Updated: 01/10/09
Read Progressive Thoughts
First
PROGRESSIVE
PHILOSOPHY
Philosophy
is the love of wisdom, the search for it, the understanding of it, the persevering
of it, the presentation of it and the application of it. Philosophy is thinking
- hard and honest thinking. Progressive PPhilosophy is thinking outside of our
biases, prejudices, opinions and cultural concepts. Progressive Philosophy is
utilizing logic and our honest common sense on those facts that we gather from
our research and from that of others. Philosophy is especially the projection
of our conclusions. By using honest progressive philosophy, we can better
understand the past, the future and especially the present.
The term “Progressive
Philosophy” is actually redundant. For indeed, all philosophy should be
progressive. The true concept of philosophy automatically includes the concept
of progression. That is, we progress from one truth to another truth by using
the Clear Thinking Philosophy. The reason we must use this redundant term is
that much so called philosophy is really static and deals with traditional
cultural opinions and cultural concepts rather than with known facts.
Progressive Philosophy is also experimental and is willing to go where few have
trod before.
The first stage in dealing
with progressive philosophy is learning to think – independently or
non-progressively. What, you say? It is true. Assuming one has learned to
think, and that is the hardest part, one must learn to think in the same manner
that a child might play with tinker toys. Just because one has an idea, that
does not make him a thinker. A thinker will tinker with his thinking, with his
facts, with his conclusions and with his own biases and prejudices. The progressive
philosopher will put seemingly unrelated facts together and experiment with
them. The philosopher always asks, “What if I look at it this way?”
Another aspect of
progressive thinking is to know the foundations upon which most thinking is
based. To think progressively, it is often best to discard all of the
foundations upon which one has learned to think and upon which he bases his
conclusions. The reason for this rejection of foundations is that foundations
often become authoritative and produce limits of concepts and they restrict
exploration into new areas and new directions of thought.
Only those who know the
foundations, but who can think independently from them, become our concept of
great thinkers and movers in philosophy and science. Independence from
authorities, concepts, procedures, and the like is the bases upon which genius
stands and is able to flower. Genius is always a loner and often refutes the
old foundations and rests its conclusions on its own thinking and often on new
foundations.
Einstein’s famous papers
were submitted to the most influential science journal in Germany. His
conclusions were founded on revolutionary, experimental and progressive
thinking (progressive philosophy). There were no footnotes, no citations and no
resort to any foundation or authority except his own thinking. Those are the
only science papers (I know about) ever published in and by a qualified
scientific journal that had no resort to any authority. If such papers were
submitted today, they would get no closer than the round file. This attitude of
being bound to and limited by foundations and customs is a total disservice to
progressive genius, thinking and philosophy.
Example one: In the past, if
you wished to study gravity, you were immediately bound to the foundational
concept of mass, speed and distance (from Einstein and Newton). Only when you
think outside of this base do you find that there are different possibilities
and explanations for the way things are other than the concept of mass, speed,
distance and gravity. Immanuel Velikovsky published a dispute to the theories
of gravity in the book “Worlds in Collision.” He said electrical plasma,
electrical charge, space harmonics and magnetism as well as gravity held
planets and solar systems and galaxies together. He said that bodies in space communicated
with each other and that they acted and reacted to each other. He was hounded,
ridiculed and ostracized by the scientific community. Velikovsky has been
verified by today’s scientific studies of the anomalies of our sun, comets and
earth relationship and by the anomalies in the mass theory of gravity and
planetary relationships. Engineers cannot use Einstein’s theories to control
space objects. They must modify Newton’s principles to control spacecraft and
satellites. Presently, electromagnetism, plasmatic electrical energy, space
harmonics and other possibilities are being studied and verified as foundations
for the way things are.
Thus, has the study of
gravity been given new versatility of concept by a couple of thinkers who
rejected the old foundations.
Example two: If you wish to
deal with science and physics, you must reject the foundational concept, which
states that the universe is a toy of the supernatural and that some god plays
with it daily. You must reject the concept that some aspects of the universe
are off limits to the questing mind of mankind. You must reject the foundation
that prayer can change the outcome of an experiment – or anything else. To
think clearly and progressively about any subject you must reject these foundations.
Example three: If you wish
to deal with ethics and morality, you must reject the earlier foundations of
the religions and their concepts of ethics and morality that states that
morality is of divine origin. You must reject their reasons for needing ethics
and morals. You must return to “zero” and explore the subject from there. You
must ascertain man’s true needs and goals in order to reach the true needs and
concepts for ethics and morals. You must redefine ethics and morals along lines
that reject the old religious propositions and claims. In other words, you must
reject established authority and establish a new foundation that eliminates
past prejudices.
We are now ready to begin
looking at progressive philosophy as it deals with morals and ethics. First,
“progressive” does not mean “Political Liberal or Religious Liberal.”
“Progressive” does not mean, “political or religious left” as opposed to
“political or religious right.” “Progressive” does not mean anti religious. It
does not mean the abandonment of our goals. It is not regressive. It does not
mean a retreat from proven moral or ethical concepts.
What “progressive” does mean
is that there must be a continued hunt for Truth. It means development,
advancement, evolution, improvement, growth, expansion, innovation,
modernization, extension and such like. Progressive means open-minded,
unbiased, flexible, tolerant, liberal, accessible, understanding and
charitable. “Progressive” sounds almost like the qualifications for sainthood,
doesn’t it? Well, progressive philosophy is our goal and inside of that
definition, we will fashion our philosophy of morality, which I will call
“Progressive Moral Philosophy.”
We reject the goals and
needs for morality and ethics as presented to us by the religions (that is,
morality is God given and is a commandment from a Deity). Upon what then do we
erect our philosophy? My suggestion is that we erect our philosophy upon the
needs of man and upon his desire and need for civilization. I shall also inject
a bit of mysticism by way of common sense.
First of all, you don’t
start wandering around under the streetlight hunting for your lost wallet just
because there is a light there. You try to hunt for it where it might be. All
Progressive Philosophy starts with two things. First, there are the facts and
then there are the goals for which we aim. Since there are so many billions of
facts, those facts must be culled down to those that are pertinent to your
goal. So, what is our goal?
Our goal is to understand
the need, the role and the utilization of morality and ethics in our
development as individuals and in our social development (our civilization). We
must find out “If” and “Why” morals and ethics are important to our personal
and social development. Then we must apply our new knowledge to our decisions,
agendas and activities. Now we are ready to work back and hunt for those facts
that pertain to our goals.
Why do we classify some
things as good and some things as bad? Why can we not agree on what to classify
as good and what to classify as bad? Here is a secret. We classify good and bad
according to what we have been taught by our authorities. Based on these
authorities, we select what we “Believe” should be our goals. In other words,
we do not all have the same beliefs and authorities, and therefore, we do not
all have the same goals. Thus, we differ on what is good and what is bad. “What
is good for General Motors is good for the country.” (Or the world.) This is a
quote from an executive of that company. If this GM goal was so good, then the
world and General Motors would be in great shape. Since the world and General
Motors is in a heap of trouble, maybe their philosophy and their goals are WHY
we are in so much trouble. After all, General Motors is just a representative of
all our corporations and governments.
We have religions that tell
us that what is good for their religion is good for the world. We have
philosophies that tell us that what is good according to their philosophy is
good for the world. General Motors does not have a monopoly on telling us what
is good for us. We are going to set aside those questions about what is good
for us for a bit and look at something else.
What is the use in even
having or classifying something as good or bad if there is no future in it for
us? We will talk then about three different futures, and therefore, three
different foundations for our goals. They are:
Individual futures,
Collective futures and
Mystical futures.
Well, what are individual futures? How about good health,
long life, comfort, tranquility, safety, justice, harmony, good food, good air,
good health care, security, sex, good education and a multitude of good futures
for which we all wish? Say, wouldn’t all these things also apply to our
collective futures? I think so. If you have those things in mind, then what is
a Mystical future?
We have two choices here. Either there is something
for us after this life or there is not. If yes, then is this future a natural
thing or is it a “religious” thing? If it is a religious future then our future
will depend on what we believe, that is, on our religious philosophy. If it is
a natural thing then all people are subject to this natural future and the
basis of that would have to be our own individual mental and personal
development. Any future, after this life, will apply to all people and will be
influenced by their own personal development. In other words, our mystical
future will also depend on our philosophy and self development. In either case,
we should try then to find and live the right philosophy.
If there is no mystical future at all, then this
leaves us only the individual and collective futures upon which to base our
goals and philosophy. If there is something for us after this life, we could
try to decide what that future is so we may select the proper goals to
accompany and obtain the best from that future. We will sum up our mystical
future at this point by simply calling it – “unknown.” In any case, we are
dependent on our philosophy. Of course, there may be a mystical future that is
not religious but which could be called spiritual (or ghostly or whatever.) In
other words, we must reject the old foundation that claims our future (after
death) is religious because all concepts of the future depend on our philosophy
and our adherence to it. Since we are not ready to deal with this yet, we will
let it lie dormant for a while and get back to it at a later date.
Everyone and every institution wishes to teach us
their philosophical version of morals and ethics. I shall use the term morals
to also encompass the concept of ethics. Now think about this: If you were a
dictator what would be your goals and your philosophy? Well look here! You
would teach the people to follow the exact same morals as taught to us
by the Christian religion (and most religions).
Why? Dictators and religions must control the
thinking and actions of the people. The people must be taught to Believe and
Obey. They must be taught that obedience is a patriotic and religious
requirement from which they will reap great rewards in the future. They must be
taught that morals and ethics are always what the authorities say they are -
“Today.” We must add “today” because tomorrow there may be, and will be, new
concepts taught. For instance, hate and murder are great and good moral
concepts when applied against the “enemy.” War, murder and mayhem becomes a
virtue under the philosophic foundation of governments and religions when
applied to those who disagree with our authorities. They must also be taught
that slavery (by any other name) is a wonderful concept that unites the
authorities and the people in necessary common goals and in future common good (for
the good of our children). They must be taught that bad is really good. They
must be taught that good should never be extended to the enemies (whoever they
say are the enemies.) Ponder that.
Do not forget. Morals are the means to the goals.
What are the goals of the dictator? The goals are to make everyone into a
subject that will believe what the dictator says because he always tells the
truth. In religion, this is called faith and in government, it is called
patriotism. The ultimate goal of the dictator is domination of others,
domination of resources, domination of wealth, domination of thinking (belief)
and domination of the environment. In fact, the goal of the dictator is
domination over everything. Ditto for religion.
A bit ago, we named some of our individual and
collective futures or goals. We can summarize all these futures and goals in
the word “Justice.” Do the morals of obedience taught by the dictator or the
priest conform to our individual goals and to justice? Indeed Not! Then how can
the dictator (and the religions) cause us to abandon our personal justice and
future goals in order for him to accomplish his goal of domination over us? The
first thing a religion or a dictator does is to redefine “Justice.” They
declare and place into law the concept that “Justice is what they say it is.”
They pass civil “laws” to enforce and prove their points. The religions pass
religious “laws” and claim divinity and antiquity as their proof.
Here is another secret. The dictator scares people
into obeying him. Sometimes he says, “Obey me or die.” Now you can bet I will
obey. Sometimes he says, “Obey me or go to jail.” I have to weigh that.
Sometimes he says, “Obey me so we can defeat our (my) enemy.” That takes a
whole lot of weighing. When he says, “Please vote to obey me or I will lose my
power over you,” I will now resist. Of course, I have reversed the sequence of
the “obey me” commands.
How does the dictator or preacher get from “please
obey me” to “obey me or die?” He uses lies to get from here to there. Lies
include promises, deceptions, implementation of fear, secrecy, thefts, spying,
assassinations, murders, ballot box stuffing, planned destructions and killings
blamed on some one else (false flag activity), propaganda, division of the
people (Republicans or Democrats) (pro life and pro choice), provoking a group
or nation into becoming an enemy and the like. It also includes staged
celebrations, trappings of authority, inducements, threats, rewards for
following orders, using media blackouts to cover failures, manufactured news
and a multitude of other things (just like religion).
Hey, we are still talking about morals and ethics
here. The point of all this is that the dictator uses our own morals and
humanity to accomplish his rise to rulership over the people. He places fear
into our minds claiming that if we do not give him power over us we will lose
all our own goals and futures. Plus, he promises to see that we get the goals
we want if we submit to him. History has shown that this type of morality used
by the dictators and religions always brings servitude, hardship and the loss
of the very things promised by the dictator or religion.
History becomes a procedure whereby we can weigh the
merits of morals and ethics.
A person who is eighteen years old has very little
personal history behind him and thus, has very little precedent upon which to
base his personal morals and ethics. He has most likely been told (not taught)
about some morals (good or bad). Morals cannot be taught. Even punishment does
not teach morals. Punishment only teaches conduct. Conduct and morals are not
the same thing though outwardly they may appear the same.
To know (understand) good (or bad) morals means one
“learns” morals and ethics. An eighty-year-old man has learned some morals and
ethics. He can “tell” the eighteen year old some morals and ethics but he
cannot “teach” him morals and ethics. Only life and honest clear thinking
(progressive philosophy) can teach morals and ethics. Why? Morals and ethics
are the prime example of experimental progressive philosophy. They can only be
“learned.” They can be told but they cannot be taught (learned). Mistakes are
the best teachers of morals. The problem is it takes time to get from the
mistakes to the consequences, from actions to conclusions, from cause to
effect.
If you ask a thief (politician or burglar, lawyer or
clergyman, banker or stockbroker) if “his” stealing is moral, he can give you a
hundred reasons why it is his legal right to steal, and therefore, it is moral.
If you ask the victim if it is all right to steal, he can give you a hundred
reasons why it is wrong and bad morals to steal. So, victims become the
best yardstick as to whether something is good morals or bad morals.
If one suffers under what someone calls “good morals”
Then those morals are “bad” morals, not good morals.
If there were no thefts in any of its forms
(including lies, which is theft of the truth), a gallon of gasoline would cost
less than thirty cents. If there were no thefts, there would be no credit
cards. If there were no thefts, there would be no war. If there were no thefts,
there would be little to no interest on loans. If there were no thefts, there
would be no Federal Reserve System. If there were no thefts, there would be no
Israel. If there were no thefts, there would be no poverty. If there were no
thefts, there would be no religions. If there were no thefts, there would be no
dictators. If there were no thefts, there would be little need for lawyers. If
there were no thefts, there would be no need for labor unions. If there were no
thefts, there would be no corporations. If there were no thefts, there would be
no need for our giant jail systems, and on goes the revelation and truth of
this immorality of dishonesty, which the perpetrators call moral.
Our whole world runs on theft and lies.
My friends, “You shall not steal and you shall not
bare false witness.” That is the foundation of paradise. It is the foundation
of good government. It is the bases for happiness and justice and all of our
other goals and futures. Why then do we not insist upon some semblance of this
truth in our daily lives and from our institutions?
Honesty and justice are good morals and they are
wisdom of the first magnitude. Why? They bring us the individual and collective
futures and goals for which we hope and pray.
So, the first thing we can agree on in our
Progressive Philosophy is that “honesty and justice” is the wisdom upon which
we must base our individual and collectives futures and goals. Otherwise, we
must suffer and continue to suffer the bad morals and ethics of those in power
in our country and our world. The “good morals” of our religions and our
governments are killing us. Their “good morals” are ruining the earth, the
food, the air, the water and worst of all they are destroying our future.
At the center of our progressive morality then is
the need for personal development. Our minds and our bodies have latent powers
and abilities that can change us into true humanity. The religions have
outlawed personal attempts at development of these powers and have labeled the
attempt to discover and develop these powers as “witchcraft” or as being in
league with the devil. Religion wishes to substitute “obedience to a religious
prescription called salvation” in place of our own personal development. We may
indeed call this personal development and evolution of the human mind and body
as a personal spiritual enterprise.
Religion has created a disease called “sin” for
which they have invented a prescription or cure they call “salvation.” This
deception they call “Spiritual.” In reality, this is nothing more than
religious control and makes the followers of this folly little more than slaves
to the religions. Sin and salvation is little more than a fabrication to stifle
our own personal quest for personal development and spiritual growth. Our
personal progressive philosophy frees us from this deception and delusion.
In dealing with our mystical future, we must ask
some questions: “Is the world and its beginnings a religious enterprise or a
natural happening? If the world and universe is a natural happening, is the
future (after death) not also a natural happening? If the world is a religious
happening, why is there not a more divine beneficial watch care over the earth
its people and its problems? If it is a religious happening, why are there so
many opposing religions and different views of the Gods, the after life, the
methods of living and the methods of sin and salvation? Why do the various
religion have such different philosophies? If the world were a natural
happening, would things not be expected to be exactly as they are today (given
man’s gullibility)? If the world were a religious happening, would we expect
things to be any different than they are now?
So, the main question now is does man have an after
life? Nothing in the progressive philosophy prohibits it. What it does prohibit
is an unjust method of determining what happens to us in an after life. If the
world is religious, by definition it must be just. No justice could condemn a
person for not believing such unbelievable claims as is put forward by the
religions (all of them). Besides, which religious God is in charge here anyway?
Most people in the world belong to the Hindu religions. The Muslims are next
and the Christians follow. None of those religions show or claim a just
impartial God. “Just” means impartial, without biases or favor. Yet, the
Christian religion claims that God is partial to the gullible (those who can
believe their unbelievable claims).
The ancients and indeed early Christianity taught
reincarnation. There cannot be demonstrated a more just scheme of things than
reincarnation. Those born into crippled bodies or minds will also have the
chance to be born into healthy bodies and minds. Bad cultures are followed by
healthy cultures. Little chance to develop is counterbalanced by a greater
chance. Eventually, all will have experienced all types of lives and given all
types of opportunities.
So, you are in your period of great opportunity.
Adopt the Clear Thinking Progressive Philosophy in your life and you will make
the most of it. Contrary to Christian and other religious claims, there is
justice in the universe. It is called the Law of Cause and Effect. That is a
law, which you cannot break. It is a law that has no forgiveness in it. It has
only justice to offer. What a man sows is what that man will reap. What a
society sows that is what that society will reap;
Here again are the rules of
Progressive Philosophy.
1. Do not do to others what you would not have others
do to you (have compassion).
2.
Leave everything better than you found it (be responsible).
Follow these rules and guidelines and you will be safe in any future
here after. Follow these rules and you will become spiritual. Follow these
guidelines and your society will reap the rewards. Forsake these guidelines and
you will have what you have today – and worse.
This section is still under
construction. Check back later.
Thomas E. Blaylock
Posted: 10/27/06
Updated: 01/10/09
More on the way.
(Next Civilized harmony)