Our notions of ‘morality’ depend on our manner of ‘seeing’. That is; how we ‘see’ things makes a profound difference in our sense of what constitutes moral behaviour. So in order to review the respective moral views implied by Aboriginal physics and Enlightenment physics, we have to first review the respective manners of ‘seeing things.’
For example, from the Aboriginal physics we would say;
“The proliferation of local entities (objects, organisms) is the result of our observing rather than the cause of our observing.”
This follows if we assume that ‘local entities’ are representations that we substitute for the visible (dynamical forms in the flow), rather than being ‘real local objects’.
‘In reality’, … there is no thing apart from the ‘representations’ we impose on the flow-features in the nonlocal fluid-dynamical continuum of nature, that is ‘local’. ‘Local’ is confined to the realm of ‘representations’, ‘appearances’, ‘idealisation’.
The storm cell is the result of turbulence in the flow of the atmosphere, not the cause of it. Thus, only the ‘representation’ that we call a ‘cell’ is ‘local’. In other words, nothing that is perceived as local and independently existing and possessed of ‘local agency’ is ‘real’. It is instead ‘representation’ or ‘appearances’ (Schroedinger’s ‘schaumkommen’).
We are using technologies that amplify our ‘seeing’ to generate more and more ‘representations’ that are exposing ‘what is out there’ in the ‘outer limits’ and, at the same time, exposing ‘what is in here’ in the ‘inner limits’.
Down in the micro world, we are identifying new tiny things every day, such as new viruses. Some of them are so tiny and elusive that we cannot even see them directly, we have to infer their existence by inference, from the way other larger things are implicitly being rattled by them, much as in Brownian motion where the existence of invisible tiny local objects is inferred by the irregular movements of those ‘particles’ that are visible. This technique of inferring the existence of smaller invisible ‘local objects’ from larger visible objects is not new;
The Roman Lucretius’s scientific poem On the Nature of Things (ca. 60 BC) has a remarkable description of Brownian motion of dust particles. He uses this as a proof of the [‘local’] existence of atoms:
– “Observe what happens when sunbeams are admitted into a building and shed light on its shadowy places. You will see a multitude of tiny particles mingling in a multitude of ways… their dancing is an actual indication of underlying movements of matter that are hidden from our sight… It originates with the atoms which move of themselves [i.e. spontaneously]. Then those small compound bodies that are least removed from the impetus of the atoms are set in motion by the impact of their invisible blows and in turn cannon against slightly larger bodies. So the movement mounts up from the atoms and gradually emerges to the level of our senses, so that those bodies are in motion that we see in sunbeams, moved by blows that remain invisible.”
Click on ‘Inferring ‘unseen companions’ in the ‘inner-limits’ of space’ (source Dave Walker)
A similar ‘technique’ for imputing ‘local existence’ to invisible entities is currently informing the astronomical sciences of new planets in our solar system and in the vicinity of other stars;
“Any planet is an extremely faint light source compared to its parent star. In addition to the intrinsic difficulty of detecting such a faint light source, the light from the parent star causes a glare that washes it out. For those reasons, only a very few extrasolar planets have been observed directly. Instead, astronomers have generally had to resort to indirect methods to detect extrasolar planets. At the present time, several different indirect methods have yielded success.”
‘Astrometry’ is a technique that was discovered by William Herschel in the late 18th century. Because of the elliptical orbits of planets around the star (sun), the star wobbles due to the ‘unseen companion’ much as in the micro-realm of ‘Brownian motion’. The observation of the wobble implies the ‘existence’ of the ‘unseen companion’ .
Click on ‘Inferring ‘unseen companions’ in the ‘outer-limits’ of space’ (source Wikipedia)
Now, as researchers into the ‘different way of seeing’ that transpired in the ‘new Enlightenment system’ such as Donald Kunze (Prof. of Architecture, Penn. State Univ.) have observed;
“The NEW SYSTEM [Enlightenment] worked along the lines of power that radiated from a core that controlled the periphery. This new idea helped promote centralized, representative government, the development of nations, and the streamlining of transportation. In PERCEPTION, these changes were reflected in the way INSTRUMENTS such as telescopes, microscopes, theodolites, and other instruments extended the power of the eye; and also in the ways that REPRESENTATIONS such as drawings, maps, and – later – photographs, were accepted as reliable substitutes for the visible.”
Representations have grown to include inferences of the existence of things that we cannot even see; e.g. the ‘retro-viral inferences’ of the alleged ‘local existence’ of a virus, and once we have defined and named these alleged local existences, we have in effect alluded to ‘in the beginning was the word’; i.e. “Every definition [of a representation] implies an axiom, that in which we affirm the existence of the object [representation] defined” (John Stuart Mill).
The ‘problem’ with accepting representations as ‘reliable substitutes for the visible’, in a world of flow (transforming energy-field-flow), an ‘interdependent’ world that quantum physicists describe as a world of ‘thingless connectedness’ (i.e. as in a fluid-dynamical continuum), is this problem with ‘spatial context’ as is readily ‘visible’ in the case of a storm-cell in the atmosphere; i.e. the cell is the result of the turbulent flow of the atmosphere rather than the cause of it. In order to understand what the storm-cell is (where it comes from) and why it behaves the way it does, we have to open our minds to the spatial context, the flow dynamics in the entirety of the atmosphere and the ocean currents (and beyond).
For this reason, John Wheeler (physicist who has intensively explored the connection between relativity and quantum theory) observes;
“We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.”
In fact our knowledge comes in discipline-segregated archipelagos rather than in a single island, further amplifying the growth of shorelines of ignorance (and ‘circles of confusion’!).
When we orient to the ‘thingless connectedness’ of quantum reality, what we have been calling ‘local material objects/organisms’ become secondary to the spatial-relational thingless-connectedness, the flow in which there are continuously gathering and re-gathering flow features which we, the ‘Enlightenment observer’ impose our ‘representations’ on, and then proceed to regard these representations as ‘reliable substitutes for the visible’.
These differences in how we see things are foundational to two very different, elemental concepts of ‘morality’.
Can we trust our ‘representations’? Or, should our understanding put more weight on spatial relations? When we look at a man or woman, should we see them as local organisms with their own local agency, as the local causal source of ‘their own behaviour’, or should we see them and their behaviours as the ‘result’ rather than the ‘source’ of the spatial dynamics they are included in?
Can we judge their actions as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ if their actions are not really ‘theirs’ but derive from the spatial dynamics they are included in?
Pasteur inverted the standard Enlightenment ‘causal model’ in renouncing his initial theory that ‘microbes cause disease’, observing instead that ‘le microbe n’est rien, le terrain est tout’ (The microbes are nothing, the terrain is everything). His point was that the proliferation of microbes was the result of the condition of the terrain rather than the cause of it. Believers in the health stabilizing quality of vitamins such as vitamin C and D3 would say the same, and while medical science will be furthering its understanding as to how the diverse multiplicity of interdependent dynamics of nutrients, proteins, enzymes and trace elements cultivate and sustain that resilient dynamic balance in ‘the terrain’ that we call ‘health’, such inquiry is being given a back seat to research into the development of anti-pathogens, that associates with the Enlightenment model of ‘representations’ that are the basis for our notion of the local existence of, and ‘local agency’ of ‘pathological causal agents’, a notion that obscures the evidently (in Aboriginal physics) primary influence of the condition of the terrain.
Was the proliferating of young men doing violence in the streets of Paris in the summer of 1789 the CAUSE of unbalancing in the dynamics of the social terrain, or was it the RESULT of unbalancing in the dynamics of the social terrain?
The problem with the causal model, which keys to the Enlightenment practice of accepting ‘representations’ as ‘reliable substitutes for the visible’, is that ‘there is good and bad in everything’.
Television advertisements for pharmaceuticals first inform you about the ‘good results’ that the drug will ’cause’ and then give a long, long list of the nasty ‘side-effects’ that it may also ‘cause’. In fact, they will even, implicitly suggest that the causal effect of the drug cannot be isolated and attributed to the drug, because if one takes certain other drugs at the same time, this will change the condition of the body such that the effect of the aforemention ‘good-causing-drug’ will then be lethal.
The basic problem is that we can’t really separate ‘causation’ on the part of a notional ‘local agent’ from the ‘accommodation’ on the part of the terrain due to the condition of the terrain. Does throwing a lit cigarette into the forest ‘cause’ a forest fire? Not in the rainy season, but when the forest is tinder dry in a hot summer, it’s a ticking time bomb waiting for the tiniest perturbation to trigger a violent release of the potential energy that has accrued within the terrain. The same is true of the skier as notional ‘causal agent’ and the ‘accommodating role of the avalanche-ready terrain’.
All we get to see and experience is the net of the ‘causal action’ and the ‘accommodating of the terrain’ and there is no way to isolate the relative contribution of each. How much of the turbulence in the atmosphere is due to the ‘causal dynamics’ of storm cells and how much is due to the response/reaction of the flow of the atmosphere? They answer is that they are both aspects of one terrain-dynamic that we NOTIONALLY split into two by imputing local existence to dynamical forms that are features within the dynamic, continuously-unifying flow.
Moral judgement is always plagued by this ambiguity in the ‘causal’ model. If we give someone a shove and he trips and falls over a balcony to his death, are we (our action) ‘the cause of death’, or should we blame the spatial relational aspect, the condition of the terrain? As Nobel laureate in medicine (1937, for Vitamin C research) Albert Szent-Györgyi observed, it is ridiculous to put ‘pneumonia’ down as the ‘cause’ of death on death certificates since there are over one hundred bacteria and viruses that can supposedly ‘cause’ pneumonia, the more true ‘cause’ being the unstable condition of the terrain of the body due to such things as a deficiency in Vitamin C, chills etc. These bacteria and viruses are around all the time and normally innocuous. Their proliferation is the ‘result’ of the unstable condition of the terrain rather than the ’cause’ of it.
In the realm of ‘morality’, then, the same sort of questions arise. The mother of a starving child who can’t find work may find herself in a terrain that is accommodating only to the giving of sexual favours, and which would otherwise let her and her child starve. Should we say that her sexual promiscuity derives from her own local agency, … that it is the cause of a degrading of the condition of the social terrain, or should we say that, rather than being the cause of the degrading of the condition of the social terrain, it is the result of it?
Moral laws and judgements operate on the representation of a person as a locally existing organism with its own local agency. There is thus an implicit ‘choice of physics’ in this; i.e. Aboriginal physics as contrasted with Enlightenment physics.’
Moses epitomizes Enlightenment physics where Moral laws (e.g. the Ten Commandments) are based on representations of people as local, independently existing organisms with their own local agency that act/interact as if in absolute space (there is no sense of a conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation) in this view.
Moses supported a system based on moral laws that applied to the actions of people acting in their own right; i.e. the moral law of Moses depended on confusing the representations of people for reality, since there is no entity in nature that is ‘locally existing’ and possessed of ‘local agency’, these being ‘representations’ of convenience that cannot be confused for reality without incoherency and social dysfunction being the consequence. Meanwhile;
“Jethro observed how Moses sat from morning to night giving judgement for the people. Jethro suggested that Moses appoint judges for lesser matters, a suggestion Moses heeded.”
The follow-on (mis-)step, when we confuse representations for reality, is to gather together all of the good local agents, separating them from the bad local agents (in denial of the reality that there is good and bad in everything), so as to refine the overall populace by nurturing the proliferation of the good and eliminating the bad. This is the morality embodied in the ‘Darwinist’ which follows the Enlightenment physics folly of confusing representations that we impose on dynamical forms (‘species’, ‘genes’) for ‘reality’.
“Seeing that the people were uncontrollable, Moses went to the entry of the camp and said, “Who is on the Lord’s side? Let him come unto me.” All the sons of Levi rallied around Moses, who ordered them to go from gate to gate slaying the idolators.”
This simple ‘linear’ (two opposite extremes) based understanding of ‘opposition’ as in ‘good’ versus ‘evil’ deserves further examination.
In Aboriginal physics, there is an acknowledgement of interdependence as associates with the thingless connectedness of quantum physics. The representations of flow-features are not accepted as ‘real’ local systems with their own local agency. Thus they cannot be judged as being the causal agents of evil-doing or as the causal agents of ‘good-doing’; therefore, there is no basis for constructing moral law based on the actions of notional ‘local organisms with their own local agency’ (these being ‘representations that we tend to confuse for reality).
Where conflict emerges in nature, Aboriginal physics see the dynamics of nature as embodying the ethic of restoring, cultivating and sustaining balance. For example, tensions arise between thermal energy ‘have’ and ‘have-not’ regions of the equator and poles (‘concentric’ rather than ‘linear’ opposition) and convection currents in the oceans and atmosphere spontaneously establish as if in order to heal the ‘have’ – ‘have-not’ gap. The same is true in wave dynamics and in the spatial relations between mountains and valleys; i.e. nature spontaneously establishes dynamics to reconcile these tensions of (concentric) opposition and to restore balance. Mountains are like ‘lithic waves’ and are the fine detail that associates with ‘plate tectonics’ where nature sets itself in motion to reconcile the ‘have’ – ‘have-not’ thermal energy gap, the concentric opposition between the hot rock in the interior and the cold rock covering the surface. Continents are ‘representations’ or ‘appearances’.
Of course, nature has many such ‘cycles’ going, all at the same time, and all mutually interdependent. This leads to a situation where it is impossible to say ‘which is doing what’. This arises whenever there are three or more ‘things’ moving under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence. It arises where three or more drivers in the flow of the freeway are moving under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence. In this situation (if we are ‘driving friendly’) we let the evolving spatial-relational geometry that we are helping to co-creatively shape, ‘orchestrate’ our individual and collective movements. When a ‘hole’ opens up spatial possibility for us to move into it, we may do so, but as we do so we open up holes for others to move into and when three or more of us are doing this at the same time, it becomes impossible to describe our movements in terms of ‘what we are doing’. This situation parallels that of the wildgeese that stir up the airflow they are included in and let the resonances in the turbulent flow orchestrate their individual and collective movements, which leads to new forms (e.g. the ‘V’ flying formation) which are elegant but entirely unintended.
There is a ‘natural ethic’ implied here, because this could never happen if all participants were coming from their own internal purpose and ‘competing’ with one another. Only if they put their movements in the service of sustaining harmonious flow do these cocreated forms arise which are beyond the intention of any of the participants (‘slime-mold’ is likely another example of this. So long as we confuse representations of organisms, which purport them to be local systems with their own local agency, for reality, we will continue to try to understand the dynamics of collectives in ‘forward-in-time’ causal terms. Worse than this, we may get stuck trying to emulate this over-simplistic Enlightenment physics notion of dynamics and work together deliberately, as if we were parts in a bulldozer, without acknowledging our conjugate habitat-inhabitant dynamical relation that allows us to attune to the dynamical spatial context we share inclusion in, and to let our movements serve the cultivating and sustaining of harmonies therein.
This ‘ethic’ of nature, of the wildgeese and the friendly driver in the flow of the freeway would appear to be the ‘evolutionary source’.
As with the friendly drivers in the flow of the freeway and/or the wildgeese, the honey-bee starts out build a spherical container for the larva, but when many honeybees undertake the same thing in the same place, in the busy mutually influencing flow of things, it becomes impossible to distinguish the movements of a particular bee and the spatial relational geometry (the hexagonal cell) is unintended just as the ‘V’ formation of the wildgeese is unintended. The advantages of the bees letting resonances orchestrate their individual and collective behaviour is great. The shared walls (the outside wall of one cell serves as the inside wall of a neighbouring cell) cut material needs in half and since the bees can either make honey or wax for the cells, they can therefore make twice as much honey thanks to this ‘ethic’ of giving themselves up to the harmonies that arise in their shared-space dynamics. Such evolution of form is beyond the scope of Darwin’s simple ‘competition amongst the deliberate causal intentions of notional local organisms with their own local agency, an Enlightenment physics view that fails to acknowledge any ‘conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation’ as is the origin of the hexagonal cell of the bee. The other advantage is that the bees save 37% waste space as would be between the cells if they built individual spherical cells as some ‘relatively unevolved’? insects do. This might in fact be a better use of the terms ‘relatively unevolved’ since we tend to think of precision machine type organisations of hierarchies, amplified by technology as signally how ‘highly evolved’ we humans are. Sure, we use these hierarchically ordered machine-like organisations to deliberately do their business as if they were operating in absolute fixed and empty euclidian space; i.e. as if there were no uplift to be found in acknowledging the conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation.
In the following picture, we can see that the evolution of the efficient hexagonal cell ‘comes about’ when three or more ‘cells’ develop under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence. The don’t need a brain or ‘deliberate constructive intention’ to discover that it makes sense to put their movements in the service of sustaining spatial-relational harmony with their neighbours. Out of this natural ethic of letting one’s behaviour be orchestrated by resonances in the dynamic space one is included in, comes the evolution of new, interesting and mutually beneficial form.
What we are looking at in the picture is an expression of the ‘conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation’ that is intrinsic in nature and is acknowledged in aboriginal physics but not in Enlightenment physics, the latter’s way of seeing being based on representations that impute the existence of local independent organisms with their own local agency. There are no explanations of these forms in terms of the actions/interactions of notional local systems with their own local agency. The hexagonal cell shapes are not causally produced by the dynamics of the inhabitants, they are the result of the habitat dynamics in which they are included, as is the case of the ‘V’ formation of the wildgeese.
The evolution of new and non-deliberately intended dynamic form arises in this manner wherein ’cause’ and ‘result’ are inverted from their Enlightenment physics view. In the Aboriginal physics view, motion is relative in a conjugate habitat-inhabitant (concentric) relational sense. Space is no longer passive in this view.
[N.B. The notion that ‘space pushes back at the same time that the inhabitant pushes out excited physicists who were investigating ‘relativity’; e.g. [Einstein] “Only the genius of Riemann, solitary and uncomprehended, had already won its way to the middle of the last century to a new concept of space, in which space was deprived of its rigidity, … in which its power to take part in physical events was recognized as possible.”, and [Max Born] , “This suggestion of a finite but unbounded space is one of the greatest ideas about the nature of the world which has ever been conceived.”.]
The Enlightenment way of seeing reduced the concentric (conjugate outer-inner relational) Aboriginal/Medieval way of seeing, to a ‘radial’ or ‘line-of-sight’ way of seeing. No doubt these two ways have always been available and continue to be, but Enlightenment society made the ‘linear’ way of seeing the popular default. For example, if we drop a pebble in a still pond, we tend to think of the disturbance pushing radially outward, but if we look more closely the pebble first created a hole/trough where it falls into the water and nearby water moves into try to fill that hole, and it overshoots to create a mound/crest which must then be dispersed outwards and what propagates outwards is this conjugate outward and inward at the same time dynamic relation which is concentric and circular rather than radial and linear. The linear view is a reduction of the conjugate outer/habitat-inner/inhabitant relation which imputes the source of the action to be radiating out from the center.
Our common Enlightenment sense of self tends to undergo this same ‘reduction’ so that we think of ourselves as a powerboat with all of the internal center-driven power and direction needed to be the ‘local organism with its own local agency’ of Enlightenment representation. This subsumes the Aboriginal/Medieval sense of self which was more in the style of the sailboat which derives its form power and steerage from the dynamic of the habitat it is included in.
Without a doubt, there are very different behaviour-guiding ethics that attach to these different ways of seeing and mutually relating to one another.
‘Opposition’ need not be seen in the linear terms of ‘two opposite extremes’ such as ‘good’ and ‘evil’. The crest of the wave is not the simple linear opposite of the trough and the mountain height is not the simple opposite of the valley depth; ‘concentric opposition’ is what we, and the birds, bees, bubbles and cells experience in the natural space we are included in. The inbuilt ethic in nature is to acknowledge the inherent ‘conjugate habitat-inhabitant relational’ nature of all dynamical forms. This is the source of evolutionary transformation rather than head-butting conflict and war. The conjugate relation of space (habitat) and matter (inhabitant) emerges in Ernst Mach’s principle of relativity which can be stated; ‘The dynamics of space (the habitat) condition the dynamics of matter (the inhabitants) at the same time as the dynamics of matter (the inhabitants) are conditioning the dynamics of space (the habitat).’
This conjugate habitat-inhabitant spatial-relational conditioning is all going on AT THE SAME TIME, as it must, when we see nature in terms of a nonlocal fluid-dynamical continuum.
As John Wheeler says;
“Time is what prevents everything from happening at once.”
And as Lee Smolin expands;
“When we turn to the problem of constructing a cosmological theory we face a key problem, which is that there is no external clock. There is by definition nothing outside of the system, which means that the interpretation of the theory must be made without reference to anything that is not part of the system which is modeled.” -Lee Smolin, ‘The argument for the absence of time’
Yet ‘time’ and sequence are essential to the causal morality of Moses (the popular morality of our Enlightenment society), which first identifies a ‘result’ and then ‘backs up in time’ (not in the unfolding of space) to identify the ‘causal agent’ responsible for the result, the local entity that is caught ‘holding the smoking gun’. The role of the habitat in providing accommodating potentials in conjugate relation to ‘causal agency’ is ignored in the moral method of Moses, suggesting that there is strong mutual reinforcement between the moral method of Moses and Enlightenment physics.
Meanwhile, the transformational morality of Aboriginal physics, which rejects the enforcement of morality based on representations of people as local organisms with their own local agency acting out their own local purpose in a notional absolute fixed and empty space, is also described in the Bible, and is directly contrasted with the moral method of Moses. For example, in the following passage from John 8:1-11
1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
The implication is that Jesus view can be associated with Aboriginal physics while Moses’ view can be associated with Enlightenment physics. Given that ‘there is good and bad in everything’, there is within us, in our conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation, the tension of opposites that threaten to release in explosive/destructive dynamics, Jesus sees the way to reconcile these tensions through the process of transformation, rather than by rewarding and punishing people on the basis of whether they are SEEN as ‘good causal agents’ or ‘bad causal agents’.
The basic problem with Moses’ method of moral management is that when we view people as local organisms with their own local ‘causal agency’ we are confusing ‘representations’ for reality.
Enlightenment society has “accepted [representations] as reliable substitutes for the visible”. This is a confusing of appearances for reality, which sets us up for the method of moral management of Moses. Just as the storm-cell is the result of the turbulence it is included in, rather than the cause, so it is with human organisms in the thingless connectedness world of Aboriginal physics (quantum physics and relativity), wherein what we observe and experience is the ‘conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation’ which can be broken into two only by imposing ‘representions’ (the ‘reality’ is, meanwhile, the ‘conjugate-habitat-inhabitant relation’).
Jesus rejects the method of Moses (i.e. he passes by it without opting for it as the primary moral method), opting instead for the spatial relational transformation-based method of moral management, as is embodied in the (wave) dynamical (Aboriginal physics) view of nature.
The implication is that we cannot understand the behaviour of an individual in isolation, as ‘local agency’, the community-dynamic (habitat-dynamic) is intrinsically involved as well; i.e. the ‘conjugate habitat-inhabitant relational dynamic’ of Ernst Mach is the primary reality.
The question then arises; ‘Is the proliferation of evil agents the cause of degradation in the terrain or is it the result of degradation in the terrain? In the parallel case of microbial evil agents, Pasteur and Béchamp came around to the view that ‘the terrain is everything’; i.e. the habitat includes the inhabitants in the manner that the flow of the atmosphere includes storm-cells; thus, their answer is that ‘the proliferation of evil agents is the result of degradation in the terrain, rather than the cause of it.
The woman who is transformed by forgiveness will necessarily be, at the same time, a source of transformation in the terrain of community since she is spatial-relationally included in the community dynamic.
The ‘Aboriginal physics’ morality of Jesus thus ‘bypasses’ the confusing of representations for reality that associates with the ‘Enlightenment physics’ morality of Moses.
In practical terms, ‘rebellion’, ‘criminality’ and ‘terrorism’ all have to be dealt with, but that does not mean that we have to confuse ‘representation’ for reality by imputing ‘local causal agency’ to the dynamical forms we call humans.
The proliferation of pathological behaviour is the ‘result’ of the world dynamic, not the ’cause’ of it.
The inbuilt ethic in the dynamics of nature is to acknowledge the conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation and to let one’s personal dynamic serve the cultivation and sustaining of harmony at the confluence of multiple, simultaneous, mutual influences.
* * *