(Introduction to blog. Articles will be commentaries or “creative presentations”- listed in the line in parenthesis.)
PREMISE: There is a difference between right and wrong; good and evil.
Simply stated and scarcely present, self-regulated actions demonstrating knowledge of the premise develop before they are explained, and there are two universal paths taken by developing people: What is taught in the course of imparting a spiritually sound ideal, and what is taught in the course of general academic pursuits.
Readily apparent and sources of constant difficulty, spiritually sound ideals have been taught in ways according them conceptualizations fit for a devoted awareness, and because “to know in faith” is individual responsibility, when it comes to religion the inward, “operational goal” is to ensure faith will be found. -The outward goal is to secure the process, and to ensure the “operational voice” religions present the world reflects the process they exist to secure, religion-specific sects were started.
GNOSTICS & “THE SPIRITUALLY SOUND IDEAL”
Using the example of the Brahmin (Priestly) Caste of Ancient India, who were in charge of fire sacrifice to Brahman (Universal Consciousness of Existence), and the practice was aligned to the religion of the region:
Internally, the Brahmin housed another sect, kept apart from the rest of the caste, the Upanishad, who practiced lived knowing, and a process started that became fundamental to the founding of Buddhism- groups of Upanishads agreed: “This “release”; this “union” is available to all, (not just through what a priestly caste makes available).” -So they left.
How can a religion ensure its internal reason to exist is preserved? It can be stated that all acts of religious devotion provide physical record of how well faith is expressed, because it is the acts of followers that attest to faith; to God’s presence. Still, if not enough demonstration meets the outside world, -where members are prone to being associated to the name of their Religion, they remain susceptible to expressing their ideas of faith with the actions of belief.
Remedying this, providing the checks and balances needed to matters so remotely captured, there are religion-specific bodies of Gnostics. Forever exclusively concerned with maintaining a “useful union”, the Gnostic internally sees the religion they represent as its tradition -not even “their tradition”, and it is understood that the word “religion” does not class a “body of the faithful”; it is only a marker for the external view of the total endeavor. -To be in the right and acknowledge the wrong, until evil ends.
Strange lines develop when a purely academic person is asked to explain the difference between right and wrong. Their views are built upon views, and they often specialize in exceedingly tedious classifications of reason for one side or the other, -if the “concept of sides even exists”, or some such.
In the previous section, a process to ensure the perpetual, -though never individually guaranteed- success of the good is provided for within a framework of “universal right and wrong”, made available to be communicated through (what are meant to be sources for) spiritually sound ideals. It is reasonable to expect a framework for “universal checks and balances as they pertain to how knowledge is demonstrated”, because institutions of education are responsible for preparing people to demonstrate knowledge. -To expect to uncover an Academic equivalent to the role the Gnostic serves.
If it is anything, reducing the whole mode of academic inquiry into centralizing a means to classify “what is intelligent”, the equivalent academia has to a Gnostic sect are its philosophers. Philosophers can be individuals who are bought, and most of them are people who live to assert the ideals of “knowing”. (The latter does not lend itself to the marketplace in the current climate.) -Religion and the “Spiritually Sound Ideal” share the same problem.
Responsibly addressed and directly applied, it is for a lack of ethic. Without a universally delineated line for good and bad, the development provided for by education fails to assert right from wrong. Because the process of education adapts to climates “outwardly forming” -to the view of the individual, it continually imparts shifting, even circumstance-specific attempts to define good and bad.
It is no wonder. A secondary premise: This IS existence. -Seems humorous, but it is the claimed province of Academia to know. Held to account for the facts of existence at its most-base is the school of Physics, and the science of physics will openly admit:
“We do not know what sentience is. We do not account for the intent of sentient beings in our inquiry and, growing numbers among us are becoming convinced that nothing is physically real.”