PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So where does the turning point, the human level of existence, fall on the continuum of determinism and free-will?
TINNY: I can't say exactly, but it is much closer to the free-will end than the deterministic end.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?
TINNY: It is because the process of envolution is constantly accelerating. As the organisation of matter becomes more complex the progressive development takes less time.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the process of envolution is moving faster now than it has during the early life of the physical universe?
TINNY: It is moving many times as fast and is constantly speeding up.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Compared to the time which has passed from the creation of the physical universe until human existence was manifested, how long will it be until we are freed from all deterministic influence? Would it be about one billion more years?
TINNY: It will be much less than that.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps only one million years?
TINNY: Probably much less than that.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Maybe only one thousand years?
TINNY: That also is possible.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could it be less than one thousand years?
TINNY: It could be much less than one thousand years. It could be tomorrow.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you know exactly how long it will be until total free-will is achieved?
TINNY: No, I don't. I only know it is within the potential of our development. It is up to us to achieve our destiny. It is up to us to choose how long it shall be until we pass beyond determinism.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What will it take for us to transcend determinism?
TINNY: All physical existence, all material form, is inextricably linked to some degree of determinism. To exist beyond determinism requires a progression beyond the physical nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As long as existence is bound to physical form it cannot be totally free, and will to some degree have its actions determined.
TINNY: That is how it is.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why must existence be freed from physical form before total free-will can be manifested?
TINNY: Inherent within the nature of physical existence is causality. As long as there is physical form there will be some degree of external causation. To be completely free requires choice to be governed only by internal factors with no possibility of outside influence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And can that state of complete freedom only be reached when physical form is transcended?
TINNY: That is so. To be bound to physical form means to be susceptible to external forces,
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What will existence be like when perfect free-will is achieved?
(NOTE: Due to the critical nature of the subject coming into discussion, now and in future parts of this written work, I felt I must make a few things clear. I believe at the time I originally wrote these words I did not sufficiently understand the relationship of God to the spiritual and physical existence. Specifically I did not differentiate correctly between the spiritual existence and God. I am now faced with two choices; rewrite extensively or leave the words of the original text. Since I have in recent times spoken extensively on these matters from a much more sophisticated understanding achieved after many years of study, I have decided on the latter course, but I must ask the reader to understand that no matter how you interpret these original words I am in no way saying or implying that we are God, that we are becoming God, or that we will someday be part of God. The last thing I would ever want to do is mislead anyone about this most important of all issues. For those who want to know what I now have to say on this subject please refer to my recent works. Muhammad al'Mahdi, 2004)
TINNY: We don't have words or concepts to adequately describe that perfected state of existence. There will be no material form; perfected existence will be beyond the limits of space and time. Free-will is not the only characteristic which shall be perfectly manifested. In addition to perfect free-will there shall be perfect knowledge, perfect goodness, an eternal nature, and an infinite number of other perfectly manifested characteristics.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there nothing which can influence free-will at that perfect level of existence?
TINNY: Nothing but the ultimate self. The concept of determinism primarily relates to external influence, whereas free-will refers to internal influence unaffected by external factors. Perfected existence manifests perfect free-will because there is nothing external to that level of existence. All influence is then internal influence because all existence is encompassed in that perfected state.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That perfect state of existence which you refer to, are you saying that is a living being?
TINNY: Yes, a living being perfect in every aspect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: A being perfect in every aspect sounds very much like the definition of God.
TINNY: As long as calling perfect existence God does not impose any limits then God seems like a good word to describe that living being, perfect in every aspect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would perfected being be eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, and all good?
TINNY: All that and more. That absolute level of existence, manifesting perfectly all positive characteristics, encompasses everything.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How is perfected being eternal?
TINNY: Since perfect existence transcends time, absolute being does not exist within the flow of time. At the perfect expression of being, all time is now. All time, as perceived from the physical plane of existence, becomes an eternal now at the level of perfected existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How is perfected being omnipresent?
TINNY: The word omnipresent refers to being simultaneously everywhere. It is a word related to physical existence. All physical existence is of the essential nature of perfect existence. Perfect existence encompasses all of physical existence while remaining infinitely more than physical existence. Physical existence, while seeming infinitely large to us, takes up no amount of space in the perfect existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How is perfected being omniscient?
TINNY: The word omniscient means all knowing. In relation to physical existence, all information is maintained and transmitted through light, which has a transcendental quality. Light is of the essential nature of perfected existence. All that is known is an integral part of perfected existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is then true that perfected existence manifests all characteristics perfectly because this perfect being is all existence?
TINNY: True, there is nothing which exists but the various aspects of perfected being. These being differentiated aspects from the relative perspective, but a unity from the absolute perspective. There is nothing outside that perfect existence, so in all conceivable expressed characteristics their fullest expression exists at that absolute level.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since perfected existence is omniscient or all knowing, is that why you say our future is known?
TINNY: From the perspective beyond the material plane our future is fully known.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean every action, every word, and, indeed, every thought which we will ever do, say, or think is known beforehand?
TINNY: Yes it does.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems impossible that every aspect of the future can already be known.
TINNY: Regardless, absolutely everything that is to be our future is already known.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If that is true it would seem to deny free-will. If our future is known then what is to be has already been determined.
TINNY: That would seem to be an obvious conclusion, but it is not the truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Being more specific, does for example the fact that our future is known mean the exact words of your next answer are already known?
TINNY: It does; all that takes place on the material plane is known in the absolute existence before it happens?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And was it known what your next answer would be before I asked the question?
TINNY: It was.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Did you know what your answer would be before I asked the question?
TINNY: No, I didn't.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you have decided to answer the question with different words?
TINNY: Yes I could.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you were free to choose what your answer would be?
TINNY: I was.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But you say the exact words of your answer were known before you said them, even before you knew what they would be. It seems impossible that you were free to choose your answer while at the same time your answer was known before you decided what it would be.
TINNY: That is another of the many paradoxes which occur as we probe more deeply into the true nature of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If our words and actions are known before they occur, even before we choose them, it would seem that our lives must be predestined.
TINNY: That is the concept of predestination which goes even further than determinism in seeming to refute the reality of our free-will. I say that I can both have a free choice and have my choice known before I have made it. That my choice would have also been known a billion years ago. In fact it would have been known at the moment of creation of the physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't keep me in suspense any longer. Tell me the answer to that apparent contradiction, although from past answers you have given I think I could predict what your answer will be.
TINNY: The long standing difficulty in understanding the concept of predestination is due mainly to a limited perception of existence. The concept of predestination is usually linked to God's relationship with humanity, where human action is considered preordained or controlled by God. The flaw in that understanding is first the assumption that God is constrained to the same time flow in which we material beings are involved; and second, the assumption that there is control over our actions just because those actions are known before they occur. God, perhaps better called perfected being, exists beyond and unlimited by the flow of time. While we on the material plane must relate to time before action and time after action, there is no such reality beyond physical existence. From the perspective of an observer outside the flow of time, all time is now. Although our words and concepts don't directly relate to that non-material plane we might say all perfected existence is at the present moment. In that case, where there is no time before any action takes place, all action, past, present, and future within the material existence would be considered of the present moment from the perspective of absolute existence. The perspective from beyond the material plane would allow all actions to be viewed simultaneously. That is why perfected being can know our actions before they occur. It is not that perfected being controls our behaviour, but that perfected being can see what we consider our past and what we consider our future all in the present.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And does that allow us freedom of action although our actions are known beforehand?
TINNY: It does.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But if our actions are already set down, even if only beyond the material plane, how can we truly be free to choose?
TINNY: In the physical level of reality, the relative existence, our actions are not set down or known before they occur. Our future is open to any changes we decide upon. We can be free in our choice of actions while at the same time, beyond the material plane, our freely chosen actions are already known.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That isn't easy to grasp. From our point of view, as material beings, our actions are not knowable beforehand and we are free to choose. From the point of view of an observer beyond the material plane all actions past and future are known as one present moment. And you say the fact that our actions are known beforehand by perfected being does not limit our free-will.
TINNY: It doesn't limit our freedom to choose because this prior knowledge of our actions only exists beyond the material plane. If that prior knowledge of our actions were known in the physical existence then we would not have freedom to choose, but what is known beyond the material plane does not affect our freedom to choose.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can you explain why it doesn't affect: us, rather than just saying that knowledge of our actions from beyond the material plane doesn't affect our freedom of choice?
TINNY: There is a fairly simple answer. That which occurs beyond physical existence is not involved in causality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does that mean?
TINNY: Causality can only be a factor of existence when events follow other events in a flow of time. Beyond the material plane there is no flow of time, hence no causality. That is why prior knowledge of our actions, from beyond the material plane, does not limit our freedom of choice. Things are not caused from beyond physical existence merely because knowledge of the things exists there. We remain literally untouched by knowledge which exists only beyond the physical existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is an interesting way to understand the concept of predestination. I see how it is possible for us to make free choices, unaffected by any influence from beyond the material plane, while our actions can truly be considered predestined.
TINNY: It is the different essential nature of the two planes of existence, the physical and the non-material, which make free-will and predestination compatible.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think you have covered fairly clearly the concepts of free-will and determinism. Everything fits very well with all other parts of this unified theory of existence. There are just a couple of questions I want to ask.
TINNY: Go ahead.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since in the beginning the universe is totally deterministic, can you tell me where free-will comes from? I know you said that free-will is a characteristic which becomes increasingly manifested as the organisation of matter becomes more complex, but you didn't say what it is that free-will comes from.
TINNY: I don't think I know the answer to that question.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let me give you a hint. Free-will in the physical existence is related to quantum uncertainty.
TINNY: I had no idea that free-will was linked to quantum uncertainty.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you now give me an answer to the question of where free-will comes from?
TINNY: I think I can. Quantum uncertainty refers to the fact that certain knowledge about matter in its most basic state, subatomic particles, cannot be known. That knowledge, which is not available, includes such essential information as whether or not the subatomic particle even exists at any given moment, and if it does, where it is and what is it doing. The information regarding those basic units of matter is not knowable because matter at that level is directly linked with existence beyond the material plane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Right so far.
TINNY: Even in the deterministic universe there are still some actions of matter not dictated by causal factors, That is because there are some aspects of matter which exist beyond the material plane and are therefore not subject to causality. Those aspects which are manifested in the physical existence, though, are under the influence of causal factors.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's correct, but how does that fact relate to free-will at the human level?
TINNY: As subatomic particles organise into increasingly greater complexity there is a progressive manifestation of all characteristics. So as those more complex organisations of matter envolve, there is an increasing component which is linked to the non-material plane. At the human level, the brain being the most complex organisation of matter to envolve on our planet, that increasingly complex link of matter with existence beyond the material plane manifests as self-reflective or human level consciousness. That consciousness, linked with existence beyond the physical plane, has a major component not subject to causality. It is that nature, beyond the bounds of determinism, which allows the expression of the great degree of free-will possessed by human beings.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Well spoken my child.
TINNY: I'm a bit surprised myself I was able to give a decent answer to that question, as when you first asked I had no idea of the answer.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It was a very small hint that I gave. Where do you suppose your answer came from?
TINNY: From my consciousness. The answer must have always been available to me, I just had to be in the right mental state to realise it.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where does knowledge you are not yet aware of reside while waiting for you to make use of its availability?
TINNY: All knowledge must exist in a timeless state beyond the material plane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The relationship between our perceived existence, which is relative reality, and the true nature of existence, which is absolute reality, is quite amazing isn't it?
TINNY: Almost beyond belief.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since we have just dealt with one of the most difficult, long-standing debates in the historical quest for truth, that being the free-will versus determinism controversy, perhaps we could now discuss another equally long-standing and difficult question.
TINNY: And what is that question?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the true nature of good and evil?
TINNY: I should be able to answer that question as well as I was able to answer the question regarding free-will and determinism.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You are rightfully confident.
TINNY: Well, where do we start?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think it would be helpful to begin with simple definitions of good and evil.
TINNY: Do you mean definitions of what good and evil truly are?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Not yet, just tell me what the words good and evil commonly mean to people.
TINNY: Good means that which is morally correct, right, agreeable, pleasurable, nice, and appealing.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about evil?
TINNY: Evil means that which is morally wrong, bad, wicked, and harmful.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Both those definitions sound quite simple. Why is the question regarding the true nature of good and evil such a difficult question to answer?
TINNY: If you will notice the words commonly used to describe the meaning of both good and evil you will see that they are themselves all very subjective words. I think it would be extremely difficult to get agreement as to exactly what any of those words really mean.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?
TINNY: Because each person comes to a personal definition of the concepts of good and evil. That happens because there has never been an accepted objective standard by which to measure good and evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is that the reason for the continuing debate as to the meaning of good and evil?
TINNY: It is. The debate includes the question as to whether or not good and evil are absolutes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are they?
TINNY: I can't answer that question with a yes or no.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many people consider good and evil to only have relative meaning.
TINNY: That is the most common modern view of good and evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can you tell me if it is correct to believe good and evil only have relative meaning?
TINNY: That I can answer. That is a wrong belief.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it wrong?
TINNY: It would be easier to give definite answers if you would ask questions about good and evil separately.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All right. Is evil absolute?
TINNY: No.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is good absolute?
TINNY: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is evil relative?
TINNY: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is good relative?
TINNY: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You are telling me that evil is relative but not absolute, while good is both relative and absolute.
TINNY: That's right.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You'll have to tell me a lot more than that to explain the true nature of good and evil.
TINNY: I know.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are the common definitions of good and evil you gave very close to the true nature of good and evil?
TINNY: Considering how far from the truth most commonly held beliefs we have discussed are from the true nature of existence, the present widely held understanding of good and evil is amazingly accurate.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean good and evil are well enough understood in human society?
TINNY: Not at all. Although the commonly held definitions of good and evil are quite accurate, the meaning of those truths is quite misunderstood.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why don't people understand good and evil if the common definitions are so accurate?
TINNY: The definitions are general and abstract. So long as they remain unrelated to specifics those definitions are acceptable; but, as soon as anyone tries to go from the general understanding of good and evil to any specific instance of good and evil it becomes a matter of personal beliefs. It is for that reason modern philosophers generally claim good and evil are determined by the circumstances.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As we talk about good and evil would it be acceptable to sometimes use the words right and wrong?
TINNY: Those words are essentially interchangeable.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is right is good, what is good is right. What is wrong is evil, what is evil is wrong.
TINNY: True.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But everyone has a different idea of what is right and wrong. Since each individual has different beliefs about right and wrong isn't that sufficient reason to say they are relative concepts?
TINNY: Reality exists as it is, regardless of whether anyone understands that reality. It makes no difference how many different beliefs exist about what is right and what is wrong, beyond those varied beliefs exists an essential truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I suppose you could determine whether any particular thing was truly good or evil, or if any particular belief was truly right or wrong.
TINNY: My understanding of good and evil is not perfect. I could not be sure my beliefs about right or wrong in any specific instance would be any better than anyone else's. I am sure, though, that it is not my place to impose my personal beliefs about good and evil on anyone else.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If I were to ask you to tell me if any specific example was right or wrong, could you give me a definite answer?
TINNY: In some cases I could and in some cases I couldn't.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the difficulty?
TINNY: The language we use and our concept of reality stands in the way of simple answers being given. It is once again the need to express truths that exist beyond the material plane which make it such a difficult task to discuss the nature of good and evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think if you try you could tell me some things about good and evil which will clarify that problem.
TINNY: The terms good and evil as we commonly use them apply to this world of apparent opposites, the physical existence. In the material plane good and evil are relative to each individual's stage of development. No thought, word, or deed on the material plane is either totally good or totally evil but must combine some aspects of each. Absolute good only exists beyond the world of opposites, beyond the material plane. And there is no evil, neither relative nor absolute beyond the material plane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Very good. Now we have a more definite starting point for our discussion of good and evil. From what you have just said it seems that the currently held belief of the relative nature of good and evil is correct. You did say good and evil are, on the material plane, determined by each individual's level of progression.
TINNY: For any individual good and evil are relative, but that relative nature is determined by factors relating to the natural order. Usually, though, when it is said good and evil are relative, that is a reference to their being relative as determined by the perception of the individual.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean the fact that people believe different things to be good and evil, or right and wrong, is what makes those concepts relative?
TINNY: That is what the relative nature of good and evil is usually understood to mean, but that is a grievous misunderstanding of good and evil. What each person believes to be good or evil may have little relationship to what is truly good or evil. Additionally, one's personal beliefs about what is good or evil may have little to do with what is truly right or wrong for that person. While it is correct to say, to us good and evil are relative that only means we each have a different place on the continuum of material development. We may or may not correctly perceive our position on that continuum, but whether we do realise our position or not does not change what is truly good or evil in reference to that point on the continuum.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let me be sure I understand. There may have been an ambiguity in one of your statements. When you say good and evil are relative to each individual, I believe you mean that for each person a different, but specific, good and evil exists.
TINNY: That's what I mean.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So in respect to any one person good and evil are definitely determined for them, but are different from that which is good and evil for any other person.
TINNY: Perhaps it would have been better if I had said that good and evil is relative between individuals.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But absolutely determined for each individual.
TINNY: That's right.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Earlier you said that while good in the non-material plane of existence is absolute, that evil can never be absolute, neither in the material nor non-material plane of existence.
TINNY: When I say evil is absolutely determined for each individual that does not mean evil itself is absolute. To say evil is absolute would mean it was perfectly manifested, and evil can never be perfectly manifested. What I mean by saying evil is absolutely determined for each individual is that what constitutes evil or wrong for any individual is definite, not relative.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why do you say that evil could not be absolute?
TINNY: As matter envolves it manifests more perfectly the characteristics of existence. Not all characteristics will be manifested perfectly, only positive characteristics. The movement towards perfection only involves positive characteristics. A being, perfect in ever aspect, will not manifest both perfect good and perfect evil, but only perfect goodness. The ultimate characteristics will be those which can be manifested perfectly. Evil is a characteristic which cannot be manifested perfectly. The perfect manifestation of evil would be an infinitely evil act; and an infinitely evil act would be infinitely destructive. An infinitely destructive act would destroy all existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When we began discussing good and evil you said there had never an accepted objective definition of those terms. Isn't it true, though, that there have been accepted subjective definitions of good and evil?
TINNY: Through almost all of human history there have been generally accepted subjective interpretations of the nature of good and evil. Those have often been determined by the prevailing religious or political belief systems, and have unfortunately been forced upon others through the exercise of power.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Was that always bad?
TINNY: As with all things on the material plane there were good and bad aspects. As human society progresses it becomes less good and more evil to attempt the continued imposition of any particular beliefs about right and wrong through the use of force.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why does it become worse to try and impose a value system now than it was thousands of years ago?
TINNY: Because the nature of good and evil changes as envolutionary progression takes place. As the human species moves further along the path to fulfillment it is critical that our freedom from external control becomes greater.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think our discussion is finally approaching the objective nature of good evil. It seems you are saying there is some link between good and evil, and free-will and determinism.
TINNY: The progressive development of matter in the physical universe moves from a beginning of determinism to a destiny of free-will. It is the natural order of physical existence that this envolutionary process should take place. That which binds us to determinism works against this progression and is opposed to the natural order. That which opposes the natural order is evil. That which enhances our freedom aids this progression and is in accord with the natural order. That which is in accord with the natural order is good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have just given me an objective definition of good and evil. That which aids our developmental progression is good, and that which hinders our developmental progression is evil.
TINNY: That is true for every level of material existence. It is for that reason good and evil are determined by the degree of development of the different levels of material form. There is a specific set of rights and wrongs for human beings which is different from the specific set of rights and wrongs for dogs, ducks, frogs, amoebas, molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean that the concept of good and evil applies to all those varied material forms?
TINNY: To those and every other material form which can exist.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is hard to conceive of good and evil in relation to say, an atom.
TINNY: This is why an objective definition of good and evil is so necessary. Remember when we discussed consciousness, it took a simple objective definition to allow the understanding of the true nature of consciousness to be realised at very simple levels of physical form, such as the atom. We normally only think of good and evil in relation to the human level, therefore blinding ourselves to the more pervasive nature of that aspect of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you give me an example of what is good or evil at the atomic level of development?
TINNY: Before I answer that question I want to further clarify the objective definitions I gave of the nature of good and evil. Since the purpose of the physical universe is encompassed in the totality of the process of envolution we can define good and evil by the effect on material form. At every level of physical existence anything which occurs to any particular material form will have some effect on the future of that material form. If the effect is to cause material form to move backwards on the continuum of developmental progression, toward the beginning characteristics of physical existence, that is evil. If the effect is to allow material form to move forward on the continuum of developmental progression, toward the final destiny of the physical existence, that is good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That explanation follows from your earlier statement which defines good as that which follows the natural order, and aids our progression toward greater exercise of free-will; and which defines evil as that which opposes the natural order, and further binds us to determinism.
TINNY: Exactly. Now I can answer your question about good and evil as it relates to an atom. If an atom were to meet with environmental circumstances which broke the atomic structure apart into its basic particles, the protons and electrons, that would be evil. It would be evil because the physical form of subatomic particles is at a less developed level on the continuum of envolutionary progression. If, though, an atom were to meet with environmental circumstances which brought about the merging with another atom to form a molecule, that would be good. It would be good because the physical form of the molecule is at a more developed level on the continuum of envolutionary progression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is a very clear explanation of how good and evil relate to an atom. I can also see the necessity of having an objective definition of good and evil. If the same processes, which the atom underwent in your example, were to be judged from the commonly held subjective understanding of good and evil it would appear what happened to the atom was not included in the meaning of good and evil.
TINNY: And anytime we fail to perceive the true nature of existence that ignorance further threatens our future progression and even our chance of survival.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it is very important to know good and evil objectively.
TINNY: To know objectively the reality of good and evil is to know right action. We must know right from wrong in our actions to be able to live in accord with the natural order. Any level of material form which acts other than in accord with the natural order can not forever continue to exist.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The very future of the human species is then dependent on a realisation of the true nature of good and evil.
TINNY: Actually we must do more than know the true nature of good and evil. We must as a unified social whole make the conscious decision to act in accord with that knowledge.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The subjective understanding of good and evil would appear to be too limited to be successful in allowing a determination of right and wrong.
TINNY: The subjective understanding of good and evil is not only too limited, it is sometimes actually incorrect. At times what has been considered good and evil has had no relationship with the true nature of good and evil, and has been no more than a self-serving device of those desiring to impose their will on others.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Has the subjective understanding of good and evil been at all beneficial to the progression of the human species?
TINNY: Subjective beliefs as to what was good and evil have been of great benefit to the development of human society. Those subjective beliefs have often been expressed as moral values; and although we still have much further to go in that area, we have progressed far beyond the primitive understanding of right and wrong behaviour which existed during the period of barbarism predating human civilisation.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Human beings are still sometimes pretty barbaric.
TINNY: Certainly some are, we all have within us still the potential for barbaric behaviour. That does not mean the values held in general by society have not progressed. In general our actions are more in line with the values of civilisation than with those of barbarism.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the human species necessarily continue that progression toward a more perfect understanding of right and wrong?
TINNY: There is no guarantee at this point in the development of the human race whether we will continue to progress or not. We could fall backwards, which would likely mean the extinction of our species. We are presently struggling, during this transitional period, to find our way as many of the old value systems have broken down. The general level of human knowledge has progressed to a point which has made obvious the many flaws existing in the prevailing subjective beliefs about the nature of good and evil. As the old systems of moral values are being discarded much of what was good and right was thrown out with that which was incorrect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the human race is presently left floundering without direction.
TINNY: To be left without direction is the most dangerous thing which could happen at this point in human development. If we as a species do not soon find our way back to an existence in accord with the natural order it will be too late, and we will cease to exist as a species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It would appear to be impossible to survive without a definite value system. To believe there is no definite good and evil could lead to a situation where no standards of right and wrong action are accepted.
TINNY: That is the danger in believing good and evil to be relative. While we must have freedom, we must also resist license.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So we need an understanding of good and evil that is neither relative to the beliefs of each individual, nor absolute according to socially accepted moral values which have in the past tended to be subjective rather than objective.
TINNY: That is the reason I have attempted to give an objective definition of good and evil. Good and evil must be free of subjective influence. They need to be understood in relation to the natural order of physical existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When we were talking about free-will and determinism you said the human level of existence was the turning point where for the first time free-will could prevail over determinism. Is it also true that the human level of existence is the turning point where good prevails over evil?
TINNY: The answer to that question depends on whether one's perspective is from the material plane of existence or from perfected existence beyond the material plane. Answered from a perspective within the material universe, good and evil are relative to each level of material progression. In that case good and evil are determined by the degree of harmony with the natural order experienced by that particular level of material progression. By that standard the human species does not fare well. Most less advanced forms of material existence have a much more harmonious relationship with the natural order than does the human species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where does the human species stand in relation to good and evil when viewed from beyond the material plane?
TINNY: From that perspective the whole of the material plane can be judged objectively. In that instance all good and evil on the material plane are judged against the standard of perfect good which is the essence of existence beyond the material plane. In coming to an objective understanding of good and evil, as viewed from beyond the material plane of existence, there would be no better explanation than to equate good and evil, respectively, with free-will and determinism. If one uses those terms, good can then be defined as the exercise of free-will, and evil can be defined as the imposition of will. When good and evil are considered as equivalent terms to free-will and determinism then it follows that the human level of existence is at the turning point where for the first time good may prevail over evil without external causation. It is important to realise that although the turning point has been reached it is not necessarily the case that free-will must prevail over determinism, nor is it the case that good must prevail over evil. That the human species has reached the turning point only means free-will has the potential to prevail over determinism, and good has the potential to prevail over evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What determines which influences, good or evil, shall prevail?
TINNY: We must choose. A future of freedom and goodness is ours for the taking; but, we must choose to accept that beautiful future, it will not be forced upon us.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which exists in the greatest abundance in the world today, good or evil?
TINNY: The two are very nearly equal, with the balance probably weighted toward a predominance of evil. At this point in human development, to be in harmony with the natural order, the balance should be tipped far toward a predominance of good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will goodness in the world increase and tip the balance back, away from evil?
TINNY: I should say that has not yet been decided.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why should you say that?
TINNY: From existence on the material plane it is not possible to know the future. Human society has not yet committed to the decision which will determine whether we slip further into evil and cease to survive as a species, or move onward to goodness and fulfill the potential of the human species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I don't understand; if that is the reality of our present circumstance why not just say so? Why do you say that is what you should say? Do you want to give a different answer?
TINNY: I want to dearly.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Go ahead then, do so.
TINNY: The answer is that goodness shall prevail. We have a future where all shall be good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You just said the answer could not yet be known on the material plane of existence, so where did that answer come from?
TINNY: I think it came from beyond the material plane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't you know for sure where you got that answer from?
TINNY: No, I don't. I once had what seemed to be a religious or perhaps mystical experience. During that experience I was promised a future where all shall be good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you believe that is to be the future of the human race?
TINNY: I do.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should others believe that is to be their future because of your experience?
TINNY: No. That's why I hesitated to give such an answer. I have no proof that what I experienced was real. I have always questioned it myself, even though I was the one to experience it.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is the nature of the mystical experience. It cannot be verified even by those who undergo the experience.
TINNY: I remain open to the truth of that experience, just as I do to all other perceptions of reality. I try never to be dogmatic about anything, even the nature of my own experiences.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So what should we do with that information promising a future where all shall be good?
TINNY: Hope it's true, I suppose.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should we live our lives as if that is truly to be our future?
TINNY: I think it would be better to act as if there were no guarantees that we will have a future where all shall be good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?
TINNY: Just in case I was somehow mistaken. I'm not going to idly wait around for that beautiful future to become a reality. I intend to work my whole life to help bring about that future of goodness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think that sounds a very realistic approach to life. Since we cannot, as material beings, know absolute truth even when we come across it, we must accept all things as only probabilities of truth.
TINNY: I'm glad I told you about that experience, but I want to keep our discussion to an objective, empirical level of science and philosophy which can be verified.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You make many wise decisions.
TINNY: I think this is a very exciting time to be alive. Mine is the generation which will truly take human destiny into our own hands. We shall complete the turn from determinism to free-will and from evil to goodness. We shall go beyond potential to full expression of all positive characteristics of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As you have defined evil, it is the imposition of will. What does that mean?
TINNY: That it is evil when the behaviour of material form is externally rather than internally determined.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you give me a couple of examples?
TINNY: Before I do, remember that evil can be considered from both an absolute perspective and a relative perspective. From the absolute perspective evil can be seen in relation to all levels of progressively developed material existence. From the relative perspective evil is seen differently from each level of progressively developed material existence. With that said I'll give you an example of evil at the level of subatomic particles. Early in the development of the physical universe, when all was expanding and cooling so quickly, the environmental circumstances suddenly became such that the strong nuclear force acted upon the free protons and neutrons, binding them together into atomic nuclei. The subatomic particles, the protons and neutrons, had no choice but to act as dictated by the strong nuclear force. From the absolute perspective that was evil, as it was a clear case of the imposition of will by force; but from the relative perspective the progressive development from free particles to atomic nuclei was a further step, away from the simple deterministic beginning, toward the final goal of a perfect transcendental existence. That was good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It was evil in that change came about by force; but the outcome, being a step in the progressive development of matter, was good. Is that correct?
TINNY: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So good can come from evil.
TINNY: Undoubtedly, that is the essential nature of physical existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: At the beginning of the physical universe virtually everything which occurred was due to the affect of external forces. Would you say that means the universe began as total evil?
TINNY: That's what it means, at least from the absolute perspective.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you know how hard it is to conceive of the actions of physical forces early in the development of the universe as evil?
TINNY: I realise those actions seem to have nothing to do with good and evil as the terms have been commonly used.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Might it not be better to create a new word rather than evil to describe the actions of those early physical forces?
TINNY: I don't think it would. It is only our limited and subjective understanding of words such as good and evil which precludes us from realising the imposition of will by force as being evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Still, at present some people will misunderstand.
TINNY: The true nature of reality remains unchanged whether understood or not. The term, 'it is' describes that reality. Each person will come to know that which is, in their own way, and in their own time. The truth must not be held back from those who are not yet ready. To be freely exposed to truth may for some be the way to know the true nature of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The way you define good and evil certainly removes the moral dilemma which has in the past proved so difficult. It is not the province of individuals or society to decide good and evil or right and wrong.
TINNY: Right and wrong are decided for all by the natural order.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When that objective definition of good and evil is applied to human social behaviour will there be much similarity to the way good and evil have been previously understood?
TINNY: When we talk about specific actions, most that is now considered evil will remain so. Actually the new understanding of good and evil will probably change more of what has been so traditionally considered good than what in the past has been considered evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean people generally misunderstand good more often evil?
TINNY: Yes, we do.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?
TINNY: Most of what we consider evil is fairly obvious. Our understanding of evil is largely determined by our perception of what brings harm or pain to ourselves or to others. It is most often the case that what we subjectively perceive as evil would also be evil by objective standards.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't that also the case with our perceptions of good?
TINNY: Our understanding of good is largely determined by our perception of what brings pleasure to ourselves and to others. For that reason our understanding of good is so poor. It is not pleasure which should be the criterion of goodness, but instead the criterion should be the achieving of life's purpose. The avoidance of pain and the seeking of pleasure are both evil.
