Tag Archives: with the will of quantum modality

CHAPTER 18. IDEALISMAL THEORY OF ETHICS

In Dostoevsky’s unforgettable novel The Brothers Karamazov, the characters, Ivan and Alyosha, are tormented by ethical considerations regarding what should be considered right and wrong. But this was written in 1880. How often do modern men and women attach such importance to ethics in their actions? Central to the erosion of the importance of ethics and values ​​in our society has been the tacit acceptance of cognitivist-behaviorist notions of human personality—the idea that we, as classical mechanisms, are entirely determined by our genetic and social conditioning. Our moral values ​​are too often influenced by political pragmatism and rationalization that puts the letter above the spirit of the law. We eagerly adapt to the images of good living that a consumerist and exploitative society offers us. In such a culture, traditional values ​​are like a broken rudder, doing little to help us steer a meaningful course in the midst of choices large and small that can lead us to ruin.

Likewise, we have no guiding principle when we try to focus on the ethical dimensions of scientific and technological projects such as genetic engineering and the arms race. Will we ever be able to scientifically justify ethics? Can we find a scientific basis for ethics? If so, perhaps science will once again be able to serve humanity on a fundamental level. But if there is no scientific basis for ethics, then how can ethics influence science – not to mention the powerful but unbridled godson of science – technology. This comes down to the classic mechanistic argument: if our actions are determined by forces beyond our control, then it is useless to use ethics to control them.

Some authors believe that the crisis of values ​​will be solved if students return to reading classics like Plato, but I argue that the problem runs deeper. Our science has increasingly discredited religious superstitions and rigid dogmas and undermined the practice of primitive rituals and adherence to mythical patterns of life, but it has also compromised what remains constant in religious teachings, rituals and myths – values ​​and ethics. Is it possible to restore values ​​and ethics free of dogma? Is it possible to understand values ​​and ethics in isolation from their mythological foundations?

Probably not, but the chances will increase if science itself can establish that ethics is part of the overall scheme of things. Without a scientific basis, ethics continues to be expressed in a culture-dependent and arbitrary manner. Let us take as an example scientific humanism, which supports human values. Humanists say – do to others as you would like others to do to you, otherwise you will not be accepted in the human community. But this formula doesn’t work. This is a reactive position, while ethics is fundamentally proactive.

Any arbitrary standard is clearly antithetical to science. Likewise, recent talk about establishing ethical standards in the practice of science remains empty if ethics cannot be established on a solid foundation of scientific principles. It seems necessary to recognize the establishment of ethics and values ​​as a truly scientific matter.

Recent advances in quantum physics already suggest the possibility of fundamental contributions from physics to the subject of ethics and values. Alain Aspect’s experiment convincingly shows that our separation from the world is an illusion. Based on this evidence alone, some people hope that the quantum worldview allows for, and even requires, ethics and values.

With an idealistic interpretation of quantum mechanics we can go even further. Once we understand the conditional disguise that hides the complex hierarchical mechanism of our mind-brain and creates the illusion of separateness of the ego, we are only one step away from developing a science of ethics that will allow us to live in harmony with the scientifically established principle of inseparability. Our spiritual/religious heritage can be very helpful in developing this program. A bridge between the scientific and spiritual philosophies of idealism can heal practices in society that question and too often compromise ethics and values.

The basic principles of this kind of science are already clear. Ethics should reflect our search for happiness, which lies in resolving internal value conflicts. In other words, ethics should be a guide to moving toward wholeness—a guide to unifying our classical and quantum selves. Another principle is the fundamental inseparability of ethics and creativity. The new ethics cannot be shackled by ritualistic belief systems. Instead, it must flow meaningfully from the human being’s desire for inner creativity. It is clear that such an ethic must sometimes conflict with the beliefs of material realism.

As a result of the development of such science, we will be able, at the most personal level, to take responsibility for the world that we are. As Viktor Frankl once observed, we must complement the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast with the Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast. This will mean that many of us live lives full of inner creativity. In such a world we may even come closer to the elusive goal of peace within each of us, as well as between us.

Before we look in detail at the new science of ethics, let us take a look at the two systems of ethics that have dominated Western thought.

Kant’s categorical imperative

According to the German philosopher of the 18th century. To Immanuel Kant, the question of morality is a question of individual motivation. Kant believed that motivation comes from the realm of ideas and that all human beings have an intuitive sense of what, in general, is their moral duty. Thus, we have an unconditional requirement to fulfill this duty. Why should I be moral? According to Kant, we hear an internal command: do your duty. This imperative is an internal moral law that each of us accepts for ourselves. Morality consists in fulfilling these duties, regardless of desire or unwillingness. In addition, Kant assumed that these duties constituted universal laws. They are applied rationally and harmoniously to all human beings, so that there is no conflict between the duties of one person and the duties of another.

What are these responsibilities? Kant believed that they are based on rationality and that we can discover them using reason. We can do this by asking ourselves: Would I like the action I am considering to be universal? If this is desirable, then we have discovered a universal law. This argument is noticeably circular.

Kant’s ethical theory is an interesting mixture of idealistic and realist aspects. He postulates a sphere of ideas from which categorical imperatives arise. This is clearly idealistic metaphysics. We apply the moral law to ourselves, make a decision and take responsibility for it. This is clearly consistent with idealistic views. Moreover, Kant appears to have believed in an objective moral law, which is a realistic belief. This is where Kant is mistaken. (Of course, the universality of Kant’s moral law is questionable, if only on the basis of empirical observation of truly ambiguous situations that challenge our knowledge of right and wrong with the utmost severity.)

Kant also correctly guessed that the internal moral law comes from the free, immortal soul. Unfortunately, he believed that we are deprived of access to this inner self.

According to Kant, where ethics ends, religion begins, along with its system of reward and punishment. Simply put, religions claim that as a reward for our good deeds we receive an afterlife in heaven, and as a punishment for our sins we receive an afterlife in hell.

Material Realism Position: Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism, which is often summarized as “the greatest happiness for the greatest number,” was proposed in the 19th century. philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mile. It continues to dominate the Western psyche—especially in the United States. Happiness is primarily defined by pleasure: “The highest good is that which brings the greatest amount of pleasure to the greatest number of people.”

Utilitarianism is an interesting mixture of materialism, localism, objectivity, epiphenomenalism and determinism – all elements of material realism. Happiness is brought only by material (objective and local) things – objects of hedonism – such as wealth, sex and power. Therefore, we must strive for them. So that this does not look like a philosophy of hedonism, let’s add a little socialism, whereby the goal ceases to be individual happiness. We must strive precisely for the maximum happiness of society on average. War will cause suffering to some people, but it is justified if it brings happiness to the majority.

According to utilitarianism, ethical considerations are objective. By studying the consequences of an action for pleasure or pain, we can attribute to it a magnitude of happiness or a magnitude of unhappiness in relation to the whole society. Bentham even developed the absurd hedonic calculus to calculate the happiness index of a single action.

Many philosophers admit that even under utilitarianism we should be free to pursue the right course. However, upon closer inspection, we see that behind this philosophy lies the strong belief that subjectivity (or personal choice) in matters of morality is an irrelevant epiphenomenon that plays no decisive role. That is, we may think that we are making a choice, but this is illusory thinking. Events and actions are subject to natural (deterministic) law. Ethical theory allows us to predict the outcome and thereby gain control (by siding with the so-called good). The intuitive understanding of an action as good or bad also does not play any role, since intuition does not exist in this philosophy.

Finally, utilitarianism says nothing about personal responsibility: we are creatures of determinism. As long as ethical considerations are subordinated to the objective science of ethics (the realistic science of ethics), everything is consistent with the philosophy of determinism: questions of choice and responsibility do not arise.

However, even today – when on a societal level we seem to make most ethical decisions based on the philosophy of utilitarianism – on a personal level we are still struck by Kant’s ideas. Many people still follow an internal moral law, or are tormented by it—or both. Some of us question the validity of initiatives such as the hedonic calculus; others have difficulty with the utilitarian-ethical aspect of natural law. Many people are concerned that moral responsibility has no place in utilitarian ethical philosophy.

There seems to be a growing consensus that the realist science of ethics in the form of utilitarianism is simply incomplete. It denies the validity or usefulness of many genuine subjective experiences.

Idealist ethics

Let’s assume that we are not classical mechanisms. What if, as this book argues, we are consciousness manifesting as dual quantum-classical systems? Can we create a more reliable and complete science of ethics in the quantum universe? Once we understand that we have an inalienable right to act freely and creatively in the quantum modality, all arguments for the subjective aspects of ethics take on an immediacy of reality. Recognizing that we are free to act means recognizing that we are responsible for our actions. Does this mean that the purpose of ethics and values ​​is to be rules of responsibility—rules of what should and should not be done? According to quantum theory, the choice belongs to our consciousness. Is the goal of idealistic ethics to identify good choices as opposed to bad choices, to classify right and wrong better than realist ethics does?

At first it seems simple. Take, for example, the golden rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. Can this rule be derived from idealistic metaphysics? Of course, by definition: since we are all one consciousness, to harm another is to harm oneself. Loving another means loving yourself.

What if the Golden Rule served as your criterion for making choices, your code of duty? Imagine that you and a friend went boating on a large lake without life jackets. What do you do when the boat sinks? You’re not a very good swimmer, but you think you can make it to shore. However, your friend does not know how to swim at all and panics. If you love yourself, you will want to save yourself. If you love your friend as yourself, you will try to save him or her. From a rational standpoint, you feel the urge to use every opportunity to survive, but we know that in many cases people try to save another, even if it is a stranger. Does the Golden Rule help resolve this dilemma?

The goal of ethics is rightness, virtue. It is for this purpose that we conscientiously teach ethical rules – for example, the Ten Commandments or the Eightfold Path of the Buddha – rules developed by eminent idealistic thinkers. We naively assume that if we remember the rules, they will pave a clear path for us with clearly marked crossroads – a path that will lead us safely through the vicissitudes of life to the pinnacle where we clearly emerge as a Virtuous Person, an Ethical Person.

Alas, as we soon discover, things are not that simple. We discover the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law. We find that there can be a conflict between interpretations or versions of the good, as in the case of the sinking boat described above. We find that there is no fair distribution of rewards and punishments according to ethical merit. Some pranksters have destroyed or turned the wrong way signs at many important intersections along our Road to the Top of Good. This is why many books on ethics, written by wise and thoughtful people, have failed to truly solve the problem of ethics for us. In an excellent analysis of ethical conflict, Sartre concludes that ultimately people have to choose their path based on their instincts or feelings. What does Sartre mean?

We can analyze Sartre’s thought using the ideas of classical and quantum modality from the quantum theory of the self. Although we have free will in the quantum modality, we are also classically conditioned beings with a tendency to react as if we were classical machines. This tendency to avoid choice extends to the tendency to avoid responsibility. We want to be free in the quantum modality, but at the same time we want to have a map for this freedom. Unfortunately, any path mapped is a classic path—a fixed path—that does not necessarily lead directly to the ethical goal in all situations.

It is necessary to understand this inevitable predicament. Sartre understood this, and this is what constitutes the essence of existential ethics. Understanding the difficulty of applying general ethical principles to an infinite variety of specific circumstances helps us recognize certain contradictions in our own ethical behavior and the behavior of others. It helps us become less prone to superficial judgments.

Thus, ethics cannot be formulated, let alone the manifestation of ethics in life. Interestingly, this also helps answer Kant’s (and everyone else’s) question: why am I moral?

Why am I moral?

There is a certain irony in the fact that ethical principles have been diligently passed down from generation to generation without equally careful guidance on how to be ethical. Without an explicit context of commitment to growth toward transformation, one simply cannot truly live these principles. Properly understood, ethical standards are not rules of outward behavior, but primarily instructions for internal reflection on how we behave outwardly. These are techniques for manifesting freedom in us, for facilitating our ability to operate in the quantum modality. Thus, the principle “Love your neighbor as yourself” is useless for most of us as a rule of conduct, since we do not truly love ourselves and therefore, in reality, do not know what love is at all.

At the heart of this injunction is the recognition that we do not exist separately from our fellow man. Therefore, loving yourself means loving your neighbor, and vice versa. Therefore, the task is simply to learn to love. Love is not a thing, but an act of being. Love as meditation, practiced as constantly as possible, is different from love as a set of prescribed behaviors or as a response of pleasure. Love as meditation allows us to loosen the boundaries of our ego a little – from time to time allowing the consciousness of our neighbor into our awareness. With patience and persistence, love actually happens in us. And it is this love—not externally imposed or inferred forms of behavioral love—that transforms our behavior and reaches our neighbor.

Here is the answer to the question that inevitably arises when studying Kant’s ethical philosophy. If “Do your duty” is a universal categorical imperative, then why does it plague only some of us and not others? The answer is that, first, as Kant himself recognized, ethics and internal moral laws are signs from our inner self, prompting us to know our full self. Secondly, and more importantly, the injunction to do our duty affects only those of us who are committed to exploring our full self, awakening to the level of buddhi beyond the ego. When we become bogged down in our ego identity, we gradually lose the ability to hear these inner commands.

It is interesting that religions strike a chord with their idea of ​​reward and punishment. The reward for moral action is indeed heaven, but not in the afterlife. Heaven is in this life; it is not a place, but an experience of living in quantum nonlocality. Likewise, to avoid the ethical imperative is to perpetuate existence at the ego level and condemn one’s self to a lifetime of hell.

What is sin? It is important to ask this question because organized religion often focuses its energy and influence on ideas of sin, good and evil, reward and punishment. Most organized religions envision some version of hell as a post-mortem punishment for sins. Most of them also care about forgiveness or remission of sins before death so that the sinner can escape hell.

According to quantum ideas of ethics, the only sin is to completely bog oneself or drown others in classical functioning, to prevent oneself or others from accessing the quantum modality and the manifestation of freedom and creativity. (This is entirely consistent with the Christian idea of ​​original sin as separation from God.) Indulging in this stagnation does indeed land us in hell—the earthly hell of ego bondage, as the following story suggests:

The virtuous man died and, as expected, ended up in a delightful place. He was hungry and therefore asked the servant for food. He was told: “To receive food, you only need to desire it.”

Wonderful! But after eating his customized dishes, he felt lonely and told the attendant: “I want to have female company.” He again replied that he only needed to wish to have it. Therefore he wished, and again for a while he felt satisfaction from his beautiful companion.

Then he began to get bored and approached the attendant again. “This is not what I expected,” he complained. “I thought that a person feels boredom and dissatisfaction only in hell.”

The servant looked at him and asked: “Where do you think you are?”

Our ego-selves too often try to find balance by averaging opposing concepts such as good and evil. This bifurcating tendency of classical modality causes a lot of trouble because it leads, whether intentionally or not, to judgment by absolute standards. Such judgments often limit a person’s potential. They certainly limit the potential of the judge and, often, also limit the potential of the judged. We have no moral right to impose ethical standards – or any standards – on another person, since this interferes with his freedom. (This does not mean that we cannot imprison a person who clearly and undeniably threatens the freedom of others. There is a place for social utilitarianism in idealistic ethics, just as there is a place for scientific realism in monistic idealism.) Imagine how many conflicts there are it would have been possible to avoid this in the world if no one had ever imposed their ideology on others!

The transformative good we strive for is the good of the quantum modality, transcending the polarities of good and evil. This is the goodness of the atman consciousness.

Preaching something that is not practiced can be dangerous. Most of us can only conjure up ugly images of moral rightness, for history speaks of terrible cruelty in the name of morality. Gandhi understood the main rule of ethics this way: Ethics should be a spiritual practice with purely internal foundations. One day a woman brought her little daughter to Gandhi and made a simple request: “Tell my daughter not to eat sweets. It’s bad for her teeth. She respects you and will listen to you.”

But Gandhi refused. “Come back in three weeks,” he told the woman. “I’ll see what I can do.”

When the woman came to him again three weeks later with her daughter, Gandhi sat the little girl on his lap and gently told her, “Don’t eat sweets. It’s bad for your teeth.”

The girl timidly nodded in agreement, after which she and her mother went home. When they left, some of Gandhi’s comrades were upset and asked him indignantly: “Didn’t you know that a woman and her child had to walk several hours to meet you, and you made them walk that distance twice in three weeks? Why didn’t you give the little girl this simple advice when they first came?”

Gandhi laughed. “Three weeks ago I didn’t know if I could stop eating sweets. How can I advise something if I can’t practice it myself?”

If ethics were an immutable and rational system of behavior, how could it be detailed enough to cover all situations and conditions in a changing world? Instead, ethical or moral choices are best expressed in ambiguous ways. Ambiguity breeds creativity, and creativity is often necessary to find “ethical solutions to dilemmas.” Take, for example, the sinking boat scenario already described. The problem with applying the golden rule in this situation is that if you were drowning, then, of course, you would want your friend to save you, but if you knew that this attempt would only lead to both your death and his, then they would have wanted him to save himself. The uncertainty of the situation creates ambiguity—inevitable doubt about what is ethical—that only a creative response can resolve.

Russian physicist Yuri Orlov, who developed his recently published theory of doubt in a prison cell, considers the development of healthy doubt to be a characteristic of double entrapment. The incoming information creates two competing situations in the mind of the doubter from which he cannot distance himself. According to Orlov, the solution lies not in tossing a coin, but in creativity: “It is important that there is a conflict: on the one hand, the dilemma cannot be resolved, and on the other hand, it must be resolved – moreover, relying on one’s own inner voice, and, say, not to a random number generator.”

According to Orlov, doubt arises because there is no logical solution. Logic leads only to a paradoxical oscillation between possibilities. The same is true for a moral dilemma. When logic is insufficient to arrive at an ethical answer, that answer can only be arrived at through a creative quantum leap. Even when logic can be stretched to arrive at a parsimonious solution, creativity often produces a deeper solution that truly revolutionizes the context of the problem. Ethics appears to be inherently about inner creativity, a transformative encounter with our quantum self. This is implicit in the Christian message of forgiveness (“if you are hit on one cheek, turn the other”), which is so difficult for us to adapt to in our classical modality.

Although we idealize this access to the buddhi-level quantum self, we find it very difficult to act on it in our responses to personal grievances. To achieve maximum access to the quantum self, maximum creativity and maximum freedom, we must be committed to a radical transformation of the psyche. It would be fantasy to expect otherwise. The mistake that most prophets made was not emphasizing the fundamental importance of the urge to reform. Externally applied prescriptions are purely temporary treatments. No, people are generally unable to manifest the ideal without coming into seemingly intractable conflicts with conventional ideas of justice, reward and punishment, and with other social conventions that support the pursuit of happiness and the so-called virtuous life.

In the quantum modality we avoid preconceived answers: the goal is creativity; we must remain open to broader possibilities, without automatically – as a conditioned reflex – not choosing the shortcut of a pre-given ethical formula. The goal is to empower people to find surprising solutions to situations like the one where friends drown in a lake. Surely this is the kind of creative intervention that occurs when a middle-aged woman lifts a truck to free her injured son or husband. Perhaps it is in ethics that we experience our greatest potential for freedom.

Thus, we can define the fundamental principle of idealistic ethics as preserving and increasing our own and others’ access to the quantum modality – to being at the level of buddhi (which includes both freedom and creativity). Let us now analyze the stages approach (different stages of spiritual life) described in idealistic literature from the point of view of the ethical journey of manifesting morality in our lives. For the journey of inner creativity is not over until its result—the transformation of our self—becomes fully available for transmission to others in communication.

Three stages of idealistic ethical practice

One of the best examples of idealistic literature is the Bhagavad Gita, and we will follow it in this review. This source examines human ethical development from the point of view of three spiritual paths – the yoga of action (karma yoga), the yoga of love (bhakti yoga) and the yoga of wisdom (jnana yoga). At each stage of human ethical development after ego utilitarianism, one of these yogas predominates – although they are all practiced simultaneously. Each of these yogas contains the practice of ethical action.

In the first stage, corresponding to the yoga of action, a person learns to act without attachment to the fruits of action. It is the ego’s craving for the fruits of action that prevents us from seeing clearly the nature of our conditioning. This inability to see our conditioning prevents us from realizing our duty and keeps us from acting ethically. This is the preparatory stage. We begin to understand the conditioning of our actions, so we can choose to act morally. Sometimes this stage ends with an awareness of our fundamental unity with the world—a “eureka” experience of inner creativity.

In the next stage, the yoga of love, we act in service to others (or, in a more religious sense, as an instrument of God). This is the altruistic stage, the central stage of ethical and moral action. We discover otherness – the independent, rather than conditional significance of the individual manifestations of another person. We hear the voice of duty and obey it. We directly and directly serve the good of all, not just the abstract greatest good for the greatest number of people. Once we see what the fundamental moral duty is, we follow it uncompromisingly. Our service opens our hearts to love others. The more we love, the more we are able to act ethically towards ourselves and others.

In the third stage, in the yoga of wisdom, we act through the perfect alignment of our will with the will of the quantum modality of the self. In this alignment we subordinate the will of the ego level to the current choice of the unified consciousness. This is similar to the Christian ethical doctrine of “Thy will be done.” However, this last formulation can lead to serious confusion if the “Thou” is understood as separate from the “I.” Such separateness implies that a person surrenders his free will to some external agent, but for a person reaching this stage of maturity, the “you” is not separate from the “I”. Therefore, by subordinating the ego to the quantum modality, a person becomes truly free and creative. Strictly speaking, at this stage there is no longer any need for ethical and moral guidance, since there are no longer any conflicts. All this – ethics, morality, conflicts – dissolves in the will of a single consciousness. Then only correct actions are possible.

Finally, let’s consider an issue that troubles many ethical philosophers. What if the moral life comes into conflict with the so-called right life. Of course, this depends on how one defines right life. As we undergo transformation from the ego level to the buddhi level, the definition of right life as the pursuit of happiness gradually gives way to understanding it as a life full of joy. The constant pursuit of temporary pleasures is replaced by a sustainable, effortless life in a state of integrity. But the moral life is a life of service. Is there a possible conflict here? The point of view of practical idealism was well expressed by the poet Rabindranath Tagore:

In my sleep I dreamed that life was joy.
I woke up and realized that life was service.
I acted and saw that service is joy.

The book “The Self-Aware Universe. How consciousness creates the material world.” Amit Goswami

Contents

PREFACE
PART I. The Union of Science and Spirituality
CHAPTER 1. THE CHAPTER AND THE BRIDGE
CHAPTER 2. OLD PHYSICS AND ITS PHILOSOPHICAL HERITAGE
CHAPTER 3. QUANTUM PHYSICS AND THE DEATH OF MATERIAL REALISM
CHAPTER 4. THE PHILOSOPHY OF MONISTIC IDEALISM
PART II. IDEALISM AND THE RESOLUTION OF QUANTUM PARADOXES
CHAPTER 5. OBJECTS IN TWO PLACES AT THE SAME TIME AND EFFECTS THAT PRECEDE THEIR CAUSES
CHAPTER 6. THE NINE LIVES OF SCHRODINGER’S CAT
CHAPTER 7. I CHOOSE WITH THEREFORE, I AM
CHAPTER 8. THE EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX
CHAPTER 9. RECONCILIATION OF REALISM AND IDEALISM
PART III. SELF-REFERENCE: HOW ONE BECOMES MANY
CHAPTER 10. EXPLORING THE MIND-BODY PROBLEM
CHAPTER 11. IN SEARCH OF THE QUANTUM MIND
CHAPTER 12. PARADOXES AND COMPLEX HIERARCHIES
CHAPTER 13. “I” OF CONSCIOUSNESS
CHAPTER 14. UNIFICATION OF PSYCHOLOGIES
PART IV . RETURN OF CHARM
CHAPTER 15. WAR AND PEACE
CHAPTER 16. EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CREATIVITY
CHAPTER 17. THE AWAKENING OF BUDDHA
CHAPTER 18. IDEALISMAL THEORY OF ETHICS
CHAPTER 19. SPIRITUAL JOY
GLOBAR OF TERMS