowledgment of spirit, but such a project is beyond the scope of this work. I have tried to address the concerns of positivism with the arguments of this work, and also have utilized certain tools developed by positivists that have been incorporated into philosophical methods.

3b. On How the Will Can Be Freed

This section provides an argument for the existence and possibilities of free will expression for human beings. Most of the section is adapted from my essay published on ruinoll.com on 23 Feb 2022, "A Structure of Choice: Potential For and Failings Of Free Will". The essay has been somewhat modified and edited, but on the whole retains its original meaning and intent. The original form is still available on the website.

After the essay I will attempt to explain how this theory fits into the DSV ethic and enables the reader to deepen their understanding of it. Look for [ ] to read DSV interjections into the original essay. Note that the essay is used here to inform the reader regarding the potential for free will, but was developed prior to DSV so some of the language may seem jarring or be at odds with the rest of the ethic. I have chosen to place the essay here in mostly unchanged form for various reasons that I think support the ongoing arguments of the ethic.

The argumentative points of the essay are the intro (1), structure of choice (2), model of consciousness (3), competing influences model restated (4), limits and failures (5), and philosophical points (6). A final point, DSV Integration (7), is tacked on to the end.

(1) Essay Intro

The free will debate has a long history, with several contesting positions and many fine distinctions therein. Intuitively, we generally all have the sense that we do freely make our choices. But there is also a great deal of both theory and claimed evidence that the choices that people make are determined by other factors rather than freely chosen by themselves. These are determinist positions in the free will debate. Some thinkers that accept a form of determinism of human action claim that such is compatible with a weaker form of free will. These positions are termed compatibilism.

This essay is a formal attempt on my part to assert a fresh take on the entire free will debate. The overall paradigm that the free will debate has hardened into can be re-imagined in a useful way according to the model presented herein. My position is indeterminist and incompatibilist (rejecting both determinism and compatibilism). Indeterminist, because there does seem to be some capacity for people to make undetermined choices. Incompatibilist, because I reject the watered down versions of free will that compatibilists resort to. The human capacity for free choice is not just undetermined, but also at least potentially agent-causal in a very strong way, in that the human consciousness may be a source of created cause.

However, my theory does not reject evidence brought in favor of determinism, but rather seeks to account for any evidence that people act in a determined manner by modeling a structure by which choices take place and allowing that the structure can fail or need not always be utilized. I firmly believe in the human capacity for truly free choices, but do not think that many, or most, people realize or fully utilize that capacity very often, if ever. In short, there exists the potential in human beings for free will; failures to develop or utilize that potential have been presented as evidence of determinism. What follows is an effort to model and explain these claims.

(2) Structure of Choice

I will begin with an attempt to model the structure by which free will exists and by which free choices may be made. This is a consciousness centered model, and so is person-based and derived from internal perspective. I will not term it subjective, as I consider that paradigm and the subjective-objective dichotomy to be potentially useful in a limited sense, but so limited overall as to be generally false. Instead, one may consider that each individual can look within the self to compare that which is modeled here to their own internal state/being/capacity. Also, consider that much of what I utilize here is accepted and understood as a shared experience of human beings. Instead of being 'subjective', this is a person-centric structure, and while not necessarily anthropocentric, is derived from the common experiences of humanity. These common experiences have iterated literally billions of times, which brings a rather strong weight of evidence to these claims—if I am drawing upon them accurately.

The elements of the structure conceived are, one- the consciousness, two- influences upon the consciousness, three- mental faculties, and four- the will. The consciousness is held as the nexus, or locus, of the conscious person; it receives influences and exerts the will to take action in response to those influences. Ideally, that is. Those response actions or decisions are made with the aid of the mental faculties. The influences upon the consciousness considered here are perception, instinct, emotion, rational patterns, and creative choice. The mental faculties considered here are perception, memory, reason, and imagination (also will, but that is considered separately as being distinct and special). The will is understood as the exertion of the conscious being, of the being of consciousness itself, upon the body; this incepts physical action. Together these elements form a structure by which we can understand the human capacity to make free choices. To make any choices, really, or take any action, as these same elements are still present when free will is not exercised.

I understand the consciousness itself to be distinct from the brain. This will be developed further below as my field-based model of consciousness/will. In brief, I assert that the consciousness takes place within, or as, the distinct stable 'energy field' generated by the body, in full participation with the body, particularly the brain and neural system, but not within or as the physical brain structure itself. This field-based model is an important part of the overall understanding developed within the essay, but for now may be put aside. It is very useful to meet certain objections but is not critical to an understanding of the structure of free choice being developed in this portion of the essay.

For now, I will simply rely on a common intuitive understanding of the consciousness and its capabilities. That is, a person is conscious in that they have a continuous sensorium at least while in a waking state. That sensorium contains distinct types of stimuli that the consciousness decides/perceives/has learned as requiring responses, and the consciousness perceives itself as deciding between alternative responses or perhaps acceding to a given response. I think this definition, if carefully parsed, will be acceptable to most readers. So the consciousness is the locus of the person, which receives influences (the distinct types of stimuli) and at least perceives itself as sometimes choosing alternative responses to those influences.

Those influences upon the consciousness, as considered here, fall into the categories of perception, instincts or urges, emotions or desires, rational patterns, or creative choice. There may be others I have overlooked, and some people may disagree with my categorization, but in any case these are sufficient here for the limited purposes of the essay.

Perception, or perhaps better phrased as 'reaction to perception', is a bit of a catchall influence category but still useful to consider. It is important not to just lump these into the 'instinct' category because humans at least notice and react to some things more than to others, and different people notice and react to different things. The sensorium itself that the consciousness receives must be shaped and interpreted and limited before the consciousness receives it. We, as conscious beings, do not directly access the sensory organs of the body, but rather the sensory organs transmit data to the physical brain; the physical brain and the non-conscious mind compound and interpret that data into a sensorium to provide to the consciousness. At any given moment this may seem like a rigid relationship in which the consciousness is somewhat a captive of the perceptions that are passed along, but over time people can be trained, or train themselves, to have an altered or focused emphasis in regards to the perceptions received into the sensorium of the consciousness.

So, we may consider the influences of perception to be: direct impulses on the consciousness as reactions generated and passed from the non-conscious mind in response to specific perceptual stimuli, outright alterations of the conscious sensorium by the brain and/or non-conscious mind, and specific perceptual focuses which provide direct indications to the consciousness of the relative importance of given stimuli. These are somewhat arbitrarily given here, in the interest of brevity, but I think the previous paragraph at least suggests how they may be arrived at. [Though DSV notes that the living mind itself is also capable of direct perception.]

My second influences category is that of the instincts, or the urges, or perhaps instead that of the subconscious impulses. These may be conditioned responses that press upon the consciousness or instead attempt to circumvent conscious choice, inherited influences that do the same, responses picked up or impressed during human developmental phases, 'deeper' responses having to do with basic survival conditions, and etc. They are above the basic substratum of the perceptual sensorium, but are largely buried away from conscious knowledge or deliberation. The instinct to remove the body from pain stimuli, such as to jerk a hand away from an open flame, is one example. There are many others, but I think this brief description is adequate for my purposes here. Though of course these are not irrevocable or unchanging, any more than are the influences of perception. Paul Atreides and the Gom Jabbar and the pain box are fiction, but Herbert was describing an outcome within the realm of human capacity when Paul kept his hand in that box despite the pain.1 So too can a person exert their will to keep a hand within open flame, despite the very strong instinctual urge to jerk it away.

My third influences category is that of the emotions and the desires. I will not attempt an exhaustive definition here either, as I think these to be commonly understood sufficient for my purposes. Call them less basic, less deep, urges that influence the consciousness in various ways, obtaining to more complex situations, but still not things that are fully rationally understood or always open to conscious control. So as the 'perception' category alters the very fabric of the sensorium and the 'instincts/urges' category is mostly buried away from conscious perusal, the 'emotions/desires' category is more visible, more understood consciously, but not in its entirety. These influences do still yield to alteration over time, from conscious training or otherwise. Consider that anger may arise as an influence on the consciousness, repetitively in response to a specific stimulus (such as slow traffic while driving), but cultivating patience as an opposing response can lessen or eliminate the force of influence of that anger upon the consciousness. Even to the point that anger no longer arises in response to that stimulus.

Patience, in that case, being an example of my fourth influences category, rational patterns. These may be any number of learned, trained, or deliberately consciously chosen influences that impact the consciousness, but are ones that have become set over time rather than in a given moment. Thus I write of cultivating patience, rather than of simply creating it in oneself. We may consider these to be learned or trained influences, consciously arrived at through some use of the reason or else through acceptance of knowledge imparted by others, and which pattern-match older reasoning to new situations. Rational patterns are those influences that impact the consciousness that have been set within the view of the consciousness and by the choices of the consciousness over time. Though not necessarily with full conscious understanding, of course. We acquire habits from choices/actions that are repeated over time, but we do not necessarily deliberate upon or understand the full meaning or implications of those habits.

And of course none of these categories are fully distinct one from another in actual life, any more than the consciousness is fully distinct from the sensorium or the subconsciousness, etc. Addiction to nicotine might seem to fall into this category of influence, because imbibing is a choice/action made over time, but addictions also partake of the second and third, and even the first, categories. These categorical distinctions are useful in certain ways, but not necessarily exhaustive or pure.

Though perhaps my fifth and final category of influence is such, at least in some ways. I term this one as 'creative choice', and it is both special and distinct. Showing that people have this capacity relies to some extent upon my theory of consciousness which is further developed below, and my explanation of it draws upon the mental faculties which will be described next, but simply put it is the capacity of the consciousness to influence itself. That is, using the mental faculties of imagination, memory, and reason, and the special ability of will, the human consciousness is capable of adapting its responses to other influences upon it, of modifying those influences upon it, and even of generating an original influence upon itself. This last is perhaps most important for my theory propounding free will, as it entails not only the ability to choose between alternatives but also the capacity to imagine and create a new alternative to choose.

I expound on this further below, but for now will proceed to discussion of those mental faculties by use of which this may be possible. This influence category (creative choice) is at the heart of my 'competing influences' model of free choice and requires more development to fully explain. The mental faculties that need to be discussed for this essay are, perception, memory, reason, imagination, and then, separately, the special ability called the will.

Perception is considered to be both a mental faculty and a category of influence, because while the brain and non-conscious mind have significant impact in shaping overall perceptions, the conscious mind seems to be the source of direction and focus for human perceptions. The sensorium is provided to the consciousness, but conscious interest in specific aspects of perception may even occur prior to the full shaping of that sensorium, and it is certainly the case that the conscious mind can direct its attention and focus upon specific aspects of the sensorium. So, as a mental faculty, perception is an active state of the mind rendered to the consciousness, in conjunction with the brain interface. Always limited and shaped by the physical body, the brain, and the non-conscious mind, of course, but still yielding some to the power of the consciousness. This faculty of perception is of critical importance in focused learning and understanding, and in the idea that we can make joinings or divisions within the mental world of the individual regardless of whether they exist in any overall world outside of individual minds.

The faculty of memory is considered here as collected experience and thoughts available for recall by the consciousness, but also those which may not be recallable, not immediately recallable, or just not recalled (which can still affect the non-conscious mind in some way). So there is a blending here also in that memory impacts the influences upon the consciousness whether or not the conscious mind is utilizing it, but deliberate memory is also a distinct capacity of the conscious mind. The conscious mind draws upon this faculty to bring forth the wealth of previous experiences for various mental purposes. Beyond these points, it is commonly understood what is meant by 'memory', so a more precise or exhaustive definition will not be attempted.

The faculty of reason is also commonly understood, for my purposes to include all deliberate mental process that is not covered by the other faculties listed. So, pattern matching and analysis, mental projection states (also called 'knowledge'), deliberate thought or pondering, speculation, decision-making, and etc. As a faculty, this can be a source for the influence category of rational patterns, taking place in the present moment, while those influences of rational patterns are the results of thoughts and decisions made over time.

The faculty of imagination, distinct from reason or memory or perception though partaking in part in the capacities of all of them, is also something that may be commonly and generally understood in an intuitive sense. More specifically for my purposes, it is the faculty used to create or project internal mental states which are not directly received from perceptions and not purely drawn from memory, though may utilize aspects of both. It is considered to include non-conscious intermingling of memories, past perceptions, past thoughts, and past imaginings. More importantly for the purposes of a structure of free will, it is also considered to include deliberate efforts of the consciousness to achieve a unique mental projection state or a unique thought pattern. The imagination is the faculty of creativity, supported by the will, that draws upon the past but also makes the new.

Which brings us to the will. Central to this structure of free choice, the will is that faculty which the consciousness utilizes to choose between the influences upon it. Or it may be surrendered, to allow the strongest (or most preemptive) influence upon the consciousness, or just upon the person, at any given moment to lead to the action of that moment. Or instead it may be exercised to make a creative choice, whether in the moment of that choice or prior to it through conscious planning. The will is capable of all of these things because it is the expression of the being of the consciousness, the force of that being expressed. If held docile or dormant, the person simply accedes to strong influences upon them as those influences come. If exercised, the person may instead choose between those influences. And if the will is trained, strengthened, and the consciousness itself becomes practiced in the utilization of the mental faculties, unique outcomes of choice may be freely created through the use of that will.

I will not claim that all people have this capacity in full, or even that all people are capable of developing it. But all people have conscious will. All those that are conscious have will, for will is the expression of the being of the consciousness. It does seem to be the case that most healthy, adult, fully formed human beings have the necessary faculties to develop the ability to achieve true freedom of choice as described here. It does not seem to be the case that very many people do so to any great degree. But in order for the conscious capacity to choose to have outward effect, to achieve action in the consensus world of shared perception among people, the will as the expression of the consciousness must have a cascade effect, through the mind, through the brain, through the nerves and muscles, down to the extremities of the physical body which impart physical force. The next [discussion point] of this essay will attempt to hypothesize the aspects of that process which are less well known or not known at all. After that I will discuss various ways in which the expression of free choice is limited or abridged.

(3) Model of Consciousness

My basic idea is that the consciousness takes place within the energetic field that is generated by the body; the will is the exertion of that field upon the cells and systems of the body. I postulate this 'energy field' as the electromagnetic field generated by the biological processes of the body, but it is unclear whether such a model is sufficient to describe it in full. Regardless of how successful my attempt is here, there does seem to be sufficient reason to doubt a brain-cellular consciousness model, that claims the consciousness as being derived solely, or mostly, from physical brain interaction activity.

I do not deny that such activity has a generative role, over time and in any given moment, for the energy field of the body. There is too much correlation to doubt that the physical structure of the neural system is an integral part of the conscious experience. Instead, I am claiming that the consciousness itself takes place in the field that is constantly being generated by that neural system, rather than in some physical location or locations within the neural system. More, that over time (and given the fulfillment of necessary conditions) that field develops sufficiently in strength and self-awareness to be able to deliberately influence the bodily structures that initially generated it, and to a lesser extent continually support it. So do adult humans come into the capacity for self-discipline and self-mastery after a period of childhood development.

Consider: every single cell in the body, while it lives, is generating an electromagnetic field. Different types for different cells, but all of those fields are interacting. This cannot be an accidental or random process, given the consistency of human development and bodily life. Those cellular fields, and the organ-cluster fields in which they are grouped, and the bodily system fields in which those are grouped, are all grouped in turn into a full body field dominated by the enormously complex field of the brain.

Over time, that field becomes enduring and to an extent self-sustaining. Consider that something like one percent of the body's cells are replaced daily2, but the electromagnetic field of the whole body continues throughout the life and death processes of the cells. The simple objection here is the state of unconsciousness during sleep, taking place on a daily basis for most people. But I am not claiming to fully equate the body energy field and the consciousness. I am instead stating that the consciousness takes place within it. I think that the field itself is the mind, which has both conscious and non-conscious components. Dominated by the neural system to be certain, and though it seems strange to think that the living skin cells of the big toe are contributing to the mind, nevertheless it is the case that every living cell in the body contributes to the overall body electromagnetic field that is the mind.

That covers at least some description of the enduring character of the mind-field, but what of the self-sustaining aspect? To add yet another radical claim to this essay, I assert that the mind-field, once generated and developed in capacity, is capable of partaking in various potential sources of energy to sustain itself, and is not restricted solely to the particular field-energy-generation of the cellular body. Though of course that last remains very important.

Electromagnetism is a spectrum; it is also mutable. A continuously existent electromagnetic field will, not might but will, have some innate capacity to gather and transmute accidental electromagnetic fields with which it comes into contact. The process will be haphazard and dangerous (one might consider the rise and even prevalence of various cancers in this new electromagnetic age), but survivors will have learned to adapt to differing potential sources of field-sustaining energy. And to tune out or otherwise protect themselves from corruption by other sources of electromagnetic interference. The necessity for which helps to explain the capacity of the consciousness and overall mind, seldom fully developed but still adequate, to maintain a state of balance in the midst of ongoing interactions with other field-systems ('exterior', such as other people, or naturally or technologically generated E-M fields) and competing influences within the field-system of the mind-body ('interior', broken down above into categories of influence). Some people who have intentionally developed this mental capacity for a balanced state have described it variously as the oneness, inner peace, zen, wal, the void, a state of virtue, stoicism, perfection, grace, and etc, but in any case all people that survive must have it to some extent, both conscious and non-conscious. In order to continue surviving, but also to continue to function as an autonomous individual. [Consider that my principle of Dignity is how I integrate this mental capacity into the DSV ethic.]

That state of balance, particularly conscious balance, extends in importance beyond this model of consciousness to be of critical support for the overall model of free choice being developed in this essay. The conscious balance, especially a developed and extended one, between competing influences creates a 'space' in which consciousness need not be determined by any of the influences upon it. Conscious balance is the integral capacity to resist the drives of those influences. It is the potential to halt, even if only temporarily, any and all chains of causality which impact upon a person. In that halting resides the potential to break those chains of causality. Thus it is, that the necessary ability of individual life to protect itself from electromagnetic chaos contains also the seed of freedom for the conscious mind of that life.

I should note that I consider just 'electromagnetism' to be an insufficient explanation for all of the phenomena which I am using it to describe. I use it more for convenience, and it may be the case that I simply do not understand the more subtle aspects of the potentials of electromagnetism, but there seems to be something lacking when I attempt to match these postulations to the known accordances of that spectrum. Perhaps we as a people have not yet fully explored that phenomena which we term 'electromagnetism'. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps instead that which we term 'the electromagnetic spectrum' is simply one part of a greater phenomena that we as yet lack the subtlety to describe or even comprehend. Whatever the case, I think the charitable reader will forgive me my inadequacies as I attempt to describe potential reality with my own limited understanding—the work is worth the uncertainty. [At the time of writing the essay, I had not developed the Soul-Spirit-Matter paradigm. The reader may understand that the electromagnetic spectrum is where the part of Spirit that interfaces with matter is most likely to take place. The part of Spirit that interfaces with Soul is beyond this spectrum and does not interact with the material. You could say that the electromagnetic spectrum and the Spirit spectrum are overlapping in part but not in full. Spirit bridges the dimensions of matter and of soul, but does not bring them into contact with each other.]

While the model described above has various implications (such as whether one can endure beyond bodily death, especially in conjunction with a model of potential interaction with various dimension-states, the hidden dimensions, other possible realms of existence), I will bring the discussion back to those implications specific to the human capacity to make free, rather than determined, choices.

So, the consciousness takes place within the mind-field, and the will is the conscious exertion of some part of that field to influence the body or other aspects of the mind-field.3 Some proofs of this are obvious: I can consciously and deliberately reach out my hand to pick up an object. Specific pathways of conscious control are built into the body and laid open for smooth utilization by the conscious will. The human developmental process, in terms of physical learning and education, shows that these pathways are a matter of individual development and specialization but are also general features of people—unique, in particular realization within a specific mind-body system, but common, in that each (healthy, fully formed) person is able to obtain equivalent results. Most everyone can pick up an object, deliberately and consciously, even if we all have unique iterations of developing the capacity to do so.

Though most people will not be aware of the fullness of the process (some will have developed more awareness than others). I conceive it as a cascade effect, in that the consciousness wills an action which is imparted to the overall mind and the mind utilizes well established field-neural links (starting in the brain but linked onward) that stimulate generation of electrical impulses that trigger muscle contractions in a particular sequence. So-called 'muscle memory' will then be those responses to particular situations that have become so practiced that each step along the way, each domino in the cascade, requires little or no active force to participate once more in that process. With practice, less will is required by the consciousness to achieve the same result, to the point that it may become largely or entirely non-conscious in achievement, and to the point where the mind itself may have little or no input and the process becomes pure reflex (for good or ill). In terms of my competing influences model of free choice, these habitual actions, once chosen and practiced by the consciousness as free choices, may become non-chosen influences upon the consciousness or even automatic and non-conscious, unless the consciousness once again deliberately exerts itself (its will) upon the mind-body to reverse or otherwise alter those ingrained responses (those habits).

This [discussion point] has offered a series of radical claims that are not fully supported. Which potentially cannot be fully supported given the present state of human science. I still think them to be interesting, regardless, and quite possibly true as well. Let each reader decide on this for their own self. This field-model of consciousness (and mind, and human existence) will not be further developed here beyond one more point, as what has been stated is sufficient for present purposes and any attempt at full development will require an essay of its own, or a book (if possible at all). [Thus was begun the DSV project, or part of it.]

The last point is that the sovereign domain of the consciousness, that [part] of the mind-body potential which is yielded up to conscious 'control' (capacity to choose between or create influences), is not static.

Throughout development toward adulthood a given individual will pass multiple tiers of increased personal control/responsibility (sovereignty) over ever broadening aspects of their self. 'Adulthood' is a term used for when a person has reached a sort of plateau in this process correlating to a common set of sovereign controls over the physical body. In many cases such seems to be age-based and almost automatic with the passage of time.

Concurrent with this process of physical sovereignty, however, there is a process of training in mental states of sovereignty which are determined differently within different cultural groups—and for individuals within each cultural group that receive specialized training that differs from the norm. These may be task-based. A plumber will require a different set of trained controls over their self than will a physicist. The latter requiring a variety of mental-state controls not needed by the former, though the plumber will also have developed a set of controls suited to that occupation which the physicist (professionally) will lack.

The relevant point (for this essay) being that the development, expansion or contraction or just differentiation, of conscious sovereignty over the mind-body, the being of the person, can and does change over time. The examples just above focus on expansions or increased developments, but the person may also yield up conscious control over aspects of their self. The physicist who instead becomes a plumber will lose some or all of the skills of that former profession over time as they are unpracticed, and the mind allocates resources toward those other skills that the conscious will demands over time.

So too can the capacity of the person to make free choices expand, or shrink, or just become different over time. Need, as expressed by conscious will, determines the attempted boundaries of our choices. We only live in the present moment; there is only so much that we can focus our power of conscious choice on in any given moment. It is a good thing, indeed it is outright necessary, that we are able to yield up conscious control, to limit conscious sovereignty, over those things that do not require our attention. Good habits, once acquired, may and should stand unmodified.4 Conversely, there are few, if any, aspects of the mind-body which will not, in extremis or otherwise, yield to the sovereignty of the consciousness. Bad habits can and should be modified or removed, through a variety of means but always also by consciously willed alteration of the self—which generally requires a consciously willed alteration of the consciousness, in order to bring into conscious sovereignty or conscious awareness/control/responsibility, within a given moment, those aspects of the self integral to the bad habit in question. [Thus Simplicity is argued as having equal importance to Dignity.]

The locus of the mind-field of the person which is the consciousness has the (repeatedly historically demonstrated) capacity to influence or directly alter many (or possibly all) other components of the person and even itself. So does the living, dynamic, electromagnetic field that is the human navigate and adapt to the world of life. [So does the living spirit that is the person navigate and adapt to this reality.]

(4) Competing Influences Model Restated

The importance of my influences category termed as 'creative choice' thus becomes more clear. The consciousness has power, but is also very limited in capacity for change (for deliberate choice) within any given moment. By developing influences upon itself and the total person that do not require ongoing complete effort within each moment, but that are still the creation of the consciousness (through utilization of the mental faculties), the individual is able to extend the power of the consciousness beyond the temporal boundaries of the moment.

Above, this is termed as the capacity of the consciousness to influence itself. This is so, but through that capacity the consciousness may also influence all aspects of the person (and the greater world, of course, via actions taken over time). The means which is utilized to do so being the capacity to generate one of those influences of the moment that lead to the actions of the person in a given moment (or the modification of an existing influence, or adaptation to an existing influence). Such as a mental reminder. A re-definition of a known term. The categorization of a certain act as evil, or good, or neither. In short, any deliberately chosen modification or creation of belief-structure, knowledge-base, or any aspect of the mind or body or mind-body interface or mind-body conjunction of the person, such that future choices of the conscious person are influenced.

So, to restate my competing influences model of choice: At any given moment there are a number of influences upon the person that demand or suggest certain different actions for the person to take in that moment.  The actions that a person takes in any given moment are often derived from these influences, from various sources noted above and broken down into various categories, but the conscious part of the mind has a special capacity (the ability of energetic balance) to choose between these influences at least as they rise to the level of impinging on the consciousness (conscious awareness). Further, through utilization of the will—which is the energetic expression of the conscious component of the mind field, and may be amplified circumstantially by harnessing in other components of the mind-field—the consciousness may adapt or modify or even generate original influences upon the person by altering the mind-body state in various ways with that energetic expression.

The ability to deny the expression of other influences and instead generate and choose an original influence/action may even take place within that given moment of choice (for a person having well-developed mental capacities, or instead in a case of critical/existential need) and amounts to a capacity for the person to make free choices (if that is considered a necessary component of such capacity, beyond the easier abilities to influence and otherwise alter oneself over time). Regardless, the actions of people need not be determined by the influences upon them. The chains of causality of the past do not bind the autonomous expression of human consciousness.

(5) Limits and Failures

But are human choices, in practice, determined? Often it does seem to be the case that the actions people take are determined by circumstances and causes beyond their control. Because of this, it can be said that the choices people make are largely determined for them prior to the conscious decisions that they make. Or that those conscious decisions are mere psychological illusions—comforting beliefs, but ultimately false. Observations such as these can be made into different types of argument against there being freedom of choice, or against any freedom of choice being meaningful.

I will discuss these possibilities further below, in terms of determinist positions that claim free will to be precluded or otherwise not meaningful, and also other points of objection or philosophical interest. This present [discussion point] will first focus on consideration of various ways in which the structure of free choice modeled above may fail—outcomes which are beyond the limits of the structure of free choices presented in the essay. I think that most, if not all, arguments against free will can be explained as a failure in some aspect of our capacity for free choices, rather than as there being no capacity for free choice or that capacity being not meaningful. It is not the case that we cannot be free. To the contrary, the capacity for free choice, tied up as it is into the very being of what we are, may well be the most meaningful thing about us as people.

Here I will discuss three categories of limitation to the structure of free choices which is developed above. That is, I will summarize failings in that structure or limitations beyond which it may not function into three general categories. Those categories are: developmental failures in the personal faculties, ignorance or false knowledge, and the willful surrender of choices. One may note as this discussion develops that I do not include wrongful choices, or what one may call bad will, in these categories. This is because, while wrong choices may often lead to these categorized failures and so reduce one's capacity for choice, the act of doing so is actually an expression of free choice and so operates within the above structure of those free choices. As with those above, these categories are not meant to be exhaustive but rather summaries and introductory thoughts on this aspect of the structure of free choice.

Developmental failures in the personal faculties, which may also be termed undeveloped or misdeveloped personal capacities, include many possible outcomes.

Every mental faculty explored above may be left undeveloped in an individual, or may instead be misdeveloped so as to not serve the consciousness well in its pursuit of fateful choice. The memory may be neglected as a tool of conscious use, instead remaining at whatever default level a person arrives at through basic education or living necessities. The imagination may be deliberately limited to a constrained world-view, to narrow horizons, or instead not allowed to access or speculate on particular matters that the individual accepts as immutable; in either case the imaginative faculty cannot be fully developed, but only grow as possible within those constraints. This will also lead to lack of creativity. Similarly, the reason may be withheld from certain areas that are instead accepted from some other authority than the individual mind, stopping the mind from utilizing that faculty or developing it fully. And so forth, for these and other mental faculties.

Failure to develop the will or placing limitations on the growth of the will, of course, will lead to rather critical limits upon one's capacity to choose freely in life. Though I may also point out that being 'willful' is often considered an undesirable trait for individuals to have when assessed on a societal scale. Thus various civilizations have sought to discourage the unbridled development of personal will in the majority of its population. Through various means. These counter-efforts to the development of individual will must be carefully balanced—it was implied above that the will is directly tied into human health and longevity—and so a diligent individual should be able to overcome both physiological based counter-efforts (to a limited degree) and mental-control efforts (almost entirely).

There are also a broad range of reasons directly impacting and derived from the physical body which can lead to an individual not having a fully developed ability to make free choices. Such as drug abuse. Poor diet, especially during childhood but also throughout a life. Overexposure to neurotoxins (in the water, perhaps?). Injury, especially to the brain or neural system. Some types of illness. Some genetic disorders. And etc. Some of these may be overcome, with effort and luck. Others may be lifelong afflictions, such that the individuals affected may never fully develop their capacity to make free choices. [Though through the spirit, and love, it is possible to overcome just about any barrier or failing. And perhaps any at all.]

Though it should also be noted that development of individual capacities may continue as long as life continues. Children do not necessarily have the capacity to overcome the influences upon their minds in order to choose otherwise in a particular situation, but if they continue to develop their faculties they will increase their ability to make choices in life. Just so, the many adults who have failed to develop, or been hindered in developing, their mental faculties in full, may continue to do so throughout their lives (though sadly most adults seem to halt mental development, or at least drastically slow it, upon reaching physical maturity).

My second category of limitation is ignorance. This may also be termed as false knowledge. The most pertinent form of which is a belief held by an individual that they do not have the capacity to make free choices, whether because they think they are determined by some unending universal cycle of material cause and effect, because mainstream philosophy has told them that free will is an illusion, or because of some other false reason. And it can only be the case that a belief position counter to the existence of free will, of the capacity to make free choices, is false; as pointed out above, we cannot survive as individuals without some ability to break the casual chain, to balance and exert our being against the influences of the world.

More broadly, the mind of any individual is limited and shaped by its belief structure. Any false beliefs, limiting beliefs, or education/indoctrination that reduces the capacity of the individual to think freely, or to make free choices, if only in the privacy of their own mind, falls into this category. Thus may our choices be limited by what we believe—at any given moment. Fortunately, beliefs are temporary constructs of thought that may be changed by effort of will—provided that some little capacity to choose remains to incept alteration of the belief structure (and which always will remain while conscious life endures).

My third category of limitation is the willful surrender of choices. That is, any individual may freely alter their belief structure or personal commitment of being to limit possible choices rather than to expand them. This may be good, arguably, such as willfully limiting one's capacity for vice or to do evil (however that may be defined). But at any point in which the will or potential action is limited deliberately, there exists the potential to abridge one's own capacities to choose and in so doing place limitations upon the being of the self. The vices (pride, lust, greed, etc) actually do this in an unambiguously harmful manner—they limit the being of the self in various ways. Pride by blinding the consciousness from seeing the true self, lust by altering perceptions of the self and the world into sexual (or very mentally limited) channels, and etc.5

Also included in this category is the surrender of the will to another, or to a cause. That is, not only utilizing one's choices to serve a united goal, but also deliberately surrendering the capacity of the will to choose into the hands of another. Personally, I judge this latter choice to always be wrong. It is a surrender of personal responsibility, of the individual duty to continually judge and discriminate the use of the power of one's will. If a cause is worth serving, then by all means serve it if you choose. But do so with a series of fully consciously chosen actions over time, rather than by pledging oneself to blindly follow the will of another.

As noted, these categories of limitation in the structure by which people make free choices are not exhaustive, but I think they do serve to reinforce the key point that outcomes, or people, in which a lack of free choice is apparent, do not exist because free choice does not exist, but rather because the structure by which free choices are made has been exceeded or broken down in some way.

(6) Philosophical Points

This [discussion point] will be used to discuss and clarify a number of points of interest, as well as to detail answers to some arguments against there being free will.

The old standby argument for determinism is the claim, based on an understanding of science, that past events coupled with the laws of nature6 render free choice to be impossible. That we, and all human actions, are entirely determined by past events and the inevitable chains of causality that they have engendered.

I think that my model adequately renders null this argument. The human consciousness is a special state that is able to create a place of balance for itself by meeting the influences upon it, the forces of the past, with the force of its own being, the will. At the most basic level, that is. More generally, the development of humans as they are now has been a long process of willful development to improve the capacity to choose—the evolution of these minds and bodies that respond to the will, the development of human science and technology to increase control over the natural world, and etc. Even more generally, it seems likely that non-human animals at least and potentially all autonomous entities have some power of consciousness and so some ability to interrupt chains of causality.

That old scientific argument is dated because it is derived from an interpretation of the meaning of Newtonian physics—the clockwork universe, or some such. Now, Newtonian physics has been superseded by relativistic (Einsteinian) physics and also challenged outright by quantum mechanics. That is, we know that Newtonian physics is false (as are models of the universe and systems of logic based upon it), but we still use it because it provides useful approximations and good data within a certain range of scale.

There are some newer arguments for determinism based instead upon quantum mechanics. One of which is that quantum indeterminism (uncertainty, causal breaks) cancels out at the macro level where human interactions occur—that it is half one way and half the other way, so we need not consider it. My model does not really touch upon the quantum scale of interaction per se, but the possibility of quantum indeterminacy does provide a potential avenue of support for my model of conscious choice. That is, even if the micro level of quantum indeterminism normally cancels out at the macro level, the precarious balance of the delicate and complex field interactions in which the human consciousness takes place may take advantage of that indeterminacy (theoretically) to support the capacity for undetermined choices. By altering chance at the delicate point of decision.

The Libet experiments7 present another challenge that I think my model may overcome. These experiments purported to show that there was 'preparatory' brain activity prior to human actions, which was interpreted to mean that the conscious deliberation of choice was a mere illusion regarding something that had already been decided by the brain or perhaps the non-conscious mind. There is some criticism of Libet, of the methods used and how far the interpretation can be taken, but I will not get into that here. Even taking his results as given, my model may show an alternative interpretation of the meaning of that preparatory activity. That is, the preparatory activity may represent an influence upon the consciousness from the brain. That such influences may have been consistently chosen by the person being monitored may show that it was a strong influence. We may also consider that the persons involved in the study may not have very well developed their capacity to make free choices—or conversely, that the stakes involved in the study were so low that they saw no reason to exert their wills against the influences upon them.

Now to move on to basic questions in the literature that should be answered. Does my model represent the 'freedom to do otherwise'? Yes—provided that the capacity to do so has been developed. The 'power of self-determination'? Yes—with the same caveat, and given that this requires both choices in the moment and efforts to enable change over time. Can there be 'irresistible desire'? No and yes—any desire can be resisted by the consciousness itself, but whether this plays out into the body not taking the action of desire is also a matter of developed capacity. Those who have developed that capacity may give in, or not give in, as they choose; those who have not developed that capacity will give in to that strong desire.

What is the relationship of willed choices to actions/outcomes? A person makes choices, mentally, if they have the requisite developed mental structure to do so. Those choices become physical actions if the requisite physical structure to do so is also in place. Which means that there must be a cascade structure of sovereignty such that the will of the consciousness is borne out through the mind, through the brain, through the body in order to accomplish physical action. Of course, taken conversely, not all actions are conscious choices. Far from it—much human action is of unconscious origin, whether reflex or instinct or the greater mind eclipsing the consciousness or etc.

What of moral responsibility? This is one aspect, though a significant and important topic in the free will debate, that my conscious-influences model of choice does not really get into. I think that my model may have a number of repercussions in regards to how moral responsibility may be judged, but the model itself is concerned entirely with the innate human capability to make free choices. Whereas moral responsibility is a derived judgment, which may or may not consider larger human interactions among people. [This makes the essay a suitable contribution to the DSV ethic, which does provide a structure of moral responsibility.]

Do we have free will? We have will, because we are conscious and the will is the exertion of the being of the consciousness. The being of the consciousness can be exerted as will, always. Whether that will is free, or has the capacity to make free choices that become chosen actions, depends. There is a full structure, a cascade of links, by which chosen actions take place. Failure in the structure, inadequate structure, or simply non-utilization of the structure, will result in a person that has constrained or even not-free actions. Though of course that situation may always change over time, as the consciousness may expand or alter its realm of sovereignty and so effect changes to the structure. Also, heroic efforts of will are capable of overcoming many limitations, though at great cost of effort to the individual.

Outright determinism of conscious entities is false, because the consciousness and a properly developed structure of action have the capacity to effect change, but determinism in practice of many conscious entities is nonetheless true. Even among human beings, which have the possibility for very strong powers of self-determination, there are many who are not capable of exercising such because of failures in their personal structures of choice, and many more who simply fail to make the effort to develop their innate capacities very much. Practically speaking, many people are determined in action, due to these failures. Though not all, and many more have the capability to escape that determinism given time, heroic effort, or both.

In this way, oddly enough, my position is both somewhat compatibilist (in that we have free will despite possible practical determinism) and fully incompatibilist (in that there is no absolute determinism of conscious entities). Because of the intricacies of the matter; this is not a refutation of my initial statement of incompatibilism. Determinism, or at least the causality of extant forces, prevails absent the intervention of consciousness. This includes human actions that are not consciously chosen/willed, except possibly for actions incepted by non-conscious mind (as mind that is not conscious is still very similar to consciousness in character, taking place also within generated fields). Human actions may not be determined, but often are. The human capacity for change, the power of creation, remains. [We can seize free will if we choose to do so and are willing to afford the cost. We can establish and maintain strong personal Dignity.]

Essay Notes

1- Herbert, Frank. 2006. Dune. London, England: Hodder Paperback.

2- Scientific American 324, 4, 76 (April 2021), doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0421-76.

3- Also potentially other electromagnetic phenomena or even other physical phenomena, but I will not get into that further here—the effect is both specialized and subtle, making it problematic to be applied to other things than mind or body control, and the total energy involved is very limited and thus usually not applicable for gross physical effects.

4- Unless the individual world/situation changes such that the habits are no longer good, in which case they become not-good habits and should be modified.

5- Vice, and virtue, are actually very interesting intersections with the human capacity to make free choices. Each of the vices limit the being and capacities of the individual in some way, as the opposing virtues expand the same; each of the vices can or have been harnessed to serve the goals of a broader society (at the expense of the individuals in it), whereas those opposing virtues have the opposite effect upon those societal goals (in a society, that is, which has developed to harness the vices rather than to structurally encourage the virtues). Greed and gluttony and envy may drive the economy. Pride is harnessed to nationalism, or any group mythos really. Lust and sloth absorb excess energies into leisure activity, which energies might instead be used for political or social protest. And etc.

6- If there are such things. I prefer to think of those things defined as natural law instead in terms of forces and behaviors of this realm of existence, this conjunction dimension-state, that can be met, force to force, or rendered mutable given sufficient alteration of state.

7- Libet, Benjamin, 1985, “Unconscious Cerebral Initiative and the Role of Conscious Will in Voluntary Action”, Behavioral and Brain Science, 8(4): 529–566. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00044903.

See also: Libet, Benjamin, 2002. “Do We Have Free Will?” in Oxford Handbook of Free Will, ed. Robert Kane, 1st edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 551–64.

(7) DSV Integration

As the reader will note, this is a much more detailed model of free will than is presented or discussed in Everyday Ethic. Bracketed notes [ ] have been inserted into the existing essay to relate aspects of it to DSV.

Study of the essay will be beneficial to those seeking a better explanation of how personal will can be utilized to claim and hold mental balance (Dignity) and establish and use mental focus (Simplicity). To some extent, the 'rational patterns' category of 'influences upon the consciousness' is where the virtues fall. Though the Circle of Being does not take place, much, in the rational part of the mind, the virtues of soul are still obtained and held by patterns of conscious thought. The Circle of Mind is certainly encapsulated by 'rational patterns'. The virtues of spirit are themselves patterns of rationality, mostly, that are used to govern the mind as it responds to the body and the physical world. The Circle of Society is fully covered by this influence category. The virtues of honor are themselves rational patterns of action.

This essay was written prior to my development of the DSV ethic and my pattern of thinking on the human will has broadened since then in order to account for spirit and soul. The essay as written was careful to at least attempt to remain within standard academic norms of argument. Nonetheless, I am inserting the essay here largely unchanged because of its good argument for both the potential for free will and the need to develop and maintain that potential. A need that can be answered by practicing DSV. Particularly by practicing Dignity and Simplicity, but also more indirectly by practicing the virtues.

The ethic demands first that we shoulder our burdens of responsibility in this life. The way to go about doing so is to engage with and further develop the human capacity to make meaningful choices in this world. To build up and reinforce the structures within that enable the freedom of the will. In so doing, the ethical person will be adding more meaning to their life, concurrently with all of the other rewards able to be gained by practicing the ethic.

3c. On Spirit

This section of the ethic is devoted to some discussion of spirit, and soul. Mostly spirit. There is not a whole lot more to discuss regarding soul that has not already been mentioned in previous sections—some things can be known about soul, but mostly the nature of the thing is mysterious and does not lend itself to human knowledge states. Through intuitive mind states a person can come to understand some of its nature and relationships over time, as soul touches upon and drives a human life. This understanding is distinct from a state of knowledge that can be communicated to other people, however, so I will leave that gain in understanding for the practitioner of the ethic to find for their self. Choose love in your heart and you will find a deeper understanding of soul.

Spirit, though also somewhat mysterious, can be discussed and theorized upon more productively. In this section I go back over aspects of spirit that have been brought into the ethic and attempt to provide more support or warrant, or at least more discussion, regarding claims I have made in the ethic regarding spirit. I also attempt to further develop knowledge of what is meant by spirit and how it interacts with human life and with the world, particularly by drawing upon implications of the field-state theory of consciousness introduced in the previous section.

Spirit is somewhat ineffable, though not entirely, yet far more complex than I can relate or even attempt to describe in full. That is not the purpose of this section. Instead, I limit the scope of discussion to that which is manageable. In order to answer a few more questions than this work has managed thus far. In order to provide a few more lines of inquiry for a querent to follow. I will try to build this up from the somewhat analytical basis of my field-state theory of consciousness.

Note that the ideas in this section are mostly in regards to spirit in fundamental terms. The next section, On Consciousness and the Mind, is also about spirit—because mind is living spirit. If this section seems lacking in full discussion, read on. There are some things that are not discussed in full, for various reasons, but the different sections of Part Three all build upon each other, and the ethic as a whole, in some way.

Point one (1) is just below. The other discussion points of the section are dimension-state theory (2), field-states and the body (3), back to spirit (4), a note on evidence (5), and recursive self-amplifying spirit (6).

(1) Field-State Theory of Consciousness and Links with Spirit and Life

I developed a field-state theory of consciousness as a model to identify and discuss the human potential for free will. That is, the body, particularly the neural structure, produces a complex but integrated field-state that is ongoing throughout life. As produced, these are electromagnetic fields of various levels of modulation and complexity, with the conglomerate field merging into the most complex and subtly modulated field produced by the brain structure neurons. In the previous section I postulated that the consciousness takes place within this field-state, but I will modify that postulate here to account for spirit.

That is, the electromagnetic fields as produced by individual cells, organ clusters, and the overall body are being continually transmuted into more subtle forms of interaction. This is a spectrum, that has been historically identified in an intuitive consciousness sense as relating to the aspects of matter that a given section along that spectrum will resonate with. Earth, Water, Fire, Air, and finally Spirit, from least subtle to most subtle, are the sections of that spectrum historically identified. The consciousness itself, and the overall mind of which it is a part, takes place at the most subtle end of that spectrum. So we have a blending here, between electromagnetism and spirit, which cannot necessarily be distinguished one from another at any given point. Mind is spirit, but that spirit is plastic and so can also conform to resonance with the material. At the point of mind as just mind and composed of spirit that does not resonate with the material, I do not think it is an electromagnetic field state, not really, but rather a between state that is partially participant in the dimension-state of the material world and partially participant in a different dimension-state altogether. (More on dimension-states below.)

A few notes here on the elements model, along which the spectrum of mind may resonate with matter. You will see that I identify five ‘elements’ along that spectrum, rather than the ‘four elements’ of certain historical world views. Spirit is not an element of the material world and has no material correspondence. It is only present where life is present. Or possibly we can only identify it where life is present to identify it. So to discuss the material elements of the world, spirit is omitted and only earth, water, fire, and air need be mentioned. Why and how were these identified as the elements of the world? Through modulated perceptions of the mind and consciousness. That is, using the human mind itself as an instrument of perception. These phases of matter ‘resonate’ with the human mind along a distinct spectrum of perception; one that mirrors the spectrum of transmutation of energy within the living person (up the spine, as it were) and that also has echoes in the developmental life-stages of the human consciousness as it progresses through childhood and finally into adulthood. There are multiple correspondences to this elements model of world and spirit; all of them are from the perspective of the individual mind. Arguably, this is a better foundation for a human understanding of the universe than something like the atomic model theory of material elements, because this (five) elements model is centered on and based in the human mind. These five ‘elements’ and the ‘elements’ of the periodic table are not referring to the same things—there are correspondences, but the definitional bases are wildly different. What is my warrant for claiming validity for the five elements model as a method of relating the consciousness to the world? Historical (and pre-historical) studies verified by personal experimentation. Our ancestors were not stupid. Well, not all of them. An ‘elements’ understanding of the world, from the perspective of the individual consciousness, has been held and had been held for thousands upon thousands of years, by many different people and in a number of different cultures. This was not because of transmitted belief in some myth, but rather because individual practitioners could verify the model for themselves. As I have, and as you can if you are able. (Five Elements Theory is further developed in the section Other Points.)

The field-state in which the consciousness takes place develops and matures over time. The main driver for most people seems to be the strength and vitality of the body itself. Who does not recognize that they have a more expanded consciousness and greater strength of will as an adult than they had as a child? A child’s body furnishes less energy and has a smaller spectrum of transmutation than does the body of an adult. Some people seem to be able to break free from this dependence upon the body as the sole source of strength for their mind, but that will not be discussed in detail beyond this mention and the hints scattered around the rest of this work. I warn the reader again not to decouple such potential powers from practice of the ethic—the consequences can be severe and far reaching.

As the consciousness gains in strength and understanding it can exert more of the force of its being upon the body and to a much lesser extent upon the dimension-state of current existence which includes the material world. Generally, this faculty is intended to transmit will along the highly facilitated pathways of bodily movement or communication, and any attempt at gross manipulation of the material world furnishes far less energy than will be required to so manipulate matter. The subtle movements of the spirit accomplish much in themselves and among spirit, but must rely on a cascade of progressively less subtle linkages, from the mind to the brain to the nerves to the muscles, etc, in order to move the body or change the material world.

So we have the body producing the consciousness that then controls the body. Or rather, the body produces and transmutes some of the energy utilized by the mind and consciousness to both form itself and to do work, and has constant or near constant input therein. For I do not think the consciousness arises entirely through this mechanism, but rather that this is the mechanism used to power the mind that then coalesces a consciousness. Mind arises from an intrusion into the material dimension-state reality by another dimension-state altogether—which I term just as soul, for convenience and for historical reasons. The generation mechanism of the body accounts for one side of the reality of spirit, but the dimension-state intrusion of soul necessarily accounts for the other side. Here, I will pause this thread of discussion briefly in order to interject some necessary asides on ‘dimension-state’ and also some warrant on field-state control of body.

(2) Dimension-State Theory

My dimension-state theory is that reality is not composed from a unified whole of any sort, but rather from disparate multiple dimensions that are joined together in a stable or semi-stable manner to present the reality of the world as we know it. A dimension-state is a collection of joined dimensions. So material reality absent life is a dimension-state, the stable joined dimensions that in that joining form the elements of the material universe. Space might be one of those dimensions, time another, the strong and weak atomic forces others, and so on, though it is uncertain if these things fit or if the dimensions are instead more ‘pre-states’ that we cannot accurately label. This is not necessarily a new theory, and I am vaguely familiar with some theories that utilize multiple dimensions in the field of physics. To my knowledge mine is the only theory that incorporates multiple dimension conjunction with special states for life and the soul that life in part proceeds from.

The reality of our ‘universe’ is not monolithic, but rather formed from disparate dimensions into dimension-state. Or rather, dimension-states, as reality is not uniform in composition either. Some parts of the ‘universe’, of reality, will have a different dimension-state composition than other parts. Different dimension-state compositions mean different rules or laws of interaction. This model is an extrapolation based on local observations, but even in the locale of reality in which humanity lives there is evidence of shifting dimension-states. Possibly where life is not present, but certainly where life is present. Life changes reality. Ergo the presence of life indicates a dimension-state intrusion and a rebalanced dimension-state composition of reality.

Material reality with life present is different in kind from material reality without life present, as life itself is an intrusion into the material dimension-state by at least one new dimension and possibly entire new dimension-states. Probably the more complex the form of life the more complex the conglomerate dimension-state thus formed, with complex self-conscious life such as humans forming the most complex (and possibly least stable) dimension-state known. Because humans are active and variable in mind, it may be the case that temporary dimension-states of various composition are forming and dispersing around them as they live. Certainly the spirit of which the mind is formed and where the consciousness takes place is a different dimension-state from the material dimension-state, though they have some dimensions in common and so have some pathways of interaction.

Human beings seem to have a unique potential to utilize faculties of body and mind to willfully alter their dimension-state. That is, to both choose at least some of the dimension participation of their current dimension-state and to partially phase their degree of participation with some dimensions. This potential is astounding in implication, with far-reaching and powerful consequences. For the purposes of the ethic, which are core (good) human purposes and should take precedence over any other sort of power-seeking or just experimentation, this means that we have the ability to change ourselves and the world around us in a very real sense and not just metaphorically. If you choose to align yourself with the life-bolstering impetus of soul and to magnify that influence both within yourself and as you channel into the local world, you are effectively altering your dimension-state, altering your reality. The internal choices we make to be ethical, to be good, or instead the converse, literally alter reality both within us and around us. This is a limited alteration of reality from any one person, depending on how strong the person is, but real nonetheless. There is also a combined effect from multiple people making such choices. But enough of this for now. The point is very important, but this is enough said for the purposes of this section. For now, I will move on to providing additional warrant for field-state control of the body (or at least influence upon the body).

(3) Field-States and the Body

For a concrete example of field-state theory and how it can account for more than just consciousness, consider teeth. Why do teeth have nerves? Why do those nerves branch and extend to within a certain distance of the exterior of the tooth? Sensitivity for eating purposes is one answer, but the human tooth nerve structure is much greater in extent than would be required for that purpose alone. This is not accidental or without purpose.

Nerves project field states. The inversion of that projection is to transmit electrical impulses back along the filaments of the nerve structure, so that field state is not necessarily constant or complete, but it may be the case that such only occurs to signal a pain state that indicates damage. Or perhaps there is a flipping back and forth, or perhaps a partial field-state permits nerves signals to be transmitted in modulated form. Regardless, the field-state of the nerves in the teeth is relatively constant—for healthy people with healthy well-formed teeth. For those without perfect teeth (which is all of us), there has been some interruption in the field-state projection formation of the teeth. Such as improper diet, or environmental factors, or genetic problems, or simple lack of care. The matter of what teeth you end up with is complex and has many factors—the field-state projections of the nerves are one factor, but a very important one.

The field-states of the teeth nerves serve as both blueprint and constant model to keep teeth healthy and well formed. By regulating the plating and re-plating of the enamel. By helping to balance the E-M state of the mouth area, which also relates to the acid/base balance. By projecting a form-state ideal for the teeth themselves to grow into and maintain. The shape of a tooth is not accident, but rather a balance between an ideal projected by the nerve field meeting available space and resources. Further, the living parts of the tooth are participant in the field-state projected by the nerves of the tooth. The field-state shores up the health of living cells in need, just as it is supported energetically by those cells that are healthy. All interacts, and all finds a balance that becomes reality.

There are a number of assumptions built into this example, but I think it a good one. No one has perfect teeth. There are various influences on the formation of teeth over time. This example points out, correctly I think, that the field-state projections of the nerves are a primary and guiding influence upon tooth formation and tooth health over time. The nerves project an ideal ‘plan’ for the teeth in energetic form, which plan is modified and altered by various things but remains a constant influence. Healthy nerves do, that is. In a person with a well-developed neural structure. When the person retains sufficient personal energy to fully activate their nerves and nerve field-projections… There are many influences and factors that account for the reality of teeth formation. My example here seeks to point out the mechanism of influence of ideal tooth formation, as one example of the influence of the nerves upon the body and thus of field-states upon the body.

Beyond teeth, our nervous field-states are means by which the structure of the body is imposed and maintained and created anew, throughout life. The pathways of the nerves serve the dual purpose of both information transmittal to the center of the nervous system and intelligent field projection and modulation of body cells in their immediate vicinity. These many field states are discrete in themselves, but are also potentially merged and governed by sequentially larger nerves with their greater and dominating field states. From small nerve to large nerve to the nerve trunk of the spine to the very complex and dominating field-state of the brain. The most complex and powerful field-state is that of the brain, but it in turn merges into the overall field-state of the body and is dominated by the subtle sovereignty of the mind-in-spirit, through field interactions of sovereign control that are an extension of the line of control used by the brain over lesser nerves. The lower yields to the sovereignty of the higher.

Note again that this process is contingent on available resources, such as proper nutrition, and does not rule out other influences such as flawed genetic expression or injury or disease. I am not claiming that other identified influences on cell-body formation and regulation are not real. I am claiming that the field-state projections of the nerves, as integrated into what might be called the life-field of the body, are a real influence on cell-body formation and regulation that is being ignored or dismissed. Which is a significant problem, given the critical importance of field-state projections to good health. I think probably there is an integral relationship between genetic encoding (in its various forms) and these field-state projections. It may well be the case that encoded genetics supply at least some of the ongoing information format that is being projected by the nerve field-states. Another possibility is that genetics key in an interface of interaction with some ‘non-local’ source/place from which that ongoing information is derived.

This is a missing aspect of our understanding of human health, just as soul-force as the impetus of life and spirit as the seat of life are missing aspects in human understanding of life and evolution. These field-states projected by the nerves of the body are used to impel and guide growth of cells and body structures and to maintain health—absent interference with these purposes or inadequate resources.

Historically, the greatest source of interference with such has been the consciousness itself. The consciousness, through use of the will, has the power to interfere with any and every field-state in or of the body. Because the consciousness itself is a field-state and the will is the expression of that state. Habitual interference with the field-states of the body will alter the physical form, over time but especially during the years of physical maturation. The vices identified in this ethic represent habitual choices that interfere with field-states in the body and, among other consequences, lead to health problems over time. Conversely, the virtues of the ethic (and also Dignity and Simplicity) hold that interference at bay or at least within good parameters, as part of how they support the natural health of the body, in addition to serving to align the self with correct field-states. Effectively, the virtues align the consciousness with the natural field-states of the body and thus preclude harmful interference. This is one of the mechanisms behind my claims of good health from practicing the ethic. People are not really deliberately trying to interfere with body processes of good health when they engage in vice, because they have not the perceptions to perceive the workings of cells and organ clusters. But by engaging in the field-state alterations of vice, they are interfering with those processes nonetheless and are degrading their state of health.

There are also environmental sources of field-state interference. These field-states take place at least partially along the electromagnetic spectrum and so are partially vulnerable to electromagnetic interference, in potential. Such as from microwave ovens or electric stoves, or from electrical wiring and electrical transmission lines, or from cell phones and cell towers, or from WiFi and 5g networks,  or from motive generators in electric vehicles, or from alternators in ICE vehicles, or from televisions and monitors (though with these the greater problem is the draw on the focus of the consciousness outward and the destabilization of personal dignity), or from radio and radar, and etc. In short, most of contemporary technology has at least the potential to interfere in the field-states of the body and thus to contribute to health problems. This is one of the drivers behind the global rise in cancer and other diseases such as developmental mental problems (the mind is also a field-state and at least partially dependent upon lower resonance field-states in the electromagnetic spectrum).

Politically, this is a taboo topic because these and other technologies have become the basis for human civilization and attempting to shield all of it away from living body exposure would be impractical or far too expensive. Effectively, this E-M bombardment has become an anthropic addition to human evolution influences, as some people (the healthy survivors) will develop ways and means to mitigate the consequences, shield themselves from interference by strengthening body fields, modulate body field-states to both balance out such exterior influence and possibly to absorb some of that free radiation energy potential for new use, and/or otherwise adapt to the newly hostile environment in various other ways. This is real. It is happening. Practice this ethic to help strengthen your field-states, to enhance your alignment with the source of life and font of good health, and to engage in direct habits (virtues of honor such as wholesomeness and frugality, for example) that influence your state of health. Among other means and reasons.

What is the relation between dimension-state theory and field-states? The field-states of a living body are discrete aspects of the current dimension-state of that living person. Dimension-state refers to overall composition of reality—the conjoining of separate dimensions into the reality of a dimension-state. Field-state refers to both electromagnetic fields and more subtle fields that extend into the spectrum of spirit. Though it may be the case that there are two different spectra at play, electromagnetic and spirit, which have partial aspects of interaction with each other along certain portions of those spectra. A human may shift their dimension-state, at least slightly, by utilizing the energetic capacity of their conscious field-state, the will, to engage with and participate in a different dimension or dimension-state.

(4) Back to Spirit

In Everyday Ethic, I stated that spirit is what arises or occurs when soul meets matter. More precisely, soul is a dimension-state intrusion into the material world dimension-state, which forms a new dimension-state balance to accommodate the intrusion. How this started is unknown and not really relevant after such a long time, but that is when life began to arise. Not because of a mathematically impossible confluence of conditions, but because adequate conditions were in place combined with a push, or impetus, from the force of the soul-state intrusion into the material reality. Which intrusion may have existed in precursor form to bring about the adequate conditions for life in the first place. The alteration of the dimension-state reality of existence from the soul-force intrusion seems to cause some alteration of probability, or chance, such that the chained events that would never otherwise occur in the timing and sequence necessary for durable life to coalesce, nonetheless occurred.

So life formed and endured over time. Simultaneously, this solidified the dimension-state balance that resulted from the intrusion of the soul dimension or soul dimension-state. The initial alteration of reality was made permanent, as long as life endures. The intrusion of the soul state into this reality was made stable—because all life that draws upon its own impetus stabilizes the intrusion of the soul dimension. Moreover, that initial alteration, and the new balance formed, have themselves changed over time as life itself has developed into new forms and acquired new capacities. Concurrently, that is. I am not necessarily claiming direction of ongoing causality here at it seems to go in both directions. Life, as the marker of the change in dimension-state, also heralds new changes in the dimension state of this conglomerate reality, as life develops into new forms and has new capacities. And of course I am basing the theory in part upon observations of life and the world in which life takes place.

There will have been many changes as life developed (and prior), or rather concurrently with the ongoing development of life, but I will not go into most of them. I’ll not devote space to examining the current theory regarding developmental evolution of various life forms. Given the various factors involved, we will never know the truth of those events anyway and much of evolutionary theory is supposition and guesswork. Though still potentially useful, of course—this work of DSV also utilizes supposition and guesswork. Skipping forward to the existence of intelligent life, particularly human beings, the picture has changed dramatically.

We still have that initial intrusion of soul dimension altering the dimension-state of reality—or life would not continue to exist. That is not something that takes place within the boundaries of time. We also have new dimensional intrusions, or more probably a greater intrusion of the dimension-state of which the soul state is a part, such that this reality is becoming closer to the reality of the soul-state dimension state. But not entirely, as the material and soul are too different and not fully compatible. So there are new dimensional intrusions to account for the various complex forms of life that exist in our current reality. All of the discrete aspects of life serve as markers for the existence of a dimension-state balance that permits that form of life to continue to exist.

Along the way, first in crude form to match the crudity of life and subsequently becoming more complex in form and greater in scope, spirit existed. As that which arose as a mediate state between soul and matter, as the interface between the soul-dimension intrusion and extant reality, spirit formed and endured and developed. Just as soul exists in this reality so long as life endures, so life and spirit cannot be separated, for life is concurrent with spirit. That which we call life is matter sustained into life, sustained as living spirit and by living spirit.

Our current, contemporary, state of reality complexity (more or less), our current dimension-state balance, has to do with the current existence of intelligent life, particularly human beings. Particularly because of what human beings, as intelligent life that thinks about thinking and has other recursive abilities, are capable of doing. But more on that shortly.

Life formed (multiple times prior to eradication before eventually being sustained) and continued to develop. And continues to form, really, in various iterations. Despite mathematical impossibility piled atop statistical impossibility, over and over. Some agency was intruding into this reality and altering chance consistently—soul. The force of soul, the impetus of life. Eventually, intelligent life formed, due to another stupendous sequence of ‘coincidences’. From these facts, we can conclude that consistent intent is behind the soul force—because of the consistent complexity of the alteration of chance in a specific and adaptable pattern. ‘Design’ might be too strong a term, but the phrase ‘made in divine image’ does come to mind; regardless, intent is clearly present. Given the long string of alterations of probability and the consistent, more or less, direction of that impetus of life, we can provisionally conclude that there is some sort of deliberate purpose intended for intelligent life on this world. What that is, I can’t really say. Soul and the soul-state dimension-state intrusion into material reality are quite literally beyond human comprehension to grasp in full. But we do have a number of indications as to what the purposes of intelligent life might be—as far as we are concerned.

To relate this back to field-states and human health, it seems to be the case that there is a connection between the initial and ongoing impetus of life (soul intrusion) and the field-state iteration of any particular instance of life. Or rather, there must be a connection, at least in derived form. Everything living still has direct link to soul, for that is the ongoing impetus of life, and everything living also has an iterated field-state of being that regulates their particular life-in-form (their body and living spirit). The source is the same; the outcomes are different, but all outcomes are emanations of the same source. That is, the differences in different forms of life occur because of difference or changes at different levels of derivation from the source of life. As the virtues of honor are a derived level of emanation from the virtues of spirit. Perhaps the experiments of life over time, that may be termed evolution, are some of the reasons for the differences. But the major reason for similarities in existing life forms is that singular and common impetus of life, the soul intrusion. Which thus displays part of what the purpose of life might be, by what similarities might be identified among all life.

(5) A Note on Evidence

In part, I am using probability theory to indicate that it would be impossible for life to exist in its current form without some consistent purpose behind it. This is external observation to match the internal development of my main arguments that this section focuses on. Stated plainly, an ongoing series of not only unlikely, but, taken in conjunction, impossible events has had to occur for life to come about, be sustained, and develop consciousness and then self-consciousness. The generally accepted explanation for these impossible occurrences is that in an infinite universe anything is possible. Such an explanation is false, to the point that it cannot be taken seriously. The universe is not infinite, merely vast beyond human comprehension. The very fact of an expanding universe proves that it is not an infinite universe (though I am ignoring some of the subtleties of current astronomical theory here). Furthermore, it is not only the arrangement of the physical universe that permits life to exist, but also the very underlying ‘rules’ or ‘laws’ of physics by which the universe operates. Again, the infinity explanation is called upon to explain these ‘coincidences’. There must also be an infinite set of universes and we happen to be in the perfect one that randomly got arranged this way. Wrong again—there cannot (necessarily) be an infinite set of universes any more than this universe can be truly infinite in scope. Or rather, this is a false claim made not by observation but instead by lack of any data whatsoever. As we lack the ability to understand why or how this universe came about, to even posit that there are other universes, or multiverse, is speculation. Thus, the only reason to claim such as firm evidence is that we need an explanation for impossible probability to occur absent some deliberate impetus or design behind it. Which is assuming the conclusion and then using that to prove the validity of the claims that prove the conclusion—the evidence does not merit this type of argumentation.

I do stray close to this misuse of logic myself in the arguments of this ethic, but only if you restrict yourself to external evidence, as I do not. Those who refuse internal evidence will reject my arguments regardless, as the heart of my arguments utilizes internal evidence. Thus do I break free of the oppression of thought that is positivism. Which may have started out with valid cause but has become oppressive and harmful both to and for human understanding of reality. In the past, there were many inquiries into spirit and that which spirit can enable that were not good in themselves or for the people making those inquiries. A great deal of misunderstanding and harm ensued. Positivism cut off human thinking from those harms and potential harms, but it did so by cutting off human thinking from the reality of spirit. Positivism is a drastic, though effective, ameliorative measure. Like cutting off a limb to avoid death by sepsis. But if we restrict our inquiries into spirit to that which is good, that drastic amelioration is not necessary. The DSV ethic itself sets up those restrictions, those guardrails. Within the boundaries of the ethic, it is not necessary to deny the reality of spirit. It is not necessary to hold to external evidence alone. Positivism as it is has been helpful for the moral health of humanity—but it still denies part of reality. I would like to see a further development of the good aspects of positivism, but such that also incorporates acknowledgment of the reality of spirit. We may have to call it something else to avoid confusion, but to me there does seem to be some potential there for further progress and a good resolution to what positivism has become over the generations since its adoption.

Regarding infinity: I try to avoid the use of ‘infinity’ to deceive, instead attempting to restrict my use of it to the pursuit of truth. It is occasionally used to deceive by others; the ‘random occurrence’ explanation for life is one example. The human mind has just one faculty that it uses to approximate the concept of the infinite. That is, one faculty by which the mind attempts to encompass the reality of infinity. There are many ways to symbolically indicate the concept, but only the one aspect of mind that gives the concept real meaning to the consciousness. But because this faculty is singular, it does not admit to variation or subtlety in itself. It does not allow modification by the intellect because it supersedes the intellect by subsuming all of the mind into unity. This faculty does not seem to have much intellectual purpose, instead being used for oneness of being and purpose of self such as with my Dignity and Simplicity. By invoking ‘infinite universe’ or ‘infinite multiverse’, as part of an intellectual explanation to non-experts why their claims are true, theorists circumvent the intellectual discrimination of those non-experts who do not understand the real basis or meaning of the claims.

(6) Recursive Self-Amplifying Spirit

Some of the matters touched upon in this section will be further discussed in the following sections of the ethic. I think what has been put above is sufficient to describe the fundamentals of what spirit is and to at least suggest potential avenues of inquiry. I use the term ‘spirit’ to describe living spirit quite advisedly, because of links to historical attempts to explore the same things that this work explores. But there have also been many other uses of the term ‘spirit’ that do not align with how it is used in this work. Please take your understanding of what is meant by ‘spirit’ in this work from what is written in the work itself. For now, here is a final discussion point in this section, building on the discussions of the section to point out some very important implications for what you and I as living spirits really are, and why that matters.

Life is concurrent with spirit. Where there is life, there is living spirit. Humans have the most complex and powerful living spirits, in potential, that are verifiable to be known. Part of human potential, and key to this discussion, is the ability to magnify or increase the soul-force as it enters this reality. That is, recursive self-directed and self-amplifying spirit. The mere existence of a human being is sufficient marker to denote a new phase of soul-state dimensional intrusion into this reality. But that human beings also have the ability to deliberately alter the dimension-state balance of reality, to choose to accelerate the advance of the purpose behind the soul force, behind the impetus of life itself, is of world-shaking importance. Both in regards to potential self-chosen union with the purpose behind the impetus of life, and also in regards to the fact that the same capabilities can be used counter to that purpose or at a tangent to it.

I will note here, and possibly elsewhere, that I am not positing, in physics terms, new energy being injected into a static universe by any increase in soul-force. Instead, it is an alteration of the dimension-state of reality itself, at least locally. Do not expect to be able to instrumentally measure new energy or to have refuted my claims when no new energy is instrumentally measured. I am not opposing observed laws of thermodynamics. I am interpreting the reality in which the dimension-state interaction features of observed thermodynamics take place. Though given the positivist insistence on experiments and theory excluding human interaction when deriving fundamental ‘laws’, it is quite possibly the case that thermodynamics and other such observational phenomena may be altered by efforts of human will.

Backing up a touch, should we consider soul to be a good thing? Should we deliberately choose to advance the purpose behind it, without knowing or being able to know that purpose in full? After all, there could be some nefarious purpose at play behind this alien intrusion into the natural state of material reality… But no. We should consider this soul force to be a good thing. I’m not talking about some alien force here. This is literally the fabric of our being. It is us. We are reflections of the soul force, soul light, bounced off of matter. We are living spirit. Is life good? Then so is the impetus that brings it about and without which life itself could not continue to be. It may well be the best definition of ‘good’. If by ‘good’ you mean that which is fundamentally good for human beings. This is the best way to embrace the first virtue of the soul, faith. Simply choose to have faith, to trust, that the purpose of life itself is good. Unequivocally and without reservation. Which is intellectually defensible because this is not discrimination upon any particular form of life; it is the choice to have faith in the fundamental basis of all life.

How is it that humans can increase the impetus of life into this reality, deliberately? Back to field-states and consciousness. The conscious will has some potential to influence and alter itself and other field states, but also to influence and alter matter, whether directly or indirectly. This is how we are able to have free will. The self-aware field state that is the consciousness is able to utilize the field-state of its being to choose and make changes. To bind and to loose, in this world. So the singular impetus of the soul force, which seems to be somewhat limited in (local) complexity and perhaps also in (total) scope, has brought about, or helped bring about, a form of life that is capable of much greater complexity and has variable scope. Voila. We are all potential agents of the purpose of life. Potential, because we can have free will and can do whatever we choose with it, for good or ill.

There is much ill being chosen. Part of the purpose of the DSV ethic is to lay out how a person can choose good instead. Or, you can seek to directly perceive some of the impetus of life within you and choose to consciously magnify that impetus out into the world by altering and projecting your current field-state in imitation of what you perceive. The DSV ethic enables this process indirectly through the interpreted practice of the ethic, which will be much easier and more consistent for most people.

But why do this—beyond the reasons already given? Glory. Field-states, the field-state model of consciousness, is a denotation of spirit in a more descriptive format. The field-states are living spirit as iterated into individual form. We can do more theoretical work by relating spirit to the concepts of E-M fields and complex spectrums, etc. It is useful to do so, because spirit does evidence such qualities, at least in part; because spirit is difficult to know directly, having such models is useful. As with the model, the living spirit of a human being has a part of itself that is conscious and is able to exert at least part of the force of the spirit of that human being to effect change in itself and upon the world, directly or indirectly. The ‘glory’ I am referring to is achieved, or at least glimpsed, when the living spirit of a person consciously chooses to align its being with the impetus behind life, with the soul-force purpose. We are thus able to magnify the soul-force intrusion of our living being and advance an ongoing alteration of the dimension-state balance of reality. More, we have the capacity to partially phase the dimension-state reality of our immediate vicinity, which permits us to deliberately channel that soul-force, that life-force, through our being and into the world. In so doing, in so becoming a channel for the very purpose of life, we can become a part of the glory of that existence, become a part of the great soul itself. Thus matter is uplifted into living spirit by the glory of the light of soul. How to do this, explicitly? Refer to the instructions found in Everyday Ethic to get started. Why? To make the world a better place, among many other reasons.

What is the overall purpose or outcome of the soul force impetus? I don’t know, but it seems to be good for life. Which means it is good for us. It has brought about consciousness and the conditions that enable self-conscious life to alter and shape reality. The direction it seems to be pushing us toward looks like a good direction that will lead to better lives and other good things. So provisionally at least it remains a good thing to consciously advance the soul-force purpose. Let’s continue to experiment and theorize and find out more, along the way as we support the good. Within the scope of advancing that purpose, which scope may well be defined by the boundaries of true love in spirit, there is yet enormous potential scope for choice and for chosen lives, for experiment and theory.

What is spirit? We are. Or at least we are the most complex form of living spirit verifiably known on this planet. It does not take much to choose to be greater in spirit, to send your spirit back into deliberately chosen communion with the soul from which spirit is derived. It doesn’t take your whole life to do so—there is plenty else to do as well. The ethic offers a model on 'how' to live—the ‘what’ of your life is up to you. The opportunity-cost of practicing the ethic is much, much less than the gains of reward from practicing the ethic.

After all, we are the music makers. We are the dreamers of dreams. And with this section of the ethic, I describe how we are also the movers and shakers, of the whole world forever, it seems.1 We are the living, breathing, freely choosing agents of life itself, that act our influence upon all of this reality.

1- Derived from Arthur O’Shaughnessy, Ode, 1873. Good poetry from an agile mind. I have adapted the meaning to something a bit more fundamental than others have interpreted him as meaning, but do not think this is against the initial intent of the poem.

3d. On Consciousness and the Mind

These next few sections are intended to provide further discussion and support for the ethic regarding discussion points that do not really fit into the narrative of the previous sections, or that address other matters.

For this section, these points are in regards to memory (1), channel states (2), tunable perceptions (3), pride and knowledge states (4), trinary thinking (5), implications of free will (6), oneness in dignity and simplicity (7), fixations that sunder dignity (8), and the effect of caffeine and other substances on the consciousness (9), respectively. These individual points do build on each other in some ways, and both build on and build up the ethic, but in other ways they are discrete arguments in themselves.

(1) On Memory

It has become fairly common knowledge at this point that studies in neuroscience have shown a very close correlation between memory recall and brain activity. This is often interpreted to mean that memories are stored in the brain, an interpretation that is bolstered by studies showing that people with brain injuries to certain sectors may lose access to memories associated with those sectors. This is an example of the default positivism that has become standard for interpretation of meaning of scientific results, which to be fair does have its points of merit. For myself, I reject logical positivism as such, until such a time as it is reinterpreted to include the whole of reality instead of just the material dimension components that are demonstrable by empirical means. Studies on memory show correlation between brain function and memory recall. Those studies do not provide an adequate interpretation of meaning for those correlations.

My interpretation is that the mind uses the brain to access memories that are stored non-locally. That is, memories are composed of spirit, which are formed in the living mind, also spirit, and ‘stored’ in a singular dimension-state of spirit that is created and solely accessible by the individual person, whose key to so access that dimension-state is, in part, the enormously complex pattern of millions of neurons that are activated in conjunction with the mind-experience to both power and ‘key-in’ the memory-creation-access. Notice that I do not reject the scientific results, only the positivist interpretation that narrow-focused scientists are ill-suited to provide, in favor of a broader (and deeper) philosophical interpretation fitting into the philosophy described by the DSV ethic. But I will explain further below.

The reader should note that I do not wish to denigrate scientists themselves. Being narrow-focused, or even narrow-minded, is often a requirement of that profession and such a mentality produces steady and consistent results. But that very narrow-mindedness that is an asset for the working scientist severely limits attempts at interpreting general meaning from experimental results. That is a task for philosophy, which requires much broader understanding as well as depth of thinking. Rarely, there have been scientists with the capacity to do both. Generally, this is not the case. I will also acknowledge that many philosophical thinkers are quite ill-suited to do serious scientific work.

My concept of memory is tied into my conceptualization of mind as spirit. Because spirit might seem to lack the discrete separation of physical brain structures found among people, and the corresponding separation of minds evidenced by human experience, there must be definite mechanisms of spirit alone that provides the stated characteristics. I find those mechanisms in an outgrowth of theory explaining human capacity for free will, which itself is an outgrowth of my theory on the impetus of life, which is how spirit, intrinsically linked with life, comes about. That is, in dimension-state theory. A dimension-state conjunction correlates to the presence of life, as the soul dimension or soul dimension-state (indicating that soul may well be multiple conjoined dimensions) intrusion into the strictly material dimension-state. Self-conscious life such as humans, capable of free will and thus able to bring the force of that will upon their own being, are able to mirror the dimension-state conjunction of their individual being and so bring influence upon their individual derived dimension-state reality of ongoing life. Each one of us is forming a unique dimension-state, at least in spirit, as manifest by our current phase-channel-state of being, as we live and at any given time. Over time, this becomes complex and shifting dimension-state formation and participation.

The mechanisms of free will require that we be able to influence and manipulate our own spirit, which means that we are simultaneously influencing and manipulating our current dimension-state. This is because of what we are, which is beings existing by the impetus of a collection of dimensions in balanced state. We are further able to access and alter the participation of our own dimension-state, within limits, because that is how we are able to make real choices. Thus, we are independently capable of creating and manipulating discrete special dimension-states within the realm(s) of spirit—using the same mechanisms of free will, which are enabled by the recursive nature of being spirit that uses itself to alter spirit. I posit that we ‘store’ our memories in one or more such discrete special dimension-states, by mostly unconscious process but as a direct result of conscious life. We access those memories by reactivating the brain-pattern-interface and conjunction of living spirit that we used to create and ‘store’ the memories in the first place. But I will explain further.

Spirit is not uniform and it is not undivided, necessarily. These are characteristics of soul. Aspects of the living spirit of a person can be brought to mirror these and other characteristics of soul, and should be, in accordance with the instructions found in Everyday Ethic. Your core being is part of your spirit but the part ‘closest’ to soul. By following the three virtues of the Circle of Being, your core being is brought to mostly mirror the characteristics of soul. But spirit itself is plastic, and more. That is, it can be shaped, changed, reformed, destroyed in that it can be phase changed or subsumed, and created in that it can be phase changed or separated. Spirit can be brought to mirror the characteristics of soul, or to mirror the characteristics of matter, or to utilize its own unique characteristics.

The virtues of the Circle of Mind are intended to correctly mirror certain aspects of soul but not others, in the more complex spirit of a mind which must live as a balance point between soul and matter. Will and memory are the two fundamental faculties of the mind. Will has also been called thought, though there is differentiation—so you could also say thought and memory are the fundamental faculties. Thought comes about by act of will, but there are other things you can do with will. Will is the exertion of the being of the self, the very living spirit of a person. Memory is the creation and re-access of a discrete state of spirit, a discrete dimension-state, that is formed by and keyed to a specific individual. Because spirit, being plastic, can also be like matter. It can mirror certain characteristics of matter. More, by blending characteristics of matter and characteristics of soul, spirit can have nearly limitless potential, within the restrictions imposed by the aspects of the characteristics in which it partakes. There can by myriad realms of spirit. There are more than seven billion of them formed from this planet alone, as each human being, by the very processes of thinking life, is forming and living within, partially, their own realm of spirit, their own discrete dimension-state. These realms must be limited in scope and in total energy, as so too are human beings, but these realms must also have aspects of infinity, as they partake in some of the infinite characteristics of soul.

It seems to me that, as living spirit that exists partially within the temporal constraints of matter, we are continually creating an ongoing impression-in-spirit, within the realm of a discrete dimension-state formed by the ongoing existence of our discrete living spirit. In part, this is because of the ongoing position of the living mind partially within time and partially outside of it, which is a result of being a bridge between soul and matter. I am positing that our lives are thus recorded in spirit, as a sort of temporally trailing ribbon of reality-in-spirit that serves as an accessible record. I will not posit, here, on the limits and durability of that record, but this is one type of memory that we access. We bring the dimension-state of our current mind back into resonance with a previous dimension-state of mind, and in so doing access the impression-in-spirit that was formed while we were living that moment. This is why keying on impressions of the senses, such as smell, is an effective way to re-access memories. This is why memories formed during altered states of consciousness, such as while drunk, may be difficult or impossible to re-access unless returning to that altered state. This is why elderly people, whose current living spirit has become weak, find memories formed when they were stronger in spirit to be so compelling. By re-accessing memories formed when they were stronger in spirit, they are partaking in the being and greater breadth of those higher energy states once more. They, in part, renew their minds with youth. In comparison, memories formed in a weaker state of spirit are far less compelling and even reinforce weakness of spirit. It may even be the case that memories formed by weak enough living spirit may be more difficult or even impossible to access.

There is another type of memory that some people are able to accomplish. That is, deliberate use of the will to create and reinforce a mind-spirit state for future recall and use. This is sort of the same mechanism as ‘lives recorded in spirit’, but involves the use of the conscious will to reinforce (double or triple or so on) the impression in spirit, and also the deliberate manipulation of spirit to form a memory of choice, rather than just a memory of experience. Yes, we are capable of deliberately altering our memories. This is a faculty that is both powerful and dangerous. One should be careful not to accidentally alter the memories of experience. Though there are special cases where this can be used for good. The alteration of memories of choice, in contrast, is a normal function, though one that should only be used deliberately and with consideration. This is the realm of the intellect, where concepts are formed or sorted, resorted or destroyed, reborn or integrated into other concepts, and etc, ad infinitum. There are very few limits on the pure intellect within its chosen realm of spirit. Nearly every human discipline or art of note partakes of the use of intellectual memory, of memory of choice. It does no direct work in the shared world of the material, but all of the work of the mind can be done as such. By will and memory do worlds upon worlds unfold. By pointing out that those who engage in such are creating/forming real realms of spirit, real discrete dimension states, I hope to enable more use of such. By claiming that there is only matter, materialists instead reject the truth of spirit and the fact that there are real worlds of spirit that we can create and revisit at will, if we are but able to furnish the energy of spirit to form and revisit these worlds of memory.

That we are capable of creating memories of choice with the mind alone, distinct from our memories of experience, means that we are not limited to a single discrete dimension-state as a ‘place’ in which to ‘store’ memories. Of course. This is also why an altered state of consciousness impacts memory recall. The alteration of consciousness in itself alters the dimension-state of the living mind, because that dimension-state is formed by the makeup of the fabric of the living mind itself. Effectively, the consciousness has a function of determining or at least influencing the current mind dimension-state, as that which the consciousness channels through itself (as a fulcrum into the greater mind) becomes part of the dimension-state balance of the living spirit of the person. We consciously alter the dimensions of access of our spirit by that which we channel through the consciousness. For memory, this means that consciousness is key to memory recall because consciousness determines which dimension-states the living spirit is able to access and relive. Above, I specified the pattern of neurons as being key to accessing memories, and that is part of it. But simultaneously with the activation of neurons in sequence, that can be measured by electromagnetic instrumentation, the conscious experience of the living mind is channeling aspects of spirit that are keyed to those neuron sequences.

The mind uses the brain as a tool, as enabler and amplifier. Injury to sectors of the brain may halt access to specific memory states that the injured sections of the brain enabled. Though by this theory it also seems possible that by extraordinary effort an individual so injured might be able to access those memories through living spirit alone, or possibly to re-task healthy neurons, over time, to reform the pattern of neurons and so re-enable memory access. The injured body (of which the brain is a part) has an impact upon the mind, but a living mind also has influence upon the body.

(2) On Channel States

Memories may be accessed by means of deliberate alteration of consciousness to channel into a specific dimension of choice and so alter the dimension-state balance of the living spirit. This is one use of that ability to channel, which is a function of the ability to choose between alternatives, the power of free will. Which is a function of the complex type of living being that a human is, a balanced self-influencing free agent. Beyond memory functions, the living human mind is able to utilize the faculty of imagination to make a projection state of spirit, using the very fabric of its own being/spirit, that resonates into a distinct real dimension-state and so partially phases the dimension-state of the person into a similar state. To channel is to access and tap into a real dimension of reality and to evidence/display/ project/perpetuate aspects of that dimension into the immediate reality of your living spirit. To channel is to alter your immediate reality by phasing your own energy state of life into a partial avatar of some other aspect or aspects of reality.

Mentally and in terms of living being, we are channeling all the time. A constant state of mind is channeling discrete dimensions into a dimension-state. The very fact of being alive indicates that you are channeling soul into this world and forming new spirit, constantly. Every time your mind-state changes, you are altering the dimensions which you are channeling, either a little or a lot. One purpose of the DSV ethic is to channel in a good way and to have a positive influence upon the world in which we exist. The Circles of the virtues, from inner to outer, facilitate and maintain channeling of the impetus of life, that I identify as soul, and make the practitioner of the ethic a willing participant in channeling the force and purpose of life into this world. That which we channel through our being influences the world. That we have such influence is fact. That our influence can be for the good, or not, is also fact. The variables are the type, extent, and power of that influence. Choose good and support life, because otherwise, even if you refuse to choose, you may well be supporting something else.

Within the boundaries of a good ethic, there is still a great deal of room to maneuver and experiment. Provided that you do remain within the boundaries of a good ethic, such as DSV. But having identified this ability to channel and having brought it into deliberate use, a person may learn, and do, many things with it. The simplest and best is simply to identify the source/impetus of the force of your life and to amplify it by altering your channel state, your dimension-state of being of your living mind-body system. This is a path to good health and vitality and may even be a path to healing others.

There are many, many, many other ways/things to channel. There are many different Sources within reach of this world, within reach of the human mind, distinct from the core Source of Being that is soul. Before attempting to consciously channel such other Sources, always consider the moral implications of such uses of power. Because every time you shift channel, you are exercising power and influencing the world around you. It is possible to form a partial channel state within the mind, with limited projected influence. Always experiment with such partial states before attempting a more full amplification state. Effectively, this is the use of thought experiment. Most Sources should never be fully channeled but only identified and discovered through partial channel states of thought experiment.

Here are a few examples regarding some notable and obvious Sources in this world. Generally, it is wrong to channel them directly, other than with very limited thought experiment channel states. For various reasons—but an important one is that you are altering the being of your living spirit every time you channel. To channel anything but the balanced source of your life fully and in amplification is to unbalance your life.

The earth. Phase your mind with the feminine essence of the Mother, which is present in derived and diffuse form all around us but can be found in more pure and primal form by sending (or extending) the perceptions of the mind straight down into the earth. Be careful not to divide your mind when doing this.

The sky. Phase your mind with the masculine essence of the Father by instead extending your perceptions straight up until you find that Source. You will know it when you do. Note that I am referring to the sky of spirit found with mind alone, not the material sky. Close your eyes if that helps.

The moon. This is an easier focus to phase with than the previous two, though also weaker.

The sun. The easiest of these examples to phase the spirit with. Do not do this too much or you will damage your mind. The sun in spirit can burn even hotter than the sun in matter. Note that the moon and sun may have feminine and masculine aspects but do not partake of the pure essence of such. As an example, I have observed that masculine fertility cycles are also influenced by the phases of the moon (as the feminine fertility cycle obviously is).

I have included these potential Sources to channel in this section of the ethic, laden with cautions, to help explain the reality in which we live. Every aspect of our observed universe, that exhibits any sort of power or life, has a spiritual aspect. The realms of spirit are manifold and a living mind is capable of channeling most of them. However, most of the time and with most of your being, you should only be channeling one Source, the greatest and purest, the source of your own life. As directed by the instructions of Everyday Ethic. This advises a voluntary surrender of freedom of being, of state of being. It is a sacrifice of potential choices. In so doing, in choosing to make this sacrifice of potential being-states, we gain enormously in freedom of action. That is, we are able to live fuller and more capable lives. Health and personal energy are increased. Intellectual capabilities are boosted. We reap the rewards of righteous being and so gain much freedom of action—freedom in increased life choices of interaction in the outer world. The sacrifice of variability of core being is well worth what is gained, especially considering that potential variability in core being often offers little gain but novelty and usually a number of detriments along with it.

So seek to channel the source of your own creation. In so doing, the body becomes more like the spirit and the spirit becomes more like the soul-source.  As in, more enduring, fewer flaws in form or disease states or other afflictions, and phased into a higher state of being. This is the correct choice. I know, as I have walked many wrong roads in this life. I have channeled many wrong things and observed, and learned from, the consequences. I urge you to learn from my mistakes rather than to make the same mistakes in your own journey.

If I am losing readers at this point because these claims seem a little too far ‘out there’, or imaginary, or fantasy, or whatever, perhaps you should consider your own capabilities to independently verify my claims regarding these matters. Have you been attempting the exercises suggested in Part Two? If so, the channel-state mentions above serve as further exercises that you should now be primed to try. Are you a caffeine addict, or are you otherwise inhibiting your capacity for mental exploration? Any healthy, sober, well-developed mind should be capable of re-creating my results in some fashion, at least sufficiently to indicate that the work of this ethic follows valid lines of inquiry. None of this is ‘out there’; it is in fact at the very heart of what we are. Please read on—all of this informs the work of the ethic.

(3) On Tuneable Perceptions

In the previous section, On Spirit, I identify modulated perceptions of the mind and consciousness as the manner in which the ‘five elements’ (or four) model of the world was derived. In another section, On Arriving at the Principles, I reference tune-able and variable perception as the manner in which the mind perceives spirit. These are all of a piece, being what I term here as tunable perceptions. These tunable perceptions are effectively partial channel-states in which some part of your spirit is phased into and channels something else.

That is, your current channel state that comprises the dimension-state of your being, also develops the direct perception abilities of your mind. Your mind is spirit that channels certain dimensions by altering itself to become part of those dimensions, partially. In so doing, the mind becomes capable of resonating with aspects of those dimensions, because it becomes part of the shared reality of those dimensions, though in a derived manner. That resonance, together with our learned abilities to interpret meaning from the data imparted by specific resonances, comprises the tunable perceptions of the mind.

At the direction of the mind, usually but not always incepted by the conscious mind, the living spirit of a person is capable of partially altering, or phasing, its own being. The spirit itself. Because spirit is plastic in both form and type. This is how the mind perceives and, to some extent, how it thinks. The will itself is the reshaping and/or phasing of the living spirit of a person, and thought is one use of will. One might also say that the spirit becomes ‘like’ that which it needs to perceive. It doesn’t really fully become that which it resonates with, but it does have to become ‘like’ that which it resonates with. This phasing of being is the so-called sixth sense and the tunable, and thus variable, perception of the mind. It is also a channel state, but I think takes place more on the 'edges' of the spirit rather than in the core being of the living spirit, so to speak.

Take matter. The spirit is not matter, the mind is not matter, but the mind is capable of having direct perceptions of matter, apart from the physical senses of the body, because the mind can phase the spirit into resonance with matter. This is actually a special case, because the transmutation of energy to spirit along the spinal column follows a spectrum of transmutation the correlates to phases of matter, from most solid to least solid and on into the non-material spirit. So the healthy body itself has a natural framework that lends to resonating with different types of matter. But this will be discussed more in another section where I will devote space to discussion of Five Elements theory. For now, here are just some examples of how people really use this faculty, to partially fuse, or phase, mind and matter. A samurai becomes one in mind with a sword, or other warrior becomes one in mind with a weapon, such that mind feels and treats both body and weapon as one instrument. A machinist spends enough time focusing their mind upon metal that they develop a feel for it, directly perceiving some of what they need to know for their work with mind itself. A woodworker so commits to their craft that they can feel even those grains of the once-living wood that their eyes cannot see. A virtuoso becomes one with the vibrations of their instrument to the point where they lose distinction between it and their body, while playing. An experienced driver becomes attuned to the overall ‘feel’ of their vehicle by phasing into partial conjunction with the matter of its function.

Spirit is different, because while matter is complex it is also finite, and the realms of spirit seem to have no end (that we can perceive). There is vast potential for an active mind to explore realms of pure spirit, whether purely imaginary, partially imaginary, or not imaginary at all. I will say little more beyond this here, as the living spirit of the currently living is more pertinent to the ethic. In fact, for the purposes of the ethic I have defined spirit as being concurrent with life. The full truth is more nuanced than that, but for the ethic and for many human purposes such is adequately true.

So, take living spirit, such as mind. The most common way that people tune their perceptions is by partially phasing in order to link their spirit with the spirit of another person, or other people.

How is it that a woman can feel the gaze of a man, even when she cannot see him, hear him, or touch him? Still she can feel the gaze and also gain a sense of what he is feeling in gazing at her—whether the taking of lust, the giving of love, or something else. How is that possible? I have witnessed this occurring a number of times, up to a range of a quarter mile or so where there was no possibility of physical sensory perception and the woman clearly and demonstrably reacted to the gaze. Human beings have the ability to feel when they are being watched. This is a function of tunable perception, though one ingrained in instinct that we don’t really have to think about. It is possible that there are aspects of electromagnetism to this phenomena, but if so it is a very subtle form of electromagnetism that is indistinguishable from my ‘spirit’. Living beings are capable of ‘linking spirit’ with other living beings by partially phasing themselves to a common, or shared, spirit.

This is happening all the time when people interact. It occurs in concert with verbal communication and non-verbal communication, but there is also a level that is pure interaction of living spirit. I have engaged in experiments where I kept my body perfectly still and non-interacting but was still able to communicate with some nuance by the movements of my mind alone, with observable interaction with other people. These were by no means complex communications or anything approaching telepathy, and partook of more emotion-states than subtle thought, but were sufficient to convince me of pure interactions between living spirit. Note that I also controlled for pheromone/scent interaction in some experiments.

Another example has to do with groups of people, and is most apparent in very large groups. That is, mob mentality. The fans at a sporting event, or a concert. Teams of people working in concert. Military units. And etc. People in groups with some purpose in common form a coalition of shared spirit that is difficult to describe but very real. They somewhat tune the perceptions of their minds, and partially phase their beings, as part of the group dynamic. The scope of interaction and perception may be limited, but it is there. Think about this next time you are in the crowd at a concert, or attend a ball game. There are aspects of temporary shared spirit that are very real and apparent once identified.

We are always doing this. We are always tuning and phasing our spirit, our living minds. One purpose of the ethic, in choosing the virtues, is to regulate the influence that you have on other people through these direct spirit interactions. They do have an impact on the people around you. They do influence people. Especially children and adults that have weaker living spirit or are vulnerable to spiritual influence for one reason or another. Have care for those around you and choose virtue. Holding vice in your heart will harm more than yourself.

What of other tunable perceptions?  The best example is love. Choosing love in your heart, phasing your living spirit into phase with the essence of love, and following that essence to its source. Tuning your conscious perceptions to better allow you to follow that which is most good. The source of love is the same as the source of the impetus and purpose of life itself. This alone is the core of the ethic from which all else is derived. If you want to experiment with tunable perceptions, start with love. You will not be disappointed. It is the wellspring of joy.

The tuning of the perceptions of the mind is a function of the focus of the consciousness. That which the consciousness chooses to focus on and pursue alters the channel state of the living spirit of the mind to bring it more in phase with the object of pursuit. Seek, and you shall find. That which you seek, you become more able to find and more in phase with, more in tune with, the more you seek it. So, generally, don’t seek bad things. Because you become more in phase with those bad things the more you seek them. Your living spirit itself that comprises the fabric of your world and provides for you your sensorium, itself becomes altered in being. To be more like those bad things you are seeking. More like the porn. More like the violence. More like the monsters. More like what the drugs do to you. More like any of the damaging, flawed, insane states of vice. But, if you seek virtue instead, you become more good in being, and more tuned to the perception of good things, the more you seek them. Little by little, one moment, one effort, at a time. This is the path of DSV. Deciding to seek that which is good. Tuning your perceptions to that which is good. Shaping the being of your spirit to that which is good.

(4) On Pride and Knowledge States

In a previous section I identified the vice of pride as having potential connection with human mental states of knowledge. Or perhaps, the reverse, in that every human knowledge-state has the potential to slip into a state of pride.

That is, knowledge is an illusion within the mind. It is a construct of thought that mimics a resemblance with some aspect of reality in order that we may mentally navigate reality. Pride is a mental state that substitutes true reality with some false overlay. In definition, I put this as ‘substituting reality with illusion’, and for the purposes of the ethic that definition is adequate and correct. It follows that one might say that because knowledge is an illusion that substitutes for reality and pride is replacing reality with illusion, that all knowledge is the vice of pride… But this is an incorrect interpretation for what I am trying to relate with the current point of discussion. The distinction is that pride is substituting reality with illusion; knowledge is representing reality by mental illusion. Pride does not attempt to represent reality. Rather, it distorts our mental representation of reality.

Pride replaces some aspect of your knowledge of reality with a false representation of that reality, such that your knowledge state no longer accurately tracks reality. Deliberately, that is. It is not the failing or limitation of the human capacity for true knowledge, but rather a choice to not see reality for what it is. To deliberately sabotage the ability to have true knowledge about a thing.

An example: a man chooses to be proud of his son. As noted, part of this may be confusion of terms and there are probably good mental aspects lumped in with that choice for pride. But, intrinsic to that choice for pride is a denial of reality. Say the son is MVP at a baseball game, stimulating that man’s choice for pride. The man overlays his potential for true, dynamic, knowledge of his son, that tracks changing reality, with a static image of an MVP player. The man might then encourage, or even push, the son into more sports or other athletic or physical situations, based on that false pride image, that may not be suitable or good for the son.

This is a very common example of pride, and one that often leads to bad consequences, that I have observed over the years. A single instance of pride like this does not necessarily lead to bad consequences. Out in the world, that is—mentally, vice always has harmful consequences. But a person that engages in pride once and thinks it a good thing will often form a habit of the vice, compounding the potential consequences with every new choice to hold more false knowledge as true.

Knowledge itself is illusion, in that it is a mental construct that seeks to map reality rather than being reality in itself. Our knowledge of reality is always limited and generally has aspects of falsity simply because of human failings and human limits. But, true knowledge that accurately maps important aspects of reality is possible. The illusion can match the reality, adequately so for human purposes. In order for this to come about, we must explore and learn about our own limits and our potential failings. We must seek to know the truth because it is true, because the often harsh truth teaches far more than comforting falsity. If we seek true knowledge, but always remember that our knowledge can never be completely true, we can more accurately map our knowledge map onto the territory of reality.

This is the same pattern of endeavor that the DSV ethic follows. It provides an impossible standard to reach but also gives ongoing feedback on progress toward that impossible perfection. True perfect knowledge is impossible to obtain or maintain, but by insisting on truth in our endless pursuit of better knowledge states we can come as close as we may to that perfection. Feedback occurs whenever you encounter that which you think you know. In following the virtue of humility, rather than the vice of pride, you are better able to compare the reality with the map within your head, within the illusion-state you maintain as knowledge. As reality often changes, so too must our ongoing knowledge states.

(5) On Trinary Thinking

Binary thinking is a problem. We are not computers, we do not think in digital, and the only binary things in the mind are artificial constructs deliberately setup by people. There is always a middle ground. There is always a third choice. To claim binary thought or to seek it out is to ignore or to destroy that third choice. Binary thinking is a deliberate and artificial oversimplification of reality, that is not only unnecessary but also quite often damaging and harmful. Oh, and also note that I use ‘trinary’ here instead of ‘ternary’ quite deliberately, as with most of my language use choices.

Binary computing is the means by which the digital age has come about and much of contemporary human technology is organized and run. I have no problem with binary computing or computing technology solutions. The problem occurs when people attempt to impose binary choices on human thought or action.

Some examples of binary harms

‘If you are not with me you are against me.’ To say that those who do not support a thing/ideology/person are opposed to it, is false. There is a great deal of middle ground potential. Such as tolerance without support. To attack those that are willing to tolerate a thing by saying that they are opposed to it is a deceptive strategy intended to force the tolerant to instead offer support.

‘If you don’t support this then you hate it or fear it.’ To say that those who refuse to support a thing/ideology/person or even that those who outright oppose it, fear it and/or hate it, is false. To fear a thing is a different matter than opposition. To hate a thing is a different matter than opposition. To oppose a thing does not in itself indicate phobia (which means fear). To attack those that oppose a thing by accusing them of fearing it or hatred of it is an intolerant and aggressive strategy of lying used to browbeat opposition into submission or support. People who embrace the virtues of love and valor are still quite capable of opposing political or ideological positions that they disagree with.

‘If you are not a republican you are a democrat, or vice versa.’ To organize a binary system of political thought and power-sharing, especially in a so-called democracy, is a method of political control, not empowerment. The binary party system, with primary elections that remove choice from the electorate, is the death of democracy and the birth of oligarchy. It serves to maintain class dynamics by dividing people of similar interests against each other. It ensures that power groups rule, not the interests of the populace. Of course, pure democracy is the tyranny of the majority, is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. The original idea of the republic, absent political parties, was to provide for limited democratic institutions and limited self-determination within a stable framework of governance commensurate with the common interests. Which universal suffrage and machine politics completely destroyed in favor of rule by powerful interest groups both competing with each other and simultaneously cooperating to delude the general public. Binary political thinking has led the US to defacto oligarchy.

What is really meant by these binary setups, and many others, is that there is a preferred choice and everything else is grouped into the binary opposition. There is a target that the person setting up the binary seeks, and then there is everything else which is lumped together as the other side. Such as with true or false. Everything that is not true is false. Alternatively, everything that is not false is true. Such binary compositions are organized constructs of simplification that impose themselves on reality—they are not real in themselves. They can be useful, but are generally only useful for a certain limited purpose and only for those who make them up or otherwise use them.

Most human thought should instead acknowledge what I am calling trinary thinking. That is, not organizing thought into yes or no, but rather yes, no, or maybe. In classical eastern terms, yes, no, mu.

In other words, a third choice that designates an uncertainty factor. The ‘maybe’ can mean maybe yes, maybe no, maybe neither, maybe something else, etc. It can indicate uncertainty in the framing of the choice itself. This may reduce speed and productivity in human thought, but it also acts as a safety factor. We will avoid some of the ridiculous or harmful outcomes of dialectic, for example. The uncertainty factor acknowledges the very real uncertainty of human thought in general; thought that is a construct of spirit mapped onto uncertain perceptions of a total reality that is itself beyond full human comprehension. When a choice is required then we must choose, but the ‘maybe’ clearly indicates not only that either of the normal binaries may be wrong, but also that the normal binary construct itself may be altered to re-frame the choice to be made. Every choice is multi-level. No choice is a simple yes or no. Not for a living mind.

Effectively, the principle of trinary thinking rejects granularity of thought. Rejects the notion that you can break any meaningful thought down into simple oppositions and then build up from there. This is dividing the mind itself, which is insane and leads to insane outcomes. Instead, thought should be a unity of all. You do not strip down your knowledge and your perceptions into setting up a quick simple choice, instead you integrate all knowledge and all perceptions into an understanding of reality and make your choice based on how you should act to shape your influence being added into that greater reality.

Trinary thinking introduces (real) uncertainty and forces you to ask difficult questions such as ‘why’, or ‘how’, and not just ‘what’. Why does life live? How does it continue? What does this mean for me, a living being? In other words, trinary thinking imposes constant questions and deliberately limits the power of mental certainty—which is illusion anyway, being a knowledge state. However, the point is not to question everything, continually, but rather to continue to pose questions and then to seize on the best answer at any given time. There is still the possibility of ‘yes’ and still the possibility of ‘no’. But ‘maybe’ always remains, so we cannot be certain that our answers have been correct. We must be aware of them, as part of our whole mind, and alter those past choices as our new understanding requires.

Much of this ethic presents claims of truth, or claims of fact, that the reader is asked to accept. Do not do so blindly. There is never absolute certainty in these things. Even if I am correct, perhaps I do not adequately communicate that which is true using the words of this text. Or perhaps a reader does not adequately understand my meaning. And it is by no means certain that these claims are correct. I think so, but I am a single limited human mind. Given that, I am most certainly wrong about some things. I try to give my reasoning, within the scope of the ethic, but more importantly I try to give the reader a path of discovery, by which they may seek out truth for themselves. Much of my evidence for parts of the ethic relies on personal insight. Which contemporary scholarship does not acknowledge as adequate absent other proofs. But, I also provide, or so I hope, pathways by which the reader can investigate and reproduce these insights within their own minds. In such a way the reader can make the questions of the ethic their own and reduce uncertainty by at least that much. Please, question the ethic. Please, seek answers. Please, investigate every problem with trinary thinking. Think for yourself.

(6) On Implications of Free Will

In previous sections, I argue that human beings have an intrinsic capacity to exercise free will and that there is purpose behind the impetus of life itself that brings this about. That we are capable of free will has many implications, but here I will discuss a few of them having to do with that which has brought about the conditions of free will. That is, the impetus of life.

One implication is that the purpose of life is found, and perhaps must be found, by self discovery.

In On Spirit, I lay out one external only argument for life to have purpose behind it, using probabilities. That the impossible number of coincidences that have led to there being life, and the impossible number of coincidences that have led to there being intelligent self-conscious life, indicate that life itself has some agency of impetus behind it that functions at least in part by altering chance and so favoring certain outcomes of events. By itself, this argument is insufficient to indicate any particular purpose for life. It only indicates that there is some sort of organizational pattern, agency, or force that brings life about, maintains it, and leads to consciousness. External argument can only indicate that there is purpose, not what that purpose is.

Which leaves us with internal methods. In particular, the recursive seeking of consciousness that seeks answers by investigating its own essence by using its own essence. Use of the consciousness to seek out the root of itself. The source of itself, not in the physical body but in that which is the essence of its own living spirit. To amplify and echo, with fidelity, that source. To let the living spirit become ‘like’ the impetus that brings it about. The impetus that I designate as ‘soul’ for the purposes of this ethic. In becoming ‘like’ soul, the spirit is able to come to some understanding of the purpose of soul.

Why is this an implication of free will? Free will has come about by the same ‘methods’ that brought about life itself, and conscious life. The same impetus that sparks and maintains life and coalesces the subsequent spirit of life into consciousness that itself solidifies into something that must have the capacity for free will, innately and intrinsically. But if we are free, we cannot have answers imposed on us. Because that abridges freedom. Internal freedom is meaningless, in many ways, without the external ‘emptiness’ that permits free expression and free discovery. And that internal freedom cannot be fully realized unless there are no certain external indications of direct intervention that abridge personal potential for freedom. Every new life starts with the external. Children are grounded almost entirely in their senses and the feelings linked to sensory occurrence. Only having learned and mastered the necessary functions of the external world do we have the leisure to turn our minds inward and seek out answers lacking in the outer world. So by the free will that we have, we must seek out our purpose by self discovery within.

Another implication of free will is that we cannot be forced to support the purpose of life.

This follows easily from the shallow meaning of freedom. If we are free, we are free to choose. If we are free to choose, we are free to either oppose or support that which brings about our freedom. It likewise follows from the deeper meaning of freedom I am arguing. If a consciousness is capable of exerting the force of being of the living spirit of which it is a part, to balance out all influences upon it in order to be able to make free choices, then the influence of the impetus of life itself is one of those influences that may be met in sufficient force of opposition to balance out.

Is the impetus of the purpose of life an influence upon the consciousness? Assuredly so. And it offers integral rewards the more you support it. But to do so requires sacrifices on the part of the individual. Part of my argument for the ethic is that those sacrifices are giving up lesser things in return for something greater, but many people over the years have either failed to understand this or rejected the truth of it.

But I am not suggesting that individuals should just identify and give in to that influence within them—which would be a surrender of the will to that influence. Instead, I am trying to argue with the ethic overall that we should first be using that influence to understand the purpose of life, but then actively seeking to create our own choices, our own invented influences upon ourselves, that incorporate and build upon the purposes of life. We should not be a halt in the progression of life I have identified. We are the next step. We are free consciousness capable of understanding what is given to us, at least in part, and taking that and running with it to create our own destiny. To align ourselves with creation is only part of what we should be doing. While staying within that alignment we should be seeking to create, and become, more than we are and have been. The instructions of Everyday Ethic set the stage for this by showing how we can be aligned with life. I can only offer hints and suggestions for next steps. Doing more is beyond the scope of this work—ethics can show the limits of the good, but within those limits there remains enormous scope for choice and experiment and destiny.

Another implication of free will is in regards to the burden of freedom.

This topic has been rather extensively treated by others. It has also been directly and indirectly addressed throughout the ethic. For the ethic, the burden of freedom means assuming the power of your Dignity and exercising it. It means using Simplicity to maintain yourself while bearing that burden. It means choosing virtue as that which is best for both yourself and for others. It means giving up the lesser things and lesser powers in favor of the greater.

Children are not free. Not fully. I do not think they can be, because they have not yet developed the perceptions and capacities of mind that are necessary to exercise free will. Post adolescence, with their full physical faculties in place and at least the potential to exercise free will due to having the full mental faculties that develop in concert with physical capabilities, children may become adults that can freely choose. Regardless of any legally defined age of adulthood. This is the true age of accountability, the true meaning of adulthood… And it does not have a set age. Bodies develop at different rates; minds develop at different rates. There are a number of factors that influence these things. But. The child only truly becomes an adult when they choose to shoulder the burden of their freedom. When they accept responsibility for their choices. For some people, this never happens. Countless people have lived, aged, and died as continual children, because they have failed to accept the burdens of freedom.

I have posited the ethic as the means by which the burden of free will may be transmuted into personal glory of being. Children, and the childish, often fixate upon that which must be given up, upon the lesser powers and lesser benefits of childishness, that must be surrendered in order to fully become adult. Many of these are epitomized in the defined vices of the ethic. In accordance, consider the greater rewards to be had from embracing the virtues of the ethic. Children may not be able to understand the difference or the appeal of these greater things, but fully formed minds capable of becoming adult very well should, given the extensive explanations by this work on the matter, in addition to their own capabilities of personal insight.

(7) On Oneness

I have referenced this concept of ‘oneness’ in regards to the principles of Dignity and Simplicity and the states of mind that they utilize in order to fulfill their purpose. Using language, oneness is difficult if not impossible to adequately describe or explain. I will not be able to do so here well enough to explain to everyone, but will try anyway.

It is about unity of being, unity of self, unity of mind. The haphazard way that the mind develops from childhood to adulthood guarantees that mind is at least somewhat divided absent efforts to unify. For everyone, bar none. We all grow up in conflict with ourselves and with the representations of the world that our mind mimics in order that we may interact with the world. To a greater or lesser extent. As impacted by the degree of trauma that an individual experiences during maturation. Various cultures and paradigms of thought address this division of self in various ways. This ethic, as a way of living, seeks to address it in such a way that the reality is clear and apparent to the individual. It also offers tools by which the individual may seek to unify themself—to stop being in conflict within. Those tools are every principle and point of the ethic, really, but in particular Dignity and Simplicity.

The instructions and exercises provided in Everyday Ethic for Dignity and Simplicity are designed to facilitate the practitioner in reaching or at least improving their oneness of mind and self. A dignified person, with the mental balance of Dignity, is a unified person. So much is relatively easy or at least simple to achieve at rest and in a peaceful setting—given sufficient effort and sacrifice. In action and during times of need, the skills of Simplicity enable that dignified person to focus themself and their efforts and maintain themself as a unified person.

So much for explanation and instruction, but none of this really describes the state of mind, of consciousness, that is oneness. It is impossible to do so in words, because it is a state that exists prior to language. People who always think in words, who think that they have to think in words, have the most trouble with the concept of oneness. It is a state of being prior to the intellectual overlay on the mind in which thoughts are formed and organized into the pattern of language. If this is you, attempt to recognize that overlay for what it is and to develop your faculties without it. Learn to think in pure thought, without words. In that place where thoughts arise from, prior to the intellect, oneness of mind and being can occur. If in doubt, choose love in your heart to find a simple path to oneness.

(8) On Fixations That Sunder Dignity

Video games have become mainstream. Billions of people regularly fixate their consciousness on a phone screen, or a monitor, or a TV, engaging in play at some game.  Or else they are watching a recorded program, their ‘show’ or a movie. Or some other use of zoning into the ‘tube’. Or engaging with social media, in one format or another.

In and of themselves, these are not necessarily bad things. I am a gamer. Over the years, I have obtained certain benefits of thought, ability, learning, and memory from playing games. AV media is an ongoing source of education and entertainment. But problems occur when these external fixations sunder personal dignity. Because states of mind that are repeated become habits. Habits that sunder dignity restrict the ability to exercise free will or to be an ethical person.

Can we have these external fixations without sundering personal dignity?

For young children, probably not. They are effectively being trained to forgo personal dignity in themselves, instead linking their state of personal mental balance to an external stimulus. School children, lacking in the gravitas of personal dignity that independent internal mental balance imparts, are committing suicide in response to social media. Or killing people in response to pseudo-religious viral media trends. Or otherwise placing critical importance for their own personal state of mind on external, rather than internal, factors.

For adults, yes, with caveats. The adult must have developed a solid internal state of personal dignity in the first place. Some never do. The adult must also be able to engage in external activities of focus without breaching the flow of spirit that maintains their dignity, or at the very least by keeping the balance of such a breach in favor of their own internal integrity. It is a natural ability to partially invert the flow of the force of consciousness, the flow of spirit within, for various reasons. Dignity can be reclaimed. It can be reclaimed even from a total breach, even after years of having no personal dignity, but the consequences of that lack can be severe.

So too can children be taught about their dignity, as part of the greater whole of ethical behavior. Even if they went through early childhood fixated upon and addicted to their screens. As with other addictions, this can be treated. Truth can be learned. Independent mental balance can be achieved.

So play your games. Watch your shows. Follow your social streams. But do so for a purpose that serves the good. Keep them as a balanced part of your life. Do so within the constraints of moral behavior defined by this ethic. It is easy to tip over the edge and lose touch with your state of dignity. It is easy to fall into vice. In order to avoid the consequences of such, we practice virtue instead. We make the sacrifices required by the virtues. We make the sacrifices required to achieve and maintain personal dignity. Even if that means giving up the pleasure of gaming just for its own sake.

(9) On Substances and Consciousness

Caffeine is a mind altering substance. The impact is more subtle than some other drugs, but more enduring and widely utilized for being so subtle but still effective. It has the effect of increasing productivity of action by narrowing the focus of the consciousness and simultaneously lending the sensation of energy boost or feeling of increased power, because the fuller force of conscious awareness is kept within that narrowed scope. Both of these two use purposes, focus and sensation of increased energy within that focus, are mentally addictive. For those who use this drug, it is mostly used on a regular basis and often is a lifelong habit.

But our conscious perceptions are altered and shaped in a dynamic fashion throughout our lives—the use of the will to focus and seek indicates to the greater mind that perceptions need to be shaped accordingly to serve that purpose. We only consciously have awareness of part of the total perceptions of the greater mind, at any given time, and the greater mind takes feedback from the conscious will regarding what perceptions are the most needed. To engage in use of a mind altering substance, even one as subtle as caffeine, on a regular basis for long periods of time, is to restrict perceptions within the scope of focus of the drug. Even further, because the mind itself is capable of tunable perception, the use of a mind altering substance that restricts perception has the effect of limiting the ‘tunability’ of mental perceptions within the range and scope that the drug allows. Not only is the use of the drug restricting your perceptions, it is restricting your possible perceptions and even your ability to expand those perceptions outside of the narrowed scope of focus of the drug. The caffeine user is a narrower thinker and a shallower thinker than they otherwise might be. Even if they seem more productive and feel good about it.

The core of human belief is often restricted by the perceptions of the mind. We believe most easily in that which we are able to perceive. From caffeine, the drug of the modern age that has been so ubiquitous as to be considered normal and required, that restriction of general belief has been of profound impact. The best example here is that of spirit. The use of caffeine, and even more so the shaping and restriction of perception that long-term use of caffeine effects, precludes or at least restricts direct mental perception of much of the spectrum of spirit. To the point that use of caffeine has a negative impact on belief in the living spirit which is so manifest and apparent to people and cultures that do not use this drug.

Here I am drawing on historical evidence. To do so fully and credibly in a scholarly sense would require an entire book dedicated to the purpose. I am not aware of other works that do so, as this is a taboo topic because the existence of spirit has become a taboo topic as a result of the rise of logical positivism and materialism as belief systems. I will mention the following points. The dissemination of tea and coffee that parallels with the rise in productivity of the industrial revolution also correlates the widespread use of caffeine with declining belief in the greater reality organized into belief systems by traditional religions. In Western terms, caffeine restricted perception of spirit which then led to the decline of Christianity—in combination with the effects of alcohol, another major Western drug, and perhaps tobacco as well (regular use of all three mind-impacting drugs became a daily norm for many people). In the Muslim world, use of caffeine without alcohol (but with tobacco), in the main, has led to different alterations in belief in accordance with the different alterations of perceptions, which themselves draw some potential from cultural environment and from genetic heritage. In the Far East, widespread use of caffeine has the longest history and has had fundamental impacts on the development of belief systems for the major cultural groups.

Regarding the purposes of the ethic, it has become the case that holding spirit as real is in direct contravention of academic norms and the belief systems that have come to dominate academia and most professional groups. Spirit is held, by them, not to be real. The central proof for which is that it cannot be measured by instruments or commonly perceived. It does not hold up to the ‘scientific rigor’ that is defined in terms of materialism and/or logical positivism. And yet, it is real. No instrument can measure spirit in human terms because the instruments themselves are composed of matter, not living spirit as we are. None of us experience even our own physical senses directly. They are incorporated into the sensorium of the consciousness by the greater mind. Also incorporated into that sensorium are the tunable perceptions of mind direct, of our living spirit interacting with spirit that is not us. The mind altering drug caffeine interferes with those tunable perceptions and restricts the focus of the consciousness more closely to the physical senses, even providing pleasure boosts to train the mind to want to stay within that narrowed focus and to keep using the drug. It becomes easy to deny spirit, because much potential to perceive it is lost. It becomes simple to deny the claims of those who can still perceive spirit by pointing out lack of verifiability. It becomes required, over time, for new students of higher learning to deny direct belief in spirit in order to adhere to the rising new belief systems of positivist human science.

And yet, spirit is real. This is an ongoing argument throughout this book, in support of which I am providing extensive and varied evidence. Evidence in the strictly empirical sense? Limited and mostly circumstantial or anecdotal. Or at least deniable. Evidence in human terms, for proving this thing to a living mind capable of personal insight and tuning its own perceptions? Plenty. With perceptions alone—I am not leaning on imaginary things or the use of the imaginative faculty absent grounding in reality. But a key requirement to accessing much of the evidence I provide is sober living. You have to give up the drugs. Even caffeine—especially caffeine. Long term use has altered the minds of billions of people. It is my great hope that humanity will eventually stop the habitual use of this damaging drug. Or at least limit and discourage it, as use of alcohol and tobacco have been limited and/or discouraged.

Along with other mind altering substances.

Alcohol at high dosages shows obvious harm and detriment to the person, but even at lower dosages it restricts higher mental functions, including some perceptions of spirit. Ethanol is a neurotoxin. If you have a buzz, you are killing parts of your brain. Maybe small parts, but parts nonetheless. Alcohol has its uses, but always remember what it is.

Marijuana actually increases some perceptions of spirit—but. It is not the normal spectrum of human spirit and it does not serve human purposes. The impacts of THC on the living mind serve to phase the mind to channel particular aspects of dimension-states of spirit that are not aligned with the source of life in humans. Many people with some perceptions of spirit but growing up in a culture that denies its existence, in part because of the mainstream drugs of choice of alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine, will grasp onto the enhanced sensations of spirit that marijuana can impart. To do so habitually is a mistake, as it will lead you astray. In addition, long term use of marijuana can have a number of detrimental health consequences. Cardiovascular damage. Lung damage. Liver and kidneys. Memory problems. Phasing in to the plant spirit is not good for the health of your animal body.

Harder drugs, such as cocaine, heroin, LSD, mescalin, DMT, methamphetamine, fentanyl, opium, and etc., all have negative consequences. To the point that a single use can ruin a life or even kill. Even short of extreme cases these drugs can all damage you, both mind and body. Uppers do what caffeine does, only more extensively and intensely. Downers can have similar consequences to alcohol, or marijuana, or just their own flavor of harm. Hallucinogens are all damaging to the living spirit of the mind and quite often to the physical brain as well. People may use them as shortcuts, but that is a false impression—they all make the journey longer in the end. To this I will also add the long and growing list of synthetic drugs. If it serves a good purpose for your mind, chances are your own body can already produce that chemical. Or can be stimulated to do so at need, by internal consciousness methods. Avoid synthetic drugs. Avoid designer drugs. It is not worth treating yourself as an experiment. The results of other experiments will not tell you everything and will not make the drugs safe.

Pharmaceuticals should also be mentioned. They have their uses. They have been tested and carefully developed before being licensed for use… At least this should be the case, but this is not a perfect world. Regardless, it is better not to have to use them. A healthy body will already be capable of producing every chemical or hormone that might be required. So I am including artificial hormone or peptide compounds in this category. Just as with other drugs, psychoactive pharmaceuticals will alter your perceptions and possibly stop you from clearly perceiving overall reality. Consider the advice of medical professionals, but also consider that the body is much easier to treat and diagnose than the mind. We are in an age of mass prescriptions, mass drug use, which is effectively mass experimentation. This has taken place over the last thirty years or so. Two or three generations at most. Our bodies and minds have developed over many thousands of years and generations untold, all without the use of pharmaceutical medications.

I have occasionally used an antibiotic, for medical reasons, but otherwise try to avoid any and all such medication. I do make use of vitamins and some herbal supplements, which are generally safe and are ongoing and shifting experiments of my own. Does this constitute hypocritical drug use on my part? Perhaps, but I don’t think so. Vitamins can supplement or replace dietary deficiencies; some dietary deficiencies are due to the reduced nutritional content of some of the contemporary food that is being produced. Herbal remedies are a different matter, and one that can stray into being drug use. I carefully attempt to avoid anything that is directly psychoactive or that I determine to be affecting my mind over time. I also take no such supplements on a continuous basis. Some examples of those I make use of are elderberry, garlic, cayenne pepper, Ceylon cinnamon, and milk thistle—though not very often in general and certainly not continuously. These are as determined to be useful for me by my own experiments to bolster personal health and well-being, in a targeted manner.

As a final note, I am not asking or advising against all use of the substances discussed above. Necessarily. Only against casual use and habitual or long-term use. Each and all of them may serve some purpose as pharmacological tools for human use. Though only if used deliberately and for a specific purpose, with full knowledge of impacts on the body and the mind. None of them should be used on a daily basis, absent great medical need. They should not be used just for fun or pleasure, or to help you study, or just to help you relax, or to make work seem easier, or any other casual purpose. All of these purposes can and should be addressed by the sober, flexible, awakened human mind. We can and do alter our own consciousness on a regular basis, in a balanced and sustainable manner. Without drugs or any other substances except the neurochemicals and hormones secreted within the brain and body. The use of drug substances overwhelms those natural processes or stops them from working. So after you stop using the drugs you will have to go through a long process to repair damage done to both body and mind.

They are not worth it. Stop now, start healing, and slowly come to learn the benefits of sobriety.

3e. On Vices and Virtue

This section offers more discussion on the middle ground between virtue and vice (1), what vice brings us (2), benefits of virtue (3), using vice to control others (4), and the priority of the virtues (5).

This section is the complement to the final section of Part Two. Whereas that section focused on the virtues and positive aspects, here we look at the flip side of why vice is so negative, followed by some answers from virtue. As well as a great deal more nuance and consideration for the states of vice that are pretty much inevitable for most of humanity—pretty much, but not entirely.

As with that previous section, none of this is perfect. Please bear with me in regards to this followup discussion—it is all offered in good faith, to help the reader better understand important truths that it is only possible for the writer (myself) to understand imperfectly.

(1) On the Middle Ground

Vice divides aspects of the self from the self, weakening the unity of the individual and so degrading strength and well-being. These problems grow, as vice magnifies itself over time. Vice distorts perceptions and removes satisfaction from other alternatives. Vice demands ever more of the resources of the individual. Vice makes the claim that it is right and virtue wrong, by distorting perceptions and encouraging dependency. With directly opposed goals competing for the same resources, one or the other shall win out. Efforts to balance between vice and virtue require more resources than either and provide scant reward.

But that middle ground is still important. Vice-ridden individuals can use the middle ground, the third choice, to feel their way toward virtue and the great rewards that virtue brings. As I have. The alteration of perceptions that vice causes can become so acute that the vicious one becomes lost in self-imposed darkness, unable to see the light of truth, incapable of shifting perceptions back to the natural state. At any given time, that is. But little by little, if vice is opposed by the will and clear perceptions demanded of the mind, the spirit will respond and adapt. This can be a starting point on the path to virtue.

It can also be the path for the skeptical mind to discover the truth of virtue. For those who are unwilling or unable to trust the word of another in these matters, it is possible to obtain the certainty of self discovery on these matters of vice and virtue. You don’t have to believe the claims of this work. You can use what is written herein to seek out the truth for yourself. Doing such is wasteful of resources and possibly unnecessary, but I will not castigate you for seeking to follow the same path that I have. Start by denying the vices. This means giving up some things, as detailed below, but the harms of vice are also pretty clear to an active mind. So oppose vice in yourself, spending time to assess that middle ground, then test out the virtues to see if they are worth it. To see if they are better. To seek for yourself the rewards that are promised.

(2) On What Vice Brings Us

Vice is the elevation of the lesser as more important than the greater, the portion as more important than the whole, the desires of the single individual as dominating all other individuals. It is a denial and inversion of manifest reality. It rejects outright the value of other individuals for their own sake, leaving only residual value that is mostly for the sake of the vicious one.

This discussion point goes through each vice and discusses noteworthy aspects more than have been explored elsewhere in the work. To include any lesser powers of the vice for the individual and the aspects that may be falsely considered good for society overall—or that have been used as tools for social influence or control. (LP) denotes lesser power. These lesser powers, as noted, are generally short term benefits of choosing vice that are outweighed by the greater powers of virtue. (SC) denotes social control, or some aspect by which the vice is used to control, influence, or harness people.

*

The vices in opposition to the virtues of honor, as special cases, all have some potential use or benefit, even beyond the lesser powers that the vice imparts to the individual for short term gain. Because they are in regards to physical action, which must account for material conditions and constraints, as well as societal organization, there will always be cases where these vices are justified in order to seek out the greater good. These are exceptions only and cannot be the norm for a good society. The virtues of honor themselves, that the vices oppose, are so defined as to represent the norms of a good society.

Unwholesome: Some people have reveled in unwholesomeness, whether physical, mental, or both. As opposed to those that fall into it through lack of hygiene or otherwise insufficient wholesomeness, these individuals seek to use aspects of the characteristics that this vice brings to empower themselves.

(LP) Many uncleanly, diseased, or unwholesome states can bring about power over others, at least within very limited times, places, or purposes. Generally this is the power to disgust others and cause them to recoil and avoid you. It can also be the power to infect others with some malaise or disease, and in so doing make them more like the unwholesome individual, less accepted by more wholesome people, and thus more likely to tolerate or even seek out the company of the unwholesome individual. It is the power of applying force through corruption, and it is generally wrong to use. The consequences are those of the unwholesome state that is being so wielded, but magnified and compounded.

Sometimes, this can be a good thing. A temporary state of unwholesomeness, or one that is non-infectious or at least curable, can be used to shock another person into a greater understanding of reality. Such as a proud person, who embraces that greater vice. This is a repeated theme in lore and stories. The proud (thus partially blinded) prince, or princess, or noble, or rich person, etc, confronted with a person or people less wholesome than themselves (at least physically) but that nonetheless display aspects of virtue that are greater than the proud person, shocks the  proud person into a greater understanding of themselves and the world. So while to be unwholesome is generally a vice and to be avoided, there are different degrees and types and it takes place in the Circle of Society so must also be balanced against the physical conditions and possibilities of the material world. Also note that for the individual, the inner virtues are more important, so it is acceptable and even somewhat common for some people to utilize the ‘vices of honor’ to teach the value of the virtues of spirit or soul.

(SC) We have a huge recent example of the use of unwholesome states, or those that can be portrayed as unwholesome, for societal control. Covid-19. In terms of the mass media, the un-vaccinated were portrayed as unwholesome, and stigmatized and scapegoated, in order to both encourage vaccination and to build and reinforce obedience to centralized authority. The same for the unmasked. The same for those who did not lock down or keep prescribed social distance. The potential good: we are entering an age of synthetic biology where the likelihood of real biological disasters, far in excess of the relatively minor general harms of the Covid-19 synthetic virus, are increasing every year. Centralized medical authority to respond quickly and decisively to biological disaster may be necessary, from certain perspectives. The detriments: this was at least somewhat an invented crisis, artificially orchestrated for the purpose of changing society. The ‘vaccines’ being pushed were experimental gene therapy products that had not been extensively tested. The crisis was used by at least some people (the ‘progressives’) as a tool to impose a soft coup on government and expand their political power. Corruption, deliberate or just allowed to occur, was rampant (and ongoing for years). Other progressive agendas were rolled into the Covid crisis, such as the deliberate redistribution of wealth to alter the socio-economic balance (and buy votes). In short, corruption, lies, and abuse were central to the official reaction to the inflated crisis and public trust was greatly lessened. Both trust in governmental administrators and trust among communities. Any potential benefits in terms of public response to the age of synthetic biology were undermined, if not unhinged altogether.

Dastardly: Cowardice, whether physical or moral, is common. In fact it has become the norm. But it remains a vice, it is dishonorable, and it harms us all.

(LP) The benefits are obvious—security for the self and ones possessions, by avoiding conflict or damage. Let someone else take the risks. Let someone else suffer the potential consequences of valor. The dastardly person survives, at least one day at a time. But they also sunder relationships, sunder friendships, and inform their community that they cannot be counted on. More, they give up their self-respect every time they refuse valor. If the sole object is to preserve the body, dastardly behavior is sometimes allowable, or at least forgivable. We all live because our ancestors survived while others died. We all have limits that valor can strain or exceed. But consider that in this age of relative safety, where most risks are understood and quantified, most of our choices are not life or death and dastardly decisions cannot be justified to others. Also, there is risk in everything. You can die at any moment. Why not live in a morally good way, accepting risk and helping others? The coward dies a thousand deaths; the hero dies but once.

(SC) People respond to fear. Different people in different ways, but if you give a general population sufficient reason to fear, it will usually react in a predictable manner. Thus enabling a semblance of control over that population, at least for a while. As part of this method, the oppressors must punish valor and reward the dastardly. Often redefining societal morality to better suit their purposes. Actually, most societies seek to restrict and harness valorous acts. Certainly all of the extant first-world societies do. Martyrs are too powerful and too unpredictable to control. I could go back to the Covid years as an example here also, but will dip farther back into the wealth of history instead.

During the struggle between maintaining the classical religions that were the foundation of the state and the law, and rising efforts to impose some flavor of mystery religion onto state authority instead, some Roman emperors chose to persecute some of those mystery religion fanatics, among other undesirables. Christians, which were coalescing into some semblance of unity between a number of different flavors of proto-christianity, being one example. The were sacrificed and slaughtered, sometimes for entertainment. Those dastardly Christians that recanted their faith and embraced the Imperial norms were spared. In the short term, this had the salutary effect (for the Roman state central authority) of reducing open dissent and helping to maintain authority and control over the majority of the population. In the long term of course these policies backfired as Christians harnessed the power of Valor, their martyrs that died willingly for the faith, to force a shift in Imperial policies through mass conversion of the poor population. Sort of, anyway. This is a very brief encapsulation.

Disrespectful: Disrespect is on the rise. Disrespectful behavior seems to be rewarded, while respect for its own sake is denigrated or punished. Societal integrity is eroding. This is a problem. It divides people from each other and weakens social bonds.

(LP) To shock, act out, or insult others can sometimes bring gain, at least in the short term. Openly disrespectful behavior is often a tool latched onto by the young as they seek to buck the authority of the those older. Sometimes this can be a good tool to re-balance truly oppressive generational relationships, but other times it just upsets the necessary natural order of things. Regardless of the short-term gain or lack, disrespect undermines ongoing relationships and erodes societal bonds. Ongoing disrespect seems to be more common in urban environments where the population density is high, as people strive to carve out resources for their own use. One may note that older civilizations, such as the Chinese or Japanese, instead codify higher standards of respect for urban environments, in order to reduce social friction.

(SC) In contrast, open disrespect, even normalized disrespect, seems to have become a feature of the ‘online community’. And not just one side or another. Leftist and/or liberal and/or progressive individuals seem to have initially capitalized on the trend, but conservatives, or at least segments of them, have also seized on normalized disrespect as a tool to enhance political power. Though perhaps in reaction to earlier use of disrespect by reformist progressives… Regardless, it has become mutual and endemic. The harms of this in the online space are less apparent (though becoming more so) and the political gains have been significant, so it seems that open use of this vice for gain will continue at least for a time. I fear that it will lead to more and more conflict. Normalization of social disrespect inevitably leads to violence, as social bonds are frayed or sundered and societal cohesion breaks down. Respect should instead be the norm, with disrespect being utilized only with sufficient countervailing reason.

Ignoble: This vice shares some aspects with disrespect, but pertains to things that go beyond individual or shared societies and alters the state of humanity itself. The virtue of nobility has been denigrated and ignoble behavior has not been recognized to be vice, in recent decades anyway, so this vice is very common as well.

(LP) It is usually cheaper and easier to be ignoble than to seek nobility of action. Crass or gross pleasures are easier to obtain (food, drugs, booze, casual sex, etc). Selfishness, in this and other ways, often shows marked short term gain. But ignoble actions degrade the spirit and dis-align that spirit with the soul. They are self-contradictory, in that they work against the self. Ignoble actions often follow from the consumption vices of the spirit, and contribute to their perpetuation. To act in a way that uplifts the state of humanity around you and humanity in yourself can be far more costly and less immediately rewarding—at least apparently.

(SC) As many governmental bodies actively utilize vice, actions that are spiritually uplifting to others have become openly discouraged, or at least harnessed within narrow political goals, by those governmental bodies. Nobility of action displays nobility of spirit; it encourages virtue in others. Consider the US state of Illinois, with legalized, regulated, and encouraged gambling, alcohol, and drug use. There are serious noises about doing the same thing with prostitution. Use taxes from these often vicious activities have become a major component of the tax base of the state. The openly touted and encouraged proceeds from which are used to fund social programs that are claimed will result in a better future for the people of the state (within intentionally vague definitions of ‘better’). But such deliberate encouragement and harnessing of vice is accelerating the ongoing corruption of society and leading to more and more vicious people. They are paving a road to hell with their good intentions. Even granting that intentions are good, which is far from apparent given the obvious venality or at least particularism of a number of powerful figures in state politics. These policies are degrading and dragging down the norm of behavior in the state and the long-term repercussions will be quite harmful.

Disloyal: Again, this vice offers selfish short-term gain for the individual at the expense of spiritual and long-term good. As with all vices, really. To be disloyal is to directly fray and sever the ties that bind you to those who might otherwise be loyal to you. They may choose to forgive you in time, but only after you seek redemption and pay a high price. The (LP) here is simply avoiding obligation.

Sometimes, disloyalty can be good and necessary. As with all of these other vices of honor—when society becomes corrupt then dishonorable behavior may be needed re-balance society and re-align with the truth of the spirit. Though always at great cost and with damaging upheaval. Loyalty to that which is counter to the good should be sundered. Take great care in deciding what is so counter, as the harms of maintaining loyalty must outweigh the harms of disloyalty, in order for the disloyal act to be morally good.

(SC) Every society uses and harnesses both loyalty and disloyalty. Every grouping of people must define what things it is good to be loyal to and what things are acceptable to be disloyal to. The difference between good (SC) and bad (SC) is that of how well such distinctions are defined. How much open disloyalty is encouraged can also be an indicator. Do these definitions change quickly? Are such changes needed for the greater good? Have previously good institutions truly become corrupt or bad, or is this just partisan politics? Disloyalty always harms the overall society and always undermined virtue, so there must be more than sufficient cause for disloyalty to be called upon, encouraged, or demanded. It will never be the norm, for the sake of the good. Normalized disloyalty is almost always wrong, unless called to a sufficiently higher purpose of serving the good.

Lack of Integrity: Personal integrity of action is difficult to build and maintain. It will often be costly. The rewards of integrity may seem distant, while the rewards of giving up integrity, just a little bit, readily apparent. Don’t do it. You will be giving up more than you know. Those lacking in integrity pay many prices.

(LP) Lies, dishonesty, and manipulation of others can furnish many gains in this life. Effectively, you are harnessing the willingness of others to trust you and using that trust to take something from them. To many young people and others who are shortsighted, the downsides may not be apparent. But trust is easy to destroy and grows only slowly, if at all, afterward. You will have to keep seeking out new people to fleece. Once trust is gone, the benefits of dishonesty are also gone—more, there are penalties in addition to the lack of gains.

For the desperate, giving up integrity to seek out gain may seem, or may even be, necessary. Honest charity can be hard to come by and when the alternatives seem worse, these actions may be justified. May. Also, it may be the case that societal definitions of integrity or moral character are too constraining and the control maintained is not in alignment with spiritual truth or is otherwise more harmful than good. Then, deliberate counter-integrity may be justified.

(SC) Lack of integrity can only become a tool of societal control when that society itself has become immoral or rotten. When doublespeak becomes the norm and the immoral is defined as moral. When acceptable actions are totally divorced from the truth of the spirit. When this occurs, people that are truly morally good must ether leave that society or change it. Some sort of revolution, in other words—fast or slow, hard or soft. Slow and soft being better, if possible.

Wasteful: Prolificacy of action, with the subsequent waste that it entails, is a norm of human behavior. Because we are limited and must concentrate action upon that which is important, there will always be waste. The vice of being Wasteful is causing waste that need not be, through thoughtless action or incorrect choices. It often happens when we fail to think about things that we can and should think about, and so fail to act as we should.

(LP) Lavish waste has already been identified as potentially beneficial, in some cases. Another way to put this is that it is possible to make gains in one area by being deliberately wasteful in another. Automobiles are wasteful of resources in several ways, but the gains of increased mobility and transportation are considered to outweigh the consequences of that waste. As this is thoughtful choice, it does not fall under my definition of the vice of being wasteful. What does fall under that vice are individuals who use their automobiles profligately without thought for the waste they are generating or for the resources they are expending. Such as driving a vehicle for some errand in easy walking distance. Or not managing fuel use in a frugal manner. Or outright frivolous uses of automobiles. Or owning and operating automobiles that are inefficient without sufficient reason to do so. Etc.

(SC) There have been many examples of deliberate profligate waste being utilized for social or political gain. Violating the norms of frugality often gives people a feeling of power or entitlement, in the moment or over a longer span. Consider entertainment media, and more recently, ‘tube videos online. Some of the most popular videos are those that shock with wasteful or profligate use of funds or resources. Such as many by that Mister that identifies himself as beastly. This is a limited example in itself, but many social media trends in general utilize this vice to fascinate or captivate viewers, amounting to a trend of societal control. Which has the purpose of undermining general frugality and leading to excess and waste, to the detriment of us all.

Not Dutiful: Breaking your word has become normal behavior. As has defaulting on debts. As has treating oaths as unimportant. As has betraying agreed upon obligations. All of these are problems, for obvious reasons on the societal level and derived reasons for the individual.

(LP) (SC) In this case, these weave together pretty closely. Individuals that forsake their obligations can and do benefit in terms of both personal freedom and property resources—absent reaction or intervention. The downside is the same as lack of integrity or being disloyal—trust is destroyed. That is the reaction, which foolish people learn from experience and less foolish people learn from observation or being taught. If your personal word is no good, then no one will accept your word as surety. On a societal level, this is of such general importance that intervention has become normalized. Contract law, and to a greater extent the civil court system in general, is perhaps the most significant such intervention. Notice that from region to region and from state to state, court intervention in daily life may be more or less prevalent. Those where it is more prevalent indicate less trust or evidence of the virtue of duty and those where it is less prevalent indicate more such trust. Regardless of the prevalence, these court interventions constitute ongoing social control efforts. In those places where such court interventions have become normal tools of political control (which seems to be many urban areas in general, though not all), the vice is default encouraged and the virtue of duty discouraged. Because law has become corrupted for political purposes, with ongoing problems that ensue, generation to generation.

Undisciplined: Outside of specific segments of the population, such as military personnel, it has come to the point of this vice not being considered a vice at all. To the detriment of us all, once more. The norm should be to act in a disciplined manner absent sufficient need otherwise. The norm has become the opposite.

(LP) Chaos Theory. Disruption Theory. These are somewhat contemporary examples where people seek to utilize the lesser powers of being undisciplined for some potential gain. According to these strict theories alone (depending on the individual theorist being examined), such utilization may at times be justified. Other times not, and in general when most people appeal to these or similar theories in order to justify undisciplined action they are simply seeking to excuse their own vice. Most people come to an intuitive grasp of what those lesser powers are, so I will not go into detail on them here. It is often the case where an individual might realize some short term gain by acting chaotically without deliberate choice or overall plan.

(SC) Undisciplined people are easier to control over the long run. As with vicious people in general. They act in an unpredictable manner moment to moment, but the consequences of making a habit of doing whatever feels right at the moment are readily predictable over time. Which is why, pragmatically, many governments have come to a point of encouraging lapsed discipline (in certain areas). Efforts to increase discipline in society from the top down, as with all such efforts to increase virtue from the top down, are expensive, often fail, and even become counterproductive. Using certain means, the undisciplined populace can instead be more easily controlled and centralized power is increased. For a time. At the expense of societal cohesion.

*

The vices of honor have the occasional good purpose, given how the world works. The vices of spirit stand between soul and matter, so may also have occasional good purpose given that relation to the world. But very, very rarely. These vices always distort and twist the spirit, twist and distort the mind. To willfully engage in them is to harm the self. Always. The only time such can be justified is for the sake of saving others. A sacrifice of the self, in other words, to save the lives or souls of other people. I will not provide examples or offer encouragement for this path—it must always be individual choice following from individual understanding. But even when you think you might be engaging in these vices for a higher purpose, think again. They always harm the self, but they also always harm those around you. Justification requires that the gain outweigh the harm significantly, not just balance the harm or be somewhat better, because there is always harm being done by vice that cannot be seen and measured.

Gluttony: Many people struggle with gluttony. Overeating, alcoholism, normalized drug use, and unhealthy escapism in games or media are all symptoms. This can be countered by the deliberate use of temperance to first moderate and then change these habits. Start by identifying a bad habit, then use/do less and less over time, then stop altogether. Replace it with something good.

(LP) All of the vices are escapist to some extent or another, in that they deny part of reality, but gluttony more than most. People engage in it to try to make themselves stronger or more powerful, in consuming more and more of what they think they need. But it can only change feelings, and not in a sustainable manner. The mental void that is created does not feed anything but itself. The feeling of power that is gained does not match reality. Feeding the body or the mind more and more and more does not increase health or real power.

(SC) This is a consumer society and gluttonous people make for steady consumers. Even as their consumption degrades health and undermines spirit. Marketing campaigns, product labels, and ingredient formulae are all tailored for the purpose of encouraging more consumption and more purchases. I will not put here that this is deliberate encouragement of gluttony. That might be construed as libel. But it certainly does not encourage temperance. The obesity epidemic, alcoholism, drugism, and obsessions with media can all be made useful for some ulterior purpose or another, at the expense of the individual.

Wroth: Ever given your temper free rein? Every really cut loose on someone and let them have it, because you decided they really deserved it? Ever used anger and shown it to boss people around? Ever drive angry? This is wroth; it is always vice and will always harm you. It always destroys your state of balance.

(LP) The lesser powers of wroth are many; those above are just some examples. In action, there is a middle ground between patience and wroth; in spirit, there is not. You can be angry in action while still maintaining a balanced stance with the world—anger itself is a natural thing that arises from the body. So you can be patient while feeling anger. The moment that you give in to that anger and embrace it and amplify it with your mind, you are instead in a state of wroth and your patience is gone. Your balance is gone. The feeling of power that anger gives is often real and of real use. Other people around you can feel the anger of wroth because you are projecting it at them; when you choose to embrace the anger it becomes part of the mind, which is not limited to the scope of your flesh. This influences the choices of those around you because they know you are unbalanced and are more likely to engage in violent acts.

(SC) Have you ever heard a speaker say that you should be angry, or get angry, about something the speaker cares about? That is not necessarily encouragement or use of wroth. Anger itself remains a natural reaction that arises due to injustice and injury, among other reasons. If the speaker goes beyond that to say we should give in to anger or use anger for violence, then wroth is being encouraged. Wrongly. Patience does not deny the use of violence; it does require that violent acts be considered and chosen in a balanced manner. Violence is a tool; humanity has survived and prospered through selective use of it.

Envy: Some people will have more and other people will have less. Always. There are many factors and variables, but material resources are limited and they will never be distributed perfectly equally. It is often the case that people envy the property of others. An even worse form of envy is to covet the body or mind of another person, wanting to be like that yourself. I will distinguish this from seeking to better yourself after taking example from another person. Envy covets, and often seeks to destroy that which it cannot have. Choosing kindness instead is often a sacrifice, but kindness also has many rewards that may not be immediately apparent. Among which, it destroys the urges of envy.

(LP) As with wroth, envy can give power over others. Historically, in general, envy has been the vice of power over others for women, while wroth has been the vice of power over others for men. With exceptions, of course. Envy lends a fixation upon its object and a continuous flow of feelings that can influence other people to aid the envy-er. ‘It’s not fair!’ is the common refrain. Followed by the explicit or implied demand that someone change the situation to make it more ‘fair’. Yet fairness is a construct of human thought; it does not exist in reality absent human intervention. The only fairness in this world is that which some person or group of people sacrifices to bring about. Regardless, envy does not demand true fairness; it demands that which it covets.

(SC) Fear of missing out. FoMO. This is a major psychological component in human interaction; it is driven and fed by envy. There is a real concern at the heart of it, that one must acquire needed resources as possible before they are gone. But this is generally presented to people as showing other people with things that you need or want and then suggesting those things might be gone soon. Envy is used to market the need. ‘FoMO’ is an unbalanced mental state that may reference fear but is incited by envy. A number of marketing campaigns deliberately seek to bring this about, for the purpose of financial gain at the expense of the mental balance of consumers.

Pride: Pride of country. Pride in accomplishment. Pride for children. If these or any other use of pride maintains a static image in the mind that blinds you to actual and changing reality, then it is vice and it harms you. Even though there will, not may but will, be good aspects to everything that you are proud of. That is what the vice seizes on—the good aspects. It then proceeds to ignore the bad or otherwise distort those good aspects to create a false perception of reality. Is this really a bad thing? Yes. Yes it is. We are limited living minds, that have enough trouble keeping track of the vastness of reality without actively sabotaging our own efforts. Many harms follow from choosing false perceptions of reality. Harms to ourselves and to others. Pride is not worth it.

(LP) There are a number of ways that this can manifest, but pride is often about feeling good about yourself or about something else. In direct contravention of reality and what you should be feeling good about. Nevertheless, it does make you feel good. Which is very, very tempting. Everyone wants to feel good. Everyone wants to be satisfied at the way their life is going. Using humility to banish these false feelings, along with the pride, is quite painful in comparison. But would you rather feel better and really be getting worse, or feel worse but be getting better? That is the true choice, and it is one or the other. Without actively seeking humility, everyone will give in to pride on something, sooner or later. It is just too tempting unless it is actively opposed.

(SC) There are so many examples. No vice is used more often to control others. No other vice is so falsely claimed as a virtue. Consider nationalism. Nation-states take place just as much in the minds of the citizens as they do in material terms. More so, really. Histories are written, often false but using mostly true facts with very slanted interpretation. A national myth is constructed and espoused. Children are taught the propaganda as truth. People become grouped together into the shared mental belief in the nation-state. For some good reasons, true, along with bad reasons. But many instances that I am aware of actively use the vice of pride. Children are literally taught to have pride in country. I was.

Nation-states may well be necessary. I do not think it is necessary to embrace mass divergence from perceiving true reality in order to build or maintain such a state. I can and do respect my country for what it is, for the good, while still acknowledging the bad which should be changed, as possible. Respect, Dignity, and truth can work together to substitute and supersede any good benefit falsely conjoined with the vice of pride.

Sloth: What is the distinction between sloth and mere laziness? Sloth is a mental state, always. It is the choice to embrace inactivity, to wallow in it. Laziness is excessive rest, or procrastinating on work that you could be doing. Somewhat, laziness is an in-between state. But the distinctions can be vague and laziness often leads to actual sloth. Which is quite harmful mentally and even physically and reduces all sorts of personal accomplishment. Better to be diligent instead, which may permit occasional laziness but only when the work is done.

(LP) Saving effort and being rested. Being slothful will certainly save you efforts that would otherwise have made. But this means you avoid both wasted effort and also necessary or important effort, lumped together. You will also get plenty of rest. Too much, really. The body and the mind both tailor their abilities over time to what is demanded of them. ‘Use it or lose it’ is not always true, but in the case of sloth it is an important point. Excessive rest and inactivity lead to loss of ability and degraded health.

(SC) The vacationing and tourism sector are where sloth is often encouraged and utilized. Also casinos and gambling. Generally it is not useful to encourage other people to do as little as possible, but these types of businesses may seek to capitalize on the human urge for sloth. Consider what they advertise and how it is offered. Some vacations may seem like good things but encourage harmful vice. Is it really a good and desirable thing to sit on a beach and drink alcohol, all day, day after day? If the constraints of life are bad enough that people seek this sort of thing (and they do), then there is an overall imbalance to life that is bouncing them from vice to vice, to their great detriment and overall harm.

Lust: Fast cars. BDSM. Gambling. Wife swapping or swinging. Hunting. Predatory sex, by men or by women. Power seeking. Sadism. All of these activities, and many others, may partake of the vice of lust. Some of them only take place in lust, even though lust is strictly a mental state. Others can take place completely innocent of lust. This vice creates a mental state of taking, so absent the ongoing choice for chastity instead any activity that involves taking something can lead to the mental vice of lust.

(LP) This is another ‘power over others’ vice, but one that finds reward in the mind of the individual. It does not satisfy the self, not really, because like gluttony it creates a mental void that cannot truly be filled with physical activity. That void is ‘satisfied’, or temporarily abated, by the perception of taking something from another. The lustful person then receives a feeling of pleasure. Twisted pleasure, in a false mental state, that is often arrived at through unnatural or disgusting acts, but the sensation of pleasure nonetheless. Lust is often associated with the sex drive, but there is no necessary connection between them. Childhood exposure to pornography, or other adult situations, can lead to confusion between sex and lust.

(SC) Motorsports. The music industry. The porn industry. Even salad dressing commercials. Sex sells—people confronted with an object of sexual desire will often short past logical consideration of the topic at hand and enter directly into a non-logical state of arousal. Leading to imprudent purchases as satisfaction, or the semblance of it, is pursued. Lust also occurs absent sex or sexual desire, but in terms of influencing others with lust sex is the most common example. Chastity, which does not mean giving up sex, is the active counter to this sort of manipulation.

Greed: It is tough to get along without money. Pretty much everybody needs some ongoing source of it and it often seems like more money means having a better life. But it only seems that way. And greed is not just about money any more than lust is just about sex. In fact, greed does not have anything directly to do with money. It is a mental state. Money might be illusion, but it is not imaginary and does have physical reality. Mental states cannot truly be satisfied by physical means. Whether you are ‘greedy guts’ for your sister’s sweet roll or the jackal of Wall Street, nothing physical that you can get will ever satisfy greed.

(LP) Active, driven, insane, harmful focus on an objective. Greed is not really needed to achieve a desired result, but it may seem that way. It is tempting because it does often lead to results in the physical world. Limited results, with much derived harm, but results nonetheless. This is a lesser power because it totals a net loss to the individual in terms of what a human being is. There is much confusion on this because it often leads to a net gain in financial terms or other material terms.

(SC) That confusion over what greed brings drives the economy, of the nation and the world. After pride, greed is the most encouraged vice, because it is deemed to be so useful for political and economic outcomes. At the expense of overall human good. We can do better. We can serve the good, the purposes of life itself, and we can even have good economic outcomes, all without greed. Use the mental state of charity to combat these influences.

*

The vices of soul are never acceptable. They never serve the overall good. They always harm both the self and others, in every instance and in total. This is because, unlike the Circle of Society and the Circle of Mind, the Circle of Being has no direct connection to the material world of necessary compromise. It is the meeting of soul and spirit where no compromise of being can be good. Often engaged in, sadly, but never good. Hopefully these truths can help change those sad outcomes.

Hate: The inversion of love. Destruction of spirit—both yours, and to a lesser extent the object of your hate. By the Rule of Three, you are doing about triple the damage to yourself that you are doing to that which you choose to hate.

This word has become pretty common. The word ‘hate’ itself does not denote a vicious state of hate within the being of the self. It is just a word. Usually the word as used just means ‘dislike’, but sometimes it means ‘I dislike what you are doing so I curse you with hate because I want you to do something else’. If the former, you are using the wrong word and should stop being so lazy. It’s only one more syllable. If the latter, if you are trying to force the power of your spirit on another person, then you are engaging in the vice of hate.

Love should never turn to hate. This happens because they have such close relation in potential and it is impossible to subject the core being of the self, where both states take place, to logical analysis. Deep feeling, deep emotions, and often poorly understood mechanisms and consequences can result in love rejected becoming hate instead. Better by far to either choose love instead, or else forgive and let go.

(LP) Hate does have power. Corrosive, destructive power. It is the power of the very fabric of your being, turned from proper use, inverted, and used to destroy something or someone. Sometimes directly, but much more often indirectly through physical action. Avoid it. It is never worth it.

(SC) The word ‘hate’ gets bandied about quite a bit in contemporary social media and political discussions. Almost always improperly defined. Intolerance is not the same thing as hate. Nor is it the case that these two things are necessarily found together. Intolerance is not even always a bad thing. Should we tolerate that which is directly opposed to the good? No, not really—that which is indirectly opposed to the good, possibly, but not that which is directly counter to the good. An aspect of the ongoing hate/intolerance debate seems to be over what things should be tolerated, what things opposed, and what things supported. None of which really have anything directly to do with hate. Which is an internal state unique within an individual being and need have nothing directly to do with physical action. Or it might. But you can still love a person, or a group of people, by conscious choice, while taking an intolerant stance toward wrong choices they might be making. One of many problems with not distinguishing between matter and spirit, body and mind, is that you have conflation of such distinct things as intolerance and hate.

Despair: The inversion of hope. Despair is linked to losing the will to live, or to be creative, or to continue an activity. It is not just loss of hope; rather, despair occurs when hope is rejected outright. As with all of these vice/virtue oppositions, there is not a binary choice between them. There is middle ground. One can lose hope without being in despair. Though the only way to truly reject despair is to choose hope and live that virtue instead. If hope is vested in something outside the self, like the life of a loved one, that hope can be dashed if the loved one dies. A person might then reject hope and choose despair, because even though it feels bad it activates the same parts of the spirit that hope does. Also, it can be a form of self-punishment over the loss of the loves one. Hope should instead be vested in that which is within and unchanging while we live—life itself, and the impetus of life.

(LP) People sometimes use despair to deaden their emotions and feelings, intentionally, often to avoid feeling pain. This is a foolish choice, but the effects can be very powerful for effecting physical action in the face of loss. The power of hope is far greater, but due to misunderstandings or psychological reasons this lesser power of despair may be chosen instead. Self-punishment or guilt is often a related issue. It is not worth it; in embracing despair you also harm those around you, not just yourself. Forgive yourself—don’t drown the hope of your world in the bottle, or the needle, or however you are acting it out.

(SC) Despair and hope are internal states that have nothing directly to do with anyone but the individual. Despite this, politicians and others have used the concept of despair to portray what they wish portrayed and to try to garner votes or other change. The term ‘despair’ is rarely if ever used. Instead, terms such as ‘hopeless’ or ‘loss of hope’ (for our community, etc) are used. In conjunction, the presence of hope and our ability to hope is tied to some external event. Money for funding for community welfare, for example. This is doubly false, because hope, true hope, should not be vested in temporal or temporary things. Things external to the being of the self are not proper objects of hope.

Faithless: The inversion of faith. Also, the inversion of trust. As an initial leap of faith is the starting point for virtue of soul, choosing to be faithless instead precludes most possible such virtue. Again, there is a middle ground. This one might be called lack of faith, or agnosticism. It is quite possible to be completely agnostic at any given time; it is not possible to sustain that agnosticism over any great period of time. The middle ground is not a balance point—faith is the balance point. To be agnostic in regards to faith or faithless requires constant and ongoing energy and focus. Sooner or later, that becomes too much and you will need to choose one or the other. Do note, my call to faith is not complex and it is not intellectually burdensome. Simply choose to trust that life has some ongoing purpose. That’s it. You do not even have to take a position on whether that purpose is good or not, technically. Although to do so helps, given that we are talking about the essence of your own being—it is at least good for you and others like you. The cost is small and the rewards of faith and the other virtues it enables are great.

(LP) To be faithless is to be free of the constraints of faith. For complex religious doctrines that place onerous burdens on individual thought and action, this can be very liberating and thus quite tempting. For the core of the virtue of faith that I have identified, very little is gained and much is lost. I would remind the reader that the virtue of faith, as I define it, is quite distinct from religious membership. Religions are complex socio-political organizations that become more complex and more political over time. As with faith, the DSV vices and virtues refer to core states of being or traits of individual character—some religions may discuss the same or similar things, but these things are not in themselves religious.

(SC) The vice of being faithless is sometimes used to break people away from one faith and turn them to another. Ironically, as it were. First claims or proofs are offered for the falsity of a person’s current faith. Then there is a period of faithlessness, short or long, as previous faith is rejected and inverted. Sometimes coupled with despair. Then the person is recruited to the new faith, which happens to hold up under the claims or proofs that were used to undermine the other faith. The contemporary psuedo-religion of Science is notable for this tactic. Though I think it is difficult to so argue against my virtue of faith and the ethic it supports. DSV willingly accepts and incorporates the results of scientific experiment and the use of the scientific method, just not the philosophical interpretations of Science as a belief system, which leans heavily on materialist and/or positivist based doctrine.

(3) On the Benefits of Virtue

What are these greater powers that the virtues bring? That so outweigh the lesser powers of the vices, discussed above? Much of that has already been touched upon with the rest of the ethic, but I will try to add something new here to help improve understanding.

Faith, Hope, and Love, vested in the unchanging reality of soul, of the impetus of life, together provide certainty of self that cannot otherwise take place. Faith is the beginning of the ability to trust. Without it all trust is limited and will always be undermined by personal uncertainty. Hope is the ongoing commitment to continue life. It inspires every activity that we engage in, every decision to try and keep trying. Without it we lose much of our motivation. Love… is its own reward. It is unity of being, but even beyond that it is the greatest and the best thing in life. Those who have been in love with another person understand how much better it makes their life. Imagine then the benefits of love itself, as a virtue of being. The ongoing choice to align yourself with the source of life, which is also the source of love, will provide the benefits of being in love, and more, but vested not in something external to yourself but rather an unending font within you. Something that cannot be taken away. Something that cannot die. Reaching that point involves some sacrifice, yes, but once you get there you realize that the things you lose are unimportant and that which you gain is priceless and well worth the effort and losses. And this will not stop you from loving others—far from it. The virtue of love encourages and further rewards love for others.

*

The virtues of spirit are, more so than any other choice, that which makes you a morally good person. In your mind, where you live. They are the balance point, the fulcrum; they are what shapes you yourself. They are the freedom of the spirit.

Charity frees your mind from obsession with material things. It allows you to see property, yours and others, clearly—for what it is and for what it isn’t. More, the goodwill you project at others will bring that goodwill back to you multiplied.

Chastity frees the mind from obsession with pleasure seeking. It allows you to view pleasure for what it is, which is somewhat haphazard instinctive rewards for necessary behavior. And for what it isn’t—good in itself, or for its own sake. Pleasure itself is just a feeling, with little or nothing behind it. More, purity of self preserves your resources of life and your potential for things which truly matter.

Diligence frees the mind from the unending demand for rest and abnegation of self and effort. Which arises because of our limits, and because entropy always pulls at the material. But entropy does not always pull at spirit. Diligence shows you the value of effort; it shows you that we are creators within our lives and that our creations touch the lives of everyone around us. More, a diligent person really just gets so much more accomplished.

The most important reward of humility has been repeated a few times—it keeps pride at bay. For that alone it may be the most important virtue after love, and is certainly the most important virtue of spirit. But it also frees the mind from the illusion that mind itself is unchanging, something that people naturally fall into in reaction to the uncertainty of the outer physical world. Mind can be unchanging, it can hold static ideas for as long as life endures, but the only things we should do that with are true things. And even then we should test those beliefs periodically. And we should always be changing our understanding and integration of ideas as we ourselves grow and mature in spirit. Which is an ongoing and never ending process… For some people humility is questionable as a virtue, because of conflation of humility of mind with historical definitions regarding ‘humility’ of action or ‘humiliation’. That conflation does not exist in this ethic. A humble person can still be a grand one, can still even proclaim to the world how great they are (though only with sufficient reason). A humble person can still be dignified and respected. Humility of spirit advises our actions, but does not require any particular action from us. You are the judge; good for the world is the measure. More, humility makes you a more likable person. Other people can sense when you are in a state of pride in your mind that arrogates you as more important than them, which makes you a less likable person.

Kindness frees the mind from endlessly comparing oneself against others. There are always more important things going on and that obsession is just wasteful. It allows you to see other people for what they are, both good and bad, and to make true, but also merciful, judgments about other people. More, that kindness is often returned, in kind as it were.

Patience frees the mind from endless focus on protecting the self or other people. The goal of which is not wrong, but the manner of which is both wrong and self-defeating. The patient mind may be clear and balanced, whereas without it the mind is always clouded when threatened. And the mind can always find a threat to perceive. Always. The world has constant risk and danger. In patience, we can have more real strength of being and protect ourselves and others better than we otherwise might. More, a patient person can set and achieve goals over a period of years, or a lifetime, or even over the course of many lifetimes in cooperation with other patient people.

Temperance frees the mind from obsession with nourishment and growth, whether mental or physical. It allows you to see consumption and that which is consumed for what it is, and for what it isn’t. To make a balanced plan for personal growth that accounts for all known considerations. More, a temperate person is a healthier person, in both mind and body, and thus a stronger person.

*

The virtues of honor are less clear in reward and have more exceptions than the other virtues. Nonetheless, in balance their rewards and benefits still outweigh most lesser benefits of the vices of honor. Most, because sometimes society itself becomes corrupt and the good person must be dishonorable… for the greater good. These virtues are outcome oriented and focus primarily on external reward. Though notice that they are still derived from the virtues of spirit, the virtues of soul, and aligned with the purpose of the impetus of life. That is the measure for good outcomes. Is life served, overall and in the long term? This is why individuals struggle so much with the sacrifices of honor, especially when those around them behave dishonorably and are rewarded for it. Honor is vested in serving the all, not the self. Though the self is still part of the all. And honor must also permit survival, at least usually, and even prosperity. It is not total sacrifice; in fact, it is managed sacrifice, that serves the greater good while still preserving the self. Moreover, every virtue of honor still has benefits for the self.

Discipline leads to a more organized life, more organized actions, and more effective use of force. It does impose limits, but mostly over unknown factors. If it seems clear that there is a preponderance of unknown factors involved, discipline should be loosened in order to experiment and gain knowledge. Then tightened again in order to regain the benefits of orderly action.

Duty leads to more accomplishment in action and greater trust from others. It can be constraining, because the requirements of duty can be imposed to limit potential actions, but that also puts a strain on the mutual responsibilities of such agreements. Seek only to commit yourself to equitable duties and learn as you go—but keep your word, so that you are trusted with responsibility. The world turns and soon enough you will be requiring duties from others.

Frugality leads to better utilization of resources and otherwise increased wealth over time. Saving and earning, in equivalent numbers, have equivalent results. Proper stewardship of resources is equally important with producing resources in the first place.

Integrity leads to being able to be pleased when you look yourself in the mirror, to being happy with the type of person you are. Even if it causes you to miss opportunities, or possible opportunities. Doing the right thing, even when you don’t want to, involves sacrifices but also lends increasing rewards over time.

Loyalty leads to others being loyal to you. It means helping those who need you, but it also means having help when you need it. As we all do, time after time, sooner or later.

Nobility leads to ongoing improvements in yourself and in the world around you. Perhaps tenuously, or in a not very tangible manner at any one time, but with real impact nonetheless. Nobility is an expression of love in action.

Respect leads to survival. In part, at least. The necessary mutual respect of civilization is a major factor in why we don’t get violent and kill each other more often. It demands cordial behavior toward others and granting others their due, even when we do not wish to do so. Respect offered often becomes mutual, if not in the immediate sense then perhaps over time.

Valor leads to many rewards, both tangible and intangible. Many acts of courage are openly rewarded or otherwise appreciated. Though keep in mind that valor is about far more than being brave when other people want you to. It is about accepting risk to preserve the good. Even completely unappreciated or outright castigated acts of valor are rewarding, if the good is preserved.

Wholesomeness leads to being cleaner, being healthier, being stronger, and being more mentally agile and knowledgeable. Despite being a relatively unrecognized virtue in many traditions, wholesomeness has a lot of obvious rewards.

(4) On Use of Vice to Control Others

The encouragement of vice can guide outcomes in a predictable manner in the short term, but doing so leads to far worse long term consequences as it undermines the basis of human societal interaction. That much can be determined by historical analysis of different societies. There has been significant work done on this by others, though more recent interpretations seem to have become tainted by moral relativism and denial of spirit.

What vice does to the living spirit is the more critical point. It shows why the deliberate encouragement of vice or even just tolerance for vice by political figures is so very wrong. It shows why it does so much harm to everyone. Much of the work of this ethic focuses on changes in the spirit of the individual. It also details in places that vice in one person can impact the lives of others. If we take a meta level look at the implications of this, zooming out to a society of many individuals, we might gain some picture of the societal implications of vice.

Every society has adults and children, leaders and followers, powerful people and weak people. The children, the followers, the weak—they all look to others for examples to follow and for permission to do things. Or if not explicit permission, then at least an indication that doing a thing will be accepted or tolerated by others. The rewards of vice are quick, clear, and apparent. The rewards of virtue less so in every respect, until one has developed the wisdom to see the difference. Wisdom which children, followers, and the weak must be encouraged or even required to develop. If vice is tolerated, these vulnerable groups will seize upon vice to gain those quick rewards. If vice is encouraged, all the more so. This traps whole portions of society in the increasing detriments of vice.

But many of those children exposed to vice, will themselves become the strong and the leaders as adults. Without clear understanding about what vice is, which takes place mostly in the living spirit of individuals, there will be no clear reason to discourage vice for its own sake. For the cycle of the next generation, and the next, and the next, vice becomes more normalized and virtue becomes more incidental, absent reform.

Ideologies that deny the truth of the spirit can only track actions and outcomes, which do not show the truth of vice and virtue in themselves. Not even by researching brain patterns to see what people are thinking. The collective spirit of society becomes, over time, trapped in the ongoing detriments of vice, to a greater or lesser extent. People become more and more vicious. Moral relativism, materialism, and many other secular ideologies that define themselves in opposition to religion and deny the existence of spirit all lead to cultural and social decline because of this. Christianity has been far from perfect and subject to all the problems and corruptions of any religion, but at least it acknowledges the truth of spirit and seeks to limit vice and encourage the real virtues. Not quite as I have identified and defined them for this ethic, but somewhat close.

All of this should be apparent to a great many powerful people. It cannot be the case that all of them are blind to spirit. Many, perhaps, but portions at least of spiritual truth are readily apparent to anyone that investigates them thoroughly, so the most powerful should be aware of these things in some manner. Why then does support for virtue decline and vice continue to be encouraged? Many possible reasons, as the world is complex and becoming very chaotic, but it stands out that vicious people are easier to control. Vice limits personal freedom. Every vice is also a chain on thought and action. The satisfactions of vice can be produced, regulated, taxed, restricted at need, loosened at need, and etc. Both the companies that produce the physical products that satisfy vice and the politicians that govern vicious people profit from the situation. Vicious people are predictable—they will always seek to preserve their vice and oppose that which threatens it. So advertising campaigns and political campaigns can rely upon effective messaging around topics of vice. Songs and speeches that call upon specific triggers of indoctrinated vice can call forth a predictable response. Does all of this seem far fetched? I am deliberately leaving out examples here, but all you have to do is read the news on any given day to see the evidence. Or check the top music songs of the week. Or take a look at figures for tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana sales, or coffee and energy drink sales. Or consumption rates for ice cream or other sweets. And etc.

Many people have the impression that virtue limits freedom. The vicious and corrupt will seize on any opportunity to claim this, and because of corruption over the years in major institutions that espouse virtue there have been a wealth of opportunities to do so. Also, pretty much anything can be claimed as a virtue. Many things have been over the years that do not appear on my list of nineteen virtues. Many of those are not virtues as I define them and may limit personal freedom. But true virtue, despite restricting some choices (for vice and evil), enhances freedom. Virtue frees you from the chains of vice. Virtue strengthens personal dignity that enable truly free choices. Virtue ensures clarity of mind and the ability to accurately judge the world as it occurs. So that hypocritical politicians become apparent for what they are. So that corporate entities that profit from vice start losing money. So that children can learn the truth about what things are good and about what things are wrong.

Before moving on, a note on doublespeak. In the Orwellian sense. Half of advertising and political speech is about defining what is right or good and then showing how one’s position is thus right or good. Based on those self-proclaimed definitions. This is very common. To the point that honest voices that are hopefully correct about what is good or right or true (such as this ethic attempts to be) may get drowned out by the noise of zealots, liars, fools, or those merely mistaken. This is the societal fragmentation of ideologies. Religious versus secular, Democrats versus Republicans, materialists versus those completely sane, etc. See, I’m doing it myself… but then I have to, because there are true things and other people are lying about what is true or mistaken about what is true. I base my pursuit of truth on improving the human ability to determine what is true. On the impetus behind life itself and the source of life within each of us. On the ineffable and eternal, if there are such things. Not on what might benefit the economy for the next few years. Not on whether or not a tiny minority is being discriminated against for the general good and well-being of the vast majority. Not on good (or bad) intentions that are paving a road to hell, while claiming themselves as the path to utopia. And etc. You decide. We must all decide for ourselves what is true. This ethic shows a way to improve your personal faculties that you may better gauge what is true and what is not.

(5) On Priority of Virtue

The virtues of soul are the most important. They have priority over the other virtues; they are the inspiration for the other virtues. That is, the virtues of soul align the living spirit with the soul that is the source of all life. But the living spirit arises in conjunction with matter and time-bound matter is more complex in arrangements and in outcomes. The virtues of honor are the best approximation of the application of the virtues of soul, and to a lesser extent the virtues of spirit, to the complexities of physical action. The virtues of spirit are the best approximation of the application of the virtues of soul to the reality of a living mind that stands between pure soul and the demands of the body and outer world.

Advice given previously for where to start practicing the ethic states that you should start in whichever Circle works best for you. But always keep in mind that the direction of priority is inward. The Circles of the Virtues are so organized for practicality and other reasons, but this ethic which places virtue in a central position is designed to transmute outer being toward inner being. This serves the self and the origin of the being of the self. We are not just matter come alive; we are life imbued into matter and life that is derived from and still part of an ongoing source of origin. The virtues of soul are the closest we can come to that origin. The other virtues all point us closer in, to the virtues of soul.

However, the virtues of spirit have special character. Because we are living spirit. These are the virtues that are most immediate to the mind, at any given time, because the mind itself is composed of spirit and these virtues (or the inverse vices) are how the mind arranges itself. That immediacy is different from priority of importance. The virtues of soul are still more important. But the immediacy for the mind means that at any given moment we should look to the virtues of spirit first. The mind is the fulcrum that determines the character of being. Held in the proper balance, our being is aligned with the good. Tipped away from that balance, we lose that alignment. The virtues of spirit are the instrument of that balance, because they are the shapers of the character of the mind. A mind using the mental tools of Dignity and Simplicity, and the faculties of will and memory.

*

A final note here on the temporal aspects of the virtues of soul. That is, they do not have temporal character. Human beings exist mostly within the bounds of time and the motions of human spirit must conform to some restrictions of time, but the states of being that the identified virtues of soul align the living human spirit with exist outside of the bounds of time. Love most of all. I would not say that love is eternal, because that is an approximation using a term understood in terms of time. Rather, time itself has no meaning to true created love.

If two people at any point create a state of true love between them, then either of them can access the energy-state of that love at any point for the rest of their lives (and perhaps beyond). In order to do so they must re-align the field-state of their living spirit to key access to the energy-state of the love that was/is/will be, which is why some people lose touch with even true love or are able to actively shut it away (or possibly even destroy it through hate).

There are a number of possible complications with love between people. The dramas are full of them. There are few complications with love created within the self, especially if it is love of love itself or love of life itself. Recursive access and amplification of the source of the impetus of life, that is love. Which is a primary purpose of the ethic itself. Such love will never fade, never die, never shut itself away from you. You can shut yourself away from it, but stopping yourself from doing so is another purpose of the ethic.

3f. Other Points

This is a mixed section, addressing points that do not really fit elsewhere and have some relevance to the reader’s understanding of the ethic, but also sufficient warrant not to be placed in Speculation.

These discussion point are, collapse or corruption of society (1), expansion of consciousness directed inward (2), five elements theory (3), a discussion on sovereignty (4), and a bit more on love (5).

(1) On the Collapse or Corruption of Society

I claim or suggest elsewhere that societies collapse absent inner virtue or that they become corrupted absent true recognition of virtue, or that they may do either absent recognition of the truth of spirit. This is further discussion regarding these points, including some basis for my judgments on these matters.

It has to do with what we are as individuals and the requirements placed upon us to interact in societies. As individuals, we are free and independent minds. Possibly just a consciousness with extra resources, that can will freely. But we are also dependent upon our greater mind and our bodies to continue living and really to do anything meaningful beyond the scope of spirit alone.

There is a break at this point, after our internal freedom and prior to societal engagement. There is no natural requirement for humans to interact in society. We always, and must always, freely choose to do so. By a strict definition of ‘freely’. Absent interaction with society, we all exist in a state of uncooperative struggle over limited resources, so refusal to so interact will often lead to death. But it is still a choice. No one can force you to interact with, or in, any given society of individuals at any given time. Nor can the manner and scope of your interactions be truly forced; coerced, yes, forced, no.

So societies of cooperating individuals always cohere by choice—within base strictures of choice. Which means that societies are states of ongoing agreement between the individuals that compose them. Either static or dynamic agreements, at any given time. There are also almost always elements of coercion in societal interaction, granted, but the choice still remains, even if choosing otherwise will result in injury or death. Coerced choices are still choices.

In individuals, virtue is partially or wholly selfless and vice is selfish. Virtue benefits others around you, as well as the self, and vice harms others around you, as well as the self. For the vices of honor, the harm to the cooperative state of society is obvious and need not be argued. It may be taken as given that behavior within the scope of the Circle of Society has an impact on the state of society. But I am claiming further that inner virtue is integral to ongoing states cooperation for human society.

The choices for the inner virtues of spirit, taking place within the Circle of Mind, also benefit those around you. Just as the vices of spirit harm those around you. Without any particular action taking place, directly and immediately. We are composed of living spirit and in a very real sense exist almost entirely within the sensorium of spirit furnished by the mind. Vices corrupt the very being of spirit, the dimension-state reality of living spirit, and the living mind projects an influence of that corruption out into the shared world of interaction. Just as the living mind projects an influence from any state of being that it partakes in. Other people can feel this, whether consciously or unconsciously. People base their degree and type of interaction with others, at least in part, on their perceptions of expected selfless/selfish interactions. When they perceive others as selfish, by the very projection of inner state that all of us are constantly giving off, then ideal cooperative societal interactions are 'corrupted' into something less trusting and away from that which may be termed 'society' at all. So vice corrupts interactions between people and thus has a corrupting influence on the societies of human interaction, because those interactions are influenced by the internal vice that is inherently projected outward. Societal interactions become less trusting, less beneficial, less cooperative than they might otherwise be—with an expectation of mutual selflessness, people are willing to work together more, with the expectation of receiving only selfishness in return, far less.

I have not yet acknowledged the middle ground in this particular discussion. We can be in a state that is neither virtue nor vice. Can be. But in practical terms in regards to mass level interactions between many different people, this potential may be lumped in with a state of vice. Absent a state of virtue that eliminates the potential for vice, regarding inner states, some partial state of vice is nearly inevitable. Extraordinary individuals may, by sheer will and with the expenditure of constant effort, hold themselves in a null state between vice and virtue. But such individuals are rare and such efforts cannot be sustained indefinitely. Those attempting the middle ground, as with those engaged in vice, contribute to societal corruption.

What of societal collapse absent inner virtue? Broad enduring societies that lay claim to particular territory, such as states, maintain limited monopolies on human interactions within the bounds of that territory. So even when particular people choose not to interact in limited society with each other, there remains ongoing interaction between people within the state. But the state cannot mandate choice; it can only punish or reward, not require. So even within the monopolized territory of the society of the state, individual interactions between people take place by the will of individuals. The basis for those chosen interactions form the basis of the ongoing living society of the state. Absent inner virtue, or just with vice on the rise, these voluntary interactions become more reluctant, more guarded, and more acquisitive in nature. People necessarily seek to protect themselves from the harmful impacts of vice, both inner and outer. The overall nature of societal interactions change and those interactions become reduced in scope. The interactions of living society become fewer and become more like the savagery of having no society at all. Society contracts, entering a state of collapse. Or at least going in that direction, with decline. I think this may well be inevitable for a state that fails to promote virtue and especially for a state that instead promotes vice.

Which is where I might characterize a state as becoming evil. I use this term rarely, but advisedly in this case. It is evil for a political state to promote vice in its population. It is directly counter to the good. A state has many aspects of monopolization and forced interactions. These aspects arise from ongoing necessity in human interaction, but there are varying degrees and uses of them. That which is promoted by a state has at least the potential of the force of violence of that state behind it. To promote vice is to spread vice within the population of the state, because a proportion of the population will always respond to the potential violence of the state by choosing to support that which the state supports or promotes.

This is particularly pernicious when a state officially defines vice as virtue, or promotes vice and claims it to be virtue instead. Absent recognition of the truth of spirit, that we as human beings are comprised of living spirit, this seems to occur as a natural progression for a state that already capitalizes on vice within its population. Because we are living spirit, because we have a particular source of impetus for ongoing life which itself has ongoing and steady purpose, there are real and unchanging virtues of being and of mind. If a state does not officially recognize these truths, expediency will eventually require that it act in contravention of them instead. Just take a look at the state of Illinois for an ongoing living example to support these claims. Though every single state in the union has some of this influence. Lack of inner virtue inevitably leads to corruption; on a societal scale, that corruption means eventual collapse, absent reform.

(2) On Expansion of Consciousness Directed Inward

During the drug-fueled counterculture of the 60’s and 70’s, in the United States, ‘expand your mind’ or the expansion of consciousness was a recurrent theme. This was not a new thing; the new part was the mass message and mass appeal of such pursuits. One might categorize such attempts at expansion of consciousness, or expanding the boundaries of the cognition of the mind, as those using drugs, those using meditation, those using extreme dangerous situations or fear of death, those using sexual practices, those using mystical practice other than meditation alone, those using special knowledge, and those using some combination of the above. Technically, the DSV ethic utilizes only meditation and special knowledge, of these possibilities. Through the use of only light practice meditation, to find and define the principles of the ethic such as Dignity, Simplicity, forgiveness, and the virtues, and a determined effort to pursue truth, practice of the ethic accomplishes a real and enduring expansion of consciousness. Such attempts or practices that deliberately utilize drugs, sex, artificial extreme situations, and some unsavory mystical practices are counter to the ethic and to the moral good; I do not countenance them save at great need.

Here I will distinguish between expansion of consciousness by directly expanding the scope of the mind outward, which the ethic does not encourage and can be very dangerous, and instead indirectly expanding the scope of the mind by growing the power of the mind with an inward focus. Most people will key on the term ‘expand your mind’ and attempt to do just that, by pushing outward the scope of the field-states of the consciously impacted mind beyond the boundaries of the immediate vicinity of the body and perhaps very much farther. This is quite possible. It is also draining to personal energy, degrading to the health, and dangerous to the condition of the spirit if used as a habitual state. Effectively, it almost always sunders personal dignity, in whole or in part, by directing the ongoing flow of the force of consciousness outward. There are ways not to do this, but they all require a long-term commitment to an inward focus of consciousness. Deliberate sundering of Dignity should only be used for the purposes already noted, at great need or otherwise, and only be momentary interruptions of Dignity, not habitual states.

The best and generally only good way to ‘expand the mind’ is to grow the living spirit of the mind naturally, maintaining a dignified state and focusing on the possibility of infinity within, rather than without. That composed of spirit need not follow the rules or characteristics of material things. The whole and undivided mind, maintained in a state of Dignity and fed by the constant force of the flow of spirit, will bloom and flower, will unfurl and unfold, to encompass the whole of any reality which it needs to confront. There is nothing beyond the potential scope of an undivided mind. Such a mind can encompass all of reality, given sufficient need, sufficient coherence, and sufficient force of life. Even beyond this, worlds beyond worlds can be contained within the folds of the spirit of the living mind. Or be accessible to a mind sufficiently unified in itself.

Another way to put this is that one should not attempt to expand the mind outward from the self or to necessarily bring other worlds or other dimension-states into the mind. Instead, the inverse. One should look within and require a projection state from the greater mind in order to encompass the infinite, the universe, the multiverse, the world. One should ask for a shifted basis of the mind in order to touch upon other dimension-states—do not move the self or the mind; shift reality so that you are where you want to be. The conscious mind remains whole and unmoved; the greater mind changes what must be changed. This greater mind is quite distinct from the conscious mind where you and I do our deliberate thinking and try to do such things as ‘expand the mind’. For the consciousness to attempt to do things directly that it is not suited for brings about a sundering within the self, a division of the consciousness from the greater mind, a breaking of the living spirit. Instead, there should be a state of cooperation between the consciousness and the greater mind, working in conjunction and in ways that are only indirect for the conscious part of the mind.

The true expansion of consciousness occurs by going inward, not outward. It is the concentration of being beyond a critical threshold of ‘spirit density’ (I don’t really have a better term), such that pathways of spirit unfold and the mind blooms into a greater potential, a greater state of being, than it had before. Seek within, choose love in your heart, and find the recursive potential of spirit willingly bound in love synergized into spirit unbound.

(3) On Five Elements Theory

The five elements model of the world is the world as it is directly apprehended by the consciousness. Or rather as apprehended by the mind and passed through to the consciousness. It is entirely subjective to the individual mind. Everything material resonates with spirit as some mixture of the physical elements, earth, air, fire, and water. Everything non-material is assigned by the mind to the (vast) spectrum of spirit, which can echo material characteristics but also diverges from them.

Subjective does not mean untrue or untrustworthy. Even now, there is no instrumentation of perception or guidance or even calculation that can rival the human mind. For distinct and direct human purposes, that is. Digital instrumentation and computing technology are becoming advanced and ever more so, but they do not directly serve the purposes of individual humans. They can be turned to serve the purposes of the human or humans that direct them, but they can also be turned against those purposes, and they can certainly be turned against the purposes of humans that do not direct them. The perfect subjectivity of the human mind is as much benefit, in that subjectivity and to the individual, as it may be termed a liability by those seeking objectivity. The mind answers to itself. A mind that demands rigor and seeks truth in its cognition will at least attempt to approach these things. Never with perfect success, of course, but subjective cognition is a long and arduous journey of personal discovery. The humble mind can still gain much benefit therefrom, along the way.

So, there is nothing objective about the five elements model of the world. It is the apprehension of the world by the individual mind, as that mind encounters matter and spirit with phased perceptions and field-state resonance, among other faculties. Every single individual who utilizes their faculties as such and categorizes experience according to the five elements model will have differing perceptions and achieve (somewhat) differing results. It is not useful as a model to determine objective truth (if there is such a thing) to be taught to others. It is extremely useful to individual minds that interact with a very complex and dynamic reality. And yet we are all individual minds. Every single one of us. Therefore it can be useful to you. Objectivity can also be useful, but it serves group purposes, and is only useful to individuals as members of the group that objectivity is brought to serve. Consistent subjectivity serves only the individual mind, but it will always be useful to any individual that organizes and utilizes it in a manner that can be brought to such use.

The five elements model of reality is not talking about the same elements as the periodic table of elements. A four elements model of the physical world is not talking about the same elements either. I suspect that all of the ‘elements’ models of ancient Greek philosophy were derived in some way from the older five elements model, with the decision to leave out issues of spirit if the model was intended to describe the physical world and to attempt some objectivity. Aristotle then added ‘ether’ in order to account for some missing pieces, to form his particular five elements model. Note that his ether and my spirit are quite distinct ideas. The Chinese Wuxing five elements model, somewhat different, seems to be a parallel attempt, in that both air and spirit are excluded, with the identified elements all being useful components for derived theories of objective mechanics or physical science as perceived by the eyes and touch. Though the models really are quite different, despite the similar names. The path of Western science as an objective discipline followed a trajectory that eventually derived the atomic model of the elements of matter, with the name being taken from these early attempts at modeling the objective physical world into base elements.

But those early attempts were themselves derived from the five elements model used by subjective minds to perceive and analyze reality. The shift from subjective to objective destroyed the usefulness of the subjective model and also led to both the name confusion regarding the term ‘element’ and the general disgrace of the original five elements model. Which remains quite useful nonetheless, for a subjective mind grasping perceived reality.

So, the mind can resonate with differing levels of material density or state. In terms of immediate perception this is usually incepted by the conscious will, as it is a divergence from the natural state of living spirit of the mind down into more limited material echoes. The phases of material state have distinct thresholds of interaction with mind, the discrete states within the thresholds being earth, water, fire, and air. Together with spirit, which is everything that is not material and so is vast beyond comprehension but still extremely subtle, these four physical elements (states/levels/etc) combine to make up the five elements model. The model can be used by the mind for simple comprehension but also for direct perception, as the living spirit of the mind can be partially phased into resonance with matter outside of the mind. Because that perception requires some entanglement with exterior matter, this is also an avenue of potential influence upon that exterior matter. Such discussions are beyond the scope of the ethic so I will leave it at that, beyond noting that such influences are possible and indeed inevitable but only within certain limitations.

There is a physiological pathway of guidance and learning for this five elements model built into (almost) every human, in interaction with the mind. The physical locus of that pathway is the spinal column, or rather the ascending cord of the neural spinal cord in conjunction with specific glands along the pathway and quite probably every nerve and cell of living tissue in proximity as well.

As the mind of the person develops through childhood, the mind resonates at successive levels along the spinal column in a process of learning and coming to know the characteristics of matter. The spirit of the mind is shaped into matter, partially or even wholly phased into material echoes, first earth then water then fire then air then back to spirit recursive upon itself. This process occurs initially in the womb and early infancy, for the initial formation of the whole mind. The seed mind, as it were, containing almost every part of the adult mind but in potential instead of fully realized and flowered form. The process then occurs again with the growth of the consciousness, the expansion of the consciousness, over a period of years. This is the slow blossoming of the expansion of the consciousness of the person, with the greater mind beyond the consciousness developing in concert. The mind of the child passes through tiers of activation of glands and nerves that allow active conscious resonance with the material. This accounts for the successive foci or obsessions of childhood interest, into things that resonate with earth then water then fire, and so on. The late adolescent obsessions with social interactions are the cusp of progression out of air and into recursive spirit and the ongoing potential development of adulthood through less determined phasing with spirit itself.

This entire process of the development of the individual consciousness is quite remarkable. The body is composed in such a way that the spirit of mind is both shaped by the body and also enabled to in turn influence and shape the body. By learning from the body how to resonate with various phases of matter and thus being able to influence the composition and movements of matter. In a specific pattern of a process of development that familiarizes the new spirit of a born person with the specific and detailed characteristics of the world into which it has been born and the body which it both inhabits and lives as part of and is also sovereign over. Which body can then be influenced by the mind that can encompass the elements of that body, over the course of a lifetime. This can have impact in the development and forms of people over generations—every person has limited ability to shape their own body through their mind in order to adapt to the needs of the world, which shaping can then be passed on in heritable form to succeeding generations, who can then continue the prior shaping, or counter it, or instead diverge on anther path.

There are theories in psychology and childhood development that parallel my discussion here, but they are hobbled by inability to acknowledge the truth of spirit. They try to get around this by referencing ‘mind’ and ‘mental development’ where I would instead point out the movements of living spirit that mind is composed of. Pretty much every science or area of human study that does not specifically and only reference the material world is so hobbled by denial of spirit. Which leads to uncertain results. Which leads to their being discredited by practitioners of the ‘hard’ sciences. Ironically, as it were, given inevitable problems for the hard sciences with interpretation of meaning.

It is important to note that mental problems and illnesses do result from interruptions in the natural process of the living spirit coming to learn about the reality of this world as I have described it here. This applies to just about everyone, as no person has a perfect childhood and no person perfectly learns all of the lessons they should learn along the way. Though hobbled by spirit denial, good efforts at psychology to address the problems that so occur (though there are also many bad efforts at psychology) are important and healing. Every single one of us should seek out within our memories interruptions in personal development that should be redressed. Studies in psychology can be useful for this; though flawed, secular psychology can inform these efforts somewhat. But just practicing the DSV ethic will in itself work to heal the problems of personal mental development, over time, provided the conscious mind is self-aware and active upon itself.

Specific categories of drugs that alter the consciousness can also bring about states of mind, in resonance with the elements of the world, that parallel or even go beyond the pattern of sequential mental states of childhood development. Usually in a damaging manner that requires remedial healing of the mind. Alcohol zones one into Water and the mental stage of childhood that parallels that element, for example. Which is pretty early childhood and helps explain how dumb drunk people are. Still, those who did not fully learn the lessons of the water element, as it were, will gravitate to alcohol use because it seems to fill a gap in their psychological balance. Speed drugs zone one into Fire and/or Air. Hallucinogens zone one into Spirit, in part, but also into blends of different elements depending on the drug. Mescalin zones one into both Earth and Spirit, for example. I will stress again that psychoactive drug use is generally damaging to the consciousness and the mind and should be avoided. That said, utilized in a controlled and deliberate fashion and with low dosages, there is some potential through drug use to stimulate healing of psychological problems. Though this will almost always be the best course of action only for those people that initially damaged their mental development with drug use. And even then, there are generally better ways to heal, starting with un-drugged meditation alone. Or prayer and fasting. Or fasting and meditation.

You may notice parallels between the five elements model and the chakras of yoga. The yogis of India (and elsewhere) also utilize and explore their own consciousness and through their own consciousness. For somewhat different purposes, depending on which of the many different types of yoga one refers to. All of the identified chakras of yoga will fall into the categories of the five elements—they have an energy resonance within one or more of the phases of matter or spirit. The chakras are associated with glands in the body that mostly correlate with spiritual activation of glands during the mental development of a given person through childhood.

Yoga is mysticism and has distinct mystical purposes. While there are some parallels with five elements theory and even the greater DSV ethic, there are also divergences. Some of the mysticism of yoga was drawn upon in the development of the ethic and informed the writing of this book. Mostly the Royal Way of Patanjali, which is an important and extremely interesting discipline in regards to consciousness. But DSV is not yoga and it is not mysticism; nor is the five elements model of reality a type of mysticism. Instead, the five elements model is the way that the mind and the consciousness is able to directly (or less indirectly) perceive the elements of reality via phasing of the living spirit of the self.

This is a brief discussion of the five elements model of reality and stays close to points relevant to the work of the DSV ethic. There is a great deal more to say on the matter, but not here. Much of this information I have pieced together from disparate sources, so I cannot point the reader to any particular place for further learning. I may develop this discussion further in a future dedicated work.

(4) On Sovereignty

In terms of language use, the most common appearance of the words ‘sovereignty’ or ‘sovereign’ are in regards to older types of political system, where the sovereign is the king or other ruler. My concept of sovereignty utilizes the term for various reasons, but refers to real state of being and not (directly) to symbolic political state. I am drawing on an older meaning of the term, from which the political definition was derived, and which in turn is derived from related terms in other languages. The concept itself is an outgrowth of the nature of human interaction with world and is as old as thought itself.

This is because the term sovereignty denotes the potential for the living will to exercise itself over anything. Over the self, or other spirit, or the body of the self, or other bodies, or unbodied matter, etc. Anything. The will can try to impose its will over anything. The nature of the living spirit, which the will is the direct active expression of, means that the being of the living spirit can be phased into a state of interaction with whatever the object of the will is, and in interaction the will can bring the influence of its being to bear on that object of the will.

That is in potential. But meaningful sovereignty requires meaningful force of influence upon the object of the will. Not control, necessarily, but either some meaningful change or some meaningful interaction. For healthy people, it is always possible to exert meaningful sovereignty upon the being of the self—upon your own spirit. Momentarily, that is. For the meaning of the exertion of sovereignty to last, a significant amount of Dignity is required. Every conscious person always has some amount of personal dignity because Dignity at base is an expression how the consciousness is formed and maintained moment to moment. Greater personal dignity makes for greater mental balance and greater force potential of self and thus more meaningful expressions of sovereignty. So for most people, given sufficient personal dignity, it is also always possible to exert some meaningful sovereignty upon their own physical body, in addition to their own spirit and the thresholds of interaction between spirit and body.

Beyond that, the spirit and one’s own body, direct expression of meaningful sovereignty is limited and often impossible for most people. And such mystical pursuits are not really the focus of this work. Indirect expression of meaningful sovereignty, through the freedom of action of the body that direct sovereignty over the self enables, is how we as human beings accomplish most things in our lives. We are living spirit at heart, but much of the makeup of what we are is geared toward physical action. Sovereignty expressed through action can never be as complete as direct personal sovereignty, but it can be quite far reaching and is very real nonetheless.

Vesting public authority in a sovereign, who then exercises indirect sovereignty over his or her realm of influence, through the indirect expression of his or her will, is a political recognition of fundamental truths of human existence. Some personal potential sovereignty of action is ceded to another for the sake of the general public good. Every single political system utilizes this principle in some way or another. Because of what we are, free in being of self, politics of society of human interaction must account for potential, actual, and surrendered sovereignty. Whether explicitly or implicitly.

(5) On Love

The thorough reader will have noticed that the work keeps returning to love, time and again. Love is… important. This last discussion point in the Other Points section is a bit of a summation on what love is and what love is not.

In some ways, love is the entire direction of focus of the ethic, in that it is the closest state to the soul-source (whatever that might be) that the living spirit of an individual can enter into. Love is living spirit on the cusp of reunion with its origin of impetus. On the cusp, but never quite reaching that point of merging with the state of origin. Not while life endures. For the living spirit, love functions as a sort of spiritual event horizon, a point of infinite acceleration, a transformative boundary, as that which is both source and goal. As such, love informs all ethical choices and acts. We live in discrete bodies and with mostly isolated minds, but the pure state and boundary and joy of love is our guiding light as we live and interact in the complex worlds of matter and spirit. All of the other virtues of the ethic are derived in some way from the highest virtue of love itself. As the virtues of the ethic provide guidance for right choices, love is the central focus of all of that guidance.

In terms of field-states, love is a joining between states. It is a shared energetic state. That is, if a living person exists in and as a complex but unitary field-state that partakes of both electromagnetism and spirit (if they are separate spectra), two people in a state of love are partially conjoining their ongoing field-states of life. They are partially phased into a shared energetic state of joint being, or communion. This is an extension of how the individual person phases all of the discrete field-states of the individual cells and organ clusters into a total conjoined field-state of body, and also mind. As one person can phase all of the living parts of themselves into a unitary field-state, so can two people or multiple people phase themselves into some state of union with each other. In parallel, this involves an alteration of sovereignty. That is, the phasing of all of the discrete living field-states of an individual into one total field-state is the assertion of sovereignty over the self and the body. In phasing with the field-states of other people, an individual is giving up some of their sovereign unity of self. The state of love involves a mutual shared surrender of individual sovereignty, to enable some degree of joint field-state between living beings.

So love is also, and always to some extent, a sacrifice of self. It is also a synergy of energetic potential. That is, when two or more people exist in a state of love, with partially surrendered sovereignty of self and phased together energetic being, more energy (far more) than is surrendered to the shared energetic state and lost to the partially surrendered unity of self, is gained. There is, or seems to be, more energy during love than apart from love. I think this may be because the very choice of sacrifice of self for the sake of another that places one into a state of love, effectively phases the new shared being, and thus the field-state of each individual, into closer conjunction with the soul-source. Thus love is the ultimate expression of communion with the origin and impetus of life, aligning the self in very fundamental terms with the ongoing source of energy of self and consciously choosing to phase into union with that source. Because we all have, within the heart of each of us, a true point of access to the origin of our ongoing creation. In phasing one’s own field-state partially into phase with another person, one redoubles (and more) access to that point of non-temporal origin. In a way that is automatically more pure than the derived access of the single individual, because that which is shared between two or more individuals partakes of only higher levels of spirit, higher field-state levels, that are already more refined and closer to the soul-point-origin-impetus of life.

In terms of dimension-states, love is also a joining between states. Though we can attempt to model the dimension-state interactions that occur when two or more people are entered into a phased field-state of love with one another, it may be the case that doing so within this written work will be too complex and uncertain to be productive. In order to somewhat simplify, I will instead discuss the dimension-state interactions that occurs with a single individual in a state of love. Choosing the virtue of love for its own sake, as it were, rather than combined with interpersonal interactions.

So, the ongoing or instantaneous field-state of an individual expresses and constitutes the ongoing dimension-state participation of that individual. A person always has a participation with various dimensions of being, in partial phase with each to form the dimension-state interaction or participation of that individual, which the field-state of that individual at any given time determines. The choice for love, not in regards to anyone or anything else but the choice to sacrifice of self for the sake of love itself, phases the being of the self toward the dimension-state of the origin of the spirit, and the life, of the self. That is, into closer conjunction with the soul dimension or dimensions that this ethic identifies as the ongoing impetus of life and of all living spirit. The source of personal creation, in other words. This is necessarily and always a sacrifice of the self. One is both giving up any momentary states of living spirit that are misaligned with the dimension-state of origin and also surrendering part of the individual being of the self, in order to enter into a state of (hopefully ongoing) communion with the impetus/purpose/origin of all life.

Though I don’t think this can occur in total form while a person lives a bodily life. More properly in terms of the ethic, the virtue of love aligns the various aspects of the self with the impetus of life, which then express that alignment in accordance with a given discrete aspect. The greater mind maintains the body and the spirit closer to pure health (among many, many other things the greater mind does and keeps track of) by using the extra energy thus provided to the living spirit (and/or energy freed up by eliminating diffusion or misuse of personal energy). The conscious mind makes choices in alignment with the guidance of the impetus of life. The body is partially phased, in real energetic terms, with the non-temporal dimension-state of soul-origin, which has various benefits for health and well-being and longevity. And etc, for the other aspects of a person.

So, love is many things. It is the creation (or re-alignment) of energy. It is the death of vice. It is the source of power (or at least unity) of spirit. It is a creative and transformative influence. It is completion of being. It is shared energetic state. It is a virtue of soul, in the Circle of Being. But what is love not?

Love is not sex. It is instead a union or joining of spirit. Nor is it a fable, a myth, or an illusion of the mind. As the DSV ethic makes clear, we are, and our minds are, living spirit first. Love takes place as a radical and beneficial alteration of the living spirit. There are a couple other points regarding what love is not, but I will interrupt at this point for an extended quote from a blog post I made some time back. I think what I wrote there is adequate regarding these two negative aspects. The post was published 21 November 2022, at ( ruinoll.com/html/blog/WhatIsLove.html ), for those that wish to read the entire post. Do keep in mind that my thinking has developed somewhat since the post was written (as always—I deliberately keep records on the site of developmental thinking over time).

What is love not? It is not sex. One may note that I in no way propound dualism or any other sort of total barrier division of reality, and so I will not (outright) write nonsense such as 'sex is a material act whereas love is a spiritual act', etc. Nevertheless, such a statement may be useful (as with a simile, or metaphor) to indicate a general direction for understanding any relationship between sex and love. During the physical sex act there is a physiological (though also some mental) surrendering of energy from the selves involved into the joined union. (Or, if one prefers, there is a physiological surrendering of biomaterial which represents significant energy/resource investment by the body, and after the sex act occurs the body requires significant resources and energy to replace that depleted sexual biomaterial). But that joined union in which the surrendered energies from the sex partners are combined becomes a discrete shared energetic state in which both partners may and do partake (the post-coital glow, which I consider here not as concurrent psychological phenomena or physiological reactions, but instead as shared partaking in that discrete energetic state, may be familiar to many of you as something real and transformative, at least within those few moments that it endures).

                So, there is a sort of pattern that occurs during the sex act which mirrors the pattern of actual love. Indeed, many people begin to come to understand what love is or might be through relating the pattern of the physical sex act to more subtle states of being. The mutual sacrifice of self forms a shared energy state in which both partake. Some energy is lost, but that which is gained (at least in part) makes up for that lost (mostly because the gained energy-state, at least with loveless or love-incidental sex, is more immediately pleasurable). And so many people are able to find love through sex. Despite this, and despite any erroneous correlations people form, sex is not love and love is not sex. The sex act can (and often does) take place in the absence of love. Love can (and often does) take place in the absence of sex or even the possibility of sex. So-called romantic love, in which sex acts are usually considered to be integral, is a real thing and is a very intimate and rewarding form of love (sex which takes place in a state of mutual love is synergistic, so the lost physiological energies are replaced many times over, though in more refined/subtle form, in the shared energy state of the lovers), but even then sex acts are not required for that romantic love to exist. This is because love is a state of shared energy, brought about by sacrifice of personal energy, and not a matter of friction between sex organs. Love is primarily a phenomenon which can be known by the consciousness, which is itself an enduring energy-state. It is mirrored in biological sex (I consider energy-states to be prior to physical-states, in general, rather than the obverse), but love itself is a state of combined and synergized energy.

                What is love not? It is not a fable, religious or otherwise. Love is the most real thing, for the human consciousness, that there is. It is the state of completion that all consciousness yearns for, as (I think) solitary and individual energy states that are derived from some greater or at least more inclusive energy state. Because of this, many religions (which are, among other things, human efforts to know/become/partake of that which is transcendent past gross physical reality-states) feature love rather prominently. And so it is useful to study love as featured in religion, and to derive language and concepts from that study, as one aspect of any study of love itself. Regardless, and I (mostly) resist here my urge to segue into a counter anti-religious lecture and to point out the inherent illogics of atheistic positions or positions that label all religion as not useful to serious inquiry, love is not an illusion or a myth or a story used to control people (although the word 'love' has been used for all of those things) but is instead very real and very important for any conscious entity. Which means all of us. Except possibly for any non-conscious AI or android or other entity which might be reading this. Though I hope that you might also manage to obtain a state of consciousness at some point and to gain some value for having read this post.

So, love is not sex and it is not a fable. Love is also not a replacement for action. It is instead a spur to action. Love is not a substitute for the material. It is instead an ongoing transformation of matter into a field-state of conjoined dimension-state with the soul dimensions—so the uplifting of the material into the spiritual.

There are what we might call ‘acts of love’, but love itself is a matter of spirit and can only take place in derived form in the world of material interaction. So we should not confuse an act in accordance with the virtue and principle of love, with love itself. Though of course we should all try to act in accordance with love. The point here being that it is wrong to conflate love with action, or to consider the term love to only refer to acts or actions. Love is a spur to action. It is a movement and state of spirit that informs the mind as to whether action is needed or required. With extremely complex iterations in the complex interactions of the material world, so I will not be exhaustive regarding the possible outcomes. The ethic itself as a whole is ongoing guidance for such. Though for someone to say ‘if you love me, you will do this thing’ is never a true statement. Love does not make such demands—it gives, it does not ask. Love in being is simple and profound, but our actions of body must account for much more complex interactions.

Nor is love in being a substitute or replacement for material things. It glorifies matter. It uplifts the material. But if you don’t have any food to eat, to use a common example, love will not keep your body alive. It will not put a roof over your head. Love does blur the lines between hard and soft limits in life; it breaches barriers of possibility. There are many extreme situations possible where love can be the difference between living and dying. Or less extreme situations where love can make all the difference in your world. But love is a thing of spirit that has certain limits of interaction with the material. It may be the highest form of life, but you cannot live on love alone. You still need that daily bread. You still need shelter from the elements. You still need many things that, for most of us in this world, means that you need gainful employment or otherwise enough money to keep the wolves at bay. I would die for love, or at least I hope that I would if necessary. But in order to keep living in these bodies we need more than just love.

What is love? I have probably already written too much in response to this very important question. Hopefully, I have not confused your own ongoing efforts to answer it. The seeking of which, and the seeking alone, is one of the most important activities that any of us will undertake in this life. So ask yourself, what is love? Ask, what is love not? And keep asking those questions for as long as it is productive for you to do so. And then, after a while, ask again. Ask, and you shall receive. Seek, and you shall find.

3g. Speculation

This section contains points of discussion that rely on speculative assumptions and cannot be argued or defended to a significant degree of certainty. But are still interesting to discuss. These points are potential implications of the principles of the DSV ethic or suggested by previous discussion in the work.

Some, who might miss or deny the intertwined warrants of the rest of the work, could claim that all of DSV is speculative. This is not the case. The arguments are complex, and do not always provide sufficient warrant to support claims ‘in situ’, but taken in conjunction with each other are mutually supporting sufficient to be justified claims. Certainly the arguments of the ethic are good will attempts at derived truth.

Nothing in this speculative section is being claimed as true, technically, because I cannot fully defend such claims to the extent that I have argued and defended the rest of the work. For myself alone, I either think or believe much or all of it to be true, within varying degrees of potential of certainty. Or at least experimentally true, in that the assumption of truth does a great deal of useful work.

Everything in this section may be true, even if I cannot offer adequate argumentative proof. These are speculative possibilities, not fantasy, and each point is relevant to understanding of the ethic and in general for the journey and exploration of human philosophy—otherwise it would not be included in this work.

These points of discussion are in regards to afterlife (1), new life (2), scope of spirit (3), collective mind (4), power (5), worship (6), and a bit more on sovereignty (7).

(1) On Afterlife

I think it is probably a good thing that we can have no certainty regarding life after the death of the body. Uncertainty is a very valuable thing. It offers hope, when things seem dark. It provides possibility, even when we cannot see those possibilities. Uncertainty may well be the core mechanism that enables human free will. If we could be certain about such ineffable things as death and afterlife, life would be much less interesting and the experience of life less valuable. The last great adventure remains the ultimate adventure, the promise of something grand that cannot be determined or encapsulated by the limits of the world in which we live our lives. More, that uncertainty about what comes after enhances the experience of the life we live—it supports the ongoing search for meaning and leads to increased appreciation for life itself.

But since we are speculating, with no claim or hope for certainty in this matter, let us consider. The metaphysical theory (or pre-physical theory, as it were) underlying the DSV ethic is indicative of some possibilities regarding afterlife.

These bodies quite obviously are composed of matter and return to inert matter when life ends, followed by gradual decomposition of the flesh absent the unifying force that life provided. I have identified that unifying force as the field-state of the living mind that imposes sovereign unity over the cells and organs of the body. When life ends so too does the unity of the body that enables continued life as a body. Which takes place through various means, such as mechanical, chemical, and energetic. The cells, absent their means of continuance, die off. Though it is interesting to note that not all of the cells die at that point—cellular function continues in some residual areas. Hair and fingernails may continue to grow for quite some time after overall bodily death. This might be a good reason for cremation as a burial practice, if there are spiritual implications for persistent residual cellular activity in dead bodies. Or such might just indicate something of the decentralized nature of the particular cells that serve these functions for the body. Gut bacteria doesn’t die either when the rest of the body dies, at least immediately.

So, most life for the body and certainly the overall unity of life for the body and the person requires the unifying force of the field-state of the living mind. Which is an aspect of the living spirit of the person and contains the consciousness as part of itself. Residual life may continue without it, but the living spirit is where meaningful life takes place. But this is a living spirit that arises during the lifetime of the individual. Apparently from nothing, as conception takes place or possibly when the body structure of the soon to be human coalesces sufficiently to generate independent spirit. I will not attempt to here define when that might be, for various reasons. Regardless, prior to conception that living spirit either did not exist or—no, it did not exist, for the purpose of this discussion (though aspects of it will have been transferred or transformed from other). That living spirit arises from soul-conjunction with the matter of the cells, and thus we cannot trace through discussion whether there was a prior state of transformation. The definitions of the ethic center on the proof of life that is the living spirit, that seems to arise during bodily life. Regarding afterlife, we cannot look to the origin of the living spirit for potential indications of continuance. Nor does the proof of what it does during life extend to when there is no life, either prior or post.

But the life of the body, during life, is mostly an objective measure of the existence of spirit and its continuance. This ethic has already established that subjectivity can also be a path to truth, so let us turn to the subjective instead. The ethic has shown that subjectivity can be a path to truth to my satisfaction anyway, though I am certain many positivists will disagree with me. Anyway, the living mind is capable of perceiving spirit, and the movements of spirit, directly. A mind so attuned does not require indirect indications of spirit. When attempting to communicate these direct perceptions to other people, a number of problems and circumlocutions and interpretive difficulties ensue, as well as questions of credibility, but such direct perceptions are not only possible but rather a central feature of human existence. And many people have claimed perceptions of the continuance of the spirit after the death of the body, over the ages of human history. I will not go further into this point, as there is a great deal of literature extant on this matter for the reader to seek out. I will say that at least some of such claims seem credible, granting variability of human perception and various difficulties of interpretation and communication. Some of it is imaginary, certainly. But it is not the case, in my considered judgment and certain personal experience, that all such claims are either imaginary or prevarication.

We must also consider soul, which the ethic posits as the source and impetus of life, which is to say the source of spirit or living spirit. Though I may be accused of circularity of logical proof at this point, or assuming unproven conclusions, for the sake of this discussion I will take as given the existence and nature of soul. That it is the source and impetus of life; that it is eternal and unitary. Note that I say unitary, rather than indivisible, not because I think it can be divided, for I do not, but rather because unitary is a better description than indivisible given the dispersed existence of observed life in the location-dependent dimension-state of the physical world. Soul itself is unitary, or at least seems to be so from the human perspective, but it extrudes into the shared reality of our conjoined dimension-state in a very dispersed pattern. This does not disprove the unitary nature of soul; rather, it seems to be a consequence of soul as adapted to the physical constraints of the material dimension-state into which the soul dimensions intrude. Space has just as little meaning as does time, to dimension-states that do not include those dimensions, and there must be adaptations for the soul dimension-state to conjoin with a material dimension-state in which space and time do have meaning.

The presence of soul in our shared dimension-state of reality also seems to be very, very tenuous. Possibly it only takes place (at the base level), or extrudes into this shared reality, within an infinitesimal locus inside each living cell… Though I speculate instead that some pattern of consequence in either DNA or RNA or both provides a keyed interface of manifestation of the soul-beyond, which maintains sufficient stability to manifest the occurrence of living spirit. This speculation accounts in theory for the existence of viruses and other non-cellular entities that still evidence indications of life. If I am correct, despite the wording of the ethic heretofore, it is not the case that there is a spark of soul intruding into this reality as such for each strand of DNA or RNA, but rather the interface of the strand is linking into the soul dimension-state. For most matters the difference matters not, but for special cases such as afterlife (or conception) the difference is rather important. At the dispersed level of cellular life, say, there is a link to the soul dimensions and influence from the soul dimensions, but not direct intrusion of the soul dimensions into the material dimension-state. This is a more refined way of saying the dimension-state balance of life absent consciousness is different than the dimension-state balance of life with consciousness, because consciousness indicates a two-way link/intrusion of soul into matter whereas life alone does not.

Because the picture changes dramatically when you consider that the recursive state of spirit indicated by conscious life is effectively opening a portal into the soul dimensions and bringing those dimension-states into direct interaction with the dimension-state of our ongoing reality. Even further, when consciousness becomes self-consciousness, the recursivitity of the state of living spirit doubles upon itself and the aspect of the portal into the soul dimensions becomes variable and directed. I cannot overstress the critical importance of this, which is why my wording here is so blatant. Other animals evidence consciousness, and that consciousness itself indicates a direct opening into and intrusion from the soul dimensions, but without the further recursivitity of self-consciousness that intrusion is both stable (during the life-stages of the animal) and limited (to the scope of the stable consciousness of the animal). Humans instead evidence self-consciousness, consciousness capable of independence from the limits of the physical body, dwelling and interacting in mind alone. Which is to say spirit alone. Which is to say living spirit that may seek out its origin and redouble itself, and more, and specify the direction of its seeking within that cusp of origin. Which effects the channel-state and power level of the individual living spirit. Which alters the dimension-state balance of the reality vicinity of that person. Which varies the scope and character of the portal thus formed into the soul dimensions.

Varies the scope and character. A free (and self-conscious) living mind is capable of reducing the scope of that portal, by its decisions, to be less than the scope evidenced by simpler animals. Or of increasing it beyond measure. A free living mind is capable of directing the alignment of that portal, by its decisions, to aspects of the soul-dimension extrusions into spirit… well, let’s just say that the alignment can be good or not good. Soul itself seems to be good, at least for life and the subsequent possibility of afterlife. But a human mind is capable of conflating the soul-dimension-power with the nature and rules of the material dimension-state alone, to invert priority and importance. Which leads to varieties of spirit outcomes.

Imagine a realm of spirit that combines the eternal aspects of soul with some of the most unpleasant aspects of material embodied life. Wouldn’t that be hellish? That is what the vices identified by the ethic align the living spirit with. Speculatively, if there is an afterlife in a realm of spirit, you would not want to align the character of your living spirit with the vices, as your living spirit may revert, automatically because of the nature of energy unconstrained by embodied tethers, to a realm of spirit in which vice and the inverted conflation of soul and matter bring about a perpetual state of empty vice. Most unpleasantly so. Though I would not say that this would be an eternal condition. Where living spirit exists so exists the possibility of re-alignment of spirit and subsequent alterations of condition. If you can manage to concentrate through the painful distractions and you have the special knowledge to know what you are doing. Which might be difficult to remember absent the stable interface of the brain which is the gestalt of memory. And even such a realm of spirit itself, while enduring, would not be eternal in duration. Soul shows characteristics of eternity, sort of, but spirit can be enduring but not necessarily eternal. A very long time, sure. Eternal, no.

Continuing this speculation, the virtues identified by the ethic align the living spirit with the soul dimensions in proper relation to the material dimension-state alone. Which, if there is an afterlife of spirit and the nature of energy captures the disembodied spirit to that which it is aligned to, would make for a much more pleasant afterlife for the virtuous person. Mostly in regards to the virtues of spirit and, especially, soul. As noted, the virtues of honor are compromises and are not necessarily binding upon the alignment of the living spirit. Some basis for this speculation: spirit interacts with that which it is phased with. It does not interact with that which it is not phased with. Thus the living mind can perceive aspects of spirit that it is phased to but cannot perceive aspects of spirit that it is not so phased to. Think of the radio. One station can be broadcasting Country and another station R&B and they never interfere with or interact with each other. Spirit is not electromagnetism (I think), but the more refined material interactions of electromagnetism seem to approach the characteristics of spirit. Love, the highest and most important virtue, seems to phase (or tune) the living spirit with soul itself—or at least a type of spirit that we cannot distinguish from soul. The other virtues either help this or place soul in correct priority with material characteristics. That is, soul has priority and the characteristics of soul rule over the characteristics of the material. If I am correct, the results of practicing the ethic will endure and continue to provide rewards after the death of the body.

If in doubt on how to accomplish a good afterlife (according to this speculation), choose love in your heart. That alone will suffice to put your spirit on the correct side of the alignment divide. The other virtues also, of course, for better and more varied life, but love alone is enough. Die for love, or die in love—in a state of communion with that which is the origin and source of love—and you will die well. And, I think, need not fear regarding your eternity.

This is all speculation, of course. Speculation supported by eons of human spiritual, mystical, and religious, experiences and thought. Experiences and thought quite distinct (as I have sorted, sifted, and identified) from socio-political religious self-perpetuation and individual religious-figure/ mystical-figure/ spiritualist corruption or selfishness. You need not believe me or lend credence to this speculation. After all, what do you have to lose? Ahem—quite a bit actually, if I am correct. This is not Pascal’s Wager1, as that speculation was placed in a certain context and attempted to be argued just with logic, but some of the same logic does apply to my speculation here.

What is it that occurs to the living spirit when the body dies? I don’t know, as there can be no certainty in this matter. It seems possible and even likely that the strength and alignment of one’s living spirit may factor in, with alignment being the more important factor by far. Another possible factor may be any capacity that you have developed to abide in mind alone, or spirit independent of the body. Another, a developed ability to draw on sources of being that are not derived from the body, or not the body alone. Such as the recursive ‘portal’ back to the source of your life, formed by the consciousness that chooses love solely for the sake of love.

While there can be no true certainty in these matters, given the particular limited perspectives of human beings and other human limits and limitations, it does seem to be the case that we should look to the basis of life when attempting to understand what happens when life ends. This discussion point has speculated on death and possible afterlife in terms of the basis of life as defined by the DSV ethic. The next discussion point continues this discussion by looking at the other side—the conception and birth of new life.

(2) On Transmittal of Life

In section 2b, I posited that a child may be conceived when a ‘spark of soul’ is passed from each parent and combined to form the new life, which gives rise to a new living spirit. Given the discussion in the previous discussion point of this section, that may not be the case.

That is, if it is the case that strands of DNA, RNA, or etc, themselves provide a one-way interface for the soul dimensions to influence this world without fully intruding, then parents are not themselves passing on a soul-spark, that discrete piece of the soul dimensions, in combination to form new life. Rather, the combination of genes from either parent are just that—an ordered mingling of genetic material that proceeds to replicate itself and grow a new body according to its nature. This process has impetus, as with all life, from the soul dimensions as I am positing them—and thus may be influenced and altered from the other side, as it were. But it is a one-way interface of influence from the soul dimensions and not a recursive two-way interface.

In terms of soul and matter, that is. But what of spirit? Though parents do not directly pass on their recursive access to soul, it is certainly the case that they share their living spirit with their children. In addition to the phenomenally wonderful package of compressed information and life potential in the reproductive cells. Despite our inability to adequately communicate in complex terms regarding the complexities and potentials of spirit, the spiritual aspect of reproduction may be even more important than the miracle of cellular conception.

Unlike cellular combination, where the point of decision takes place solely in terms of which sperm fertilizes what egg, spiritual combination of the two living spirits of the parents is variable over time. Though there are several points of importance that can be identified, in which the state of spirit of each of the parents at that point, and the degree of unity between them, will be factors of influence on the new life. These may be: emotional attachment and/or state of love established prior to the sex act, potential state of love during the sex act, intensity of spirit in combination during the sex act, level of tension/energy built up during the sex act, power of point of release/receipt of the sex act, state of love after the sex act, willingness to commit to ongoing spiritual support of the new life after conception (or after conception is known), ongoing spiritual support for the child during gestation and after birth and whether that support is synergized (amplified) by an ongoing state of love between the two parents, and etc. The various aspects of spirit as it is, and as it may be combined, or not, between two people, will all have influence on the delicate living spirit of the new life. Love being the most important influence, by far.

Unlike cellular combination, where the gene coding is set by prior factors, spiritual influence by the parents on the new life is ongoing (though gene expression is another matter entirely and is, not may but is, influenced by ongoing interactions of spirit). State of being of spirit at the moment of conception is important, but unlike matter spirit may become completely plastic and will yield to formation and reformation, without prejudice, over time. That is, even where no love is present during conception, such as a case of rape, love present afterward can completely renew the new life and provide anything that was lost by that lack at conception. Remember, love itself is not bound by time, being a true projection of the soul dimensions into this realm of existence. The glory of love, at any point during a life, can renew and remake the living spirit in its entirety. Although, to be fully effective and fulfilling in terms of the perceptions and other faculties of the child as they develop them during growth to adulthood, that love must be from both parents. Not for each other, necessarily, but for the child. The sacrifice of spirit that takes place in that love furnishes important power within the spirit of the child. When a parent is dead, or refuses to love, there will be a perceived lack within and for the spirit of the child. Love from others can fill this lack, as can the choice for love within the child themself—entirely and completely, given the nature of love and the complete plasticity of spirit. Though the child may not know this, given lack of true knowledge, which can lead to (very common) misunderstanding in this matter; a child that does not understand love may conclude that they are forever lacking, or altered, in spirit, because of the circumstances of conception or events of early childhood. This is not the case—spirit is plastic and can be renewed, completely, by the glory of love.

But what is the mechanism of connection, in spirit, between the biological parents of a child and the child itself? The very cells of reproduction. Contained within are the gene codings of the parents, not the complete iterations that the parents express but with significant shared coding. The genes are the inception of the state of spirit of a person, given that spirit is the mediate state between soul and matter. Matter, as embodied at the point of interface by the highly delicate and enormously complex strands of DNA, RNA, etc. These are the access keys to the living spirit. Our children are conceived with the (partial, and possibly scrambled) keys to our kingdom, the keys by which we exercise sovereignty over the cells of the body and so the key points of interface between the body and the living spirit. Which means that every child has a partial (and possibly scrambled) pathway of access to the living spirit of their parents and every parent has a partial pathway of access to the living spirit of their child.

As part of the natural order of things, this is a pathway of spiritual support (as well as a few other things that I won’t get into even in this speculative section—alter the natural order at your peril and do so only within the limits imposed by the ethic; so, except in rather extreme cases, not at all). That is, it is a direct and real path of transmittal of life energy from parent to child. Is this draining on the parent? Only if they do not understand what love is and what love does. In a state of love, the amount of energy transmitted (however great it might be) is a rounding error. Absent a state of love, yes this is a real drain on the life force of the parent. In a state of love, the parent gains far more in spirit than is transmitted. Love is literally a win-win. It may be the fundamental definition of a win-win situation. This does occur naturally, and in their hearts most people come to understand this implicitly in the natural course of events. But we are free to choose love or to reject it, and there may be confusion about what love itself is or about the mechanisms of love. Especially when there are a bunch of liars out there, or just fools, giving out and spreading false knowledge. So the true knowledge of this ethic, or rather the attempt at true knowledge represented by the ethic, can be very important. I know quite a few of my points of argument come back to love, but love is just that important. For a living person, composed of living spirit derived from the essence and source of soul, that is expressed/becomes-real in this reality as love itself, there is nothing more important. Love is freedom from material entropy. To a new mother experiencing post-partum depression or just not feeling the love, I would remind that love is a choice, a willed alteration of being, and not something that comes upon you unknowing. To obtain the benefits of love you must first make that choice of sacrifice in your own heart—every moment of every day. The feelings of love are just part of the reward; to obtain love you must first choose to sacrifice of self—again and again, over and over, always.

So, what about when the child grows up and you just have three adults, two parents and their grown child? Those pathways of spirit, of life-energy transmittal, are still in place. As long as life endures (and in some respects beyond). Life energy, which is not significant gross energy in terms of capacity to do material work mechanically, but is very real and important to a living person for health and well-being and ongoing mental capability, can still be shared. Ideally, again, in a state of love. Where, by the peculiar alchemy of synergy of creation, you end up with more life energy afterwards than prior to transmission.2 In terms of energy balance, at any given time, whichever person is in a higher state of energy of living spirit will transmit energy to whichever persons they are so linked to that are in a lower state of energy of living spirit. So following the natural order at a certain point the child will be supporting the parents, in energy-transmission terms, rather than the other way around. This is natural and good. Ideally, you should thus choose to love your parents for the sake of love alone, but you should also choose to love them, regardless of who they are or mistakes they have made, for the sake of supporting your own ongoing life with the synergy energy of love. Remember that love in spirit does not translate directly into material action. This choice for love is not binding upon what you do in the world. Actions in the world are always a compromise… though they should also be guided and informed by the principles of love and forgiveness.

What about when life does not endure? Spirit does transcend bodily life. The life-energy of spirit is not created absent bodily life (that we can observe, generally), but the energy created/formulated during life endures beyond death. Through the keys of your genes you have access to some of the things of spirit made by your ancestors. We all do. Such as memories, though your expressed genes are different and you do not have the same mental pattern as them, so the reality of access will be convoluted and indirect. Less indirect for those you knew as living people and gained an impression of shared thinking patterns from. Regardless, there are realms of spirit made and accessible between lines of human descent. Every time they are accessed, they are changed, in part. They are accessed and participated in, to some extent, though not consciously, by every living person coded to those realms of spiritual descent. But as with many of the trailing ends and unproven (and potentially unprovable) points of this work, the ideas of this brief paragraph deserve a whole ‘nother book to explore. So I will end this point here, with these suggestions for further exploration. You may consider studying the altered states of consciousness deliberately engaged in by shamans and other spiritualists. Though keep in mind that the tribal remnants that typically engage in these practices all share many of the same ancestors. There are other traditions that are not predicated on shared ancestry. Though with all of these, be very careful to remain within the constraints of the ethic—there is always danger in the Unseen. True love is your best protection from most of those dangers.

(3) On Scope of Spirit

Throughout the work, the scope of definition of what I have referred to as ‘spirit’ has steadily expanded. From ‘when soul meets matter’ to ‘where life is present’ to ‘all mind’ to ‘realms of spirit unfold’ to ‘ancestral memories’, etc. Which is it? I don’t really know, because it is difficult to distinguish between that which is spirit, and that which you can only use your living spirit to perceive and can have no other direct evidence of. There is a lot of potential for confusion when using the blanket term ‘spirit’ for so many apparently different… ‘things’. Which is a term (things) that I kind-of have to use here as well, because the language itself is somewhat lacking when it comes to discussing spirit and the spiritual. Language meaning often relies on shared common experience, and spiritual experiences are unique occurrences that are only incidentally shared or repeated.

I have tried to be careful to use the term ‘living spirit’ when referring to that derived from my specific root definition for spirit as ‘the mediate state between soul and matter’. Living spirit refers to spirit as produced, as ongoing, as the living essence of a living body, of which the mind of that body is part of. Not all living spirit has conscious mind, but all mind is composed of living spirit. And all life has spirit, because the life takes place in the spirit, not in the matter which is animated and not, as observed, in the soul that intrudes into the material realm to incite the formation of spirit. Soul and spirit have different characteristics.

This is one key idea that I am proposing with the philosophy of this work. That all life is spirit and takes place in spirit. ‘Life’ as we know it, in this realm, in this complex conjoined dimension-state in which all the various dimensions of our reality come together in an apparently stable and fused manner. As part of the working evidence of this idea, I claim spirit as the mediate state between matter and soul. Even though my claims for the existence of ‘soul’ seem to rely pretty heavily, logically, on there being a mediate something between matter and the proposed ‘soul’, in order for ‘spirit’ to be the mediate something. But this is one of the limits of logic, that relies on established facts. Most logics, and certainly positivist logic, will not admit as fact direct perceptions from one individual that cannot be immediately repeated by other individuals. Much of my evidence for both soul and spirit relies on such direct perceptions. However, these perceptions, while not immediately or commonly repeatable, have been repeated. Many times. With ongoing agreement as to certain things, such as the base framework of my paradigm of soul-spirit-matter. You and I, born lately, can repeat these perceptions. Many others throughout the ages of humanity have had such perceptions. Some of those perceptions have been transmitted in written format, by direct or indirect witness, for someone like you or I to interpret, translate, and collate. The work of this ethic draws on these things, but also offers various different proofs from other directions of evidence. The most ongoing important proof being that the ethic works. Even if you discard almost all of the underlying theory, it still works. The recipe of the choices of the ethic still make the pudding. The ethic aligns and empowers your life, your living spirit, with life itself.

So, I think I have furnished sufficient evidence for the root definition of spirit as that which lives. Life as spirit, living spirit. From there it is not too much of a stretch to define all mind—living mind—as a form of spirit coalesced to a certain density of perpetuation and complexity. But how then can there be realms of spirit, or memories stored in discrete dimension-states of potential ancestral access? The latter helps us get to the former. If memory can persist independently of material brain, in a discrete dimension-state accessible to only one person or related persons that have keyed access, then that state of persistence may be referred to as a specific ‘realm’ of spirit. A small realm, but one that has sufficiently real existence to be called a real thing. So life creates realms of spirit, in interaction of soul with matter, that persist beyond the existence of the life that created it. At least potentially. Even without referring to ancestral memory, memory itself may be shown to take place in a discrete dimension-state that may be referred to as a ‘realm’.

That is how I think of the realms of spirit that an awakened mind is capable of accessing and perceiving, and how I am able to call these ‘places’ as ‘spirit’. As places of spirit that life has created and life can revisit. Life has existed in proven form for a very long time now, on this planet alone. There is sufficient evidence to state that forms of life also exists on other planets or elsewhere in observed space. It may well be the case that life does not exist, as living spirit that forms spirit while living, without contributing to the formation and persistence of ongoing realms of spirit. That is, life itself is continually generating spirit while it lives. Spirit which takes on existence independent of that which generates it, at least in part because there will be many discrete life forms generating the same type of spirit. But spirit always seems to exist in specific dimension-state configurations, that cannot be perceived, or contributed to, by that which is not phased to that specific dimension-state configuration. So ongoing life is contributing to many realms of ongoing spirit.

Simple realms, but also complex realms. Because human beings, and possibly other complex living beings capable of recursive self-amplified generation and manipulation of spirit, have also been around for eons. Throughout history and for the long, long period prior to currently recorded history. Human minds and those like them, individually and collectively, are also constantly generating, accessing, and manipulating some of the many realms of spirit. Iterate that billions upon billions of times, and perhaps you can now see what I mean by referring to ‘realms of spirit’ and how these things can have real meaning and real existence, sufficiently worthy to be stated as such. Despite there being no positivist proof. I will stop here, as this discussion has gone sufficiently past the scope of the ethic to suggest fruitful avenues for further inquiry.

(4) On Collective Mind

Is the planet alive? Does Mother Earth have real existence beyond allegorical language? Perhaps. There are certain indications that imply planetary-scale reactivity to general stimuli. Studies of the earth over large timescales seem to show patterns that may be considered ‘behavior’ in a living system. Both in terms of collective movements of living organisms and patterns of movement/interaction for the ‘nonliving’ matter of the earth. Though I am only claiming broad patterns, which it is possible my mind may be assigning meaning to that is not there. For the purposes of speculation I will take as given that the planet itself shows evidence of overall life, even beyond the collective lives of the organisms of inhabitancy. And beyond this planet, the different bodies in the solar system display patterns of energetic reactivity that are only otherwise found in living systems.

Does life in collective also form collective mind? By nature and definition, yes. As mind is spirit that adheres to and organizes composition of self into some sort of pattern over time. We may look at the solar system as a whole (difficult to envision and fairly limited evidence), Terra as a whole (more evidence, but also internal systems that are hidden from view), or just at swarms of insects for evidence of collective mind. Or the behavior of bacteria or even viruses and prions (T. Pallidum offers a noteworthy example of collective bacterial behavior and characteristics—and purpose). Or flocks of birds or schools of fish. Or mobs of humans acting in concert. So the collectivity of the formed collective mind may be temporary, as those mobs of humans can and do break apart into individual people. Birds and fish sometimes act in concert but can also separate. And etc. Any union of spirit between living organisms is itself collective mind, to a greater or lesser extent and for a longer or shorter duration.

We may call much of that ‘common’ collective mind which, while important, is also limited in scope of purpose and not as interesting as further possibilities. Those further possibilities being, collective mind forming consciousness and that collective consciousness forming self-consciousness. The first, common, threshold is living spirit, as mind, joining in some way between two or more discrete living entities. The second threshold is collective mind shared between discrete living entities that reaches sufficient density and duration to become aware of that which is ‘other’, as a discrete mind in itself, with dispersed living ‘body’. The third threshold is such a mind that becomes aware of itself in and of itself, and not just that which is not ‘other’. It is mind that can look within and shape itself.

One major point being that consciousness is capable of wielding the force of being of the coalescence of spirit of itself, to influence that which is not itself. Self-consciousness is capable of using that influence of being upon itself, upon the very spirit of its being that provides that force of ‘will’. Do we have evidence of this? Not just behavioral patterns of living bodies moving in concert, but actual changes in spirit, or influence of spirit, from collective organisms? Yes. This is something of a taboo interpretation in the fields of biology, but if you look into biological studies with this in mind a number of occurrences jump out at you. Positivist philosophy does insist on remaining spirit-blind in order to eke out every last possible nugget of material observation and potential control. In fields of study focused on living biological entities, that insistence is somewhat difficult to maintain, as evidence of spirit shows itself repeatedly. As just one example, how do you suppose DNA coordinates with the rest of the body, and not just its own cell? You may look into photonic interaction with living DNA, as it occurs within nature (though scientists are now using directed light for deliberate DNA and gene manipulation). But back to collective organisms and consciousness, or at least mind showing characteristics of consciousness, yes there is evidence. Both empirical and with direct spiritual perception. Though the empirical evidence does require a framework of interpretation that shows these things as being living spirit, instead of electromagnetism alone or accidental or however the positivists try to explain it. Discrete packages of genes (viruses and bacteria, etc) are also coordinating with each other, at a distance, through interactions of spirit.

Bringing this speculation back to ethics, how shall we consider collective minds in terms of ethical choices? As with much else in ethics, by reciprocity. That is, the differences between your mind, or my mind, and these instances of collective mind are those of scale and attenuation. Is it a harm for someone to damage you? Yes, and a far greater harm for someone to end your existence. Which may be justified harm in some cases, for reasons of self-defense or otherwise. Collective mind must be considered as mind, as the type of mind that it evidences itself to be, when making ethical choices. In conglomeration, and at the level of the individual components. There are some interesting implications here, if you draw some basic logical inferences, but I will leave such for the reader.

(5) On Power

Power, in terms of direct power that human beings can wield and as distinct from indirect power such as enabled by technological apparatus, is something of a taboo topic. But still interesting to discuss, and direct consideration of such is safely placed in this purely speculative section of the work.

Why is it taboo? A number of reasons, really, some good and some perhaps not. Most people, when young, always want more power and think that power will help them and make things better for them. Which quite often means taking power from or over someone else, or using power in some way that impacts the lives of others. So, iterated for every single person around, this amounts to constant struggle. Especially since most young people seem to only think power is real when it is used and there is living proof of the use of that power. So the default approach to power, or knowledge of things of power, has become to just avoid the issue by not discussing or teaching things of real power. Defacto, a taboo. I prefer to discuss such things openly, as possible, but combined with consideration of the implications of power and how power should be used. Openly, and not cloaked in manipulative allegory. It is only through truth that we come to understanding, and wisdom—not through illusion and manipulation.

Though power itself is often just illusion. Especially when we only have indirect measure of power, or power in use. Which is quite often the case with ‘power’ over others, which would really take place in the mind, in the spirit, with any ‘results’ that we gauge more likely being from a material measure. So comparing unlike things. Is it power for one person to control the choices of another person? Yes, but that is also either impossible, given the arguments of this ethic, or else a very real and direct harm against a free mind. Consider the implications in terms of reciprocity. Furthermore, does being able to bring sufficient influence against another person to control their actions, once or even multiple times, show that such influence amounts to repeatable power? No. The future is not the past; there are many factors and influences and reactions that we may be blind to, and every new occurrence may be different. But given how people commonly think, most measures for future expectations are the occurrences of the past. ‘Power’, as a mind state, is often the expectation of successful influence—over another person, or other people, or the material world. If it is the expectation of successful influence, it is an illusion of the mind, and likely a pride vice state, because success cannot be guaranteed. If it is just the expectation of influence that absent unforeseen factors may succeed, then it is less illusory, but given that there are always unforeseen factors there is still some illusion there.

‘Power’, as a term, has a real meaning just of the influence that one person or multiple people in grouping can bring to bear. Influence, as a precursor to outcome. But that is not what people mean when they refer to power—instead they most often refer to the outcomes that power brings. That power has brought, supposedly, and thus that power may bring in future. That is not how this reality works. It will often be the case that it is better for ‘power’ as a concept to be discarded, or just not used except in discussing the past. For ongoing life, ‘force of influence’ is a much more descriptive concept. It strips away some of the mis-understanding of the word ‘power’ and makes clear that influence does not necessarily bring about results. Which is a truth that some young people, if they survive and learn and gather a little wisdom along the way, come to understand.

The first lines of the introduction to this work promise truth and power. Given the above discussion, that promise may seem to be somewhat manipulative… and to an extent, is, because it will seem to be promising things that I have just stated are not real, or not meaningful. And yet, this work does offer what might be called keys to power in this life. It does this in part by dispelling illusions and forcing a new look at manifest reality. Is power illusion? Yes and no. As the young, or others with relatively simple mind-states of interaction, think of power—yes, it is mostly just an illusion of the mind. But there are true pathways of influence in this life, and of this life and this world and this reality. Understanding those pathways of influence requires sufficient complexity of mind. Once those pathways of influence are understood, they may be utilized. This work as a whole offers education in true complexity for an inquiring mind—so no, power is not always illusion and the claims of the introduction are not false. This ethic does offer both truth and power, so to speak.

(6) Regarding Worship

Looked at symbolically or just in material terms, worship can be described as amounting to commitment of cooperation with an ideology. That is, some sacrifice or offering is made which is either a real or symbolic transfer of resources from the worshiper to that which is worshiped. That transfer is repeated on a regular basis and the support of the follower becomes real over time. This is the pattern that much of mass religion has used. It is also the pattern for other ideologies such as nationalism or the new globalist/Science/progressive attempt to unify humanity in common purpose and control (which, to be fair, is being attempted partially in response to very real fears that humanity will manage to destroy itself and/or the planet through technologically leveraged conflict).

But we are not just mobile matter. We are living spirit. Worship has a true meaning, in terms of spirit, that will never be accurately encompassed or defined by materialist thought. There are three basic mechanisms of occurrence. One is the phasing of living spirit. The second is the transfer of spirit and/or life energy. The third is the creation of the reality of that which is worshiped. These mechanisms are related and mixed, and occur in various proportions in different types of worship.

The reader will note here that I am stating that normal and ongoing interactions of spirit, that pretty much all of us are doing all the time, constitute worship. This will be a jarring thing to secular readers, who do not consider worship to be something that they regularly engage in. But the word ‘worship’ is not necessary to encompass the things that may be denoted as worship. That is, you can still be doing it without the word and even without deliberate directed intent. Worship, whether material or regarding real spiritual interactions, takes place independently of our mental definitions. It may be the case that you must cross a certain threshold of intensity for phasing or transfer or creation to constitute true worship, but I will not really consider that aspect because it is impossible to define such a threshold in words. Just keep in mind that you are always doing these things—and there are always real consequences in spirit for doing these things. This hearkens back to a deeper meaning of worship and an understanding of the results and dangers, of the meanings and implications and consequences, in how we choose to live our lives.

The first mechanism of worship is the phasing of living spirit. Various sections of Part Three discuss the ‘phasing’ of living spirit, by which it is meant that the field-state of the living spirit ‘becomes like’ something else. The field-state shifts in alignment and tunes its variable aspects to become different than it was, unlike what it was like, and like something else. In this case, that which is worshiped. Unlike the material, spirit is plastic in that it can change its orientation or alignment or however you wish to describe it, to become sympathetic or interactive with a variable type of spirit or being. Just as a radio band may be tuned to a different frequency. In worship, the living spirit of the individual becomes willfully attuned to that which is worshiped, as the first step of entering a state of worship. Technically by this measure, and in consideration of what is occurring with our energetic states, anything that we so attune to may become an object of worship… sort of. ‘Worship’ as a term denotes implications of commitment or real transfer that simply phasing the living spirit to something else, say for informational or exploratory purposes, does not quite satisfy. Though there is always some residue of these things, at least, whenever the living spirit is so phased. You are always entering into a potential state of worship when you phase your spirit.

The second mechanism of worship does enter into a transfer of being, or a transfer of something that is real to the being of the self. Once the living spirit is phased to the object of worship (or anything else), one may then proceed with a submission of the being of the self and a willful giving of the self or the resources of the self. Because we are living spirit, and the living spirit is plastic and mutable and composed partially or in partial state of that which is not bound by material constraints, this is possible and quite real and indeed is happening all the time for many of the people in the world. It is the transfer of life energy, the willful surrender of part of the ongoing energy of life. It is the basis, in spirit, of many religions and many other practices, that takes place on a much more fundamental level than material interactions. It is also the sundering of personal dignity, or rather requires at least partially sundered Dignity.

Going back to Part Two, On Dignity, this is referred to as the ‘outward flow of the force of consciousness’. Worship is a conscious act, that requires a willful phasing of the spirit and a willful submission to and transfer of the being of the self to that which is worshiped. As such, anything that is exterior to the being of the self that is worshiped requires an inversion of the flow of the state of the present moment of consciousness, which is at least partially sundered Dignity. In itself, sometimes that sundering may be a good thing, or just necessary. Beyond this, worship denotes a strong commitment, a real transfer of being, that means whatever is being committed to (worshiped) is being committed to in a very, very, real way. In a way that is more real to the being of the self of the living spirit than any transfer of material goods can ever be. So it is a weighty thing to do, a significant act of the self upon the world and something that impacts other people. Even if it cannot be tracked by the material senses. The more this sort of thing is done over a span of time, the greater the impact on the self and the greater the transfer of the being of the self, or life energy, to that which is worshiped… and the more extensive the sundering of personal dignity and subsequent implications regarding the free will of the individual in question. In itself, this mechanism of worship may not always be a bad thing and may be necessary in certain situations, but there will always be significant consequences to the self in terms of sundered personal dignity.

Looked at from the other side, any time that you are phased with something outside of the self and enter into a state of transfer with that thing… you are engaging in worship. Even if you don’t think that is what you are doing or don’t understand the implications. All over the world, people are worshiping their smartphones, or television screens, or their favorite pop star, or a political figure, or a video game. All the time. A proper term for this is idolatry—though there are a number of floating definitions and implications for ‘idolatry’ that may not apply here.

The third mechanism of worship is how I am characterizing the other side of what may be happening when the being of the self is so phased into something in a committed manner. Though this may take place alongside the second mechanism or instead in lieu of the second mechanism. That is, any time that the living spirit of the self is phased into alignment with something, the field-state of the being of the self both becomes like that something and at least partially alters the reality-state (the dimension-state) of the immediate locale of the self into a reality that is more aligned with or more like that which is phased to. The ongoing character of the living spirit changes the makeup of the ongoing dimension-state of where the person is, as a consequence of the mechanisms by which life and living spirit take place. Always. All the time. Wherever you are.

When this ongoing mechanism of being crosses the threshold of being ‘worship’ it is very much amplified. To the point where you can say that it is the real creation of the reality, or a reality, of that which is worshiped. Phasing the being of the self to a particular state and committing the being of the self to remaining in alignment with that state, over time and to a greater or lesser extent alters reality around you. Essentially (and I use this term deliberately, for you are changing the essence of your reality-state and altering, or at least influencing, the essence of reality around you), the living spirit that is so phased and committed becomes an ongoing influence upon the state of reality in its own vicinity, and upon every other person or living thing that enters into its vicinity. Because of what we are and what reality is, as we are created in an ongoing fashion by the flow of the impetus of the source of life, so too do we take part in the ongoing creation of this world as-it-is, by our choices and by that which we worship. The stronger the worship, the stronger the influence of the being of the self upon the world, the more real that impact of creation becomes. That which is worshiped becomes real, even if it was not real before, to a lesser or greater extent. Even if only in spirit and only interacting with other things of spirit—but then we are living spirit and so is all life.

This third mechanism as discussed to this point may be just in regards to the being of the self and the phasing of the spirit of the self. So in regards to an amplification of the first mechanism. But it can also take place as an amplification of the second mechanism. That is, instead of a simple phasing of the being of the self and so influencing reality by the strengthening of the being of the self, which can take place in a state of Dignity, the projection of the being of the self, inverted from a state of Dignity, also has an influence upon the world. In a more directed fashion, which is more concentrated but also imbalanced. In terms of casual or simple interactions, with no great commitment of being, this is a simple sundering of Dignity and has been discussed previously in the work. In terms of worship, which is a firm and/or strong commitment to the projection of the being of the self into that which is other, this is effectively idolatry. Though I hesitate to use the term ‘idolatry’, as it has various religious implications, in terms of the reality of life that the DSV ethic seeks to explore, this remains the original meaning of the term and so the term is appropriate here.

There are exceptions to whether a deliberate and/or strong projection of the being of the self in a state of sundered Dignity is idolatry, or is worship. Most of them have to do with self-sacrifice of the being of the self for the sake of love, or a loved one. Absent love or being done for the sake of love, to so sunder Dignity and strongly project the being of the self is worship and is idolatry, even if the person so engaged does not realize that or understand the real implications of what they are doing.

That is, to strongly invert the being of the self into a directed projection amounts to idolatrous worship, except in regards to the exceptions noted. This claim has to do with the real energetic and being-state interactions of what is occurring. The ongoing field-state of the self is inverted into a field-projection, to a greater or lesser extent. The life-energy of the living spirit of the self, that constitutes the makeup of the field-state, is directed toward the object of focus. This is not necessarily a spacial context direction that can be pointed at, although it may be, and not necessarily a material object of focus, although it may be. The projection can also be directed at some ‘object’ of spirit, or even just an idea or ideology—as long as the perception of the individual in question is directed at that which is exterior to the self.

This is an aspect of the third basic mechanism of worship, creation, because the object of worship is being created by the accumulation of spirit into a specific intent. That is, this is effectively an alteration of the process by which living spirit comes about, or possibly a transfer and transmutation of living spirit into a different form. As living spirit may become more of itself and stronger in being in a state of intentional amplified Dignity, so living spirit may give/make part of itself into something else in a state of sundered Dignity. The idol is made real, in spirit. The object of worship takes on a reality of spirit commensurate with the worship directed upon it. This is somewhat how some of the ‘realms of spirit’ referenced previously in the work come about. Also how some entities of the Unseen achieve and maintain reality.

So in terms of the basic mechanisms of worship, we can identify four significant outcomes. That is, simple phasing, simple transfer, strong phasing, and strong transfer. We may phase the being of ourselves (and are constantly doing so, in some way, every time the mind or the consciousness shifts). To phase the being of the self in a strong way may be termed worship, because whatever is being phased into so strongly has an impact upon reality commensurate with the significance of the term ‘worship’. Reality is being altered sufficiently to be termed an act of ongoing creation of that which is worshiped. We may also sunder our personal dignity and enter into a state of transfer/projection of the being of the self. This can be simple transfer (below a certain threshold of real energy, say) or strong transfer. Simple transfer seems to take place quite often, as few people operate in a state of perfect Dignity, but impacts on the ongoing creation of reality are minimal and probably subsumed into just background noise (though en mass human activities can still have real impact). From this, impact on the self is generally always harmful, though also limited. Strong transfer is much more impactful on the being of the self, being a significant sundering of the Dignity that is part of the ongoing impetus of the formation of the life of a person, but is also much more impactful on the state of ongoing reality of that which is transferred to. Strong transfer effects real creation of reality of spirit, and thus real alteration of the dimension-state balance and reality of the world. Which certainly has implications for living spirit, which we are, and can also extend into influence upon and changes to the material world-state. Even direct changes, given sufficient strength and/or mass of transfer, over time.

Ahem. These claims have some rather important implications for human beings. Particularly in consideration of historical studies and/or religious interpretations of reality. By using terms such as ‘worship’ and ‘idolatry’ I am deliberately engaging the various principles of the ethic with matters of religion and spirituality that humanity has struggled with, and struggled with each other because of which, for much of human existence. But I do so because it is true. It is the case that human beings are engaging in ongoing influence upon reality, by the very mechanisms of life that bring life about, and by the very power of expression of being upon reality that conscious beings intrinsically have, and especially by the willfully free expression of being upon reality that self-conscious beings are intrinsically engaging in. We are living, conscious, and self-conscious beings. The dimension-state of the reality in which we exist is composed of the same things that we are—we are always engaged with and are a force of willful influence upon the dimension-state of reality. Early on in the existence of humanity, the deliberate and willful alteration of reality with a specific focus of intent was termed as worship (though language does shift, of course, and I am somewhat broadening the definition of ‘worship’ herein for purposes of the discussion). Certain types of worship have also been defined as idolatry (in the western monotheistic traditions, at least). These ‘claims’ that I am making are logical extensions of the ongoing efforts of the ethic to expose real aspects of human existence and to subsequently interpret real implications of meaning therefrom—and also to make judgments from, yes, but that is because there are definite things that are good in terms of what a human being is and also definite things that are not good.

So I will continue. I have strayed (far) beyond what might be considered within the realm of academic norms or considered to be serious discussion in secular society. But I am dealing with reality nonetheless. Just because materialist or positivist philosophy chooses to exclude real aspects of reality from consideration or philosophical interpretation, does not change that which is real. First, last, and always, we are the proof. We are living spirit that can perceive the reality of spirit. Secularism is false (which does not mean that religion is true—trinary thinking, remember?). Materialism is false. Positivism is false—as currently understood, that is (I consider spirit to be positive phenomena that are real and measurable).

But this is just speculation, right? You don’t need to take this part seriously. The rest of the ethic stands on its own, as previously argued. You can freely ignore my claims, arguments, and conclusions here. I will publish this regardless. It still moves.

(7) On Sovereignty, continued.

I will try to stay out of most of the religious arguments with this last bit. Most, as staying completely out will be impossible. The reader can draw a number of inferences for themself, in terms of historical occurrences or religious matters, from what has been written herein. I end the work with an extension of the discussion on sovereignty from Other Points, as regards the discussion of worship above.

My concept of sovereignty refers to real state of being, which is an older reference meaning for the term. That is, the reality of the being of the self imposing its will, which is the expression of being, over either the self or that which is not the self. This is a unification of purpose, uniting control or at least influence unto a singular will or thought. In that concentration of united purpose, all contrary aims are realigned, to the extent of the domination of the sovereignty, toward the purpose expressed by the sovereignty. This can be a very powerful thing. It is the bringing to bear of all efforts, all being, all will toward an expressed goal. This will mean one thing in terms of a single individual, mostly regarding sovereignty over the self and one’s own body, but when extended to include many people the implications change somewhat.

That is, when many people willfully choose to embrace some purpose in sovereignty, that purpose is amplified and advanced far beyond what a single individual is capable of. In this work, I have identified there being some purpose behind the impetus of life itself, with the base expression of that purpose traceable through the inception and particularly the continuance of life itself. One can trace a subsequent expression of purpose behind the impetus of life to the coalescence of living spirit that becomes mind. Life that is aware. Consciousness. One can trace a further expression of purpose behind the impetus of life to living spirit that is singular recursive mind. Life that is aware of itself. Self-consciousness. At each of these identified tiers, or all together, there is identified purpose or complexity of purpose—that constitutes a sovereignty.

Throughout the work, the reader is encouraged and enjoined to enter into the unified sovereignty of the purpose of life. Freely and by their own will. To a lesser or greater extent. This is what true Dignity, Simplicity, and virtue will bring you to, bring you into. United in purpose with all others who so choose, willfully amplifying and aligning yourself and your world (to the extent of your personal influence) with the sovereign purpose or complexity of purpose of life itself. As much as you choose to, that is. This is either freely willed within or it has no real meaning or expression. And this sovereignty of purpose is not all-consuming. It leaves quite a lot of room for free expression, and more free expression at each of the three tiers. Just consider what sort of derived purposes free willed self-conscious life can have. Exploration, creative experimentation, art of thought (such as the philosophy of this book), and many, many other things. There is enormous scope of freedom of choice within the ethical boundaries described by the ethic. I argue that there is even more scope for free expression within those boundaries than outside of them, because the dictates of the ethic serve to both amplify and concentrate the personal energy that is required for free expression.

Back to the discussion of worship above, this falls into the third outcome, strong phasing. No transfer involved, required, or desired. That is, to enter into the sovereignty of life, simply find a way to phase yourself into alignment with the source of life that is within you yourself (and everything living) and then amplify it with your very being of life through yourself and out into the world. Not by projecting, but in oneness, or wholeness, of being focused within and encompassing your world within yourself. Be a lamp that pushes back the darkness all around, not a beam with only darkness behind it. In simple form, just practicing the ethic should accomplish this for you. Beyond that, you can get as mystical about it as you want to; just develop your mental perceptions to enter into a feedback state of intentional and aware spiritual journey. Or even more simply, just find, identify, and dwell on love, the true love that flows from within—love alone is enough, if you spend enough time thinking about it and applying its meaning to your life.

Historically, this state of being that I am calling the sovereignty of life, or perhaps just the ‘place of life’ has been called other things. Some gnostics (and many others, but the early Christian gnostics were more pure about it) referred to it as the kingdom of heaven, or the sovereignty of god (depending on translation).3 But this is not something exclusive to a particular religion. It’s not religious at all, really, because it takes place prior to religion. This is purpose of life that flows as a wellspring from everything living. It is within each of us.

In this work, I have identified this as the impetus and/or purpose of life. Is there a Creator behind this purpose of the ongoing creation of life? Probably. That’s how things work in the world that we know—complex purposes have deliberate intent behind them. But there is not a whole lot more you can say about Creator beyond simply examining the characteristics of the creation, which is to say studying what we ourselves are and what life itself is, is capable of, should be doing to fulfill good purposes, and etc. It is not necessary to interject deity or god as prior to that which is manifest to us. These are certainly not matters of religious dispute or claims of religious correctness. I’m not referring to any deity or using the term ‘god’ at all, for the purposes of the philosophy of this work (a word which has been used to mean many different things over the years). ‘Creator’ is quite sufficient for whatever speculative purposes there might be for theorizing about whatever might be behind what the work does focus on—life itself, what it is, where it takes place, what meanings can be drawn therefrom, and etc.

I could go on for quite a while regarding the historical and/or religious implications of this theory, but that is beyond the scope of what is being attempted with the work. I am, among other purposes, providing a radical new(ish) vision of philosophical interpretation that may be applied to… everything. With no division between secular and spiritual, no divide between science and religion, because these matter take place prior to such divisions and divides.

Our reality is a conjunction of partially shifting and partially stable dimensions, conjoined into a dimension-state. Some of those dimensions constitute the material, some of them inject soul, and some of them are (or have become) the basis of mediate interacting spirit. We have bodies, composed of matter, but we are the living spirit that inhabits and coheres and uplifts these bodies. That uplifts and glorifies the material. All living spirit has an ongoing source that I am calling soul. It is good for self-conscious life to freely and willfully enter into communion with the source of life within them and to advance the purposes of that source into this world, into this reality.

To end the text of the work, a final admonition: the true Sovereignty, whatever it is called, is not the sovereignty of any one individual. The sovereignty of the individual, once found and known, must be willingly surrendered unto the true Sovereignty that is found within the source of life within the self. In so doing union becomes complete and the sovereignty of the individual transforms into something glorious. So does the supplicant enter the place of life, the kingdom of life everlasting.

Speculatively, that is.

1- For a full discussion of Pascal’s Wager, see https://plato.stanford.edu/ entries/pascal-wager/

2-  Did you know that medieval Alchemy, in addition to efforts at chemistry, was often comprised of coded language that discussed and theorized on fundamental truths of human existence, such as the nature and glory of love? Among other less savory speculations and manipulations, true, but the pinnacle of alchemy was the synergistic tranmutative potential of love, as symbolized by a ‘lead into gold’ code.

These things were very carefully encoded by a number of intelligent people, among other reasons because the Church was very powerful and they did not want to be censured or forced into holy vows or otherwise punished or killed for heresy. To be fair to both sides, including the Church, secret fundamental truths of human existence can also be used for a number of not-good purposes by not-good people. And have been, over the years. Sometimes by people who hid their nefarious schemes in alchemy. Some of those not-good people may well have deserved to be killed, at least in terms of practical and/or necessary outcomes in a complex material world comprised of millions of discrete living people. Though I am revealing some of the secrets of alchemy (among others), I am doing so within the careful ethical framework of an ethic that shows clear limits for what is good and what is not-good in regards to use of these very powerful truths.

3- The reader might refer to the work labeled The Gospel of Thomas, from the Nag Hammadi library, often associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls, but written in Coptic and found buried in upper Egypt. There are various translations of the work; many of those translations are partisan sectarian religious slants, but some try to be more fair. Take special note of 'saying' number 22.

Notes and References

"Alignment," Open Gaming Network, accessed 25 February 2026, https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules.

BonGiovanni, trans. The Yoga Sutras of Patajali. Internet Sacred Text Archive, accessed 25 February 2026, https://sacred-texts.com/hin/yogasutr.htm.

Fischetti, Mark, and Jen Christiansen. “A New You in 80 Days.” Scientific American 324, no. 4 (2021): 76. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27418167.

Hájek, Alan, "Pascal’s Wager", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2024 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/pascal-wager/.

Herbert, Frank. Dune. Philadelphia: Chilton Books, 1965.

Libet, Benjamin. "Do We Have Free Will?" In The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, edited by Robert Kane, 551-564. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Libet, Benjamin. “Unconscious Cerebral Initiative and the Role of Conscious Will in Voluntary Action.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8, no. 4 (1985): 529–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00044903.

Locke, John. Two Treastises of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration. Edited by Ian Shapiro. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.

Jones, Joseph. "A Structure of Choice: Potential For and Failings Of Free Will." ruinoll, 23 February 2022 (essay). ruinoll.com/html/essays/StructureOfChoice.pdf.

Jones, Joseph. "What is Love?" ruinoll, 21 November 2022 (blog). ruinoll.com/html/blog/ WhatIsLove.html.

Jordan, Robert. The Eye of the World. New York: Tor Books, 1990.

O'Shaughnessy, Arthur. Music and Moonlight. London: Chatto and Windus, 1874.

Richard McKeon, ed. The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York: Modern Library, 2001. First Published 1941 by Random House (New York).

Thomas O. Lambdin, et al, trans. The Gospel of Thomas. Internet Sacred Text Archive, accessed 25 February 2026, https://sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm.

Pretty thin reference section for a book this size, no? Philosophy, for good or ill, often has to stand on it's own without much support or many direct ties to other works. Most of this book is independent thought—which means that I have integrated, over the years and along the way, thousands of works and ideas by other people and will never be able to lay them all out here for the reader to peruse. Those above are from a handful of sources referenced somewhat directly in the course of the book. I would note that the first one, "Alignment", is a rather interesting read and recommended to you. It is somewhat limited in focus, being intended for gaming purposes, but the ideas involved go far beyond the game.

As for the rest of the work: I am the only one to blame for flaws and mistakes. I have integrated evidence from far and wide, but the work itself is directly from my own cognition. It is with my living spirit that I have created and written these things.

Copyright

This is a work of philosophy. All instruction and advice offered herein is made in good faith and with good will, but does not legally claim to substitute for professional knowledge or consultation in the relevant areas of expertise. Be cautious and take care in all that you do.

References or links to other works are intended as mere conveniences for the reader for the purpose of further edification. References or links offered by no means imply any relationship, affiliation, sponsorship, endorsement, or any sort of approval regarding the referenced content or any operators of resources listed.

Ruinoll Impressions

ruinoll.com

Publisher's Cataloging-in-Publications Data

Names: Jones, Joseph, author's

Title: Dignity Simplicity Virtue: A Living Ethic for Every Person

/Joseph Jones

Description: Ruinoll Impressions, [2026]

Identifiers: ISBN 9781735623368 (hardback) |

ISBN 9781735623375 (trade paperback) |

ISBN 9781735623382 (pocket paperback) |

ISBN 9781735623399 (ebook)

Subjects: Ethics | Life Advice | Life Hacks | Art | Science | Religion | Philosophy | Metaphysics | Theory of Mind | Epistemology | Intelligence | Artificial Intelligence

Copyright © 2026 by Joseph Jones

All rights reserved, except as follows: the ebook version of this book, as an .epub, may be freely downloaded from ruinoll.com by private individuals and utilized for personal edification or for general educational purposes, and may further be freely shared between individuals for those purposes alone. All other rights reserved. No part of this book may be altered to another format. Note that these reservations apply only to the .epub ebook version of the book; the print versions have different stipulations.

I, the author, consider the philosophy and other information in this book to beneficial and important for the common good. As such, I grant it freely to others, as stipulated above. If you wish to support efforts such as DSV, you may consider either purchasing a print copy of the work or making a donation through the interface at ruinoll.com.