universals and its impact on you

[Peter Kropotkin]

in this day and age, we have come to a point where
our understanding of who we are and what is possible for us,
as human beings, is challenged...

and this question of ''universals'' is at the heart of the question
of what a human being is...

from the top....

we human beings have limited senses...and there are those of us,
who have even more limited senses... I am deaf.. my understanding of
the world through noise, hearing, is very limited...with my hearing aid,
I can tell a bit about the noise surrounding me... but that knowledge
is limited...without my hearing aid, it is a very quiet world...
and as our knowledge of the world comes to us from our senses...
I have a very limited sense of the world because of my limited senses..
and I wear glasses, thus my sense of vision is limited.. but in thinking about it,
we all have limited senses.. a dog can hear better than human beings,
and an eagle has better vision and a dog/cat has far better sense of smell...
it is known that animals can sense things as in a coming earthquake...
we human beings cannot do that.. our senses are limited...

and this limitation of senses, which is how we ''paint a picture of
the world''.. know the world, because of our limitations.....
we cannot ever know the world because of our limited senses...

how can we then have an understanding of what a universal is,
if we only have a limited understanding of the world based on our
limited senses?  

to ''know the world'' requires unlimited senses in which we can
find out what is in the world....we cannot know things if
they exists outside of our senses...we cannot know what a
universal is because we do not have the senses to completely
understand the world.... we have only limited senses which
leads to a limited understanding of the world which means
we cannot understand what a universal object is...
all our understanding can lead us to, is a limited knowledge
of individual things, not of universal things...

and here is where it gets interesting... how do we overcome
this lack of knowledge due to our limited senses?
we have faith in something that is supposed to be universal...
and that is god....god is supposed to have all knowledge of the
universe and in doing so, he can have knowledge of, or a
understanding of universals...which is the only way we can
know or understand universals....by also having universal senses...

there is a gap in our knowledge because of our limited senses
and god is supposed to fill in that gap with his universal knowledge...
and thus we hold trust or faith in god due to the fact that even if
we don't or cannot have knowledge of the universe/ or universals,
we have faith that god does have that knowledge.... he can fill
in the blanks of the universe that we cannot...

so we have only limited knowledge of our world/universe..
due to our limited senses... which leaves vast areas of
the universe ''unknown'' to us... we cannot know them because
we don't have the senses to explore them...(tools are an example
of making objects that can expand our own senses, but in the end,
we can only know that which is within the range of our senses)

so the concept of revelation, the world of god, giving us
knowledge outside of, or beyond our senses, can only exists
if, if we hold to a god.. in a no-god world, ''revelation'' has
no value.. is worthless....

now this question of universals vs individual, dominates our
entire world view..... some hold that morality/ethics is universal...
but we don't have senses enough to know the universal, so how
can we believe in a universal ethics/morality?

universal ethics/morals, requires us to comprehend and view
every sense of the word ethical/moral... and with our limited
senses, we cannot do that...the universal lies outside of
our senses.. so how can we hold to a universal ethics/morals,
when we do not and cannot know all aspects of the world?

we are limited, because of our senses, to our own individual sense,
not to any collective or worldwide understanding......

and the point of the belief/faith in god is to ''fill in the blanks of our
understanding of the universe''.... we cannot know the universe,
but he can and thus we can and must obey his rules because
he has complete and universal understanding of the world....
but that faith is pointless in a no-god world...

so, we have rules, laws, values.... are they based on our own
individual senses, thus limited or are they based on a universal,
which can only be god... laws cannot be universal because of
our limited senses.. which only allows us to see/view the individual,
not the universal...and thus morals/ethics that come from a religious
standpoint, are only universal because they assume the presence of
a universal being such as god... there is no such thing as a universal
ethics or morals....all laws, all ethics are limited to the individual thing,
not to any universal...like god....thus we can only have laws and values
that are limited, because they can only be based on our own senses
which is, by its very nature, limited...

human behavior is not universal in the sense of morals or ethics..
because of the limited nature of our senses.. we cannot create
a universal basis of laws/rules based on any such universal idea...

but we can know, on a universal level, our needs.. for all beings, not
just human beings, but all life, is based on certain rules...
the need for energy, for homeostasis, reproduction, response
to the environment, adaptation, and evolution are some of the rules
that all beings must have to exists... thus we know if life is biological,
it must need food, water, the ability to respond to the environment, and
an ability to maintain one's own environment through physical means/
homeostasis....

life cannot exist without these abilities/needs.....
so, as a universal, we can understand our needs.. because
our own biological needs are universal within life...
so we can create universal laws/rules if, if we base them
on the universal needs of biological beings... thus if
we prevent people from having food, a basic biological need
of all life, then we are being unethical, immoral...
thus the GOP/MAGA beliefs of being anti-life is universally
wrong... if we base our laws and values on universal needs,
then we can create laws and rules that are universal....

but we can understand laws and rules in terms of their biological needs..
and so we can then think about our current laws and rules by way of
the biological... the basic human need is to survive.. and have choices...
for it is choices that define a human being... for animals, they have very
limited choices...they cannot operate outside of their pre-existing programming..
we call that instincts... our biological programming is called instincts...
and the road from animal to being human lays in our moving from
having instincts that we cannot overcome to being able to choose
and pick the values and behaviors we want and need....
the difference between animals and humans is the ability of humans 
to have a choice...instincts are about not having a choice...

and thus we see that basic biological need of procreation,
as being instinct... all life wishes to procreate... that is built
into being alive.. for all living beings... and yet, because we
are human, and the path of being human is to go from instinct
to having a choice, thus, we can not only agree to procreation,
we can also have the choice to not procreate.....in other words,
to prevent abortions is to hold to instincts.. to allow abortions is
to have a choice.. a human choice...for the value in procreation
is to perpetuate the species... if we have enough human beings,
and we clearly have far more than we can sustain, then procreation
becomes a clear and present danger to us... the act of abortion becomes
more than a possibility, it is a choice and as a choice, it must be
made within the knowledge of our planets being overcrowded with
human beings... the survival of the human species lies in our being
able to feed, house, clothe, have clean water and air....and by being
this overcrowded, we challenge our ability to survive... in being overcrowded,
we risk losing our chance at survival... for we cannot feed or house or give
clean water and air to those who are already alive today... what makes you
think we can do so, when the population of human beings is at 10 billion
or 12 billion people? too many people is as much a risk to our survival as
having too few... and by having choices to propagating, we can at least
limit the number of births... thus increasing our chances of survival...
and survival is the name of the game for species ...too many people
and we risk our very chances of survival....

we cannot create universals for things like morality/ethics if, if we
based them on religious terms but we can if we base ethics/morals
on our biological needs.... or even our psychological, which is just
as important to human beings as food and water... thus if we
limit the right of people to loving only the other sex, we limited
peoples psychological needs... and one of the primary psychological
needs is love... and if we force people to only love the other sex,
we damage people psychological needs... that is as damaging as
prevent people from getting food or water.... thus by basing our
laws and rules on our psychological needs, we can no longer
ban gay people or trans people or even, as the right demands,
to ban liberals... our psychological needs is as
important as our physical needs, and damaging one or the other,
is wrong...unethical/immoral.... so, we can base our laws/rules
on universal values as long as we base them on what every
biological being needs, energy/food, stability/homeostasis,
procreation, being able to respond to the environment..

we can have laws based on our biological and psychological needs...
which is universal...and not based on religious which is not universal
or based on our limited senses.. which is not universal....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

here is an interesting aspect of universals....

Einstein cosmological constant... Einstein created some field
equations... to make them work, he had to add something outside
of the equation itself... he temporarily added them and then
later removed them.. calling them his ''biggest mistake''

so, let us rethink this... a person will say, god exists..
and I say, how do you prove this? and that person says,
the bible... the bible promises that god exists... ok, I say,
but what about the fact that the bible was clearly worked
on by different people over several centuries...
so far, so good... and here come the religious
version of the cosmological constant...

all those people did write the bible but they were all, all of them,
divinely inspired... the ''divinely inspired'' is a cosmological constant...
it is not within the parameters of the original statement or equation,
but is brought in to make the equation/statement work... at no point in
the bible, does anyone suggest that in writing the bible, they were
divinely inspired... as in driven by god to write their chapters...

and much of what is said, written and spoken about, requires
an ''cosmological constant'' to make it work..

something that is brought in from outside of the original equations or
statements to make that equation or statement work...capitalism
has a major cosmological constant within it... can you see it?

it is the ''hand of god'' part of capitalism... somehow it all works
because of the ''hand of god'' ' ''the invisible hand of god''

much of political, theological, philosophical and economic thinking
requires a cosmological constant to work...

Kropotkin