Resolving the Debate

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Thesis 1:  The Rose Mandala wasn’t   invented.  It was  merely discovered  because:  The Rose Mandala is the core dialectic under which the human psyche must have evolved to relate to this reality in order to survive.  Hence, for example, once understood (via the PowerPoint videos above) its nested right side “objective” value system is the  implicit source of the “self evident” “natural law” values that enlightenment, or age of reason, thinkers such as John Lock and Thomas Jefferson spoke of.

For more on what is meant by “God” in quotes go here.

Lest you think the Rose Mandala is too prescriptive, please realize that everything stated in this commencement video should still hold true.

Fusing subjective and objective:

Rose Mandala Thesis #1b:  Regarding most other proposed ethical systems, it is unreasonable to found a meta-ethical, ethical, or even a philosophical, system with the underlying assumption that virtually any adult humans come naturally equipped with a sufficient ethical desire to want to be completely reasonable.  Humans must first follow a ‘spiritual’ path where they find a love of ‘life/God/reality’  that is strong enough that they then have the mettle to try to be fully reasonable.

Thesis #2: The human rational faculty exists because it helps us solve survival problems. But for various environmental and genetic reasons humans vary wildly regarding their faith that: (a.) reason (particularly their own rational faculty) can solve their lives’ most crucial problems, and (b.) that solving survival problems is life’s most important task anyway.

Thesis #3 The human emotional faculty exists because it drives our behavior (to solve the problems necessary for survival).  For the consciousness, emotions, roughly speaking, are generalizations of various pleasure and pain sensations (that lead to life and survival or death and extinction respectively). So for example, you will feel happy if your general sensations, of and about reality, are pleasurable, and you will feel sad if your general sensations are painful.  On the egoic level the pursuit of the emotion ‘happiness’ drives our behavior.

Thesis #4: The most functional ethical system would create a path for individuals, and by extension for society as a whole: (1.) to attain the most consistent highest and deepest forms of happiness. (2.) to the best conceivable behaviors that would ensure true survival, and  (3.) the desire to be as reasonable as possible.  But the most functional ethical system would only create the path that leads, in an ever increasing fashion, to the acquisition of the three proceeding attributes; because no human is born with the full possession of any of the three.

Thesis 5: accepting reality and being reasonable are essentially synonymous concepts.

Thesis 6: The vast majority of contemporary meta-ethical philosophers are still under the sway of the analytic philosophical world view, which is rooted in the ‘modern’ philosophical quixotic quest for certainty (arising supposedly from “clear and precise” thinking). Hence there is a dearth of attempts to derive an ethics from pragmatic but uncertain real world, induced general primary principles, such as the Mandala’s “You should love ‘God’ (as you find him, her, or it) with all your heart, mind, and soul, and the best way to start doing that is by fully accepting and living in the gift of this reality.” 

Why is the Rose mandala so important?:

Thesis 7: The Rose Mandala is a simple elegant diagram of  what may be the most logical and functional ethical system that humanity has yet devised.

Thesis 8: The Mandala is a circular ‘spiraling’ flexible path for emotional or ‘spiritual’ growth that is non dogmatic, plots the body of knowledge that has been discovered by science, and ties science and religion together as equally valid parts of the human experience.

Thesis 9: the Mandala lays out an ethical system that apparently is more in harmony with the principles that modern science is founded on then any ethical system yet devised.

Sub articles I have yet to add:

See the discussion of the paradigm of the Rose Mandala versus Ethical realism here.

See the discussion of the paradigm of the Rose Mandala versus  Non cognitivism here.

See the discussion of the paradigm of the Rose Mandala versus cognitivism here.

See the discussion of the paradigm of the Rose Mandala versus utilitarianism here.

Thesis 10: Part of the reason for the Mandala’s profound utility is it’s explicit acknowledgment that ultimately neither pure subjectivity or pure objectivity is possible.  They are both a matter of degree, and fade, ala Yin and Yang, into one another.

Thesis 11:  An individual human consciousness is a tiny and exceedingly ephemeral phenomena in the vastness of the physical cosmos.  The core dialectic of the Mandala arises from the archetypal existential human need to find meaning by connecting the consciousness, profoundly, to that which is transcendentally larger.

Thesis 12: Our evolved psychology, thus far, has left most of our species with an innate value system that is slightly skewed from what is most logical and workable for optimum survival. The Rose Mandala clarifies the core consequent ethical mistake that humanity has made from the dawn of human consciousness, the mistake that is the chief peril to our species survival: ‘Objectively’ proper reverence for reality, and, however one defines one’s God, leads on the mandala to the mandate that facilitating the long term survival of our genes ethically should precede the pursuit of happiness.  But most human’s are not fully conscious of this, and when confronted with it will generally actively disagree (normally because,  either they maintain some form of irrational spiritual or physical hedonism, or, due to the 19th and 20th century history of our civilization they assume that an ethics based on long term survival of their genes equates with an acceptance of ‘eugenics.’). Hence, it seems it is this Mandala on which humanity needs to meditate, and allow their/our consciousness to spiral and expand. . .

 Part 2, Discussing the specific parts of the Mandala circle starting at ‘ego:’

1. Ego, The pursuit of happiness and innocence: pursuing our own happiness is a perfectly innocent and reasonable thing to do, but if we do it without wisdom, without revering ‘God,’ then we will suffer and cause suffering.  Most people realize this quickly in life;

2. hence the fact that they see that ‘pursuing their spiritual path‘ seems to be perhaps the meaning of life.

3. No matter how much pain an cynicism we become burdened with in this life almost everyone will agree that some things are the sacred.  According to Boris Pasternak, among others, those few almost universally sacred things can be reduced down to about five:

a &b. The beauty and mystery of birth and death (when a birth or death happens in your immediate family, or to yourself, that seems sacredly important.)

c. The beauty and mystery of romantic love (when you are in love life has MEANING).

d. The beauty and mystery of human genius in art, science, etc. (for most of us there is always at least that one song, that one movie, or sculpture, or that one discovery, that makes life seem truly worth it.)

e. The beauty and mystery of nature (the royal road: because the experience of the transecndent beauty and mystery of nature encompasses all the others.)

There are, however, other, less potent as particular examples but cumulatively often more powerful as lifestyles, ways to encounter the sacred: human fellowship other than romantic love, prayer, the practice of meditation, productive work, service….

4. It is through encounters, sometimes singular but generally repeated, with the sacred that one finds faith.

5. Unity of Purpose: This is perhaps the hardest subjective hurdle or place to be stuck, on the Mandala.  Are we as individuals, or as a species, on a  spiritual path that is going to find a faith in a unified vision of ‘God?’ . . . Such that we can accept and deeply act rationally and passionately on a unified vision of reality such as the one modern scientists are developing?  Maybe too many of us will always be content focusing randomly and narrowly on divergent and not consciously related pleasures such as sex, food, drugs, cars, our narrow tribal religious communities, our own children, our personal ‘salvation,’ humanity but not the rest of life, or life on earth but not the rest of the universe, or the universe but not the unifying mysterious awe that one can have for that which is, or is behind, the gift of existence.

6. The desire to give to God, by accepting as deeply as one is able, God’s gift. Acceptance means accepting the suffering and humility that are an intrinsic part of existence because existence is also transcendentally mysteriously wonderful; that is an ongoing process for most of us.  We may be hopeful and reverential that our love of ‘God’ and our ability to act with consequently with love, courage, energy, and reason will increase in wisdom each time we honestly circle the Mandala.

*

If you have not seen what many call “The Greatest Speech Ever Made” by Charlie Chaplin, at the end of ‘The Great Dictator,’ you might want to take 3 minutes and watch it  because it conveys the kind of emotional feeling that motivated the intellectual endeavor to discover and express The Rose Mandala Philosophy. Here

*

*

Notes for – Thesis’s::::

Becuase it flows from the most logical onolocical philosophy yet devised.

Because it is beautiful.

One of the core problems with the traditional western methods of creating a world view “from the ground up” via metaphicical, ontological, or epistemological first postulates such as “A is A”, or “I think therefore I am,” or “there are a-priori and a-posteriori truths”, is that the emotional appeal of these world views rises from a commitment to reason and logic, but why should we care about reason and logic?  -When one looks objectively at the human condition it is evident that generally most people don’t care that much about reason and logic.  Do you?  Why for instance should you ultimatly care more about something as abstract and sterile sounding as reason when you could be caring and focusing with the emotional or sensual part of your consciousness on romantic love, great food, great art, your children, etc. ?  You may have a ready answer to that question, but before you answer it consider how subjective your answer is.  For instance if you claim to highly value reason, does that value stem from an elitist status elevating intellectualism? Even if your’s is a fair and honest answer surely, since much of humanity evidently doesn’t care too much about being reasonable, there must be at least a fairly valid cause (say evolutionary) for the less reasonable parts of the human consciousness to have the influence that they do.  And if that is the case then surely, even if an excellent logical justification for a worldview is put forth, it will need, honestly, to be coached in an accessible and reasonable emotional and sensual ?spiritual? justification.  This is one of the many beautiful things about the Rose Mandala.

The Rose Mandala is the key to balancing the subjectivity of an individual’s spiritual path with the need for humanity to create an objective non dogmatic reasonable social contract; an ethical system that is both ”reverent” regarding that which gives the deepest Meaning, and able to stay in harmony with the knowledge that humanity is acquiring using the scientific method.  The ethical paradigm laid out on the right side of the Mandala is the key to a gracefully sustainable civilization. (The right side of the Mandala is also a template for a new modern/ancient conceptualization of ‘Natural Law.’)

Prerequisites to understanding the Mandala are:

Note – It is somewhere between acceptance and physics where, ethically, it would be most productive to build an interpersonal foundation with one’s fellow human(s) (a social contract) from which to resolve social differences, from small differences with a single person to vast political and religious or spiritual differences.  Why? Because . . . physics is by definition ‘universally’ applicable.  Consider it . . . .

How would this paradigm, if its wisdom is recognized, affect affect human society?

The ethical jump to accepting the importance of following the laws of life on earth, after that of following the laws of physics, is a big one, and a significant subject for discusion.  But, once that is accepted the most important affect of following the path of the mandala would flow from the observation that ‘the laws of life on earth’ should ethically then precede, and supersede in importance, social morals and individual morals.   In other words humanity should be free to follow our morals codes that flow from our evolved psychology and our cultural norms, and within that our personal moral preferences, but only if all of that morality is in harmony with the laws of life. . .