SOCIAL ENGR 2 ctd          

Home Up Feedback Contents Search









LOVE as an intangible means of expressing values.

There are six types of love:

            1) Self love, self esteem, involving one person, yourself:

  All Love starts with self love. It is the basis from which all else derives. One person can not interact except with himself. Knowing one's self in part by meditation, and introspection; however, is a valid self interaction. One point has no breadth, it is a solitary point. Self value, self esteem, self worth is this reference point.

            2) Eros, two person sexual love:

Two body interaction is linear. Any two points form a line in geometry. The polar interactions in physics represent two body interactions. These are charge, gravity, and have the form of force inversely proportional to the square of the distance. In human relations this is the male-female polar interaction, opposites attract. The emotion of love the eros or erotic sexual love pertains to this interaction.

            3) Three way, comparative love; maternal, paternal and child for parent love, but also including negative forms like jealousy and envy:

Three body interactions are planar, any three points (not in one line) establish a plane. The Strong Nuclear force is one such interaction in physics, and note that it is destructive of the nucleus causing radioactive decay. The force is shorter range than the two body interaction and is inversely proportional to the sixth power of distance. 


The binding positive part of the three interaction includes the maternal instinct, the love of the mother for her child, (which must include a father), the love of the father for the family, and in general this form it is the most stabilizing influence in nature. It is asexual, not excluding sexuality, but transcending it.


Tangible Values lie in this field also. We compare one item to another and establish a scale of worth, I evaluate A is worth more than B; (three things I, A and B). Yet there are other intangible values which transcend this childish sort of value system. I do not disparage it, it is a necessary step on the way to the other higher values.  But we must focus on the other value systems as more valuable in this precise sense in three value field.


Three body interactions in general are also destructive of stability, and in human affairs this also is true. The eternal triangle begets jealousy, and/ or envy and destroys linear polar relationships. Even a baby, the natural consequence of polar male-female interaction, can be destructive of the two person- polar marriage type relationships. This force can be overcome by other forces; however, and learning to manage the disruptive force is part of nature's way of teaching us. Learning to control and totally overcome jealousy for example is one of the highest human accomplishments.


4) Philos - four value (two parents and two children) sibling, brother-sister type love,


The four body interaction is spatial. Four points in general establishes a volume in a tetrahedron (assuming that they are not linear or all co-planar). This force in physics is the weak nuclear force, inversely proportional to distance to the twelfth power. It can be either attractive or repulsive, but in nature it is the force that holds the nuclei together, and makes atoms and matter possible. It is a very short range force, but powerful enough to overcome and dominate both the two & three body interactions under proper circumstances. In human relationships this term can be summarized as brotherly love, philos, in Greek, as opposed to eros, learning to value others, both for similarities and for diversity. It starts out at love of a sibling for the sibling, involving a four body relationship (mother- father-brother or sister- and self). That is by the way a good argument for having more than one child in a family. 


5) Agape love; Love of mankind in general including family, clan, local civic social groups i.e. church etc., national, racial, and eventually love of all humanity:


The five body interaction is hyperspacial, going into time. It is Agape love. Five points not in one volume, transcend three space. The fifth point can be into time. The distances are inversely proportional to distance to the twentieth power, i.e. extremely short range compared to the prior interactions. In Einsteinian (or more properly Lorenz) physics the terms in interval, I, defined as:


I = X2 + Y2 + Z2 - C2T2 (or in a contra terrene universe +C2T2) are in five fold relationships.


The so called ESP (Extra Sensory Perception) falls into this category. Telepathy, Clairvoyance, Precognition, and so on operate with a five fold interaction. The mind itself and things "spiritual" operate in this way. Note that since it is hyperspacial, neither time nor distance constrain it. My mind is not limited by the laws of space-time. I can not get from here to Tau Ceti, some 9.6 light years away, in less than 9.6 years (relative to Earth). But my mind in the act of saying this sentence jumped here to there and back. The word simultaneous meaning at the same time, gets in to relativistic trouble at large distances. But within the field of five fold interactions, it does have meaning in that it relates to an event chain which is not constrained by time. History, for example is five fold, and not real in the spacial sense.. it lies out of detection by the five senses in another plane, and thus is not subject to experimental determination.

Our whole social structure depends on history. We tend to place great credence on "old" written records, the Bible in particular, or El Koran. Yet there are older books, the Book of the Dead which comes to mind predates both of the above to 2500 BC, several millennia. We ignore it.

New thoughts have not been tested with use and time. For that reason they must be reserved for higher skepticism.  But that also does not alter their value if true. They can be tested against history and historic facts, and thus validated.  The decisions always must lie in each person's mind, in the mental or spiritual realm.  Most people abdicate mental self control and self determinations in favor of "authority", the tests other people have made.  That has worked for millions even billions of people. Yet it also has allowed the persecutions, the "divine right of Kings", the inquisition, the Jihad of Islam, and the purges of political power struggles. "Authority" is slightly better than nothing, but it is NOT the perfect way, it lacks perfection and we are told to seek perfection. Thus we also must seek new things a well as old which are known to be flawed.


The five fold force includes BELIEF, FAITH, HOPE, and CHARITY type LOVE, (AGAPE) and many other emotions. Planning for the future is five fold. Thus the maturity which develops as people learn to plan further and further into the future is five fold. None of these can be seen, or detected by the five senses. They are mental or spiritual in nature, but are far more valuable than the first tangible values which we learn to hold/value and love. Biblically speaking we were told to seek after these values.


6) and Godly love including love of all creation.


Six fold interactions I am just beginning to understand. They transcend time itself.. ETERNAL LOVE- or GODLY LOVE.  This may well be beyond comprehension of any near descendent of man. At any rate it can be defined, and exists, and it is something to strive to understand. Beauty, creativity, imagination, originality, and innovation, lie in this realm.


RIGHTS: involves ETHICS:                             (SINS, = wrongs = crimes)

1) Human life                                        (Killing, murder, human sacrifice),

            (Child and Animal rights- Rights come from MEN, so animals and

            children have rights only as MEN apply their ethics to them).

2) SECURITY                          (Violence or threat of Violence)

3) LIBERTY (Self control)       (slavery)

            (=self responsibility also, and reward/punishment for acts)

4) Property                                           (degrees of theft)

5) Diversity of Values               (Social sanctions, Forced value

  Freedom of thought,speech     systems, inflicting your own value

  Freedom of belief,religion        system on others)

6) Truth (Reality, data)       (lying, misrepresentation of reality).

(Information has value so is NOT "free", but should be undistorted when transferred in exchange for other values as best we are able)

NOTE:we must be careful to separate observation(data) from theory!

7) Noninterference, choice        (Interference, loss of social diversity)

8) Preservation                         (destruction)

9) Creativity                             (stagnation)


Four degrees of each, A) individual violations, B) social violations, C) violation "for higher cause" and D) finally total rejection of sin.

(total 36 degrees in progression = 9 x 4 stages), i.e.

1)  A) Murder for individual gain, B) cannibalism),C) human sacrifice to "gods" and D) rejection of murder period:::

2) A) Violence (or threat) for individual gain, B) war C) “jihad”, war for "gods" and D) rejection of violence

3) A) Enslavement for personal gain, B) for social benefit (draft), C) for "higher" benefit (monks, religious missions, etc.) & D) rejection of enslavement as overall wrong.

4) A)Theft by burglars, B)by state (taxes),C)by religion/charity (tithes), and D)finally insist on a just return for all property value exchange.

5)A Social conformity by custom=morals, French mores as opposed to ethics, B) un-delegated laws, C)"excommunication"(tabu) for differing beliefs / opinions, and D) finally freedom of speech, press, values, communication, THOUGHTS, as opposed to propaganda=unethical, peaceful assembly TO EXCHANGE ideas, values -NOTE: NOT to exert mob political pressure by fear.

6) Lies that benefit individual (con games, fraud), state "secrets" and the whole "spy" / concept, televangelists people selling special access to "god", most "psychics", rejection of all deliberate distortion (note because of bad belief unintentional distortions are bound to happen, and breach of ethics is breach but minor as NOT intended ,i.e. particularly if correct asap forgivable.

7)A)Individuals interfering, to exercise their "power"(also 3 Liberty):

NOTE: parent over child or any individual who lacks judgement is OK to point but must cease eventually, exception mentally defectives (suggest that adulthood be defined NOT by age but achievement, maturity level).

            B) Social "busy bodyism" Majority rule, includes all un-delegated laws; even hindrances, inflicting ones values on another.

            C) Then interference based on "higher" authority (revelations from " a god" - if HE wants to talk to someone he presumable can do so without mediation, claims for special revelation are an affront to the concept of GOD note small g above!), proselyting  and finally

            D) The right to allow people do act as THEY wish (to go to hell after their own desires), even to their own harm.(NOTE: gentle persuasion to try to stop them from harm is proper, advise to help others to gain benefit desirable, but coercion is wrong. If they want to go to hell; it is their right!) The key element is force or threat of force, even mental threats (If you do not REPENT you are doomed to Hell! etc.).


Rights are those freedoms and ethics which one man grants to another man, or to an animal or to a child. The word right implies an concession of some value, some freedom to act or ethics possessed by others. Society as a whole can agree to rights that they will as a collective group grant one another. This is law. Please note that the right; however, originates from ethics, and those freedoms and values which we ourselves hold. Rights pass from one person to another usually in return for the mutual acknowledgement of the same rights by the other persons to ourselves.



We seem to forget this basic concept. Animal do not have ethics in the human sense, thus can not have rights other than as men assign rights to them. To the extent that a dog understands property he can grant rights involving property. Thus to that extent the dog is "human" and rights apply. Overall animals either are free (wild) or property. As property we can grant them rights to "humane" behavior. Note WE grant THEM rights. They do not possess rights until we grant - acknowledge them. The rights stem from actions of humans toward other creatures or things.


Humans grant rights to children and other incompetent people. Children are special cases, and they do NOT usually return the "rights" since they are incompetent to do so. They do not understand ethics or right and wrong. As they learn right and wrong then they may grant return rights, and as they learn more and more ethics, they return more and more rights to others. They eventually are granted full adult status when they attain full understanding of ethics and grant others those rights that they themselves want to possess. The word adult implies a certain knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil, and with that comes the ability to control their own life, and to assume full self responsibility for their own actions. Children by definition are NOT self responsible. Adults must control & limit their actions to that power they are prepared to handle. You do NOT hand a loaded gun to a baby! Thus rights also are granted with a precondition of understanding ethics, of understanding good and evil, of knowing what is socially beneficial behavior and what is destructive behavior - particularly knowing and being able to avoid acts that will harm others.


REPEAT: Our very concept of rights assumes that we acknowledge the rights of others before we get power to exercise our rights. We obtain rights in return for granting them. And we must thus be treated as we would treat others. That is implicit in the child growing up to become an adult and achieving self responsibility.


It is proposed that we should grant rights by maturity, & perception of rights, NOT by pure chronological age. In fact I suggest that some 10 years old girl baby sitters are more adult than the 35 year old "mothers' for whom they baby sit. We should go by ACTIONS and maturity NOT age. That will result in 50 year old "children" being unfit to be called adults, while allowing some 15 year olds the full benefits of adulthood, and self control-self responsibility.


How can we live "perfectly " in an imperfect world? WE DO LIVE IN AN IMPERFECT WORLD. We must face that fact. Errors will happen. While we may wish to practice "perfect" ethics, we can not do so. The fault is not only our own unintentional failures, but also the failure of those around us who are living with a different, possibly less perfect ethics or understanding of ethics.


What government should do and should not do is specified by the ethical values agreed to by society. But that can be modified and simplified to just insist that each person be treated by his own ethical rules, as deduced by his own behavior. Do unto others as they themselves do.


There often is a difference of opinion as to what is right. In fact there can be an honest differences of opinion as to what is ethical. Thus we must apply the scientific method to the case to determine which ethic is correct. We perform a controlled experiment. We apply person A's ethic to themselves and person B's theory to themselves. So long as they both like that, then we have avoided conflict of value. However; usually one person will NOT like the result and will renounce his ethic, resolving the social / philosophical problem.




The key is NOT to apply OUR ethics to those who disagree with us, and socially to the "criminals" who disagree with the ethics of society, but to apply THEIR own ethics to themselves. Criminals who violate more fundamental ethics than truth may be expected to lie about what their own ethic really is. So we judge their ethic by their actions. Do unto others as they themselves do.


This may be harsh: If a person believes it is correct to murder for self gain, then we apply his ethic to himself and he is killed. Once he is dead this resolves the dilemma. His ethic disappears with his death.

If a person thinks it is proper to take value by force-stealth (armed robbery, burglary), then we remove from him all his value by force. It takes very little time usually for him to understand that this is NOT a satisfactory ethic and partially to repent. BUT then we also should demand that he make restitution or at least agree to try to make amends for the harm done in his past actions as a precondition of mercy.


CONCEPT MERCY - vs JUSTICE  In unintentional breaches of ethics we may ask for and give mercy - we all err, so we must allow for that social breach of ethics and forgive errors if not deliberate, or not repeated. We assume that the person will learn NOT to repeat as part of mercy.


            Mercy is a higher ethical concept than justice, but can be given ONLY to those who show mercy, to those with remorse who reject the ethical breach. Repentance involves the 5"R"'s Recognition, remorse, rejection, restitution and resolution. We should not forget any of these 5 "R"s particularly the restitution, and resolution NOT to repeat. Mercy in general may not be usefully repeated. If the offenders have not learned by the practice of mercy once, then they must learn by justice.  Mercy involves intangible learning by consideration a mental change; Justice is learning by experience/from reality. An intelligent man learns from his mistakes; a wise man learns from the mistakes of others!

THREATS OF PRIMARY FORCE: Primary use of FORCE or Even THREAT of FORCE is virtually always wrong. Interference usually involves that threat of force element as opposed to direct use of force, i.e. direct murder, enslavement and robbery. The threat usually involves a perceived possible application of force. Sometimes the threat alone avoids the actual use of force. With retaliatory force this is preferable.


The optimal ethical system uses the minimal amount of force. A government usually is the repository of RETALIATORY force. If we have had force applied to us, then we ethically may- even must- counter with precisely controlled force to balance and negate the primary force. Primary use of FORCE or Even THREAT of FORCE is virtually always wrong, virtually always unethical. A preemptive strike sometimes is the minimal use of force, but that is in answer to a perceived threat of primary force, and thus in nature retaliatory to the threat. The key concept is always act to minimize force. Force = destruction - destruction if not of physical things, then of mental constructs.


LAWS: From earliest times men have made rules for other men to follow. The first theory of law was that it was handed down by the Gods. Then the God Kings made the law, and indeed the Pharaoh or the Lugal or Patesi of Mesopotamia (eg. the code of Hammurabi ca 1792-1750 BC) were "divine" by title, and worshiped as there was little separation of religion and State.


These early rules were delegated DOWNWARD as a way for the common uneducated folk, presumed less wise than the king, to obey and thus please the "Gods". These laws were always made and recorded for the benefit of the people since presumably the "god" on the throne knew better how to act socially than the general people did, and he was superior in wisdom. Later the "Divine Right of Kings" and an oligarchy replaced the theocratic monarchy, but the basis is similar. This basis was the absurd theory that one man or one small group of men are wiser than many men. Fossils of this system still exist, such as sovereign immunity etc. We need to detect and eliminate these fossils.


            The laws now are in theory delegated UPWARD, from the people, but still are supposedly instructions from those who are wiser to be followed to promote the best social behavior. How any group of people voting with an averaged intelligence or ability can presume to be wiser than the best in that group is still a very questionable assumption.


Laws come in two forms, the negative Thou Shalt Not, prohibitions; and affirmative positive required actions. Biblically speaking the "Thou Shalt Nots", are older and more frequent than the required positive actions. In addition to that two way division we have:

            A) criminal law which is "the state" or general population vs individuals or small sub-groups acting anti-socially; and

            B) civil law involving disagreements between individuals or small subgroups; interpersonal law.


            The positive actions in general originally were just the required minimal acts to avert social disaster or actions needed to avert harm to other individuals. For example a farmer might be required to clean out his portion of an irrigation canal, or repair some section of the road for which he was responsible, or stop and render aid in emergency a "Good Samaritan" laws.

            Negative actions in general are prohibitions of acts that will cause harm, or have a high probability of harm to someone else. We also have gotten confused and made unethical laws to prevent harm to ourselves. While such "good advise" might be offered and taught, it should not be required by force since it lacks delegation; unless we revert to the theory of delegation from above- divine right of kings. Since these laws fail of delegation, no matter how good the intention, they are "illegal" meaning outside the body of true or proper law, having the form of law but not being law.


            These unlawful laws are very socially destructive since once people start realizing that they exist, and rejecting them, then they question ALL laws, and may reject valid laws with valid purpose as well as the bad pseudo-laws. They throw away the baby with the bath water.


Laws are a written code of restricted behavior for the benefit of every one in society, presumably known to everyone. But as time passes societies tend to try to codify everything.  Rules are made for and by bean counter and button sorters who can not or do not want to think, for fools who follow rules blindly to decide all actions. This detailed codification destroys choice creativity, and eventually the society. People are expected to follow these rules for every possible action without thinking out their own future consequences. To that extent they can benefit every fool who does not want to think out anything. But we utterly can not think out every decision ahead of time.


We must "automate" many repeated decisions. Some - many - decisions are quite arbitrary - "stop on red - go on green" - "drive left" or "drive right".  Either option will work so long as everyone follows the general rule.

We can not take time to think out all the minutia of daily life so many decisions must be pre-made "canned" for repeated use.


            Ex post facto laws- In general our society has not punished breach of laws or ethics until after the laws were written down. This is a major philosophical error. If any action is and was ethical or unethical, then it remains so no matter whether we have gotten around to codification of the action or not. There have been many abuses of this in the past, writing unethical "laws" and applying them to past circumstances; but the cure was worse than the illness. We should not prohibit ex post facto laws, just take care in their application to be sure that they are now and always were and are ethical.


We SHOULD SIMPLIFY TO ABSTRACTED CONCEPTS, & minimize detailed code; NOT complicate and go to detailed complex incomprehensible systems of laws. We should recognize that we can not codify everything, nor should we even TRY. The very concept of relying on detailed "case law" for all actions where we try to record every possible right or wrong action is foolish and impossible. We utterly can not write out every possible circumstance and its appropriate action. Even if we could go a long way toward this goal no one man could possibly memorize even a fraction of such a mess. It is unworkable. We certainly should record a history of actions and why we held them to be good or bad, collecting data from which to abstract general principles.  But we must make our law from abstracted fundamental concepts, SIMPLIFYING restrictions to as few rules as possible; not compounding a myriad of petty rules, not going to detailed case law.

We must abstract to SIMPLEST terms not complicate to confusion of detail. Creating a detailed incomprehensible mess is going in the wrong direction.  Of course this mess is in the interest of a specialized group of people, the lawyers, who HAVE become necessary to handle the complications that they created. And they benefit from a monopoly that they also maintain. This mess is for their benefit against the public general welfare, and thus destructive of society. In fact complexity of laws is a major symptom and partial cause of the collapse of every past empire / civilization, some 150 of them, that allowed this error.


BARTER:  If I have some goods of value and you have something else, we frequently may swap with benefit to both of us. For example if I raise potatoes and you raise Apples, we may wish to barter apples for potatoes. I obtain 2 bushels of apples which I want, for some potatoes of which I have too many. And you obtain three sacks of potatoes which you want in exchange for apples of which you have excess. In a free trade both parties benefit. This applies to services as well, & we may swap teaching skills or medical services etc. for tangible values- giving a ham for setting a broken arm, or in a more ribald case, in The "chicken ranch" a chicken for sexual services.


VALUES: The concept of barter brings us to the concept of values. Value is a mental, intangible, COMPARATIVE concept. We today express value in dollars, pounds, pesos, yen, francs marks, etc. but the value still exists ONLY in our minds. The value of any given specific item will vary from individual to individual. Diverse values are in themselves a value. If we did not have diverse values, then we would have a dreary world indeed.



Monetary units have been invented so that we could simplify barter and compare each good or service against ONE standard of value, rather than try to create and carry a complex matrix of values comparing every possible commodity or service to every other possible commodity or service. This simplification greatly reduces our mental complexity.


MONEY:  Money originally was a weight of precious metal, usually silver or gold, of known quality. Later we invented coins, hallmarked weights of metal, and then later currency with which to compare values.


Money is defined as something that is tangible, useful, valuable, scarce, recognizable, easily divisible, and easily portable. That for example includes gold or silver coin, specifically required by the U.S. constitution. Coins were invented ca 700 BC as hallmarked specific weights of precious metals of known quality / purity to facilitate trade, and to prevent us form having to weigh the metal at each trade. Prior to that time specific weights of metal such as "talents" were exchanged, and weighed each transaction. Currency on the other hand may be other valuable things like Paper promissory notes, for example our Federal Reserve Notes, which are really loans which some trustworthy organization or some trustworthy individual will honor. Thus what we unconstitutionally circulate today is not money but currency backed only by the honesty of the United States Government, (and probably the less you think about that the happier you will be).


TRADE:  Each person has a different value for any given item. We swap when what I own; property, commodity, or service; is of less value to me than some other thing you own and that property you own is of less value to you than what I own. And we both benefit by the trade since we both have increased our values. If I have a pound of beans, and you have a hallmark specific weight of silver, a coin of some denomination, and I would rather have the coin than the beans, and you, being hungry, would rather have the beans than the coin: we swap; and both have increased our personal value. In free trade all parties benefit. Some may benefit more than others, but all must benefit.


CONTRACTS: We also may swap present values for some future value.  This is the concept of a contract. For example I can give you spring peaches in return for a promise of some quantity of wheat in the fall harvest. Or I can perform some service in return for your providing some other item or service at some later date. A contract in simplest form has:

            1) an offer,

            2) an acceptance,

            3) some specific consideration (= something(s) of value), and

            4) mutuality (we both knew what we were agreeing to).

It is this future part of the contract that is such an useful, social invention. BUT If I give you something NOW how am I assured that you will honor your part later? That is enforced in society by courts, who require us to keep our word, and to perform. Any contract may be breached - i.e. one party or another not do what they promised, - but society through the CIVIL judicial system then determines the right of the other party and awards damages to compensate for the unfulfilled "contract".  Lack of agreement, lack of mutuality, is one of the most common reasons for breaches. Dishonesty is another key reason. After one party has what they wanted, then they do not want to make just payment which they agreed to for what they gained, and possibly used up or just plain squandered.


SPECIALIZATION: As pointed out by Adam Smith in "Wealth of Nations", the division of labor allows more efficient production of goods, and thus a total greater wealth for any nation. Specialization thus benefits most types of labor, allowing better understanding and skill for some smaller part of the production scheme. One man does his part of an overall production chain very well, more efficiently than if he had to do many parts, and another man does his limited job better than each trying to do both jobs both doing it less efficiently.


NOTE over specialization is detrimental to society. The specialist very narrow point of view limits "synthesis" of ideas and concepts, thus hinders creativity /innovation /and thus somewhat obstructs change for the better in society. While specialization works best for those with lower ability, those with higher ability must avoid getting bogged down in excessive detail and be able to generalize as much as possible: They need "a liberal education", in order to contribute new thoughts and make new correlations and new concepts, to create new things and new ideas for society. Fragmentation of nature into small compartments is a man made invention, and is necessitated by limited intelligence and ability. What is needed for progress is Nexialism, putting nature back together into a unitary whole. Nature is NOT disjoined, but integrated, and we need also to try to integrate our minds to the largest possible extent. The more able our mind, the more we should try to integrate.

FREE TRADE::  This division of labor and gain in productivity of both goods and services by specialization however relies on free trade to swap partially finished goods and labor /services in the production chain without hindrance. Without free trade, the division of labor fails. Thus all impediment to totally free trade is anti social. All hinderance such as taxes or legislated monopolies on free human intercourse of any sort, particularly commerce, which includes goods, services and information, is unethical. This includes virtually all VAT, sales tax, import taxes, export taxes, and taxes on communication, etc. and licenses, labor unions.  Monopolies in "trades" such as labor unions or Medical Licenses become detrimental to the general welfare  being a form of theft from the public to those individuals who have the monopoly.



Theft hurts incentive for production, and thus reduces accumulated wealth, and both individual and socially total values. The person stolen from has reduced incentive to produce and the persons given the stolen wealth also have little or no incentive to produce. Thus both are harmed.  Their sense of values also is destroyed. Only if we create value can we really appreciate what is really is worth. Thus theft harms both the person robbed & the recipient from a total social point of view. Any and all collective value systems lead to this fallacy if introduced into government. Thus any collective value systems and control of wealth must be rejected and dominated with counter force to that precise same extent that they themselves would dominate and use force. Collectivism is a social crime.






Home ] Up ] Feedback ] Contents ] Search ]

Send mail to with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2002 The Nexial Institute