Logical Individualism

People like labels, because it makes it easy to identify things.  This applies to everything in life, and we mimic the laws of nature by trying to do things in the simplest way possible, with the least effort, and so that we expend a minimal amount of brain power.  Except consciousness does not follow the laws of thermodynamics, and is in fact a type of negative entropy, where thoughts follow successive layers of integration, becoming more and more complex.  Higher levels of consciousness are determined by these successive integrations piled one on top another, until our thoughts sometimes become exceedingly complex.

Most of mankind's troubles are caused by misinformation, crooked ideas that are promulgated by distortions of reality, creating a distortion in the truth matrix which represents it.  These distortions limit our ability to integrate reality successfully, and falsify our perception of facts successively, so that we effectively build a house of cards in our thoughts that is subject to manipulation, confusion, and deception, and which can destroy our very lives.

Sneaky miscreants in the world take advantage of these defects in individuals' thinking abilities and lead entire populations astray, creating wars, famines, social unrest and worldwide strife on a planet that should be a Garden of Eden. However, there is a way to purify our thoughts and expunge falsehoods from our minds, a way to cleanse ourselves of the many diseased thoughts that are programmed into our minds since birth, so that we can become the godlike creatures that men and women are intended to become.

The label that defines and therefore pigeonholes for easy reference this methodology of truth and self-analysis is logical individualism.  It is based upon logic and the universal truth that all conscious individuals have undeniable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The founders of the United States were centuries ahead of the rest of the world, when they spelled out these rights in the American Declaration of Independence.  Unfortunately, what they were not able to do was to give their new nation an infallible method of thinking that would protect and preserve those principles for all time.

Thus, America has always been at risk, and has always been under attack, often successfully, by those who would enslave the individual for their own personal gain.  Creeping socialism, Nazism, religious cults, and selfish stupidity have all at one time or another, and in varying degrees, captivated segments of the nation, and impeded mankind's ultimate progress in its ascension to higher levels of consciousness.

In order for the rights of the individual to remain sacrosanct, a correct methodology and manner of thinking must be adopted so that people cannot be led astray.  Logical individualism recognizes the sovereignty and immutable rights of the individual, while it teaches to build primary logic modules that can be integrated into a powerful picture of reality composed of interlocking puzzle pieces that once assembled cannot be distorted or collapsed by liars, cheaters, and social miscreants.

Revisiting Hyper-consciousness

Some years ago, when writing about hyper-consciousness, I heralded it as being something that I looked forward to, and something that as aided with electronics would be a wonderful leap forward for humanity. I envisioned it as an internet of minds, electrically linked, directly using new technologies.  However, re-reading what I wrote previously, I think my initial optimism was fallacious.

There are several problems that would immediately crop up.  The first is one of brain function and the level of consciousness of the individual.  Individuals on different levels of consciousness would not be able to comprehend one another's thoughts any better than they can communicate verbally.  We are all locked into our own individual levels of consciousness and understanding.  I can't make a sixth-grader see my big-picture view of the world anymore than a one-hundred year old man could pass his wisdom directly on to me efficiently.  Yes, he might send me mental images and emotions that I would understand, but would they have the same significance to me as they did to him?  It seems doubtful.

Furthermore, since we don't process in parallel in our minds, but instead serially (one thought at a time), unless we can learn to think differently, the immediate access to a thousand or a million other minds, does not seem very useful. 

In fact, the more I think on it, it seems that the greatest jump would come from artificial or enhanced intelligence users.  If my brain could be modified to work as the subconscious mind does, then I could see many thoughts in parallel, and even compare them.  I can do this sometimes in my dreams but that is probably only because most other senses are "turned-off" during sleep.  And more than that, I think that the super-intelligence of the subconscious mind is what is really generating the rapid fire, high-detail dreams that I often enjoy.  For I know full well that I cannot possibly imagine things in such vivid detail, nor concoct such complex plots of stories at breakneck speed.

Machines, on the other hand, can do very well at processing data at such high speeds, so if I were able to enhance my mind with electronic speed, and learn parallel processing of thoughts, perhaps then, I might benefit from the hyper-conscious mind Internet that I envisioned.  But an advanced robot might be more practical.  The problem is, where does that leave me?

I would immediately become inferior to a conscious machine, in my ability to process the hyper-conscious mind  Internet.  To that machine, I would then seem perhaps merely a mentally-challenged primitive.

Another vision of the hyper-conscious, electronically enabled mind internet might be one of complete vexation, as me trying to talk logically to a room full of misguided people.  That would be terrible, and worse than trying to tune out multiple heterodyned carrier waves from congested AM shortwave stations.

Or you might say it would feel like a conservative speaking to a room filled with progressives.  That is not something I would want to experience.  Perhaps hyper-consciousness is a dish best tasted by the solitary, individual mind.  Only time will tell. 

The Demise of America

Who do you blame?

When you see an idea dying, smothered by evil forces from every direction; when you see a gift from God and the minds of great good men wither and choke, the breath of freedom becoming shallow and strained, weaker with each passing day; when you see good, hard-working people robbed of their wealth and enslaved in a never-ending spiral of debt, endlessly working from cradle to grave, chasing the dream that was America, but which has morphed into a distortion of that which made it so great.

Who do you blame?

It's not easy to immediately see how we got here, because it has occurred over many generations, a growing cancer and blight in our society, which many thought we were rid of, but which never died and now has metastasized into a malignancy that threatens to destroy America as a bastion of freedom and as the champion of individuality and personal dreams.

It is never one man, just as Hitler was not the cause of Nazism. In fact, it has been an erosion, a constant demoralization of all the principles and ideals that made this country greater than its own reality at any instant. America has always been greater than itself, buoyed up by the dreams of millions of freedom-loving individuals who knew that their best hope for a brighter future for themselves and their posterity lay here on these shores.

Who do you blame?

Not the millions of brave Americans who have sacrificed their lives in so many wars to preserve our way of life, and many times to help free others from the yoke of tyranny. And not the millions of hard-working parents who have worked all their lives to provide a better life for their children, and who have done their best to set good examples for those children by their own behavior.

Who  then, do you blame?

There is an "Invisible Tyranny" that stalks us all, a set of circumstances into which all individuals are born.  Blame this tyranny that constantly enslaves mankind to ill-conceived principles, false truths, and bad logic.  Blame the "Invisible Tyranny" for the death of good common sense in individuals, and the proliferation  of wars and wide-scale murder on our planet.  There are many evil leaders and miscreants, but it is the Invisible Tyranny that is the final slave master over all individuals.

"The Invisible Tyranny" will soon be exposed.

The Operation of Morals

Through the Law of Eleven and Seven, all of our actions are reduced to the direction of 18 words of guidance. We have derived the Ten Commandments largely from those eighteen words, and have seen that the Ten Commandments are completely logical, and are thus good. But what about morals? What are they?

I choose "part d", from the current on-line definition of "moral" from Merriam Websters dictionary to expound upon. That definition is: "d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment". I choose this definition, because morals are an individual responsibility and an individual judgment. One may stray from the guidelines of the commandments at times as an individual choice because all conscious beings have self-will, but nothing can make an individual perform a certain way, except his or her own personal choice.

People sometimes opt to do something that is clearly advised against by the Ten Commandments, (such as infidelity to a spouse or mate), simply because they want the self-gratification that they crave at that particular instant. While the Ten Commandments forbids such activity explicitly, the Law of Eleven and Seven does not. The Law of Eleven and Seven says merely to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

If a man or woman felt such strong lust as to enter into an extra-marital affair, then perhaps they would believe that it was alright for their spouse to do the same thing if the conditions were reversed. This is an internal question of morals that must be decided by the individual. Infidelity rarely has a positive outcome, but sometimes it might, as in the case of two people who are completely mismatched, and then find more suitable mates elsewhere, or a few other instances I can think of that might play out to the advantage of one or both of the individuals in a marriage or committed relationship. I generally advise against it, since the odds of it turning out for the best are usually slim, but it is a completely personal decision that must be decided by the individual. Whether it is morally wrong is a personal matter, best decided by the parties involved. (As a side note, there are many reasons why such a decision usually never works out, the largest one being that dishonesty usually is involved in the process, and dishonesty can never be accepted or tolerated in a logical system. Very few people who commit acts of infidelity do so openly or honestly. Most try to conceal their affairs and will lie to do so. Lying is never acceptable, and that byproduct of infidelity makes the act reprehensible, since it destroys trust in a relationship and poisons the intimacy that makes such close personal relationships very rewarding.)

There are much more serious moral issues in life, that cannot be immediately divined from the Law of Eleven and Seven, and which need the most sincere contemplation by individuals in order to decide that which is best. As an example, let us look at abortion.

The Law of Eleven and Seven, and the Ten Commandments both say no to abortion, because murder is always wrong, since it violates the rights of the individual. But abortion is a decision where the morals of the individuals involved must be relied upon to help to decide the best course of action. While it is always wrong to murder an individual, what about where an individual has very little chance at surviving anyway? What if the parents cannot afford expensive life-preserving techniques that would become necessary to keep a severely deformed baby alive? What if this is determined early on during the pregnancy? (Note: I will always use the term baby, since fetus is a sly trick to dehumanize the miracle of birth.)

What if a woman is brutally raped and becomes pregnant; should she be forced by morals to give life to the baby of the criminal who raped her? It is a well known fact that some criminals are genetically defective. The child might inherit the father's criminal tendencies. Not to mention the fact that every time she would look at that child, she would be reminded of the circumstances by which it was conceived. This would be a very delicate, personal decision, and would depend upon the mental constitution of the mother.

Any abortion, no matter how soon after conception is a murder of the individual that would develop, should the pregnancy carry successfully to term. However, sometimes the rights of the unborn individual cannot be protected without violating the rights of the individuals who are the parents. So it gets very difficult in some circumstances to say what is best. Since the parents are the individuals who came together to conceive the life, and since their lives may be very adversely affected by a complicated birth, or having to care for a severely handicapped child, it may be best at times, to rely on their judgment as to whether or not the baby should survive. That said, the idea of allowing a baby to develop to a viable point of survival, only to have that baby then murdered by a late stage abortion, seems so onerous that most people feel that the rights of the unborn baby should at that point be protected by law. However, killing a less-developed baby is still a murder of the individual that it would become. It's easy to see why doctors call such babies fetuses, since that makes their murder more palatable.

Morals have to be relied upon, when a judgment is not easily reached. This is why it is so important that we each have our own well-developed sense of morality, and that it is not just some knee-jerk reaction to circumstance. There are many decisions that are not easily reached, even with the guidance of our most basic laws. Deciding when we should allow nature to take its course and let someone die, can be every bit as hard as deciding whether to let a baby live. It is therefore imperative that we communicate clearly with our loved ones so that we get a strong sense of what they would want to happen, should it not be left up to them as to when they will die. Who pulls the plug, and when, is an incredibly difficult decision, and it must be guided by morals and the best judgment of those most intimately involved.

Morals allow such decisions to be made as best as possible, and they guide us in times of duress or tragedy. They help us make split-second decisions during life-threatening situations: Should we enter a burning building to save a life? Do we need to use deadly force when attacked by a criminal? Is it wrong to profit from a particular set of circumstances? The list goes on and on.

We often do not have the luxury of time in order to evaluate rapidly changing circumstances, so our morals are an established blueprint that help guide our decisions. This matrix of morals is the overlay which guides our conscience, and by definition, conscience is: "the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good".

Such is the operation of morals, to help guide our conscience.

Finally, in some of the situations cited, one moral question that always needs to asked, (especially in deciding life and death), is whether the individual should even be responsible for the decision. The baby that was effectively murdered by the choice to terminate a pregnancy, may have gone on to find a cure for cancer, or have become another Einstein, or maybe it would have just brought happiness and love to a couple who could not conceive on their own. And even as far as handicapped babies, who ever really knows how they will fare? Many premature babies or babies with severe birth defects have gone on to lead productive lives. So it should be understood, that whenever individuals make decisions of life and death, they are effectively playing the role of God. Perhaps, in many such situations, it would be best to leave such decisions to God (or fate, you choose the word or belief that best suites your personal view of the universe). When we choose to intervene in such circumstances, we must ultimately bear the responsibility and consequences of our decisions, and even moral, intelligent people can never really know all the consequences of such life and death decisions.

Deriving the Ten Commandments from Logic and the Law of Eleven and Seven

As stated previously, the Ten Commandments can all be derived from the Law of Eleven and Seven. For Reference, here are the Ten Commandments, as given to Moses:

1) I am the Lord thy God... Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
2) Thou shalt not make thee any graven image... nor bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them...
3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain...
4) Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee.
5) Honor thy father and thy mother.
6) Thou shalt not kill.
7) Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
8) Neither shalt thou steal.
9) Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10) Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife... covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is thy neighbor's.

The first four commandments deal directly with how man interacts with God, and for simplicity, we will derive those last, because of their nature.

The fifth commandment says to honor your father and mother, and that is covered by the first half of the Law of Eleven and Seven, since no one would want their children to disrespect them or be disobedient, so obviously you would obey your mother and father, since you would want your children to obey you.

Commandment six says "Thou shalt not kill", and this is covered by both the first and second parts of the Law of Eleven and Seven. The rights of the individual are sacrosanct, and killing someone would be an obvious violation of their individual rights. We also would not want others to treat us that way, so the Golden Rule part of the law reiterates this.

Commandments seven and eight, (not committing adultery and not stealing), are both covered by the Golden Rule part of the Law of Eleven and Seven, since one would certainly not want to be robbed, so one does not steal, and one would not want his wife to commit adultery, so one should not commit adultery oneself.

Commandment nine says thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, and while the Golden Rule part of the law handles that, there is also a very important reason why one should never lie that is logically deduced. A lie, or any falsehood does not promote the accurate integration of reality, because it creates instability in one's truth matrix. When we break down all complex thought into its most basic logic modules, we need to be sure of our facts. Lies or deceptions make any analysis that much more difficult. So in any ordered society, all liars are the enemies of all men and women within and served by that society, for liars propagate instability in any integration of truth.

Simply put, in all complex societies, trust is essential in order that the society can best function. When you post a letter, or hand a package to the UPS or FedEx man, you trust him or her to do the best that they can to see that your package is safely delivered. The same is true with hundreds of things that we all take for granted in our complex society.

So often it is heard: "I don't trust anyone", but that is a misconception, for all of us living in complex societies trust the other members implicitly to act honorably and honestly. Otherwise, everything would become unstable and collapse far too easily. This is in fact the biggest problem in third world countries as they strive for growth and success. The rampant corruption of their leaders, and at all levels of their society thwart the individuals' best efforts and trap them in a web of corruption and evil. So one must never lie. One must act ethically and just.

Commandment number ten is basically another common sense derivative of the Golden Rule portion of the Law of Eleven and Seven, since no one would want their neighbors to be jealous of their possessions or desirous of possessing them too strongly, since it would be an invitation for mischief.

Now, we return to the first four commandments that deal with how the individual interacts with God. These four commandments are readily deduced from logic when one adopts the most simple definition of God: "God is good". But what is good? Good is the opposite of evil; it is all that helps to promote the growth of the individual to higher levels of consciousness. It is all that helps man become more godlike.

Therefore, it is only logical, that if God is good, that man would never want to have any false gods before him, since any false god would be less than pure good, and could not best help man ascend to his or her highest level of consciousness. Thus, any graven images of anything; any worship of anything but the one true God, the one true and ultimate good, would be folly. As far as the commandment that thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, that is a logical corollary considering that one's most highest held tenets must necessarily be held sacred, and therefore to demean them in any way would be unwise. God being the ultimate tenet of good, one should therefore, logically, not demean God in any way.

Finally, we must address the commandment of keeping the sabbath day holy. I don't see where anyone with any common sense would want to argue this as not being prudent. To be precise, God asks that a man or woman not use the tools with which they earn their trade on the sabbath day in other places in the bible. That seems like very sound advice to me, since anyone who works too long or too hard at any task, risks emotional and physical breakdown. A logical lifestyle that leads to good health and mental stability would coincide with one that observes a distinct day of rest from the travails of earning a living in a competitive world.

In addition, one needs to regularly contemplate in isolation or even in quiet groups in order to continually check one's progress at integrating the truths of reality. Thus, holding the sabbath day holy would seem a good practice, and logically sound advice.

Looking back, to the time in history when men were given these Ten Commandments, it is easy to see why they were needed, and indeed why they will always be needed in one form or another. The Ten commandments were given around the year 1440 or 1441 BC (using the early date for the Exodus).

Of course, the Golden Rule dates back over ten thousand years, and there are many ancient religions of India that said similar things almost ten thousand years ago. The main point here, is that all of the Ten Commandments can be derived logically from the Law of Eleven and Seven, and that they are completely logical as described.

Even an atheist who is logical, should not be against the Ten Commandments, provided that he or she has the logical fortitude to accept God as good, and not get caught in the trap of describing God in detail, for no living man can say with certainty that his concept of God is more true and accurate than another. However, one can deduce with accuracy, both from logic, and from history, that any civilized society must hold some tenets sacred and/or holy in order to have any degree of order. Therefore, a denial of God being tantamount to a denial of good, anyone who logically argues against God, also argues against good. Anyone who argues against God in government, argues fallaciously, for they argue against good in government, and in America at least, such was never the intention of the founders.

In summation, it seems quite obvious that the Law of Eleven and Seven presents no conflict to the basic tenets of Christianity, and it can be easily proven logically, that all just religions are compatible with the Law of Eleven and Seven. This is understandable, since reality preordains these laws of consciousness, which best govern the natural ascension of all conscious individuals everywhere in this reality.

(One grammar note: I used a copy of the bible that I inherited from my father to copy the commandments, dated 1938, from Concordia publishing House of Saint Louis, Missouri.)

Working Definitions of Intelligence and Consciousness.

The primary thing to do here, is to lay a simplistic ground work which allows any individual to logically ascertain the validity of the previous assertion; that universal laws of consciousness exist which ultimately determine the growth and ascension of consciousness. In order to do that, just as in any mathematical proof, we must frame certain definitions upon which to build. We needn't be extremely detailed, and in fact, it is better to be general, since one may get lost in the details and spend time arguing that which is unnecessary, so here are a few working definitions of which anyone with common sense can easily ascertain the validity.

Common sense, by the way, is far more common at birth than in adulthood, since many older individuals learn and/or fabricate mystic beliefs which limit their common sense abilities. Once a mind is infected with mystic beliefs, the individual often will be loathe to change those mystic beliefs, and will continue to fabricate distortions of physical reality which are supportive to the crooked logic and distorted viewpoints at which he or she has arrived. That is again, why I want to speak in undeniable generalizations, so that it is easier for all individuals to see clearly the open framework that is built from logic. The more complex the issue or idea, the more avenues of denial and argument that appear, and that is why it is always best to break down all thoughts, arguments, and doctrines into their most basic logic modules for analysis of their validity. Otherwise, there are too many variables which need to be addressed, and the arguments grow out of proportion to the truths for which one searches.

Intelligence is easier to define than consciousness, because it is a precursor to consciousness. There must be intelligence before there can blossom consciousness. This follows from the nature of consciousness, which we shall describe next. There are many definitions of intelligence and how one may test for intelligence, so let us start with the most basic necessity of intelligence, which is memory, and build from there. The beginnings of intelligence are based in memory, which may be nothing more than a recall of external stimuli, a simple list of stimuli that is retained by an organism. Memory need not be conscious, and can be found in many lower animals, and is easily proven by a learned response to external stimuli, such as a Pavlovian response or conditioned reflex. Other simple and easily verifiable examples of such learned responses are learned reflexes of fear due to electrical shock or heat, etc. In more complex memory, the subject develops a list or a stored matrix of stimuli and it can recall them at will. Basic intelligence begins with the ability to not only recall the original stimuli but to associate them either with causes or timing or any other events that may precede, accompany, or follow the stimuli.

So as with the case of a Pavlovian response, the dog not only starts to salivate at the ringing of the bell, but it anticipates the food and shows excitement. The emotional response is a higher order of response that accompanies the conditioned reflex. It can be proven that the dog reasons this out, because if the dog is given a series of shocks which follow the bell and feeding, it will show fear at a given time just before the shock.

Higher intelligence is merely the ability to store longer lists of memories in a temporal matrix which allows more complex associations to be formed. These more complex associations combined with a higher ability to anticipate events are what we recognize as higher intelligence. Anticipation is certainly a key element of higher intelligence, since it not only requires the recall of past events or stimuli, but an ability to project into the future, and guess that which comes next. Beyond that is inventiveness, which is where the subject can not only remember and anticipate, but it can devise new tools, lay traps for its prey, and use the elements of its environment to its own best advantage. Many creatures and species on our planet are intelligent, by this definition, and we are still learning to test just how intelligent many of them are.

Consciousness can not occur without intelligence due to its nature. In order to become conscious, a creature must first develop the skill to perceive itself as unique from its environment and it must realize that it has self-will. Just as in mathematics, where in a Cartesian coordinate system, a three dimensional figure cannot be drawn or explained without at least three basis vectors of length, width, and height (or x,y, and z), an individual must first develop a "my space" or a sense of self and independence to the environment before it can be said to have "free will".

So in basic consciousness we have not only a degree of intelligence, but we have a sense of self and recognition of free will. It soon becomes apparent, that there are degrees of consciousness and the growth of consciousness is accompanied by not only a sense of self, but as it progresses, there develops a sense for others and the higher emotions of empathy and compassion are developed. As the individual progresses in his or her growth, they ultimately become more godlike. They might not be able to explain logically why they "feel" as they do as they progress, but their inner self develops a more highly attuned humanistic response.

Many religions describe such personal growth of consciousness as either attaining grace or achieving nirvana or other terms. What matters for our purposes is that we see that there is a progression from basic consciousness and a recognition of self, to a higher evolution of thought and emotion that encompasses other individuals as well as one's self.

All that is necessary here is to establish the generalized working definitions of intelligence and consciousness, which has been done. The nuances of degrees of consciousness, or at what instant the individual can actually be deemed to be semi-conscious or humanly conscious, etc does not matter here.

To prove that consciousness is controlled by preordained law that is a function of reality, we need only review our definitions and think upon them. For as soon as an individual recognizes his or her uniqueness to the external environment by becoming self aware and develops self will, then all of that individual's natural born instincts become somewhat diminished and subject to the approval of that individual. Even fear and flight for self-preservation can be subordinated to the will of the individual.

Since self-preservation in the form of eating for sustenance and shelter from the elements is a natural selection for the individual, all things that enhance the individual's ability to accomplish those tasks will naturally be better for that individual. For with plenty of food and shelter, the individual can than be free to rise to higher levels of consciousness. This has been explained many times and in many places such as Maslow's hierarchy of needs, etc.

So having achieved consciousness, the individual will naturally want to do that which brings them comfort and security, i.e. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and all things that promote those ends are inevitably sacrosanct. For as soon as the individual's growth is restricted involuntarily, the individual's rights are thus infringed. In this most basic explanation of consciousness and the birth of an individual, we see that by definition, consciousness portends growth. This is a simplified common-sense definition that is easily understood.

There are many scientific facts that seem to show that life in general exhibits "negentropy", or a negative form of entropy, and that life consistently grows more complex, which seems to defy the laws of thermodynamics that dictate that all things tend towards randomness and chaos and their lowest energy states. And while it is true that some crystals which seem more highly organized are actually at lower energy states, evolution and the ever-increasing complexity of life on our planet certainly seem to indicate that life in general is growing more complex.

However, we needn't worry or argue those things here, since just from our simple definitions, it becomes apparent, that due to its inherent nature, consciousness is an integrating force that definitely evolves into levels of increasing complexity and that consciousness is destined to continually ascend provided that the growth of the individual is not restricted.

We have not spoken about or touched on morality or any particular religious doctrines, because logic allows us to deduce these things independently of religion. We needn't ascertain the validity of any particular doctrine except beyond one simple concept: the rights of the individual are sacrosanct. For as soon as the growth of the individual is restricted, so is the natural ascension of consciousness. Just as a stone in a gravity field will follow the field into its well, so will consciousness rise to higher levels if the individual is allowed to grow. That is why reality deems that the rights of the individual are and must be sacrosanct (in order for the individual to achieve maximum mental evolution and ascension of consciousness).

We have not yet mentioned how one individual interacts with another, but the golden rule takes care of all of that, since it is purely logical to say that no individual would want to be restricted in their natural godlike growth, and therefore to ascertain that principle among all individuals, one must do unto others as one would have them do unto oneself.

This is the simplized evolution of the Law of Eleven and Seven as previously expounded. All matters of conscious life reduced to eighteen words. These two laws, locked inextricably together for clarity, form the basis for the maximum growth of all conscious individuals, and are universal in their application. All conscious life forms follow a similar path of ascension and are bound by these laws.

Therefore, all just religions, governments, and laws between men, must be subordinate to the basic laws of universal consciousness. Otherwise, they must be declared non sequitur and unjust, and they must be overturned.

The Origin of the Universal Laws of Consciousness

If we accept as a given, that individuals are endowed with certain inalienable rights which include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then we might also ask: What natural laws govern such behavior and pursuits? In other words, are there laws beyond the laws of men that might be of ultimate consequence? Some might label such inviolate laws the laws of god, but we will refrain from labeling them here at this juncture.

Conscious individuals are in fact governed by universal laws that preexisted before they ever achieved consciousness.

We all know that there are laws of physics and mathematics that define physical reality, but just as physical reality preordains the laws of physics and mathematics, the nature of consciousness preordains the universal laws that optimize its growth and ascension.

Just as man has the capability of speech before he learns to speak, he also has the biological capability of ascending to higher levels of consciousness long before he learns how to do so.

The rules governing his ascension to higher levels of consciousness are much the same as those that limited his ability to speak. Mankind had to develop a working vocabulary by assigning meanings to words composed of syllables, vowels and consonants, before the individual could possibly learn to speak. It took many generations to develop a working vocabulary, since without a vocabulary, it was impossible to describe many abstract concepts. As men learned to cooperate in hunting parties many thousands of years ago, they learned how to communicate the simplest of ideas, first through sign language, and later through speech itself. These skills arose out of necessity, in order to better conduct the hunts and in order that the tribal communities that were developing could begin to develop the most simple societal functions. Later, as society became more complex, man invented and developed consciousness, largely leaving behind the inner god voice that had previously guided him. This exploding consciousness was the blossoming of the individual, and was the first time when man could lay claim to his birth right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Before man had developed his own personal "my space" and achieved consciousness, he was completely at the whim of his primitive instincts. But consciousness was a new state of reality, and with it came a new group of laws that would allow him to grow into a more godlike individual; with far greater powers of comprehension, far more complex societal relationships, and new emotions such as empathy and sympathy to guide him.

The subject of conscious reality and how individuals achieve it, as well as the various levels of conscious reality that are possible, would take many volumes to explain in detail, and much of such explanation would be open to argument and interpretation (such as how and when man first achieved consciousness), so we will not attempt to cover that here. But some aspects of consciousness are universally true and are not subject to qualitative interpretation. Such absolute truths do not vary from place to place, or from one conscious individual to another, and that is why they are labeled as absolutes.

That said, the onus is to prove the truth of such an assertion. That is relatively easy, using common sense and a couple of generalized definitions. It is necessary to define in general terms the meanings of intelligence and consciousness.

I will do this later.