INTRODUCTION TO THE UNIFIED THEORY OF EXISTENCE TRILOGY

By
Prof. Dr. Muhammad al' Mahdi
Child/Clinical Psychology

In the 1960's in the United States I set out on a search for Truth. This was to be no quest to fill some missing spiritual vacuum; I had already firmly determined that God did not exist. Not only did I not believe in God, but I was convinced that all logic, reason, and scientific evidence confirmed that God did not exist; and, that for anyone to believe in the existence of God was such an outdated, superstitious way of life that it would hold them back from fulfilling their human potential and would likewise block the human race from achieving its ultimate destiny. So certain was I that I once stated, establishing the highest authenticity of my atheistic credentials when I was lecturing to a large class of about 500 introductory psychology students that, "If there was ever going to be the last person on Earth who didn't believe in God it would be me".

My search for truth included almost fourteen years as a full time university student and resulted in my going through three and a half PhD programs in child, clinical, experimental, and educational psychology. I had originally intended, and began, my studies in the physical sciences. This allowed me, due to previous training in nuclear electronics, to spend four years as a research assistant in one of the foremost theoretical physics laboratories of that time, where I had the opportunity to meet and discuss the most basic nature of our physical universe with several recipients of the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Perhaps related to the 'special' social and cultural circumstances of the 1960's, I moved from the physical sciences to the social sciences partly because of the very unhappy and difficult life I had growing up and partly because of an increasingly serious awareness that all was not right with human society. I decided that I would go into psychology, particularly child psychology, so that perhaps I could do something to ensure that in the future children would not have to go through what I had gone through and could live in an enlightened world of peace and love.

During my studies in psychology I came across a 'tool' of great value for anyone who hoped to help bring about a better world, this tool was the Laws of Learning. During an undergraduate class in experimental psychology we were given a live chicken and told to devise a fairly complex task to teach it using the Laws of Learning. I wanted my chicken to stand on one leg only, its right leg, to hop in a full circle to the right on that one leg, then to push a red button on the wall of the experimental chamber with its beak, have a bite of food, and keep repeating that same sequence of behaviours without error time after time.

This could have been an almost impossible task as chickens are not very intelligent animals and most people, including myself without a knowledge of the Laws of Learning, would have had no idea how to even begin such a difficult training program. When less than ten minutes after I had begun training my chicken to do this seemingly impossible task I was able to sit there watching it repeatedly and errorlessly completing the whole complicated sequence of responses which made up the task I had set for it, I was more than amazed. Of course I never could have done this without the knowledge of the Laws of Learning, which I applied rigorously and consistently as I trained the chicken to do that complex task. Still, it all happened so quickly and easily that it appeared to be an almost miraculous happening.

I still remember thinking, "If I could use the Laws of Learning to teach an animal with as little intelligence as a chicken to do that quite complex task so quickly, why couldn't those same Laws of Learning be used to help children grow up to be good and decent human beings?" This was the beginning that led me years later, during my third PhD program, to come up with the hypothesis that, "If you were to give to any individual or social group just two things, a positive, accurate, and motivational world view, plus a good understanding of the Laws of Learning by which all human characteristics are developed, then that individual or social group would move naturally and inevitably toward everything good and right."

My work in using the Laws of Learning to teach children resulted in me being given a government primary school, the 'worst' one in the school district, to test that hypothesis under experimental conditions. So I set out to prove the hypothesis as a children's values education program. Just as with my experiment with the chicken many years earlier the results were beyond all expectations. Within a year the children, the teachers, and the school environment had become astonishingly positive and productive. Extra academic training had not even been part of our experimental program, but due to motivational factors and a focus on the benefits of learning and possessing knowledge as one of the values the children were taught, the school which had tested last in the district of 27 schools each year for twelve years in a row during standardized academic testing moved up to number seven academically after only one year of the program.

Compared statistically against matched experimental control schools the results were so unbelievably good for an educational research program that they were almost an embarrassment. You just don't get results that good in educational experiments: but, the U. S. Commissioner of Education took enough interest in the program to offer to have it replicated in government funded schools all across America. I didn't feel it was ready for such wide use yet, it was after all only in the experimental stages, and although I think then I knew enough about the second part of the hypothesis, the Laws of Learning, to justify the spread of the program, I realized I was far from understanding the second necessary component of the hypothesis, the positive, accurate, and motivational world view, well enough.

To many people's shock, and perhaps some regret, I left the experimental program which had proved so successful. In fact to continue my search for Truth I left America, where I had become increasingly disenchanted with the social culture and the government's policies, and went out into the world to find that required positive, accurate, and motivational world view. It was a search that would take me to not only many more years of intense study on my own covering all areas of science and philosophy, but also theology, the study of religious knowledge. My travels, even as I remained a confirmed non-believer in God, eventually took me to priests and monasteries, gurus and ashrams, monks and Buddhist temples around the world.

During all these years after leaving the formal study of the physical sciences I had been keeping up with the many enlightening discoveries in theoretical physics. Modern physics was then going through a very exciting period, we now had a quite good understanding of the most basic nature of matter and how the physical universe came to be what it is today. I became more and more interested in the philosophical implications of Einstein's Theories of Relativity. Connections were being made in my consciousness between the implications of Einstein's work and the revealed knowledge of religious believers which I had long rejected.

I remember well the day that I finally had to concede that if I wanted to be fair and objective as a scientist I would have to accept that due to the findings of modern physics, particularly Einstein's Theories of Relativity, I could no longer deny the existence of God. I had to accept that modern science and logic now offered powerful proof of the existence of God. And, I remember equally well my first two words to myself when I realized I now had to accept the existence of God as a reality. This is very revealing as to my character at the time, but those two words were, "Oh no!" I understood immediately that my life would have to change drastically, since knowing that God existed also meant having an obligation to live according to the Will of God rather that feeling free to succumb to the whims of human desire.

No one could have been more shocked than I when what had been intended to be the ultimate journey into secular materialistic science and philosophy took me first to the knowledge of the existence of God then to a realization that I could follow no other path in life but Islam.

(Muhammad al'Mahdi, 2004)

 

FORWARD TO THE UNIFIED THEORY OF EXISTENCE TRILOGY

I wrote these three books almost 20 years ago now, although much of the information presented in these works remains at the present limits of human knowledge of science and logic. They represent an early step in the shaping process of my life over a 40 year search for Truth that led me from confirmed atheism, non-belief in God, to becoming a Muslim dedicating his life to service for Allah. The word 'shaping' is a technical word from the Laws of Learning. It means to go through a series of small steps from any beginning point toward any goal.

Learning the multiplication tables could serve as a simple example of shaping, and by the way, shaping is the way I taught the chicken to perform that quite complex task described in the introduction. We take as the starting point a child who knows nothing of multiplication, and we set as a goal the child knowing the multiplication tables up to 12X12. It is impossible to jump right from not even knowing the concept of multiplication to knowing how to multiply 12X12. We must teach the child the multiplication tables in a series of small steps. First you teach 1X1, 1X2, etc. If you make any step too big the learning process will break down and the final goal will never be achieved. There is no other way to achieve the goal, and that is how all human characteristics are developed. That is how I found God!

I was, in the middle of last year, diagnosed with a terminal illness and given about three months to live. Now it is a year later, and I feel very Blessed by Allah to even be alive and able to write this brief forward to these books I wrote so long ago even though my health is obviously failing. I feel very comfortable with the fact that I will soon be leaving this physical existence, but I also want to be sure in the time I have left that I do everything I can to ensure whatever benefits can be had from my life's work can be passed on to human society. I am hoping that the difficult and time consuming path that brought me to Islam can be accelerated for others by the reading of these three books. Not everyone has the time, the inclination, or the opportunity to devote their whole life to study.

Since the knowledge in these three books was learned, understood, and written from a secular, materialistic view of science and logic they should be well received even by those who presently have no religious interests. For those of religions other than Islam, they can feel comfortable with the knowledge in these books because they are written with no Islamic words or perspective, and non-Muslims should find support for much that they already believe to be true. And, for those who are already Muslim, they can benefit from these books by seeing how close one can come to understanding the rightness of the traditional beliefs and practices of Islam through modern scientific knowledge and logic. In addition, for young Muslims in particular, the knowledge in these three volumes can provide an armour against the powerful negative influences of Western secular materialism, which if left unchecked will subtly steal from many of our youth their belief in and practice of the beauty and greatness of traditionally understood Islam.

THE TRILOGY (These three volumes were written as a continuous conversation between a young girl of the future and a mythical philosopher-scientist. The reason for this was to make the presentation of some very difficult and complex information much less threatening and easier to read.)

Volume One: The presentation of one consistent body of knowledge from the light at the beginning of the Created universe to Adam's children in the world today. This volume contains cosmology, physics, biology, philosophy, and theology woven together to give a detailed account of the totality of the physical Creation. It gives objective answers to humanity's long asked questions such as; does God exist, what is the meaning of life, what is the true nature of good and evil, where does our free will come from, is there life after death, and what does the future hold for the human race?

Volume Two: Looks at a number of areas of human social behaviour, such as politics, human sexuality and correct male/female relationships, economics, religion, entertainment industry, health care, education, and criminal behaviour and discusses what is wrong with the world as it is now and what would constitute a right world given the world view presented in Volume One.

Volume Three: Presents a complete review of the Laws of Learning by which all animal behaviour is governed, and by which all human behaviour can be developed to be consistent with the Will of God. It is this knowledge which if unknown leaves us to blow aimlessly with the winds of negative influence, or if known allows us to fully utilize our free will and progress forever onward toward all that is good and right.

(NOTE: I developed the knowledge base for these volumes during the 1960's, 70's and 80's. I wrote these works in the early to middle 1980's. I have purposefully left these works in their original form, rather than re-edit them on the basis of my present understanding of Islam. I was not a Muslim when I began this work - indeed this work led me to Islam - and, although I was a Muslim when I completed these works, my knowledge of Islam was then quite rudimentary. I now know much more about Islam than I did then, and realize some small part of that which I have written may appear to be - but not in reality be - inconsistent with traditional Islamic theology due to the scientific nature of the concepts and language I have used. There may also be some - very few - points in which my writings are actually in conflict with true Islamic knowledge; in these cases I accept the true Islamic knowledge as correct and my words to be in error. For those who are believers reading this trilogy it is important to know that whenever you see the term 'natural law' or 'natural order' you can replace it in your mind with the more familiar term 'the Will of Allah'. Muhammad al'Mahdi, 2004)

 

 

(In Volume One Tinny and the Philosopher-Scientist discussed a new, more correct world view which could help bring about a better world and ensure the future survival of the human race. As Volume One ended Tinny was preparing to discuss how the many critical social/environmental problems of our present world can be understood on the basis of that new world view.)

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What will you talk about first?

TINNY: I don't really think it matters which problem area I start with. There is a unity of all things so whichever area I begin with will be linked to all others.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Might I suggest you begin with politics.

TINNY: That would seem to be a good place to start. Few problem areas would be so pervasive and critical. There is a lot to be covered under the heading of politics. I'll start by pointing out discrepancies with the new world view in various political systems.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you have a preference between political systems?

TINNY: I do, but my preference is not any of the present political systems. I won't tell you what it is now because it will come out as we discuss politics in relation to the natural order.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Just give me a very brief definition of politics.

TINNY: Politics includes all the tactics and processes of governing.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And what is governing?

TINNY: Governing in this sense means regulating and directing human behaviour both individually and in groups.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which is the best political system being practiced in the world today?

TINNY: That is an impossible question to answer. None are very good although all have some good ideals.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean none are very good.

TINNY: The best of the present political systems does more harm than good.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are they really that bad?

TINNY: Unless stopped, political interests will bring about the extinction of the human species.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Politicians must be terrible people.

TINNY: Most politicians are well intentioned. They aspire to do good while due to their ignorance they bring evil.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say politicians are ignorant but most politicians would be better educated than the average person.

TINNY: The ignorance of politicians comes not from a lack of education but from the blindness to the true nature of our existence brought about by the beliefs and circumstances which are inherent in political philosophy and practice.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there one most basic flaw in political thought?

TINNY: Yes, there is one most fundamental flaw, the belief that it is right to govern

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's pretty basic all right. Does that mean it is not right to govern?

TINNY: Absolutely correct. It is not right to govern.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: No wonder you don't like any of the world's present political systems.

TINNY: Politicians believe it is right to govern; in fact they like to govern

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why do you say it is wrong to govern?

TINNY: Because at the human level of development the exercise of free-will is necessary for the continued existence of the species. It goes against the natural order for human beings to be made to do the right thing. If we cannot act in a right manner without external control we shall not survive.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But many people would not act in a right manner without the external controls which governments provide. Isn't it better to be protected from those who would do evil even if this protection must come from government control?

TINNY: It would only be better if government control could really insure the survival of the species, but it can't. The protector is also the destroyer. Governments restrict freedom because of the fear some of society's members will choose wrongly. It has not been realised that the imposition of external controls by governments takes away our freedom to be good by choice.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: People have been governed in various ways for thousand of years and the human race has not come to an end yet.

TINNY: It was not so wrong to govern in the past as it is in the present. It will be even worse in the future. In the early physical universe the natural order was almost totally deterministic, involving external control. This gave way, as material development progressed, to an increasing exercise of free-will. When human consciousness first came to exist the natural order still allowed a great deal of external control to further the development of the species. As the envolution of the human species continues this early external control must be relinquished so that the potential of humanity can be manifested. The continued external control of matter in the early stages of the development of our universe would have resulted in a physical existence that did not progress and fulfill its destiny. The same would be true of the human species if we are not allowed to progress beyond the external control of government.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How did governments begin? What were the earliest governments?

TINNY: The beginnings of government are certainly less than auspicious. Governments originated in the exercise of brute force. As the human species made the transition from animal to beings with self-reflective consciousness these early social primates were ruled by the biggest, strongest, most ruthless individual in the group. This was the first form of human government, one individual imposing his will on the members of the social group by force and aggression.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the members of early human society never agreed to be governed.

TINNY: The first people never agreed to be governed and no people since have ever agreed to be governed. Government once imposed upon the members of early society by force has maintained its control over the human race through the various progressive stages up to and including the present political systems. The control by government has always been and still is imposed upon the members of human society by force.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What general stages has the progression of government gone through?

TINNY: At first small social groups were ruled by the one strongest, most aggressive individual. As the size of the social groups increased the one most powerful individual ruled with the assistance of others who enforced the will of the ruler. The institution of government developed a hierarchical system of bureaucrats and functionaries to ensure and maintain the power of the ruling class. The ordinary members of these early societies often lived lives of drudgery and poverty as they worked to glorify the ruling class and provide them a life of relative opulence. To increase the material wealth and comfort of those in power the practice of slavery was instituted. These early societies were at various times ruled by royalty or a priesthood. The majority of society's members always lived poorly so that a few could live richly. The power, while shifting from the secular to the religious and back was passed through many centuries in the hands of a privileged few. The priesthood, royalty, and the military all developed increasingly successful ways of maintaining their control over the masses of humanity. As government progressed through the ages conditions changed so that an increasingly large segment of society wanted a share in the wealth and a say in the decisions of government. These new citizen members of society were incorporated into a system of government that still maintained the power of a ruling class. Even these early attempts at democracy, a system that purports to be government by the people, left the power and wealth in the always ready hands of a privileged few. Slaves became serfs, serfs became workers, and workers became middle class. Modern governments be they royal, democratic, socialist, communist, dictatorial, or religious maintain the same characteristics as the earliest governments. The many are controlled by the few, those few holding the majority of power and/or wealth.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I accept your brief overview of the development of government. I have two questions about things you said. If the members of a society are citizens with a democratic vote aren't they giving their consent to be governed?

TINNY: At best in democracies the members of society are allowed to vote for the leader of their choice. It never happens that the members of society are given the opportunity to vote as to whether or not they wish to be governed.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You're right, the choice is of who is to govern, not whether or not to be governed.

TINNY: And your other question?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't the communist and socialist systems advocate a more equitable distribution of wealth?

TINNY: They do and they also advocate placing power in the hands of the people.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then how can you say that communism and socialism perpetuate the evils inherited from the long history of government back to the earliest forms?

TINNY: The ideals of communism and socialism are different than the systems in practice. Wealth has never been evenly distributed although admittedly in a few cases there has been a real attempt to do so. The gains in the distribution of wealth have been balanced by the losses of personal freedom. The communist and socialist states are notorious for authoritarian and totalitarian regimes willing to take all personal freedoms for the so-called good of the state. In fact it is interesting to note the language sometimes used to describe the system of government in the developing communist and socialist states. It is called the "dictatorship of the proletariat!" I have wondered if the word 'of' in this description is purposely ambiguous. I have heard it said this really means dictatorship "by" the proletariat, but I have always thought in practice this appears to mean dictatorship "over" the proletariat.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see what you mean. I had never considered it that way before. Does this mean you would favour democracy over communism or socialism?

TINNY: I favour neither over the other. Both have some very attractive points, but as I see our reality the negative aspects of each of those political systems far outweighs the good.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The terms rightist and leftist have been used to refer to the capitalist democracies and communist/socialist governments respectively. What do these terms mean?

TINNY: Right wing means to be politically conservative and in opposition to political reform. Left wing means to be politically progressive or radical, favouring extensive political reform.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems from what you have said earlier that you would be in favour of extensive political reform. Why don't you then favour communism and socialism?

TINNY: You're right, of course, I most certainly desire extensive political reform, but I don't think the changes advocated by communism and socialism are a positive step in human development.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why not?

TINNY: Because of the authoritarian and totalitarian nature of communism and socialism as it has been practiced by the world's governments.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you tell me what authoritarian and totalitarian mean?

TINNY: A government which is authoritarian believes in subjugation to authority as opposed to the expression of individual freedom. A government which is totalitarian grants neither recognition nor tolerance to those of differing opinion.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: With your knowledge of the central importance of free-will in the development of human potential I can easily see why you would object to an authoritarian or totalitarian political system.

TINNY: They may bring about the destruction of the human species.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are democratic political systems ever authoritarian?

TINNY: Democracies are certainly less likely to be overtly authoritarian or totalitarian than communist/socialist governments, but these evils exist within the democratic system also.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why are democratic governments less likely to be authoritarian or totalitarian than communist/socialist governments?

TINNY: The very nature of the democratic system places great emphasis on individual freedom and initiative. The communist/socialist systems emphasise the rights and needs of the state over rights and needs of the individual.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since democracies place such importance on the rights of the individuals, how could a democratic government ever become authoritarian or totalitarian?

TINNY: The personal freedoms offered in a democratic state are sometimes abused by individuals within that society. In cases where freedom becomes license there is often agreement among those in power, supported by a large portion of the populace, that individual freedom must be given up in order to bring ideas and behaviours which threaten society under control.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What types of threats to society brings about this restriction of personal freedom?

TINNY: They are most often threats to power and wealth. If those who control the power and wealth are threatened with losses almost anything is considered acceptable to maintain their control. Sometimes these supposed threats are called political or even religious but power and wealth are invariably the compelling factors.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Money and material wealth have a very important place in democratic states.

TINNY: That is the major flaw in democratic political systems. The personal freedom and initiative is directed in large measure to the gathering of material wealth; this incredible overemphasis on satisfying the material desires results in a small segment of society amassing immense wealth, which can only be done by binding many to eternal poverty. This quest for material wealth blinds the members of democratic societies to the important truths of our existence which are non-material in their nature.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How harmful is it for a few people to amass great wealth?

TINNY: Even ignoring the immeasurable wrongs brought about by the incorrect world view which is perpetuated by the emphasis on the acquisition of material wealth, in a very direct sense those few who hold the greatest wealth are responsible for many thousands, perhaps millions of lives lost each year. The connection while extremely complex is very real.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It makes those who amass great wealth sound like criminals.

TINNY: They are criminals. They commit a crime against all society.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What should be done with them? Should they be jailed?

TINNY: They should receive a loving positive influence directed toward showing them a more meaningful way of life.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You ask that those responsible for the death of millions to be given love?

TINNY: That is the right way. No other path but love offers the human race a fulfilled destiny. No other path offers any future for the human species.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you go so far as to say the very worst person in the world is deserving of love?

TINNY: Absolutely; that is the right way.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You are very kind.

TINNY: I'm only being realistic.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It's interesting that you oppose the two major political systems in the world today.

TINNY: I oppose all systems of government, but I see some value in every one. The capitalist democracies have much to offer as do the communist/socialist systems. But the good points would still exist and be of value if they were not ordained by governments, but were part of a personal social consciousness expressed in every day life.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So I suppose you would not support a socialist democracy manifesting the best points of each of the competing political systems.

TINNY: You're right, I wouldn't. Some governing systems are better or worse than others, but none are good. All oppose the natural order at the human level of existence and place insurmountable constraints on the development of human potential.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You accuse the communist/socialist systems of placing the interests of the state over the interests of the individual. I agree that they do; but are you sure this is a bad thing? It sounds quite reasonable.

TINNY: It would be reasonable to place the interests of the species over the interests of the individual if the two were to come into conflict. Ideally there would never be a case of conflict. What is best for the individual must, if existing in harmony with the natural order, be the best for human society. It is not reasonable, neither is it right, for the state to make the decision as to what is best for society. It is extremely important that a government never takes upon itself the power, which it would call the right, to decide how the individual might be used most effectively to further the interests of the state. While governments still exist they must remain a tool of the people, never the people as a tool of the state. If the decision is ever made to sublimate individual needs to the needs of society, this decision must rest solely on the individual and never be in the hands of the state.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those who make the decisions in a communist/socialist government would say they are expressing the will of the people.

TINNY: That's easy enough to say, it's just not the reality.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Well, in a democratic state where there are votes on important issues, what is done reflects the will of the majority. Is that not a right system of government?

TINNY: It's not right at all. I think the democratic vote is quite terrible. In some ways it is better than a dictatorship where one person or a small group of persons make the decisions for everyone else, but it's only better as a matter of degree. Both dictatorships and democratic votes are means of imposing will by force. I would feel no better living under the rule of a dictator who made decisions affecting my life which I knew were wrong than if the majority in a democratic vote made decisions affecting my life which I didn't agree with. A democratic vote is only another way for some people to impose their will on others. It's only relatively better to have the majority involved in making the decisions for all members of society than to have the decisions for all members of society made by one person.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But almost everyone would say that a majority vote was the most fair way for decisions to be made for a group.

TINNY: Decisions should not be made for groups. Decisions should only be made by individuals for themselves. There was a time when virtually no one questioned the absolute right of kings to rule. Now virtually no one questions the right of the majority to rule. All things envolve; we are moving toward the point where no one would question the right of each individual to rule themselves.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If each individual governed themselves without external control that would be anarchy.

TINNY: Yes, it would be anarchy.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But if we had anarchy in the world anyone could do anything they desired. There would be no protection from those who would do wrong. Anarchists have often used violence and murder to further their aims.

TINNY: What you are opposing are obviously wrong actions. I don't support any of those terrible things. Anarchy is a very complex concept. It has been used by those who resist all limits upon their behaviour and desires. Those who support such beliefs are often aggressive, violent people who will stop at nothing to have their personal desires fulfilled. It is unfortunate they have called their beliefs anarchy. It is unfortunate they are called anarchists.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What then should those who believe they have a right to act without restriction be called?

TINNY: I'm not sure, criminals I suppose. Anarchy does not mean the freedom from all restriction. Such a condition cannot exist. Anarchy is the freedom from external control. Each individual is still susceptible to natural law. Natural law cannot be ignored or transcended. Those who call their beliefs anarchy are misled. They are seeking license which can bring nothing but harm and destruction. All existence is susceptible to natural law. Anarchy is the condition where individuals live in harmony with the natural order by personal choice rather than because of external control.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What if people decide to act in opposition to natural law?

TINNY: Then we cannot have anarchy.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In the world as it is at present many would not choose to act in accord with natural law if there were not external controls making them do so.

TINNY: Even with all of society's laws, police, jails and threats people do not act in accord with natural law. Anarchy at present would be a complete disaster for the human race. We have not yet reached the point in our progression where we can accept the huge personal responsibility that comes with anarchy. Anarchy is the freedom to do anything you choose but, carries with it the responsibility to never choose to act in opposition to the natural order. For example an anarchist could never use their personal freedom to hurt another person, since to harm any living being is opposed to the natural order.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Well human society seems to be far from that point.

TINNY: Not so far as it night seem. If we survive through the present period of crises we will make the leap to a higher level of consciousness which will allow us to successfully accept the responsibility of anarchy.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why will people then be able to handle anarchy when it is so impossible now?

TINNY: The new consciousness will be one of enlightenment. The human race will come to learn the true nature of existence, will know natural law, and will possess an inner desire to exist in fullest harmony with the natural order. This new consciousness will bring forth a system of self governing that goes beyond any traditional concept of anarchy. This new system will be an enlightened anarchy, a world of beings so free they may do as they choose and so good they will never choose to do wrong. The condition of enlightened anarchy is utopia.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That will be a giant step for the human race. It's hard to believe it could happen in the relatively near future.

TINNY: It will happen in my lifetime unless those presently ruling the world destroy us all first.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How could they?

TINNY: Obviously they have the power to; unfortunately the minds of some leaders are sick, so sick they could issue the orders to destroy all living beings on this planet.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean when you say the minds of the leaders are sick?

TINNY: They are insane. Their perception of the reality of existence is so distorted as to constitute a danger to themselves and others.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it just the leaders who are insane?

TINNY: No, it is a plague upon humanity. This is a social insanity which affects every member of the human race. It is this insanity that has brought the human species to the brink of extinction. It is this insanity that has allowed the development of weapons capable of destroying all life on this planet. It is this insanity which allows the contemplation of using these horrible weapons of destruction. And it is this insanity which could allow orders to be given to use these weapons.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There are many who believe such weapons are necessary.

TINNY: As long as even one person holds that belief the human race remains under threat of extinction.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Tell me again, what is the solution?

TINNY: There is only one solution, a new world consciousness. A state of enlightenment which will allow all members of the human species to know the true nature of existence. This will result in a new world view which will alter the thoughts, words, and deeds of every individual in a positive direction. As united individuals we shall take charge of our own destiny and fulfill our potential, continuing our progression to perfection in every aspect.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Such are the words of perfected being.

TINNY: It is a great honour to know and speak these truths. I sometimes feel unworthy.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: To be human is to be worthy.

TINNY: It is such a shame that blindness to our reality and purpose has kept us from the realisation of the precious position we hold.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is our task, according to the natural order of things, to overcome this blindness.

TINNY: It makes the word enlightenment very appropriate, doesn't it?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Yes. It is the light we must see, in more ways than one.

TINNY: In the fullest sense, to see the light is to see everything.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is interesting how our discussions can drift from the very concrete, everyday conditions, such as politics, to the most esoteric of the metaphysical considerations.

TINNY: That is the unified theory of existence where all things, no matter how apparently separate and distinct, become clearly connected to and part of each other. All is one and all distinctions are characteristics of the state of mind, not the state of reality.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is hard to see how this enlightened anarchy will ever come to be. In such a world there will be no leaders. There are presently so many leaders and they exercise great control. They seem very unlikely to be influenced by the new world view.

TINNY: The leaders of the world may not relinquish their power and control by choice.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should their control be taken from them by force?

TINNY: If the leaders of the world are removed by force we will be no better off than we are now. The outcome of such an action would bring no better future. Progress cannot be made by the continued use of force. If the leaders cannot be removed without force there is no purpose in removing them.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you think the power and control of the world's leaders will be taken from them?

TINNY: When the new consciousness sweeps through human society the people of every nation will no longer allow themselves to be governed. With no one to be governed the leaders will be stripped of their power and control.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Some of the world's leaders will stop at nothing to maintain their power and control. They would use any amount of force to ensure the continuance of the present situation. They may not allow the world's people to refuse to be governed.

TINNY: It will be a time of great risk. Some world leaders in the death throes of a dying system could be as dangerous as mad dogs. It will be the responsibility of an enlightened society to make this transition as smooth as possible. The leaders of the world will need sympathy and consideration.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will none of the world leaders be among those who understand and accept the new world view? Will none be among the new beings of higher consciousness?

TINNY: Some will, and these enlightened leaders will be very important as the human race struggles to survive.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What will be their main contribution to a successful future?

TINNY: A public acceptance of their new role as members of society equal to but no better than others. They will make decisions for themselves without the desire to continue imposing their will on others.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wouldn't it be good if they used their position to convince those they govern of the rightness of this new world view?

TINNY: It is important that people come to know these truths by their own efforts and desires. These truths cannot be fully known if they are imposed. This new world view must spread by natural means. It must succeed on its own merits, but the enlightened leaders could help by making access to the true knowledge of reality easily available to all.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What means do you think some world leaders and their governments will use to fight against this new world view which threatens to end their power and control?

TINNY: Some will use violence to maintain their position. The structures of society such as the military, the police, and the courts will be used as tools to maintain the present wrong system. The communications media will be used shamelessly to spread propaganda in hopes of maintaining the brainwashed state of the citizens under their control.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean propaganda will be used to convince people this new world view is not true?

TINNY: All governments use propaganda to ensure those under their control see the world in the way that best supports the continuation of the beliefs of the leaders. This brainwashing reaches every aspect of human life. It is virtually impossible to be free from it. Governments that fear the effects of this new consciousness will not only label it as untrue, but may condemn it as wrong and harmful. There might even be attempts by some to make the teaching and dissemination of the truths of this new world view illegal.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that brainwashing by government authorities intrudes upon every aspect of human life. What about all the so-called free nations, those that pride themselves on the freedom of their citizens?

TINNY: No one is free from propaganda and brainwashing. The leaders of the world can be cunning and subtle. We live in a carefully conditioned society. Our purported freedoms are a myth. We are rigidly controlled in thought and deed. It is this which results in so many of the social problems facing the human race. Propaganda and brainwashing are most effective if done in a way that those subject to these manipulations believe themselves free of such influences. One of the reasons I feel so sure that this new world view will soon sweep through human society is that it has been suppressed for so long by the promulgation of a wrong world view which supports the continuation of control by those who hold wealth and power.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is all this propaganda and brainwashing done as part of a deliberate plan to mislead and deceive?

TINNY: This is the oddest thing; many of those responsible for the perpetuation of the wrong world view by propaganda and brainwashing are as unaware of what they are doing as are those who are being brainwashed. Many others who use these unfair methods of social influence do so knowingly, but have no idea the world view they are perpetuating is wrong.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems the influences of propaganda and brainwashing affect the controllers as well as the controlled.

TINNY: The effects of the incorrect world view are most insidious.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you think will happen to governments in the future?

TINNY: One of two things. Either the new consciousness will not arrive in time thereby allowing the present governing systems to put an end to life on our planet, or a worldwide society of new beings will remove the present systems of government to allow each individual to act responsibly through free-will.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Given that the human species does survive, will the shift from the present varied systems of government to a world of enlightened anarchy be a sudden one?

TINNY: There will be a transitional period, but it won't be a long one.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How long do you think it will actually take?

TINNY: A generation or so would not be an unrealistic estimate.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will political philosophies, political parties, and national boundaries disappear early in this period of transition?

TINNY: All of those will linger before they fade away. I expect competing political philosophies will merge and attempt to incorporate the knowledge of the new world view. Political parties and governing bodies will attempt to remain relevant and necessary. National boundaries may well be the first to fall. I wouldn't be surprised if world government comes before no government.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would that be a good step?

TINNY: I think it would be an unnecessary step and it could be a dangerous one.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How so?

TINNY: Imagine the potential for totalitarian control a world government would have. There would be no competing systems to provide an alternative.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You're right. Some of the present nationalistic governments are bad enough.

TINNY: Nationalism is one of those false notions that comes from the wrong world view. As we erroneously learn to consider all things as separate entities, we divide ourselves by arbitrary geographic boundaries and believe our nation and its people to be somehow better and more important than others. It is critical that we learn to see ourselves as a unified human family with an undivided planet as our home. We must learn to accept and appreciate our responsibility for the success and happiness of all other beings on our planet.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So we are truly our brother's keeper.

TINNY: And our sister's keeper.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I meant that too.

TINNY: I know. Besides there is no real difference between brothers and sisters.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What will human society be like with no government and no leaders?

TINNY: I don't think I can answer that question. Even if I could I think it would be better if I didn't.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why shouldn't you say how the world will be after enlightened anarchy replaces governments and leaders?

TINNY: What comes to be in a society of enlightened anarchists must arise naturally from the citizens of that future. I wouldn't want anyone to think my expectations were the way things must be.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you give me a very general idea of how things will be?

TINNY: That should be okay, as long as you realise I make no claim to perfect knowledge of the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Of course you don't. It's your ideas I'm interested in. They will all be based on the unified theory of existence won't they?

TINNY: Oh, yes. My ideas don't just come from nowhere. I try to use the unified theory of existence as a standard by which to better understand all things.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Tell me what will replace government?

TINNY: Nothing will really replace government. Many of the functions of government are unnecessary and serve no purpose other than to maintain their continued existence. In a world where all members of society are truly free to do as they please, governed only by their own high consciousness, some agencies or functions of government will no longer be necessary.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does this mean there will be no military forces, no elections, no police, no jails, no taxes, no regulations, and nothing will be compulsory?

TINNY: All that and much more might be our future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is hard to see how society could function without all the things that are done by governments.

TINNY: The world will be a very different place.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Some things just can't be done by one person acting alone.

TINNY: What made you think people must act alone in the future?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since you have stressed the individualistic quality of an enlightened anarchy it seemed that everyone must act alone.

TINNY: An enlightened anarchy allows everyone total freedom of choice. It is certainly possible for a number of individuals to sometimes choose to act as a group.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wouldn't this necessitate leaders once again?

TINNY: Leaders will never be necessary. If a number of individuals decided to work together to achieve some commonly desired goal there would be certain tasks and functions which must be carried out to achieve that goal. It is the natural requirements of the goal that shall fulfill the position of leadership. After the goal has been achieved the individual members of the group would disband.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It still remains difficult to understand what life will be like when there are no leaders.

TINNY: I think it will be quite sometime until anyone really knows how it will be. If we go on and talk about the many other areas of human social behaviour it may become more clear.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That will be a good way to show the extent of these changes which will become the new world. Go ahead, discuss whatever you choose.

TINNY: Closely related to all forms of government is the military. It is incredible to think how much money, time, energy, and resources go into the military. The expenditure for the various aspects of the military is greater than for any other area of human endeavour.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then it must be considered very necessary.

TINNY: Military spending takes precedence over all other things. Governments would rather have their citizens starve than be weak militarily.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't you think starving people would rather have food than a strong army?

TINNY: I'm positive they would; but I doubt they are ever asked to decide. People who are hungry and homeless are not very powerful so their voice receives little government consideration. It is those with wealth and power who have the most influential voice in the decisions of government. Those with material wealth and power feel they have the most to lose. It is often their fear that results in strong armies being formed to protect that wealth and privilege.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It's not really true that those with material wealth and power have the most to lose.

TINNY: I know, they actually have the most to gain. The loss of their wealth and power would be the best thing that could happen to them.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Few would believe you.

TINNY: Anyway it won't be the armies that take away their wealth and power, so it is not the armies they should fear.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Who should they fear?

TINNY: In reality they should fear no one taking their wealth and power, but as perceived from the present incorrect world view I guess I would have to say they should fear me.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you going to take their material wealth and power?

TINNY: In an indirect way, yes I am.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Getting back to the military, how would you feel living in a country that has an army supposedly protecting you?

TINNY: I would feel very threatened.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You fear those who are to protect you?

TINNY: As long as there are armies there will be wars.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean if there were no armies there would be no wars?

TINNY: It seems silly that such a simple statement can be true, but obviously there can be no wars without military forces.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't you believe military forces can also protect you?

TINNY: All nations have armies they claim are needed for protection. In fact these armies are often called defense forces and the government agencies controlling the military are called departments of defense. The use of opposite words to describe harmful aspects of our society is one of the many ways in which governments mislead their citizens, blinding them from seeing obvious truths.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there no good armies?

TINNY: There are no good military forces. The very nature of military forces is to impose the will of one group on others. Military forces are counter to the progression of humanity toward the greater exercise of free-will.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Virtually every nation has some military forces. What should be done about them?

TINNY: They must be disbanded.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Couldn't that be dangerous?

TINNY: Not so dangerous as it would be to continue to allow armies to exist. Not only can we not have a free world as long as we have armies, we don't even have a future. It is presently the existence of military forces that is one of the greatest threats to the survival of the human species.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There have been wars for thousands of years. Is it possible that the human race is naturally warlike?

TINNY: We could be only called naturally warlike beings because of our history.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Doesn't that mean it may be impossible to disband armies and end wars?

TINNY: It doesn't mean that at all. I say the warlike nature of human beings is natural because it has been a stage in our progression. It is also a natural stage in our progression to transcend that warlike heritage and become beings who are naturally peaceful and loving. We have far too long been bound by the belief that as we have been so shall we always be. We need to expect a peaceful and loving future. We can settle for nothing less and survive.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you feel about all the wars that have occurred?

TINNY: I feel sad that the human race did not realise its most beautiful destiny earlier.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you feel toward those who fought in all these wars? Do you have any anger toward them for all the harm they did and the sorrow they caused

TINNY: I certainly feel no anger toward those who fought in the many wars. I believe all who fought to be deserving of honour. They are heroes not for what wrongs they did, but for the wrongs they suffered.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It may be easy to feel that way about ancient wars which no longer affect us personally, but what about recent wars where those who suffered losses are still alive? Can you say those who were the aggressors should be honoured and were heroes?

TINNY: It is seldom that those who fight the wars are responsible for them. Most who fight are pawns in the hands of their nation's leaders. It is as sad and horrible that the aggressors fight and die as it is for those who were not the aggressors. It is rarely the case where either side is totally blameless of any responsibility for conflict. Those who fight and die are as surely victims of society's ills as those who are innocent victims. There are no winners in any war. What is considered a win is actually a loss misperceived due to a blindness to the true nature of our existence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think there will be another war?

TINNY: I don't know when there has not been a war. I suppose you mean will there be another world war. I must say that as things are at present another world war is eventually almost inevitable.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It would appear then that there is no hope for the future.

TINNY: There is great hope for the future. I said that as things are at the moment another world war is almost inevitable. I believe soon world consciousness will make a great leap and conditions will no longer be as they are now. In that future, peace will be as inevitable as war is at present.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That leap of human consciousness had better come soon or it will be too late.

TINNY: That is a very real worry; that is a very great worry.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What stands in the way of the world's armies being disbanded?

TINNY: There are many obstacles. The rich and powerful who fear to lose their wealth and privilege. Those who desire to impose their way of life upon others. A world economy that is so dependent on the continuation of military expenditure. Those desiring to utilize more than their fair share of the world's resources. All of these are major obstacles. No obstacle though is as great as the failure to understand the true nature of our existence, the progressive development of material form, the purpose of life, and the destiny of the human species.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It will take a great deal of trust to relinquish military strength. Do you think all nations will have to disarm at once for fear of being conquered by those who do not give up military force?

TINNY: I expect a few nations will first see the benefits and necessity of giving up their military forces. After these first brave nations show the success of a peaceful existence the rest will follow soon after. Any nation which makes this critical decision must do so with the unanimous support of its citizens. This will provide a safety factor in that this unanimity will not arise in any one nation until it is close to being reached in all nations.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The wide spread of this new world view which you have described is important to a successful progression to the higher consciousness and a future of peace and love, isn't it?

TINNY: It is of extreme importance. The new world view will only succeed when it becomes universal. In the short term force and aggression can always overcome peace and love. We must, as a united society, come to know and accept these truths of our existence so we can allow peace and love the opportunity to fulfill human destiny.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's true. We cannot be made to give peace and love a chance; we can only by the exercise of our free-will allow peace and love to prevail.

TINNY: It is for this reason that all of humanity must come to know and accept the new world view. The leap to higher consciousness can be held back by a relative few who cannot give up the old, incorrect world view.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Won't it be very difficult to offer this new knowledge to people throughout the world? There are many millions that don't even have a place to live or food to eat. How can you expect them to care about learning?

TINNY: Those living in extreme poverty and hardship should not at first be expected to be attracted to this knowledge. They have too many other immediate problems threatening their lives and families. It will be the responsibility of those who have so much to better the lot of those who have so little. It will be only then that all the peoples of the world can truly and fully share in this knowledge which belongs rightfully to all. Not only will all be able to share in this knowledge of truth, but all will share the glorious destiny which is the birthright of the human race.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you really expect those who possess material wealth to voluntarily assist those who have so little?

TINNY: I'm sure they will do so gladly.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you know how powerfully material wealth affects people? There are those who would kill to attain material wealth and there are those who would die to keep it.

TINNY: How foolish people can be.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't you attracted by material wealth?

TINNY: Not the slightest bit. Not only don't I desire material wealth, but I would try hard not to accumulate material wealth.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why do you have such disdain for material wealth?

TINNY: Because I have seen some of the truth of our existence; I know that material possessions mean less than nothing.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can they be worth less than nothing?

TINNY: By that I mean material wealth does no good but does bring harm.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What harm can material wealth bring?

TINNY: Material wealth blinds those who desire it to the reality of our existence. As the mind dwells on material things it cannot also be focused on that which is spiritual. With the goal of seeking material possessions we cannot also seek the spiritual progression which is our destiny. To seek material gain expends our energies for that which ultimately means nothing, leaving us unable to work to achieve perfection in every aspect. That which binds us to the material plane is defined as evil, that which frees us from the influence of the material world is defined as good.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I suppose you could find more reasons to show that material wealth is harmful?

TINNY: The reasons are innumerable.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If material wealth is so meaningless, even harmful, why is it so universally sought?

TINNY: For the same reason that all social problems exist, we have been blind to the ultimate truths of existence. In a world where the purpose of life is not known purpose is found in other areas. Material wealth feels good. Unless people know better, we will always seek that which feels good.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean when you say material wealth feels good?

TINNY: Material possessions feel good both physically and mentally. Material wealth can buy the things that satisfy the five senses. The rich have always eaten the finest foods, looked at the finest art, worn the finest clothes, smelled the finest perfumes, and listened to the finest music. Material wealth also buys power, it brings the envy of those who have little, and it allows those who possess it to believe they are somehow special.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I can see how when true purpose is unknown those false goals could be of great influence.

TINNY: I can too. If I didn't know the truth of our existence and a better way of life I might very well be among those who desired material gain. I feel very lucky that I have come to know the true purpose of life.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Although from the old, less correct world view material wealth may seem quite satisfying, when seen from the new world view this opulence seems extremely shallow.

TINNY: People who seek material gain can never be satisfied. As I seek progression to the fullest of my ability I am always satisfied.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the possession of material wealth is so harmful shouldn't all people seek poverty?

TINNY: Poverty is perhaps even more harmful to our continued progression than affluence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then what degree of material comfort best aids the progression of humanity?

TINNY: Enough wealth so that we do not suffer from deprivation, but not so much wealth that we suffer from gluttony.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the right path is the middle path.

TINNY: That is true in all things. It is always best to avoid excesses. Too much or too little of most things can be harmful.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Surely you are not proposing mediocrity.

TINNY: Of course not. The middle path is never ordinary.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What then does it mean to follow the middle path?

TINNY: It means to seek a balance of all things. The middle path is the way of harmony. It is when we exist in harmony that we best follow the natural order. To vary from this natural harmony of existence by deficiency or surplus is to put survival at risk.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there some standard of material wealth that would be right for all?

TINNY: The right way for each to fulfill their potential is the middle path. Each individual is at a unique point on the course of progression. The point of perfect balance to achieve harmony with the natural order is therefore different for each individual. What is right for one is not right for all.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should governments work to eliminate poverty and limit wealth?

TINNY: It would be better if people worked to eliminate poverty and limit wealth.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Until people do this on their own wouldn't it be good for governments to take that responsibility?

TINNY: All control by governments puts humanity at risk.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If society were to give up the desire and quest for material wealth would this result in changes in many areas of human life?

TINNY: Virtually every aspect of human existence would be changed in some positive way if we did not place such high value on material wealth.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you say the high value placed on material wealth is the most critical as a cause of human social problems?

TINNY: I believe the quest for material wealth stands as equal to the quest for power as responsible for the many problems facing human society. Both though are secondary to the single overriding cause, which is the blindness to the true nature of existence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As we talk it becomes more clear why the answer to all social problems is the wide dissemination of the knowledge of this new world view. Because we don't know truth we do not have an accurate standard by which to judge our actions. Without those standards our values are determined by false beliefs. Since we didn't know our present world view was incorrect we didn't know that our values were wrong. Since we valued wrong things, our actions, determined by these incorrect values were also wrong. Our wrong actions have led us from harmony with natural law. When harmony with natural law is lost existence is threatened. The many social problems facing the human race are symptoms of this disharmony and show us the severity of the threat.

TINNY: You already knew all that before our discussion began.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Did I? It is often helpful to put well known, even obvious truths into words.

TINNY: To fully know truth one must think it often, say it often, and hear it often.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It will take many experiences with truth to overcome the powerful wrong influences of our past learning history.

TINNY: When truth is known the world will become simple and beautiful. Much of what now seems necessary will fade from existence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The present world is unnecessarily complicated, isn't it?

TINNY: Unbelievably so. When I think of all the wasted time and effort which fills so many lives I can only consider that loss to be a crime against humanity.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is so much time and effort wasted?

TINNY: Because we have no true purpose. What a sad world is one without purpose.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many people believe they have purposeful lives.

TINNY: Many more are just existing. If they have any purpose it is only to seek as much pleasure and avoid as much pain as possible.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is that so wrong?

TINNY: Such a life stands in the way of human destiny being fulfilled.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wouldn't those who live lives of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain say that it is their right to live as they please. The enlightened anarchy you propose would have each person deciding for themselves how to live.

TINNY: An enlightened person would see the wrongness of such a life. Only when the true nature of our existence is known can that high degree of personal freedom exist. We cannot be free to harm others and any person who stands in the way of the progression of humanity harms all others. This is a very important part of the new world view; the realisation that in every action, every word, and even every thought we have a responsibility to all other beings. Our destiny is linked to that of all others. We do not stand alone.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It sounds like you are saying we are not free to act as we choose, only free to act in any manner that is right for all.

TINNY: I know that is a very difficult concept to accept, but it is true. We have discussed this before but it is something that should be considered often. I say that freedom can only be considered within the range of right action. Only right action occurs naturally, meaning in harmony with nature. All wrong action, word, and thought are pushed on us by an imposition of will. We cannot naturally choose to do wrong. Wrong actions come from wrong influences. If we are wrongly influenced then our freedom to act in accord with natural law is taken from us.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But this lack of freedom to act in a right manner which results in wrong action does not remove our responsibility, does it?

TINNY: We remain responsible because it is within our potential to resist wrong influence and exercise our freedom to choose right action. Not only are we responsible for our actions, but we must also accept the consequences of our actions.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is a great burden placed upon the human race to possess the potential to exercise free-will.

TINNY: It is both our heaviest burden and our greatest prize. Without our high level of free-will the human species would be less likely to bring extinction upon itself; but, without this free-will humanity would also not have a godlike existence within reach.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should we feel cursed or blessed?

TINNY: We are definitely blessed not cursed. The blessing bestows on us the potential to achieve perfection in every aspect. That potential is ours regardless of whether or not we choose to make use of it.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We haven't put our free-will to very good use so far.

TINNY: That's true.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There are those who believe this is because the human race is basically evil.

TINNY: That's nonsense. The human race is basically good. It is only the deterministic influences of physical existence which restricts our freedom to perfectly manifest that goodness. To overcome that wrongful influence is our purpose. We are not evil, we are ignorant. When this veil of ignorance is lifted we shall see a golden age.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The Golden Age is in your future.

TINNY: I surely hope so.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As you think about the many social problems facing the world do you think about how you will live your life?

TINNY: I think about it all the time. Since I have come to understand the true nature of existence I use this knowledge to help me know what is right.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You believe in a very definite right and wrong, don't you?

TINNY: I very, very much believe in definite rights and wrongs. I also think that those who believe there are no definite rights and wrongs are thinking so wrongly that they are harming the progression of the human race.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You believe very strongly that you are right.

TINNY: I would say I know I am right. I have enough evidence using the unified theory of existence as a standard to claim to know rather than believe. That is a higher order of possession of truth.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All right, so you know you are right; but you're not positive, are you?

TINNY: I am certain that the probability of being right is extremely high. The probability of this new world view being essentially correct is much higher than any other world view I have ever encountered.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There will be those who will say you are wrong to try to force your beliefs on others.

TINNY: No one should say that. Although I'm quite positive about the truth of my knowledge I would never attempt to force it on others.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I have noticed that when you speak you often use the words 'should' and 'must' when talking about actions, words, and thoughts. Isn't that an attempt to force your views on others?

TINNY: In the first place I never claim any ownership of this new world view. I am just one of many who see the reality of our existence which is there for all to see. This knowledge belongs equally to all so it can't be fairly called my world view. And in the second place the use of the words 'should' and 'must' imply no attempt to force others into anything.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does their use mean?

TINNY: I use the word 'should' to indicate that which is in accord with natural law. The essential characteristic of material existence is to be in harmony with the natural order. I say in all ways we should act in harmony with the natural order. It is only a statement of the nature of our existence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And the word 'must'?

TINNY: I use the word 'must' to indicate those actions which if not taken in accord with natural law would result in dire consequences. Once again this is only a description of our natural relationship with the physical existence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So when you say people should act some way or must do something you don't mean that they have to?

TINNY: I never mean that. It's not my place to tell people what they have to do. I am only using those terms to help explain the nature and consequences of our existence. I think it is perfectly acceptable to say what is right.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But almost everyone thinks they know what is right. Isn't this just a matter of opinion?

TINNY: Right is not at all a matter of opinion; right is a matter of natural law. Here again I must stress that when I speak of right I mean that which is supported by a predominance of evidence. I would never say anything was right unless it was in accord with the knowledge contained in the unified theory of existence. It is this knowledge that provides a standard by which to determine right and wrong. Opinion is not important; truth should be approached in an objective manner. Truth must exist beyond personal need or desire.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying that opinion is usually influenced by personal needs and desires rather than objective truth?

TINNY: That is largely true.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm going to ask you a difficult question. Do people have the right to hold wrong beliefs?

TINNY: That's not such a difficult question. The answer is no. No one has the right to hold wrong beliefs.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You could shock a lot of people with your answer. Don't you believe in human rights?

TINNY: I believe in the total freedom of every individual. There is only one way for people to be able to exercise that complete freedom and that is to perfectly know truth. To hold wrong beliefs limits freedom. I cannot accept our right to anything less than complete freedom, so I cannot accept that anyone has the right to hold wrong beliefs.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What right does each individual truly have?

TINNY: When one is completely free there is no right which does not exist.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The human race must then be far from completely free since most of the world's population is struggling to get even the most basic human rights.

TINNY: That lack of human rights is also the responsibility of the rich and the powerful. Just as great wealth for a few can only exist because of the poverty of many, great power for a few can only exist because of the lack of freedom and rights of the majority. We can never achieve our grand human destiny while even one person is denied full human rights.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let me ask a few specific questions about human rights.

TINNY: Fine.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are all people equal?

TINNY: It depends on what you mean by equal. In no human skill, trait or characteristic are any two people completely equal. Individual differences exist in every aspect of human existence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It sounds like there is no equality.

TINNY: True, there is no equality on the material plane of existence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If that is so what equality is there among human beings?

TINNY: Each individual is entitled to an equal share of the full human heritage. This includes all past and present human achievement plus all future potential. All this is part of our essential nature. It is the essential nature of each individual that has complete equality.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If I understand you correctly, you are saying there is no true equality among physical beings. Our true equality exists only beyond the material plane. Physically none are equal, spiritually all are equal.

TINNY: That's more or less what I'm saying.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does each individual have equal worth?

TINNY: When there is true equality there is equal worthiness. The essential nature of each individual has equal worth. Where there is no true equality as is the case with physical beings, the worth of each individual is not equal.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What makes one physical being of greater value than another?

TINNY: Just as the nature of good and evil is determined by the relative ability to enhance the progression of material existence or to inhibit the progression of material existence so is the relative worth of each individual judged. An individual who aids the quest for perfection has greater value to the progression of the species than an individual who restricts the quest for perfection.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If different individuals possess varying worth, are all still deserving of the same rights?

TINNY: If you mean are all entitled to the rights granted by governments or organisations then all people, regardless of their level of progression, are deserving of equal treatment. Natural rights are different though. The higher the level of consciousness, and the more one aids the progression toward perfection, the greater is the entitlement to the natural rights.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is this fair?

TINNY: It must be fair because this is the way according to the natural order. It can be no other way.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But we live in an age which seeks equality for all.

TINNY: A nice sounding sentiment, but it just isn't our reality. Actually this modern egalitarianism is quite harmful.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can that be?

TINNY: In many ways. It blinds us to the truth of important individual differences. It seeks to exalt the average over the excellent and in doing so virtually puts a halt to the progression of the human species. It limits personal achievement. It gives equal credence to the voice of the knowledgeable and of the ignorant. Quality is lost in all human achievement.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm sure you have many more examples of the harm that comes from the false belief in human equality. I wonder, though, if you are being a little hard on those below average.

TINNY: Oh, I'm not. There is no shame in being below average and it is no credit to being above the average. These are just positions which we all occupy in the natural scheme of things.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say there is no shame in being below average but you also say those below average are of less worth and are entitled to fewer natural rights.

TINNY: I see how that sounds bad. I'd better explain what I meant. This consideration of a persons worth refers only to their contribution to the overall progression of humanity. The greater the contribution the greater the worth.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do people have value beyond that?

TINNY: We each have an essential worth. This is each person's value as a unique individual human being. In this we are all equal.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If one person makes a greater contribution to humanity's progression than another wouldn't they be entitled to a greater share of all society has to offer; wealth, power, fame?

TINNY: No. A person making a large contribution is deserving of no more than one who makes a small contribution.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's not the way things are usually done.

TINNY: It's the right way. The amount any individual contributes to the progression of the human species is determined by many factors, most of them beyond the control of the contributor. We all contribute something to this progression, and besides so-called rewards such as wealth, power, and fame are strange things to offer as a reward for aiding the developmental progression of human consciousness.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why do you call them strange rewards? They are very common.

TINNY: They're very common all right, but they are exactly the things that stand in the way of our progression. It is our destiny to overcome material attachments. The worst thing to offer someone who is aiding in the progression of the human species is something that will limit that progress.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But aren't such things as wealth, power, and fame the things that most often motivate people to high achievement?

TINNY: Unfortunately, this is true in many areas which we generally consider to be achievement, but those are not often achievements in the sense of aiding the progression of humanity. Usually those whose achievements are of greatest benefit to the progression of human consciousness do not do so for wealth, power, and fame.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What motivates them then?

TINNY: It is the knowledge of the true nature of existence that motivates these people. Those who know our true purpose and potential have a burning inner desire to do all they can to help bring about our grand destiny.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Getting back to human rights, you say some rights are determined by each individual's level of progression and that this is a natural occurrence of physical existence.

TINNY: That's right. Certain things, perhaps better called opportunities than rights only become available when a certain level of development is reached.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you give me an example?

TINNY: For example, freedom. The greater the degree of material progression the greater the degree of freedom allowed. This is true of both the development of physical form and of consciousness. An atom can do more than a sub-atomic particle; a molecule can do more than an atom; a biological life form can do more than a molecule; and a human being can do more than a biological life form. Within the stage of human consciousness there is also variation. The lower the level of consciousness the greater the natural restriction. The higher the consciousness the greater the natural freedom. When consciousness becomes perfected absolute freedom is achieved.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's quite clear. How about other human rights, those which are not dependent on the degree of progression but are instead determined by our society.

TINNY: If these 'rights' are determined by society through laws, rules, and other social influences then every individual is deserving of complete equality.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does this mean men and women are entitled to complete equality?

TINNY: Definitely.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does this mean people of all colours are entitled to complete equality?

TINNY: Also, definitely.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And does this mean people of all ages are entitled to complete equality?

TINNY: Most definitely. No one who sees the true nature of existence could possibly justify discriminating between men and women, between the different races, or on the basis of age. Such differences have no meaning beyond the material plane. Male and female bodies, bodies of all colours and bodies of all ages house an identical range of conscious beings. The differences only exist on the material plane.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why has there been such inequality in the application of human rights? Men have prevailed over women, white people have prevailed over the coloured peoples, and adults have prevailed over children.

TINNY: This is one of the many evils of power. Men had more power than women and so subjugated them. White people through greater technological and economic power subjugated the coloured peoples. And adults with more power than children did subjugate them.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is power always evil?

TINNY: Power when used to dominate is always evil. Power can also be used to allow greater freedom, but seldom is. Power if used to increase freedom is good, just as material wealth if used to further the progression of the natural order is good.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In many ways men still have more rights than women; whites more rights than coloured races; and adults more rights than children.

TINNY: It will be so until the new world view prevails over the old.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't things changing already?

TINNY: They are and that is because world consciousness is fast on the rise. Equality cannot be given, it must be taken.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Taken by force?

TINNY: Oh, no. Equality is taken by the realisation of equality. Women have come to realise their full equality with men and so cannot be denied. Coloured peoples are coming to realise their full equality with whites and so will not be denied. Children have not yet realised their full equality with adults and so are still denied their full equality.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Children have a long way to go to achieve equality, don't they?

TINNY: A very long way.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are children really capable of accepting equality? Equality is a great responsibility.

TINNY: When men held power over women it was said this was right because women were not capable of making their own choices and looking after themselves. Women believed this also and this belief served as a very powerful barrier to the equality of women. Now it is obvious that women are as capable as men. When the white race held power over the coloured races it was said this was right because coloured people were not capable of making their own choices and looking after themselves. This was believed by the coloured peoples also and this belief served as a very powerful barrier to the equality of the coloured races. Now it is obvious that coloured people are as capable as white people.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'll finish that for you. And adults, still holding power over children, say this is right because children are not capable of making their own choices and looking after themselves. Children also believe this to be true and this belief serves as a very powerful barrier to the equality of children.

TINNY: You took the words right out of my mouth.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: No, I took the words right out of your mind.

TINNY: Then they were already yours.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You'll notice I didn't say that it is now obvious that children are as capable as adults to finish your analogy.

TINNY: You were right not to. It is not yet obvious that children are as capable as adults.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are they really that capable?

TINNY: Children are much more capable than is presently believed.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That must be so.

TINNY: When we all believe in the capabilities of children then children will be more capable. The potential of children to make right decisions and take care of themselves has never been fulfilled because they have never been given the opportunity to realise that potential.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There must be some limit to the age when a child deserves full equality. There are physical and mental limits.

TINNY: All people deserve full equality; all people deserve full human rights.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How young do you really mean when you say children should have full equality and rights?

TINNY: The moment they are conceived.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's an unusual answer.

TINNY: I know it is. I can support it if you want me to.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Maybe you won't need to. Let's go on. What can be done to make up for all the inequality of the past? Should women, coloured people, and children be given extra rights now to make up the losses?

TINNY: Making the previously less equal now the more equal is not the way to achieve equality. The best way is the true acceptance of the full equality according to natural law in all things for both sexes, all races, and all ages.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is that enough? It seems like very little to give for all the wrongs that have been done through inequality.

TINNY: There is no way to right the wrongs of the past, they must forever remain in the past. They must be acknowledged then transcended. It is equality from the present and for all the future that is the quest. The full acceptance of the equality of all is no small prize. It will be enough to insure a future of true equality.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Being a girl, have you ever felt anything less than equal to all men?

TINNY: Never once. It's hard for me to conceive of how someone could really think women were in any way less than equals of men. I think it's at least equally unbelievable that anyone could think skin colour could make a person less than equal.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you think about differences in skin colour?

TINNY: All physical characteristics vary over some range; it would be strange if skin colour didn't also vary. I like individual differences. I think it's nice there are different skin colours.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you happy with the colour of your skin?

TINNY: As with all skin colours it has some good things about it and some things that are not so good. Overall, though, I like it. I think it's a pretty colour.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think so too.

TINNY: Do you like your skin colour?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: My skin is all colours.

TINNY: Oh.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you glad you're a girl?

TINNY: I'd be happy to be either a boy or a girl, but since I am a girl I'm glad I am.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you have a boyfriend?

TINNY: No, I've never even met a boy.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You haven't?

TINNY: You're the first person I've ever met, except for my parents.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?

TINNY: Well, it's very secluded up here, we don't have any visitors. I could go with my parents when they go to the city but I've never wanted to.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't you want to see the rest of the world and meet other people?

TINNY: Some day I would probably like to do that. Right now I want to continue my development without those influences.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I can't argue with that. You're obviously a very wise and mature little girl. Actually I don't think there would be many adults as wise and mature as you.

TINNY: So perhaps children are capable.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Good point.

TINNY: Even though I have not seen the world and have never met a lot of people I think I know quite well how the world is and how people are.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You certainly seem to.

TINNY: Do you want to know how I know so much about life?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You don't need to tell me. I know how you do it.

TINNY: Why did you ask me if I had a boyfriend?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I was going to ask you some questions about personal relationships. You don't mind do you?

TINNY: Not at all. You can ask me anything. Even though I've never met any boys I've thought a lot about them. Even if I knew any boys I wouldn't have a boyfriend.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why not?

TINNY: I'd like to be a bit older before I had a boyfriend. It would be okay to have a boy who was a friend but not as a boyfriend. I think the sexual nature of male-female relationships is of extreme importance in the future progression of the human species so even though I've never had a boyfriend I've given it a great deal of consideration.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does it bother you to discuss sexual matters?

TINNY: Not at all. It's just a natural part of life.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is sex an important part of the progression of humanity? Is it just because of the necessity to reproduce future generations?

TINNY: Sex certainly has that great and important role; but it is also one of the greatest hurdles that the human race must face as we strive to achieve our destiny.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How is sex an obstacle which must be overcome?

TINNY; Because of the biological strength of the sex drive and the role sexual behaviour has been given in society we are very strongly bound to sexual gratification. As we progress we must forsake those aspects of human existence that bind us to the material plane. Just as we must realise the false benefits of wealth and power and give up those long standing human desires to fulfill our destiny, we must also come to realise the false benefits of sexual pleasure.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think you might be asking a lot.

TINNY: I ask for nothing. I am only describing the necessities of continued natural progression.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What should be done about human sexual behaviour? Obviously it can't come to a sudden halt or the human race will soon cease to exist.

TINNY: Sexual pleasure is an evil in that it binds us to the material plane. As I described the true nature of good and evil I had to acknowledge that even eating and drinking were also evil. We have not yet reached a level of existence where we no longer must eat and drink to survive, so we should continue to eat and drink. We have not yet reached a level of existence where we no longer must reproduce to continue the species, so we should continue as sexual beings.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As I understand your earlier explanation of good and evil when you say such things as eating, drinking, and sex are evil you are referring to evil from the absolute perspective.

TINNY: That's right. When viewed from beyond the material plane all things that bind us to the physical existence are evil. But from the relative point of view since we could not survive as a species without food, drink or sex then those things can be good in that they aid our progression. From this relative perspective all things to us have a good and evil aspect. We should always attempt to maximise the good aspect and minimise the evil aspect.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it minimise the evil aspects of eating, drinking, and sex if while engaged in them one experienced no pleasure?

TINNY: No, that would be a strange way to try and minimise the evil aspect. It is not the experience of pleasure which is presently the difficulty. It is the purpose of the pleasure. If we eat to enjoy the taste then it is evil, even from the relative point of view. We should eat to nourish our bodies. If food that well nourishes our bodies is also enjoyable to eat that is good. If we have sexual experiences to enjoy the pleasurable sensation then that is evil, even from the relative point of view. Our sexual experience should be of a nature that furthers our individual and social progression. If sexual experiences which further our individual and social progression also are pleasurable that is good.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's all pretty general. Would you be more specific?

TINNY: Ask me specific questions.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying sex should only be for reproduction?

TINNY: I didn't mean that. At this point in human development very little sexual behaviour should be for reproduction.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are the ways in which sexual behaviour furthers our individual and social progression?

TINNY: Of course reproduction is the most important role of sexual experience. The other important role of sexual behaviour is in creating the strong emotional bond between males and females. This bond is necessary to create a warm, loving, and permanent family unit so that new beings brought into the world can be nurtured in the best environment possible so they can mature having been given fullest opportunity to reach the limits of their potential.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's only two reasons for the sexual experience. Aren't there more?

TINNY: Not that I know of.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those are very unselfish reasons. They are both really for the children, for the future generations.

TINNY: Sex for the self alone has no purpose. It may give great physical pleasure, but that pleasure without good purpose is harmful.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: A lot of people won't agree with you.

TINNY: That doesn't change reality.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So sex for pleasure alone is no good?

TINNY: It is very harmful to the progression of the individual and the species.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But sex for the purposes of reproduction or to create and maintain that special bond between a man and a woman within the family unit can be pleasurable.

TINNY: It can, and should, be exquisitely pleasurable.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about sex outside the family, perhaps between lovers or even friends?

TINNY: Sex should only be between men and women who have come to know and care for each other well enough to commit to a permanent future together.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: No exceptions?

TINNY: None.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I notice you said sex should only be between men and women. What about homosexuals and lesbians?

TINNY: Sex between two men or between two women is quite wrong.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?

TINNY: It is against the natural order. Sex between people of the same sex cannot fulfill the two necessary conditions which further the progression of the individual and the species.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it wrong for two men or two women to love each other?

TINNY: All love between people is good. Love can never be evil; but sex is not love, and sex if not for either of its two true purposes can be evil. There should be no limit to the affection between men or between women. That love is a beautiful thing, but that beauty is destroyed by attempting to include the sexual experience in this affection.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm sure there are homosexuals and lesbians who believe their sexual relationships to be very beautiful.

TINNY: I'm sure there are. You know my answer to that.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You're quite sure of your views aren't you?

TINNY: Quite sure, but I want you to understand I am saying these things are right only because of an objective reality I have come to understand. Those who do not yet know these truths may believe differently.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you feel about people who engage in what you know is wrong sexual behaviour? For example how do you feel towards homosexuals and lesbians?

TINNY: No differently than I feel toward anyone else. I accept all people. No one is perfect and it certainly isn't my place to condemn others for their imperfections.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you tell a homosexual or lesbian that their sexual relationships were wrong?

TINNY: Only if we knew each other well enough, and they knew I was speaking with love and concern for them. It would be a very difficult thing to do. All sexual relationships whether right or wrong are a very important part of each person's life. New perceptions of truth and changes in this delicate area should always be approached very gently.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do any types of sexual behaviour offend you?

TINNY: As I just said, my understanding of right and wrong is objectively determined by what I know of the true nature of our reality. Only if one or both of the partners was being exploited or harmed, or if the sexual behaviour was against the natural order would I be offended. It isn't really so much what people do with each other that bothers me, only whether or not what people do is harmful to their continued progression or to the progression of humanity.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean that if instead of being harmful to humanity's progression homosexual behaviour had proved beneficial to humanity you would find it acceptable?

TINNY: Sure. I would accept anything that was in accord with the natural order and of benefit to the continued progression of humanity.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That seems fair enough. Since you understand human sexuality from the perspective of the new world view you might have made decisions for your own life.

TINNY: I wouldn't neglect anything so important.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you tell me what your plans for that part of your life are?

TINNY: Well, I already told you I wouldn't want a boyfriend until I was older.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But you're still a child.

TINNY: Pairing up as boyfriend and girlfriend happens at very early ages sometimes. It seems that it is happening younger all the time.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't you think this is a good idea?

TINNY: I don't. I think it is important to get to know many different people of the same sex and the opposite sex without the kinds of restrictions which come from pairing off too young.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You said earlier that sex should be between permanently paired men and women; does this mean you would, when you get older, have no sexual relationship with your boyfriend?

TINNY: I definitely wouldn't have any sexual relationships at all until I had met someone, knew him well, and cared for him enough to enter into a permanent relationship.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would your physical relationship with a boyfriend be like? I hope you don't mind me asking so personal a question?

TINNY: Of course not. I know exactly what would be right for me. Until I met someone and developed a permanent relationship I would feel all right to hold hands, hug, and at times of meeting or parting kiss on the cheek.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's not very much.

TINNY: I think it's a lot. It's not how much you do but the meaning it has. Those things would have great meaning for me.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would that be enough to satisfy your boyfriend?

TINNY: I wouldn't have a boyfriend who did not share my understanding of the true nature of our existence. If he understood this new world view he would be fully satisfied because he would share the great beauty of such a relationship.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What if even knowing these new truths he still tried to get you to go further than you thought right. People do have strong physical desires you know.

TINNY: I know they do and I am no different. It's just that I see the value, even the necessity, of not being bound by those physical desires. I would not go further in the physical relationship no matter how my boyfriend tried. There is too much at stake to throw it all away to satisfy a young boy's lust.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What if he told you that you could no longer be his girlfriend unless you gave in to his wishes?

TINNY: If he really meant that I would say goodbye. No boyfriend is much better than a wrong boyfriend.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You were very specific about what was acceptable to you in a physical relationship. Why was it that a kiss on the cheek is all right? I suppose that means no kissing on the lips.

TINNY: I was able to be very specific because I have considered all this in great detail. I had to find some specific dividing line between what was right for me and what went beyond the bounds of right. I decided to set that limit at cheek kissing. I don't think it would have been wrong to set the limit at a kiss on the lips; but affectionate kissing on the lips could easily become passionate, intimate kissing, while this is much less likely with cheek kissing.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There is a lot of logic in your planning.

TINNY: That is the way of the new world view.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it just because you don't want to get caught up in the material pleasures that you set such definite limits in your physical relationships?

TINNY: There is always that of course. I try to be moderate in all things since I constantly strive to free myself from the constraints of material existence. There are other real good reasons why I am saving certain aspects of my life to share with the one man whom I eventually form a permanent new family with.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Some of your values sound very old fashioned.

TINNY: I don't mind. Not all that is old fashioned is bad; some old values will remain forever good. I think there is a difference though. I make my own choices based on my knowledge of truth; I am not forced into any certain morality.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The notion of a girl saving herself for her mate is considered outmoded by many.

TINNY: There are many reasons for that, and most of them are not very nice reasons. Besides, it's just as important for boys as for girls to save certain aspects of their lives to share with their permanent mates.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you don't believe in a double standard?

TINNY: That it was ever thought there could be a different standard for men and women was very foolish.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are your other good reasons why you are saving certain aspects of your life to share with your permanent mate?

TINNY: The intimate sexual part of life is so precious and powerful that I wouldn't want to waste it in the search for physical pleasure. And also, I can think of nothing more romantic and erotic than sharing these things only with my permanent mate, both of us never having known, and never to know, these special experiences with any other outside our family unit.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You are a beautiful person.

TINNY: There are other reasons also. They have to do with relationships with other people. I would like to know that boys I know before I pair off permanently care about me and not just the physical pleasure I can give them. If we share affection but not passion I can know this. And besides, I expect I might know quite a few nice boys before I find the right one for a permanent relationship. I would like to keep some of these friendships for a lifetime. If the physical relationship hadn't passed beyond a kiss on the cheek then there would not be the sexual jealousy and tension that could easily stand in the way of these continued friendships. I would feel much better about the continued friendships of my permanent mate with his past girlfriends also, if they had been of affection not passion.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I couldn't argue with any of these things. You are right.

TINNY: I think life like that would be very beautiful, would allow a lot more love, and cause a lot less sorrow.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many will think you naive.

TINNY: I'm not you know.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I know well that you are not naive, you are innocent. To be naive is to be blind to the truth, to be innocent is to be open to the truth.

TINNY: I hope to always remain innocent.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You will. I have some other questions. I notice when you talk about forming a permanent relationship you never use the term marriage. And you talk about permanent mates, not husbands and wives.

TINNY: Marriage has unfortunately come to have little meaning. All that exists in a permanent pairing to form a new family does not need the word marriage to describe it. I'm not talking about social and legal contracts, but about the essential relationship of men and women forming permanent new families to bring new beings into the world and nurture them well. This relationship is so basic it almost doesn't need a name. It certainly doesn't require anyone's permission to be allowed, or a piece of paper to say that it exists.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should there be any ceremony to mark the beginning of the new family?

TINNY: It isn't that a ceremony is actually necessary, but the forming of this lifetime pairing is such an important event that it would be very nice if it was marked by a ceremony. I also think it is right if the forming of these permanent bonds is proclaimed to the community.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If there is a ceremony should it be a religious one?

TINNY: Any ceremony of such a sacred event in people's lives is by its nature very religious.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are these permanent ties between a man and a woman only to bring new beings into the world?

TINNY: The essential purpose of these family bonds is to enable the partners to most fully realise the potential of their developmental progression. Often as part of this progression the couple will bear children; but for various reasons some of these new families will not participate in that particular part of human progression.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If bearing children is not to be part of the bond between a man and a woman is this pairing still a worthwhile part of life?

TINNY: Families are always worthwhile. Children are nice but not necessary for the happiness and success of the family.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you think of birth control methods? Do you think it is all right for families to choose whether or not to bear children?

TINNY: I think it is fine for paired men and women to choose when they want to bring new beings into the world.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think all methods of birth control are acceptable?

TINNY: I think all methods of birth control that are natural and cause no harm to either partner are acceptable.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you feel about abortion?

TINNY: It is wrong. Abortion takes life from a newly created being.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many are fighting for the right to abortion.

TINNY: People fight for all sorts of wrong reasons.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't it a woman's right to choose whether or not to give birth?

TINNY: It is a woman's right to choose whether or not she becomes pregnant. Once a woman is pregnant she does not have the right to choose whether or not to give birth.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many women don't have a chance to exercise what you say is their right to choose whether or not to become pregnant.

TINNY: I know they don't. Women should be fighting for that right, not for abortion. It is a major wrong of the world that many women get pregnant for reasons other than by choice.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think that every woman who becomes pregnant must give birth?

TINNY: That is a difficult question. I know there are sometimes circumstances that make the prospect of giving birth unbearable or dangerous to the pregnant woman. In those situations abortion remains wrong, but I couldn't say it should never be allowed. I would say quite definitely that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. The life of a newly created being is sacred. There are certain things human society cannot accept and continue to survive. The casual acceptance of abortion is one of these things.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is abortion wrong no matter how early in the pregnancy it occurs?

TINNY: Yes. Virtually the instant the egg is fertilised by the sperm the potential for a unique new being is created. For many natural reasons this new being may fail to survive, just as at any age circumstances may arise that take life. This earliest period of development is when the life of the new being is most fragile. It is wrong thinking to believe that life is any less real or important at some early period before birth. The less ability a new being has to survive without assistance the greater the responsibility of others to help that individual to survive.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: During that earliest period after conception the developing new being has none of the characteristics we usually associate with human life. At this point the new being is a grouping of cells with no organs, brain or human form. There would be no emotions, thoughts or even feeling. Why is it that at this point abortion is so wrong? Can you really call this the taking of a human life?

TINNY: It is in the potential of the combined genetic material that a unique new being is created. It is at the moment of conception when the exchange of chromosomes takes place that some shared grouping of characteristics of the mother and father creates a new living organism. That living organism is a complete human being just as at any other point in the development of the individual. An infant one day after birth is not as fully developed and capable as an adult, but is not considered any less of a true human being. At the moment after conception the newly formed being is not as fully developed and capable as an infant one day after birth, but should not be considered any less of a true human being.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I fully accept what you say.

TINNY: This is a further issue of human rights. Children have had fewer rights than adults because they have little power. Newly conceived beings have been given virtually no rights because they are so totally powerless. It is critical to the future of humanity that we correct this wrong.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You believe very much in moral right, don't you?

TINNY: I do have very strong moral views. The development of moral values has been an important part of human envolution. Right now the human race is going through a very difficult period in respect to moral values.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?

TINNY: For thousands of years morality was handed down by authority. Political and religious leaders determined the moral values to be accepted by those under their power. It is only very recently in human history that responsibility for moral values has fallen upon the individual. Human society at present is like a child out from under the control of an authoritarian parent. Having not internalised the parent's value system, only having acquiesced to it, the child runs wild, exploring beyond the limits, unable to know when to stop. Children in this situation often do great harm to themselves and to others. Human society having internalised few permanent values now runs wild, doing great harm to individuals and to the social whole.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it that society has not been able to internalise these values after thousands of years?

TINNY: It is because of the way we learn. Since the moral values of the world were imposed by authority and maintained by threat many were not positively attracted to them. At times when these moral values were well understood as reasonable and punishment for transgression was scarce there has been a much wider acceptance of a common morality. In times of strict control there were always some seeking to escape this control and often did so by attacking the basis by which the morality was deemed reasonable. We have recently come out of a period of very authoritarian control and seemingly have, through the greatly expanded knowledge of modern philosophy, technology, and science, many available means to attack the basis of the long standing moral values. If for these thousands of years we had not had this morality imposed on us, but instead had been positively influenced by this value system we would not resent and fight against these values but would have internalised them, believe in them, and live by them.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you explain how modern philosophy and science have provided a means to attack and weaken the basis behind the longstanding value systems of human society.

TINNY: The basis behind much of the morality that has for so long been imposed on humanity has been the belief in God. God's Will has been the basis for determining what is right and wrong, the essence of all value systems. This morality needed not to be proven by any earthly means since God's word could not be questioned. If God did exist then this morality was reasonable and right; but if God did not exist then this morality had no foundation. Until a few hundred years ago it was not unusual for things to be accepted as true without proof; but after the beginning of the so-called scientific revolution, proof increasingly became necessary to justify belief. Early in human history the existence of God was not widely questioned; but in the past few hundred years people have increasingly demanded that to justify a belief in God, God's existence must be proven. As it turned out the proof of God's existence, at least proof through scientific methods, was not immediately forthcoming. Instead science proved a number of accepted religious truths to be quite wrong. The long accepted beliefs of the nature of the universe and the creation of humankind were dismissed as primitive mythology. Philosophy made strong attacks on the long held belief in absolute truths and therefore absolute values. The belief that everything was relative superseded the belief that absolutes existed. In due course the belief in the existence of God waned. It reached the point where modern philosophers proclaimed "God is dead", a statement indicative of the coming widespread atheism.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you think of the atheist's position?

TINNY: In modern times the philosophical and scientific justification for atheism has been extremely powerful. If I had not come to understand reality through this new world view we have been discussing I'm sure I would have been an atheist. Atheism's strong appeal was to the logical mind, whereas God's appeal was to the emotions.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The basis of atheism has recently lost its influence hasn't it?

TINNY: It has, although many don't realise it yet. As it turns out modern science and philosophy tell us that God exists, absolutes exist, and many traditional values and morality turn out to be right. It is paradoxical that the very tools, science and philosophy, that first gave atheism its credence have now become the tools that will strip atheism of its acceptance as a reasonable belief system.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would you have done if as you came to know the true nature of existence you had found that the existence of God, absolute truths, and a definite morality had all proven false?

TINNY: I would have had no choice but to accept that reality. I would probably have become a hedonist seeking out the pleasures of this material world. Without God, absolute truths, and a definite morality the world would lack purpose. It would be a sad world. I'm very glad truth is as it is. We don't yet have a happy world, but at least the potential exists.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you sure you would have become a hedonist?

TINNY: Maybe not. Seeking physical pleasures would probably not be satisfying to me. If it had turned out that God did not exist I might have resorted to faith and maintained a belief in God regardless of the evidence or I could have claimed I was an agnostic, one who did not know whether or not God existed.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How would that help?

TINNY: I've always been surprised by those who claim to be agnostics. Most agnostics say that because they cannot prove that God exists they will not accept the existence of God. That's not logical. Even if I couldn't prove whether or not God existed I would accept the existence of God until it was proven otherwise.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why would you do that?

TINNY: Because it would be the logical thing to do. If God exists, then there are absolute truths and right values. If one did not live in accord with these truths one might never receive the rewards of right living; but if God didn't exist it wouldn't really matter how one lived. When deciding logically how to live one would come out for the better only by acting as if God does exist. This is because if God really does exist, by acting in accord with God's will one would receive the benefits offered by God, but would come out much the worse if acting in opposition to God's will. Even if God didn't exist, since it then wouldn't really matter how one lived, there would be no loss in acting as if God did exist, and perhaps some gains.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you explain that a bit more simply?

TINNY: If you live as if God exists you can't lose whether God exists or not. If you live as if God does not exist there would be no problem only if God really didn't exist, but you would be in serious trouble if God does exist. Therefore, as an agnostic, it would be most logical to accept that God does exist unless proven otherwise. If that is done then you can't go wrong. If you were to do as most agnostics do and refuse to accept the existence of God until proven, then you could go wrong.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: A very interesting insight.

TINNY: Anyway a world with God is so much nicer than a world without God. I'm glad reality does include God.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So am I.

TINNY: It makes me very happy to share my life with God.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What role do you think religion has in human life?

TINNY: I think religion has a different role in each individual's life. Since each of us has a unique spirit we each have a different relationship with perfected being.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you define religion?

TINNY: Religion refers to our relationship to absolute existence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean God?

TINNY: I see no difference between the word 'God' and the terms 'perfected being' or 'absolute existence'.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does it surprise you that there are so many different religions in the world?

TINNY: It surprises me that there are neither many less nor many more.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean by that?

TINNY: Because of the unique personal nature of each individual's relationship with God I would expect either one religion which allowed sufficient freedom to accommodate all these different relationships or I would expect as many religions as there are people in the world.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which would be best?

TINNY: There would be no real difference between the two.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How many different religions would you say there are in the world at present?

TINNY: Do you mean major religions different in basic theological beliefs, or do you mean religious sects varying only in interpretation of a shared basic theology? Actually I don't think I could give you an accurate number for either.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Give me a very rough estimate of each.

TINNY: There are perhaps a dozen or so different major religions and many thousand different religious sects.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Have you ever belonged to any particular religion?

TINNY: I consider myself a member of most of them.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think your membership would be welcomed by members of these various religions?

TINNY: Perhaps not, at least not yet.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean you expect to be welcomed in the future?

TINNY: There is a unity of all things. As the unity of all religions is realised I would expect to become more accepted by all religions.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As it is now, I think most religions would consider you to be a heretic.

TINNY: Since a heretic is a professed believer who holds religious opinions contrary to those accepted by their church I would have to accept that word as describing me. No matter what the present religion, my world view would in some area conflict with the accepted beliefs of that religion.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think it all right to be a heretic?

TINNY: Heretics provide a very vital service. They keep dogma from obscuring truth.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But heretics aren't always right.

TINNY: No, they're not, but they help keep minds open to truth when it is presented. Not only religions, but organisations of all types need heretics.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can heretics cause harm?

TINNY: Certainly, they can lead others from the path of truth.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Heretics have had a great influence on the development of religions, haven't they?

TINNY: Most religious sects and some of the world's major religions began through the influence of heretics.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: These people who changed the religious history of the world weren't called heretics were they?

TINNY: They were more often called prophets by those who believed in them.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you briefly explain the course of human religious progression?

TINNY: You don't ask for much. It will have to very brief.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There are certain essential truths which stand out most clearly in a brief overview.

TINNY: The earliest religious beliefs would have been 50,000 or more years ago. Perhaps even much more. Early humans as they became aware of certain characteristics of nature would have sought to understand them. Such aspects of nature as birth, growth, life, death, success, failure, the seasons, the sun, and the moon would have aroused curiosity, probably created awe. These natural occurrences were great mysteries and no obvious explanation was then available. Explanations of these aspects of nature, so much a part of the lives of early humans, were reasonably attributed to unseen causes. All things which were known could be seen to be caused, therefore something or someone unseen was causing these unexplainable natural events. From this logic early humans came to know spirits and gods. As these spirits and gods were believed to exercise great power over natural events, including life and death, it was only reasonable that those early humans did fear these powers. Ceremonies developed to acknowledge humankind's relationship with the gods, to express fear, show respect, beseech, and appease. Those who best seemed to understand the nature of existence took roles as priests attending to the necessary duties in relation to the gods. These priests found themselves in positions of great power because of their association with the might of the gods. Priestly hierarchies developed to pass on their arcane knowledge, keeping nature's truths from the minds of the common people and ensuring the continuation of their position and power. As civilisation developed the priesthood maintained a close link with the ruling class. The priesthood developed into a large, rich, and powerful elite in these new societies. During the earliest stages of religion humans were still very primitive, barbaric beings. Power and violence was the normal way of life. Those in power were often ruthless and vengeful. For this reason gods, as the most powerful beings, were also believed to be most ruthless and vengeful. Gods were to be feared. Gods would kill. Gods would take revenge. Gods would also destroy the enemy and place their riches into the hands of favoured believers. Gods demanded sacrifices of wealth, obedience, and lives, both animal and human. During these many thousand early years of religion there were a number of great thinkers. In their attempt to better understand God's nature and humankind's place in the great plan of life they came to know ethics and morality beyond that of their more animalistic ancestors. This early morality was still very harsh. The concept of an eye for an eye was a major advance in morality. Earlier whoever held sufficient power could freely extract disproportionate revenge. The slightest insult could justify death as retaliation. The doctrine of an eye for an eye is an acknowledgment that the punishment should be proportional to the crime. As religious thinkers came to better understand the purpose of life and humanity's relationship with God a very strict moral code developed which imposed upon people certain rules and laws covering virtually every aspect of their lives. All was to be done according to God's Will. To transgress God's Will was a very serious offence. God was still to be greatly feared, punishment was severe. To break God's laws could mean rites of atonement, physical punishment, banishment or even death. People were forced to do as God willed. Law was another major step in the moral progression of humanity. Early laws were fairly basic. Honour God, don't lie, don't steal, don't murder. Religion was to make people be good by punishment or threat of punishment. This punitive system of religion sufficed for several thousand years until a new giant step in the progression of morality occurred. This new understanding of right included tolerance, gentleness, peace, and above all love. God's Will was no longer to be followed because one was forced to or be punished if there was a failure to obey. God's Will was to be followed because of love for God. God's Will was to be followed because of the inner desire to fulfill human destiny. Material wealth and power were seen to have no true and lasting value. A path of moderation in all things was seen as the right way. The focus moved from external activity to inner spiritual awareness. The oneness of all things was realised. Humanity's destiny, return to God's presence, became known. All of this took place several thousand years ago. In different religions in different parts of the world, many of these same religious truths came to be known. They became part of very different theologies because of the varied histories and cultures, but the same essential truths were expressed. As these religions became the foundation of modern religious beliefs many followers found the task of living in accord with God's Will was no easy one. A good basis had been formed, but no lasting edifice could be built upon that solid foundation. Power, greed, and a renewed emphasis upon the pleasures of the flesh thwarted human moral development. The basic tenets of the religious teachings lost their influence. These great truths proved easier to profess than to practice. The success of these religious ideals waxed and waned. Prophets, true and false, came and went. Some leaving their sacred mark upon the future of humanity, most remaining unknown and unheard. New religions and societies rose and fell. The flaws in religious thought were found and found again. Correction was often attempted but seldom achieved. One major religion with many offshoots prevailed over much of the world. Success of the one at great cost to the many. The strength of truth became the power of dogma. Religion became secular, religion became business. Religious knowledge, previously esoteric, became commonly known but couldn't compete with the fast growing influence of science and worldly philosophy. Religious belief faltered, morality fell. There looked a moment when hope was lost; but as had happened before, a ray of light appeared offering salvation. Religion, with its renewed emphasis on our true relationship with God, is on the verge of a new era in communion with the golden age of humanity. Still the perennial religious question remains unanswered. Will humanity's great glory be realised. Will good prevail over evil?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That seems a fairly objective overview of religious development.

TINNY: I tried.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It appears the development of religion was a natural process.

TINNY: As the process of envolution reaches the human level of consciousness it is of extremely high probability that religious beliefs will develop.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would happen if religious beliefs didn't come into existence?

TINNY: Some other area of intellectual development would encompass the same body of knowledge. The same questions would be asked and the same answers would be found.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it is inevitable that the essential truths which form the basis of religious beliefs would come to be known.

TINNY: As consciousness develops, awareness of physical existence is constantly expanding. Certain basic characteristics of material existence have long awaited consciousness capable of perceiving them. As they are perceived they come to be known. Consciousness cannot reach certain levels of development without coming to know these truths.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could religious beliefs have developed other than the way they did?

TINNY: All religious belief systems that developed would somehow or other be related to the same basic truths of existence; but the ways this knowledge could be expressed as religious belief are virtually unlimited.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There is so much in common in the basic tenets of religions spread widely around the world. There is even great similarity in the traditional stories, symbolism, and ritual of the widespread religions. Is this only because the early practitioners of these religions saw the same basic truths of existence?

TINNY: The world's religions contain the same essential truths due to the common experience of all humanity with the universal characteristics of our physical environment. As similar consciousness perceives similar reality a common body of knowledge is established. But this is only partly the reason for the great similarities in the traditional stories, symbolism, and rituals of the world's various religions. The main reason is their shared origins.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean all the religions of the world had a common origin?

TINNY: Yes they did.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How long ago was this?

TINNY: Many thousands of years before recorded history.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where did religions have their common origin?

TINNY: It doesn't really matter. All of this planet is our home.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The word mythology is often used in talking about religious history. Doesn't the word mythology mean a story that isn't really true?

TINNY: Mythology is not necessarily untrue.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Virtually every one of the world's religions has traditional stories that in these modern times seem almost certainly untrue.

TINNY: There are virtually none of those traditional stories that do not contain truth.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying they are all completely true?

TINNY: Those traditional stories are seen differently today than in the past. It is less easy for us now to judge them than it was when they were current. They served a purpose and that purpose was truth.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How about the miracles that are reported to have occurred? Did they really take place?

TINNY: Some did, some didn't. All that truly took place were natural occurrences. There are no miraculous happenings outside natural law; but while God works through natural law, we have not always been capable of understanding the workings of natural law.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Most religions have sacred scriptures. Each that has sacred writings claim them to be perfectly true. They are said to be either God's direct word, God's revealed word, or God's inspired word. Can this be?

TINNY: No sacred scriptures exist that are perfectly true, if for no other reason than because we are presently unable to perfectly understand their revealed truth. None are perfected being's direct word, all are in their various ways the revealed word of God.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How true are they?

TINNY: They are all essentially true, although most have been corrupted to varying degrees by human influence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Have those responsible for the sacred scriptures been in direct contact with God?

TINNY: All have been in contact with perfected being, some more directly than others.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In humanity's religious history there have been a number of important figures. Some have been known as teachers, some as prophets, and some as Gods themselves.

TINNY: All were human beings, sometimes possessing spiritual consciousness and a relationship with God beyond that of their fellow beings.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Some of these religious figures are said to have origins other than normal human birth and parenthood. Some are said to have had powers beyond the human. And some are said to have not experienced normal human death. What is the truth of these religious figures?

TINNY: As I said, all were human beings.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What exactly do you mean when you say they were all human beings?

TINNY: They had physical form no different than all other human beings.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you accept their spiritual origins, powers, and deaths?

TINNY: I do not actually give particular consideration to their origins, powers, and deaths. I neither accept them nor deny them. I remain open to their truth as fact, but realise I cannot truly know these historical facts. If they truly happened it was so long ago that it is beyond the range of my objective perception. I could accept them solely on faith but I see no need to. I care for the knowledge of the true nature of reality brought by these religious figures, I am not influenced to accept or reject the great truths they offered humanity by their origins, powers, or deaths. They were all messengers of perfected being. They in themselves are no more important than any other being. It is their message that is sacred, not their personal existence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: These religious figures hold positions of great importance in the lives of many people. Are you saying that is wrong?

TINNY: Yes, I am saying that is wrong. To the degree the personal being takes precedence in people's minds and hearts over the sacred messages they brought, there becomes a blindness to truth. To focus on the personal being and not God's message inhibits all humanity from attaining our grand destiny.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How should we feel about the great religious figures?

TINNY: The contribution of every person to the progression of humanity is to be welcomed and appreciated, those who contributed the most are to be most appreciated.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many of these important religious figures suffered greatly to offer their message of truth to humanity.

TINNY: Many people have suffered greatly and have achieved no good purpose. It is good that the suffering of these great religious figures could have benefit for humanity. I feel sure the high consciousness of these messengers of truth would have allowed them to willingly accept their suffering to fulfill their sacred destiny.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Were they good people?

TINNY: They were gloriously good people, although some expressed human weakness.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: They were seldom made welcome in their own time, were they?

TINNY: Many more were rejected than were accepted.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Neither were their messages fully accepted.

TINNY: Seldom were their messages fully understood.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It must have been very frustrating to those messengers of truth to be rejected and misunderstood.

TINNY: The life of a true prophet must have great inner reward because there is seldom much external success.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How about false prophets?

TINNY: In the short term false prophets have often had greater success than true prophets.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?

TINNY: The false prophet will not possess the unyielding idealism of the true prophet.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The unalterable idealism of some true prophets has seemed most unrealistic.

TINNY: Only to those who do not seek truth. The path of perfect idealism has great risks, but offers the highest of rewards.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can a true prophet be distinguished from a false prophet?

TINNY: There are a number of ways, but I will mention only one. It is perhaps the most important difference between the true and the false prophet. The false prophet will receive some personal gain through their message or their role as messenger. This personal gain will override idealism.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean material gain?

TINNY: The gain is not necessarily material wealth. It could be as obvious as power and fame or as subtle as personal satisfaction. A true prophet cannot be influenced by personal gain because nothing has meaning to the true prophet but to bring the message from God that will benefit humanity.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think you said earlier that prophets should not be followed.

TINNY: That is a very important point. The message of the true prophet should always be followed; but, the prophets themselves should never be followed.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Must the prophet live in perfect accord with their message?

TINNY: No prophet can be as perfect as their message. Ideas must always precede actions.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many people would judge the prophet by their actions.

TINNY: That is true, but that is wrong thinking. To judge the prophet achieves nothing. Only the prophet's message may fairly be judged.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you think prophets feel about their role and responsibility?

TINNY: Many different ways, both glad and sad. It can not be easy to be a prophet.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think any prophets have regretted their calling?

TINNY: All would accept their responsibility, but I would expect there have been few prophets who have never said; "why me?"

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there any prophets in today's world?

TINNY: In the general sense of the word 'prophet', as inspired teachers and interpreters of God's Will, yes there are many; but not in the ancient way. The last of the true messengers of God has already been.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are the 'prophets' today both true and false prophets?

TINNY: Many true prophets and many false prophets.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can there ever be too many prophets?

TINNY: There can never be too many of the true prophets of the perfect knowledge of absolute existence. Ideally each member of human society would be a prophet of this shared truth.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What should be done about the false prophets?

TINNY: We should ignore their message and offer them our love.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is correct to say that there is no one true religion, isn't it?

TINNY: No religion is perfectly true, because we are presently less than perfectly able to understand God's Will.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are any religions more true than others?

TINNY: Yes. All things on the material plane fall on a continuum. There is a continuum of truth in religions from the least true to the most true.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which religion is most true?

TINNY: I've never really thought about it, but I would have to say I am not yet sure. Each religion should seek to perfect its knowledge of sacred truths. The possession of truth is not a competition. Each religion should encourage and support other religions. All religions have something to offer.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there any bad religions?

TINNY: No true religion can be bad, although some have false beliefs among the truths which can cause harm. To search for truth requires caution.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't some religions led by false prophets?

TINNY: Yes, that's true. Some religions are led by false prophets.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which ones?

TINNY: It's not for me to say.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can a religion led by a false prophet still be good?

TINNY: The leader is not the religion. The religion stands beyond the prophet. In all religions there are some very good people and some who are less than good. All should be welcome. Religions led by false prophets will have many good followers. The false prophet will fade and the good will prevail.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the world's present religions continue to exist well into the future?

TINNY: Some of them will.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It has been proposed that organised religion has come to the end of its time, and that if religions were to continue at all they would consist of each individual's personal relationship with God.

TINNY: There has been a great deal of discontent with the established religions. Many religions have been slow to realise new conditions in human society and have been unable to meet the needs brought about by the social changes which have occurred. Attraction to and rejection of the religions of the day are natural fluctuations. It is surely true that in today's society many people are able to establish very meaningful relationships with God without the intercession of a church and a priesthood. This is to be expected as the consciousness of humanity reaches new heights. The world's religions and their associated priesthoods are acknowledging these changes in humanity and are adjusting to their new role.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the new role of churches and the priesthood?

TINNY: The role of churches will always be to assist individuals in their relationship with perfected being. In the past the priesthood has often acted for the individual, in the future the priesthood will aid individuals to act for themselves. Theologians in the church will seek out new knowledge of the truth of our existence, priests will ensure this new knowledge is widely disseminated. Ritual and symbolism will remain, but the ceremonial activities will take on new meaning. The activities of the church will renew their emphasis on nurturance of the individual and the family according to the Will of God. And the world's churches will assert themselves by positive influence, not power, as initiators of important social change directed to the progression of humanity in accord with the natural order.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What has been the role of ritual and symbolism in the past?

TINNY: Ritual has been important in holding humanity unswervingly to a single path against the tendency to drift aimlessly. Symbolism has been important in passing on sacred knowledge.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What role will ritual and symbolism have in the future?

TINNY: Both will continue to exist in religious ceremony to remind worshippers of their beautiful heritage. Ritual and symbolism will allow direct appreciation of the ancient path by which humanity's basic goodness has struggled to overcome evil and follow the Will of God.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should churches and the priesthood have the right to impose God's Will by force and to punish transgressions of sacred law?

TINNY: There is no place for the use of force or punishment in humanity's relationship with perfected being. Churches and the priesthood should be examples of goodness and love. Positive influence should be the most powerful method used to further the acceptance of natural law and human action with the will of perfected being.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should there be any restrictions on who may perform the duties of priesthood?

TINNY: Only the sincere desire to serve God's Will.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it be acceptable for women to hold the priesthood?

TINNY: Of course, but only when it becomes generally accepted by society. As I said earlier, the physical bodies of men and women house identical spiritual beings. There can be no restrictions of a material nature as to who may perform the duties of priesthood.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is God male or female?

TINNY: Opposites only exist on the material plane. Beyond the material plane all is one.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean God is both male and female?

TINNY: God is the perfect and absolute manifestation of all positive characteristics.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In the past the leaders of nations and governments were heavily influenced by religion. Today most governments are not greatly influenced by religion. Some governments have legislated against the influence of religion and some have gone so far as to attempt to outlaw the practice of religion. What place should religion have in government?

TINNY: In the past religion has exercised great power to influence government. This is never right. Governments should be influenced by God's Will, but not by specific religions. There should be no difference in the goals of government and the goals of religion. Both should seek to aid the individuals of human society achieve their maximum developmental progression in accord with the Will of God. Church and state should have a close and harmonious relationship.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You said that religion should not control government. Is it right for government to control religion?

TINNY: That is equally wrong. The effect either has on the other should be through positive influence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do governments at present have similar goals to those of religion?

TINNY: Most of the world's governments today are working powerfully in opposition to the true goals of religion; they are in opposition to God's Will.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is this mainly true of those governments which oppose the practice of religion?

TINNY: There is little practical difference between those governments that officially oppose religion and those which proclaim the importance of religion. Both to some degree stand in the path of humanity's progression.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Governments seem to do little good.

TINNY: That's right, governments often do great harm and little good. Even the good done by governments could be better done without government.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it be possible for religion to take the place of government?

TINNY: Not without causing the same harm as the government. There is just no place for government whether secular or religious in humanity's future, but there is always a place for God in any government.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does religion have a place in education?

TINNY: Most definitely. I would go so far as to say religion and education should be inseparable.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In some places religious teachings and values are not allowed to be taught in the schools.

TINNY: This is one of the many wrongs perpetuated by governments.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many people support keeping religion out of the schools.

TINNY: There has been much very successful propaganda against religion in recent times.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you don't think it is truly the will of the people that keeps religious influences out of the schools.

TINNY: No, it is not the true will of the people.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many people would argue that they have not been unfairly influenced, that their considered opinion is that religious training has no place in the education system.

TINNY: Modern beliefs have very subtly and pervasively blinded much of humanity to many basic truths.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the main reason that religion has fallen into disfavour? Why is religion often opposed by governments and disallowed in schools?

TINNY: There is one reason which stands beyond all others. Religious beliefs invariably stand in the way of the quest for worldly pleasures and desires.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That hardly sounds a worthy reason to deny religious truths, so intimately a part of humanity's destiny.

TINNY: It is a most unworthy reason but unfortunately a most powerful one.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is the quest for worldly desires completely incompatible with the goals of religion?

TINNY: Totally. There is no place for the quest for worldly desires in humanity's future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Religious values will have difficulty overcoming the influence of worldly pleasures and desires.

TINNY: Remember there is no difference in true religious values and natural law. The physical universe is designed so that natural law should prevail. It is in accord with the natural order that worldly desires will be forsaken.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: At present much of human society is wildly searching for more and better worldly pleasures.

TINNY: We have gone far astray from the right path. If we stray much further it will be the end of the human race.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the quest for worldly desires must be forsaken in order for the human race to survive.

TINNY: Such is the natural course of progression for conscious beings approaching perfection in every aspect.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There are many things humanity must forsake to achieve its destiny.

TINNY: Godlike existence does not come cheaply.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Of course; it couldn't.

TINNY: There are many influences which keep humanity from rightful knowledge of these beautiful truths.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Tell me about some of them.

TINNY: One very important negative influence has been the entertainment industry.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What exactly do you mean by entertainment industry?

TINNY: That's a very broad term. I'm talking about all sorts of commercial amusement. Mainly movies and television, but including music, theatre, and even literature.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there something bad about all those things?

TINNY: There is nothing intrinsically wrong with any of them. It's what they contain and their effect on human society that is harmful.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you're not saying there is something basically wrong with entertainment. Does entertainment have a place in the progression of the human race?

TINNY: Entertainment could have a very valuable place in humanity's future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will there be a place for the specific types of entertainment you mentioned, movies, television, theatre, music, and literature?

TINNY: Every one of them has a place.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How have they been a bad influence so far?

TINNY: When I say the influence has been negative I don't mean there have been no positive effects. I'm saying that the overall impact on humanity has been harmful. This harm has come both directly and indirectly.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean by indirect harm?

TINNY: An example of the indirect harm by the entertainment industry is commercialisation. The use of entertainment to make vast fortunes.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does the harm of commercialisation only come from the vast fortunes which are amassed?

TINNY: No, the harm of commercialisation is not only due to the vast fortunes made by the few, but also comes from the focus on entertainment as a means to make money. Entertainment should be an art form where any financial aspects are secondary. As things are at present artistic merit is often not even considered as financial gain has become the driving force behind entertainment.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I suppose there is other indirect harm from the entertainment industry?

TINNY: There is. The indirect harm is of many kinds, as is the direct harm.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you tell me about the direct harm caused by the entertainment industry?

TINNY: In the last few generations the entertainment industry has changed the world, not for the better but for the worse. Movies, television, theatre, music, and literature have drastically altered the world view held by the human race. This changed world view has resulted in a huge increase in crime and violence. It has resulted in widespread drug abuse. It has resulted in the disintegration of family unity. And it has resulted in the degeneration of moral values particularly in personal and sexual behaviour. In essence the entertainment industry has very effectively promoted evil over good in human society.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The entertainment industry isn't the only negative influence in human society is it?

TINNY: The entertainment industry as a whole has been one of the most powerful evil influences in modern society.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's quite an accusation. Few would believe the various forms of entertainment they have enjoyed so much could have been such a harmful influence on humanity.

TINNY: The fact remains, it has.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Please explain how.

TINNY: The influence of the entertainment industry is so complex it's difficult to consider it as a whole.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then give me examples of different parts of the problem.

TINNY: I'll try to be both general and specific. At any time in the progression of human society there is a currently held world view that has a major influence on the thoughts, words, and deeds of the members of society. The acceptable limits do not change greatly unless the world view changes. Certain standards of legal and moral behaviour had developed over thousands of years of human history. These standards had been an essential part of humanity's world view and had been in accord with the perception of reality slowly developed through science, philosophy and theology. Until a few generations ago there had periodically been natural fluctuations in how strictly these standards were adhered to. These variations did not represent a major change in the standards themselves but represented differences in how closely the standards were followed. New knowledge that entered humanity's comprehensive world view did not result in sudden changes throughout the world, but instead resulted in local changes that spread slowly and had time to be considered in depth and judged by their practical effects on the quality of human existence. Theological influences have traditionally been quite conservative and have moved slowly. New findings in science and beliefs in philosophy were not widely spread other than in professional and academic circles. New thinking in science, philosophy, and theology were often interpreted to the mass of humanity through entertainment and the arts. Theatre and song have for many centuries had a powerful influence on everyday social behaviour. Literature took its rightful place during the past several centuries as another entertaining art form of great influence. The arts, just as science and philosophy, have had many progressive thinkers who led unconventional lives. Regardless, none of these entertaining art forms tended, with occasional exceptions, to pass too far beyond the limits of generally held standards, morality, and values. All of this remained true until one or two generations ago.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What happened then to change things?

TINNY: This was about the time that television became the most common form of entertainment.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you blaming television for the harm done to society by the entertainment industry?

TINNY: No, television has the potential to be a very important tool in the future development of the human race.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Television has never reached its great potential has it?

TINNY: It hasn't come close. Television became the most effective tool to further the spread of evil through human society that has ever existed.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What makes television so much more harmful than the other forms of entertainment you mentioned?

TINNY: It is the intrusive nature of television that makes it so dangerous. Most other forms of entertainment must be sought after, but television is always present. Television is like a drug and people with little else in their lives become addicted. Much of modern society has given away active living and replaced personal involvement with the passive viewing of a fantasy world.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it wrong to be entertained by fantasy?

TINNY: As with many things there is nothing intrinsically wrong with fantasy, but fantasy can be made very wrong. How much fantasy and what type of fantasy are important considerations. Also television, because of its unique characteristics, has managed to blur the dividing line between reality and fantasy. Since it is so important to our developmental progression to understand the true nature of our reality anything that destroys our ability to know reality is a most destructive force.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So television blinds viewers to reality.

TINNY: Not only does television blind people to reality but it creates a false reality that alters people's perception of true reality. It not only blinds us to truth but it leads us away from truth.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Give me some examples of how television programs alter people's perception of reality.

TINNY: Take for instance the issue of violence. The right path, as determined by the natural order, is to transcend our violent past and pursue a future of peace and love. Humanity has been moving in this direction throughout history, although admittedly more slowly and erratically than would be desirable. Personal violence while never disappearing was being maintained at a relatively low level. Many people seldom or never had an opportunity to see violence taking place. Things looked good for the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What happened? There have been dramatic increases in all kinds of violence in recent years.

TINNY: It has never been a nice thing about the human race, but violence has long been considered entertaining. Thousands of years ago, and even more recently, individual contests to the death have been watched by great crowds. People were put to death in various ways to provide entertainment.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That sounds insane.

TINNY: It was a sickness of the mind from which the human race has not yet fully recovered. Remnants of this illness remain today. As human society became more civilised the desire to see such barbaric behaviour lessened and more positive aspects of life developed a greater attractiveness. In recent times, aside from a few sports such as boxing, violence as entertainment was no longer real but portrayed symbolically as make-believe.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is boxing an acceptable form of violence?

TINNY: There are no acceptable forms of violence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I guess it would make no difference to say that millions of people like boxing.

TINNY: Unfortunately millions of people like many things that stand in the way of human destiny being fulfilled. We have no choice if the human race is to survive but to forsake all forms of violence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Both real and make-believe?

TINNY: All forms of violence must be left behind. There should be no violence in thought, word, or deed.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Go on explaining the part modern entertainment, and in particular television, has had in bringing about the massive increase in violence that is presently plaguing humanity.

TINNY: Human beings have the potential to manifest many different feelings and behaviours. Within this range exists the potential for great violence. Whether or not this potential for violence is manifested depends on the circumstances in each individual's life. Television, along with other forms of entertainment, has become an influential factor in the circumstances of many millions of individuals in today's world.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you describe which influential factors in television programming promote the increase in violence sweeping the world?

TINNY: One of these negative influences comes from the incredibly large number of murders and various types of lesser violence to which any long term viewer is exposed. Before children reach adulthood many have seen thousands and thousands of murders on television. If the television murders, and the lesser forms of violence, were considered together a child who was an avid viewer might see a hundred thousand or more acts of violence depicted by the time they become an adult.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But everyone knows the murders and violence on television aren't real.

TINNY: It must be questioned whether or not young children can always understand this violence is not real. But regardless, that is not even the main problem.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the main problem?

TINNY: One of the main problems with viewing such an incredible number of murders and the great amount of violence is that a general acceptance of murder and other personal violence occurs.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying that people by watching all this violence come to believe murder and violence is all right?

TINNY: The effect is more subtle than that. People don't come to look on murder and violence as good; but they do come to believe that many murders and much violence is normal in our society. It is the acceptance that this amount of violence as commonplace that is so dangerous. We are no longer shocked by this amount of personal violence. It becomes almost an expectation in society that an equivalent amount of violence will occur in reality as is fictitiously portrayed in television programming.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does seeing all this violence make people commit acts of violence?

TINNY: It may be true to say that occasionally watching violence on television directly causes people commit violent acts, but there is no doubt that watching television increases the probability that more violent acts will occur.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain further how this occurs.

TINNY: Seeing so much violence portrayed in television programming has a satiating effect. This means that viewers can become bored and weary of violence, essentially immune to the true horrors of violence. Murder and other personal violence can lose their powerful deterrent effect. They become common place occurrences, being seen a number of times each day. It becomes hard to maintain the real, human emotional response to violence. Viewers can become accepting and uncaring of human suffering. Also the emotional responses of the actors in these programs often show a very inappropriately casual attitude to those who are killed, maimed, or harmed. Since, thankfully, most people don't have the real opportunity to see these various violent actions and the true emotional responses they bring about, then expectations in these violent situations are derived from the fictional portrayals.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It sounds like viewing so much violence can have deep seated emotional and psychological effects.

TINNY: Indeed it can. Human beings are great imitators. There is an effect in learning called modeling. This word refers to the fact that what we see occurring and being socially acceptable or rewarded we are likely to do ourselves. If we see people living in peaceful and loving relationships with each other we are likely to act in a similar manner. If we see people living in violent and aggressive relationships with each other, and this is the social norm, then we are very likely to act in a similar manner.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is this true of both adults and children?

TINNY: Both adults and children are influenced by the modeling effect; but, children are much more susceptible.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does this modeling only result in behaviour being imitated?

TINNY: This type of learning equally affects thoughts, words, and deeds. Much of that which each of us has learned, including many aspects of our personality, our likes and dislikes, our beliefs and attitudes have been at least partially learned by this modeling effect.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there anything that makes this modeling effect more powerful?

TINNY: One of the things that increases the effect of learning is how we feel about the person who serves as the model. The more positive we feel about this person the more powerful will be their influence. If a television personality, well liked and respected by the viewers, were to commit an act of violence or show an unsympathetic attitude to death and violence then this would have a powerful influence on the viewers. In a situation like this the actors would be called role models. Unfortunately both television and movies have many bad role models.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there good role models also?

TINNY: Sure there are; but even a few bad role models can be extremely harmful, and there are more than a few bad ones.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Not everyone does the terrible violent things seen on television and in movies.

TINNY: No they don't, but many millions of people see all these murders and other violence. If only a tiny percentage imitate these terrible acts that is far too many. Besides it's not only those who actually imitate the acts, but there are all the others who are affected in other negative ways.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What percentage of viewers of all this violence would you say are harmed in some way?

TINNY: Every person who views this violent entertainment is harmed to some degree.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Most would not agree they had been harmed.

TINNY: Few people are aware of the subtle effects of how what they experience influences them.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It has been said that only those who have some basic flaw in their personality are badly affected by seeing violence on television or in the movies.

TINNY: Who among us does not have some basic flaw in their personality? The fact that any person finds watching violence, even fictional violence, entertaining is a flaw in itself. We can look back now to the time of the gladiatorial contests and think how primitive and wrong people were then to be entertained by that real violence. In the future people will look back to these present times and think how primitive and wrong people were to be entertained by that fictional violence. Really, it's not a very nice thing to enjoy seeing people killed or otherwise harmed even in the fictional world of entertainment. It is important for all of humanity to come to this realisation if we are ever to achieve our beautiful destiny, a world of love and peace.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If this is all true, and it certainly seems to be, why would anyone include murder and violence in television programs and movies.

TINNY: There is a very simple answer to that question. Murder and violence is so predominant in television and movies because it makes money.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I gather what you mean is that television programs and movies that portray violence are popular and therefore make a profit.

TINNY: That's the way things are.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Couldn't the executives who make the decisions to include acts of violence in their programming say they are only giving the public what they want?

TINNY: They could say that, and they do say that. It allows them to deny personal responsibility for their actions. There are two objections to that claim, which is in reality only a form of rationalisation. First, the market for violence was at least in part not naturally occurring, but was created by those who produced the entertainment which portrays violence. Second, and even more compelling, is that it is wrong to give someone anything that can harm them, even if they want it. It is our ignorance of the harmful effects that allows us to seek violent forms of entertainment. Children before they know any better must be protected from things that will harm them. The human species, yet in its infancy as an envolving form of self-reflective consciousness, must be protected from those things which will cause harm. As a child matures the desire to touch the burning flame disappears in rational thought. So too, as the human race matures, will the desire to be entertained by violence disappear in rational thought.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All that is surely true, but how can you expect those who produce the television programs and movies portraying violence to stop doing so when it brings them great financial reward?

TINNY: The desire to see violence and the desire for material gain are but two of the huge number of social problems destroying human society. One cannot be solved while the others remain. The answer is to find a solution to all the world's problems at once. The many and varied problems are all caused by the current misunderstanding of the true nature of our reality. The many and varied problems can all be solved by the widespread realisation of the new, more correct world view.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is the spread of violence the only problem created by the various forms of entertainment?

TINNY: There are lots of others. Much entertainment promotes socially abnormal behaviour as the norm. It disparages the socially right perspective which is in accord with natural law. It dwells on the negative aspects of human society rather than the positive. It encourages materialism by continually showing the many viewers who have little a make-believe world where everyone seems to have a lot. It creates discontent among viewers whose lives are not as opulent and exciting as the fictional characters in whose lives they become so involved.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the various forms of entertainment you are talking about create a general negative influence in many areas of human social behaviour. Would you give me an example of another major problem area besides violence?

TINNY: Sexual behaviour is another area of human life which has been very negatively influenced by the various forms of entertainment.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Human society has always had a problem with sexual behaviour.

TINNY: In the past few decades problems in sexual behaviour have become much more widespread and serious.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Considering what you described earlier as right sexual behaviour I think much of what you will be describing as problems will be considered by many as fully acceptable in this modern age.

TINNY: That wrong beliefs are so widespread is probably the greatest harm brought about by the influence of the various forms of entertainment. Television and movies are extremely powerful tools of propaganda. They have been used both consciously and unconsciously to destroy the moral rightness which had developed in human society over many thousands of years.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why would anyone want to destroy the moral right in human society?

TINNY: Some who did this were misled by the new philosophies of ethics and human freedom. These new insights into the nature of our existence appeared logically sound and true. They turned out to be neither.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So some of the people creating this powerful social influence through the various forms of entertainment actually meant well?

TINNY: That's true. Some were only misguided. Others were not so well intentioned. There were many involved in the entertainment industry who only wanted to satisfy their selfish personal needs. They saw the opportunity to push their wrong values and material desires onto a naive and susceptible public. The wrong ideas of the abnormal few became the wrong beliefs of the many. That which was truly wrong became believed to be right. Virtually anything became acceptable. The fine quest for freedom became an ugly rush for license.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You were telling me about the problems in sexual behaviour caused by the entertainment industry.

TINNY: Sometimes I just can't believe how sick so-called entertainment has become. One of the things that bothers me greatly is that the depiction of rape is so often a part of the entertainment. Such things show so clearly the illness of our society. If entertainment shows lots of violence then violence in real life increases. If entertainment shows lots of rape then rape in real life increases. How horrible. Human sexual behaviour should be beautiful and loving, not ugly and hateful.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is rape the only sexual problem caused by the entertainment industry?

TINNY: No, just as murder was not the only problem of violence that was caused. The range and types of harm caused in violent behaviour and sexual behaviour are almost identical. There was conditioned into human society a general acceptance of the great amount of wrong sexual behaviour portrayed as entertainment, which generalised into a similar acceptance of wrong sexual behaviour in real life.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Not everyone is so brave as to call certain common types of sexual behaviour wrong.

TINNY: I'm never afraid to speak truth. I'll be very specific. Promiscuity, homosexuality, and adultery are all wrong. They are wrong because they stand in the way of the continued progression of the human race.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You already explained why, so I won't ask again.

TINNY: Promiscuity, homosexuality, and adultery are all seen on television and in movies thousands of times by children before they reach adulthood. Through a subtle conditioning process these wrong sexual behaviours become an accepted part of life. Those who are not involved in any of those wrong sexual behaviours are made to feel that they are missing out on something, even that they are in the wrong for not accepting these abnormal sexual behaviours, if not actually participating. The important sexual aspect of human life loses its real meaning and true beauty as it becomes no more than a search for more and greater sense gratification.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Some of the sexual relationships between people who are not permanently paired, or affairs between married people, or even homosexual relationships are portrayed through the various forms of entertainment as being meaningful and beautiful.

TINNY: That is part of the subtle harmful influence. While the people involved in any of those sexual relationships may very well believe them to be meaningful and beautiful, the reality is that they bind humanity to the physical existence through the quest for sense gratification without aiding the progression of the human species, thereby impeding the advancement of the human species toward its destined goal of perfection in every aspect. The feelings of love between the people involved in any of those relationships may be meaningful and beautiful, but the natural order of existence does not allow the sexual behaviours between the people involved in any of those wrong relationships, promiscuity, adultery or homosexuality, to be meaningful and beautiful. They are hurtful to the entire human race.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Some would say promiscuity, homosexuality, and adultery are no more common today than they have ever been, it's just that it's all done more openly now than in the past.

TINNY: That is false justification and rationalisation. It's just not true. All of those types of sexual relationship are more prevalent today than in the recent past.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It's pretty obvious what homosexuality means. I'd like you to define adultery and promiscuity for me.

TINNY: Adultery is a sexual relationship between a person who is permanently paired and someone other than their permanent mate. Promiscuity is a sexual relationship between people who are not permanently mated. Adultery is a form of promiscuity.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Adultery is usually defined as a sexual relationship between a married person and someone other than their lawful spouse.

TINNY: As we have discussed before, a permanent bond between a man and woman is more powerful than marriage. The legal contract of marriage itself means nothing, the emotional and spiritual bond between man and woman means everything. It is this permanent pairing that should be free from the eroding effect of sexual relationships outside that bond. Such a permanent bond is too important and too beautiful to be destroyed by the selfish desire to partake of sexual pleasure outside that bond.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What you say is true for both the man and the woman isn't it?

TINNY: Absolutely. I think that one of the sad things that happened as women fought for equal rights with men is that women didn't discriminate between right and wrong behaviour in men. They wanted it all, the right and the wrong. Since men more often strayed from their mate and sought other sexual relationships women in great numbers in the purported quest for true equality also sought adulterous relationships. In this women were greatly influenced by adulterous and promiscuous women's roles being portrayed as acceptable, meaningful, and rewarding on television, in movies, and in literature. In doing these things women were wrong.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What should women have done as they sought equality between men and women in this area of human sexuality?

TINNY: They should have been proud of how women had long maintained the sanctity of the permanent pairing of a man and woman. They should have taught men the rightness and importance of fidelity in the family bond. Women should have raised men to their level in the search for equality; instead they fell to the level of men.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Sometimes for many different reasons a man and woman after forming a bond they planned to be permanent find something wrong with their mate. Divorce is a much used solution to that problem.

TINNY: Divorce or the breaking of a permanent bond between man and woman is no solution. Divorce is a social problem in itself. There should be no divorce. The true nature of a permanent bond is of course to remain permanent. Unfortunately human society is presently very sick, many people are so wrong in thought, word, and deed that they cannot successfully contribute to the permanent bond between man and woman. We will continue to have divorce until people become more right. When a man of high consciousness and a woman of high consciousness form a permanent bond in the future it will be an eternal bond. They will both have chosen well and intelligently. They will be good in thought, word, and deed so as to be able to successfully contribute to the paired relationship without problems, and they will not be looking for something new and exciting outside their permanent bond.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Usually the word promiscuous refers to sexual relationships with a lot of partners; but I notice your definition says nothing about number but only that it is sexual relationship between a man and woman who are not permanently mated.

TINNY: Yes, that's how promiscuity should be defined. It really has nothing to do with the number of partners involved. One sexual experience with one person can be enough to constitute promiscuity. The word promiscuous can refer to that which is done casually, without particular purpose, and it is in this context I use the word. Sex between a permanently mated man and woman always has meaning whether it be for reproduction or for developing the loving closeness of the family unit. Sex between people who are not permanently mated cannot have either of these purposes and there are no other right purposes, so therefore it is by definition without purpose and wrong.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is easier to see how a sexual relationship between a man and woman who are not permanently paired could be considered not right than it is to see how it could be called wrong.

TINNY: I understand what you mean. What I am going to say applies to all aspects of human life, but it is particularly apt in referring to sexual behaviour. If we don't do the right thing, we will be doing the wrong thing, and we will just be another part of the sickness of human society and not be part of the cure.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Before we go too far off the subject I'd like to ask a few more questions about the effects of entertainment on human society.

TINNY: Ask away.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you ever watch television or movies?

TINNY: I do, but seldom for entertainment. Television and movies are a part of the way I have learned about the world and the social influences that affect human society.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Have you been negatively affected by what you have seen?

TINNY: I am sure I have been harmed to some degree, but I have learned how to see all things objectively. When the influences which affect human social development are understood it is possible to maintain inner control over the effect of those influences. When I watch television or movies I evaluate what I am seeing as potentially helpful or potentially harmful. With my thoughts I can then enhance the positive influences and inhibit the negative influences.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you ever watch television or movies for enjoyment?

TINNY: Almost never for enjoyment alone, I have too many other things to do. Usually I watch to learn, which is a very enjoyable experience.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean you usually watch educational programs?

TINNY: That isn't what I really meant, but I do often watch educational programs. I meant much can be learned about social influence by watching television and movies.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since many of the things shown are those which you know to be wrong and harmful, does it make you feel bad to watch?

TINNY: Sometimes it is hard to watch, sometimes though some of these scenes become almost ludicrous. Those who produce the shows often seem locked into a pattern regardless of whether or not what they include has any intrinsic meaning to the story being told. An example of this is the ubiquitous sex scene. The story will be proceeding along, everything falling into place as the plot is developed, and then all of a sudden the hero or sometimes the heroine will fall into bed for a boring and meaningless sex scene, having nothing at all to do with the plot. I have seen this happen time after time. I have gotten so tired of this that I always think to myself, "Oh no, not another obligatory sex scene."

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why do you think those who produce television programs and movies do that?

TINNY: I guess they think viewers will enjoy it; and people may have when it was an original idea, but anything repeated too often can lose its appeal. Actually, I have noticed that much of what is supposed to be entertaining has been showing less and less originality and becoming more boring.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have been particularly describing the negative social effects of television and movies. What about theatre, literature, and music?

TINNY: The negative effects of theatre and literature are virtually identical to those of television and movies except not as many people are affected. Music though is another matter. Perhaps I shouldn't say music but instead specify song because it is the lyrics that have had such detrimental effect. There is one form of music that has recently changed the world.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is it called?

TINNY: Rock and roll. Since almost the beginning of rock and roll the lyrics have extolled the virtues of casual sex, alcohol, and drugs. Increasingly those lyrics also portray violence. It has come to represent a particular lifestyle. The dissolute lifestyle of the rock star has in some ways probably been the single most powerful role model in the history of the world.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does dissolute mean?

TINNY: An uncaring or indifferent attitude to moral values.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When rock and roll first began what you are saying was said by many conservative parents, politicians, and religious leaders.

TINNY: I have heard that was the case. They were held up for ridicule and the impact of their dissenting voice virtually disappeared. Rock and roll overpowered them. They had no chance in the face of all the pleasures and license offered by rock and roll. It was a time of rebellion against old restraints. I can see why the voices in opposition were so impotent. It was a time when the consciousness of humanity was under great pressure for change due to new knowledge that had quickly swept the world. When these times come social change must occur. These are critical periods in human development and sudden unexpected influences can result in cruel damage as well as beneficial change. Rock and roll unfortunately became a harmful influence. A generation was beguiled by what rock and roll offered, and subsequent generations are still being influenced and are still suffering. Rock and roll was a social phenomenon without precedent. Too bad it wasn't for the good of humanity. It could have provided a big boost. If all the time, money, and energy that has accompanied the negative influence of rock and roll had been directed positively the human race would not be in the present dire circumstances.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Has rock and roll really had that much influence?

TINNY: Although it's hard to believe songs and music could have so great an effect on all society, it is true. Social influence never ceases to amaze me.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you like music?

TINNY: I like all kinds of music.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even rock and roll?

TINNY: Yes, even rock and roll. I don't like the lifestyle that goes with it and I don't agree with many of the ideas presented in the lyrics; but it is a very rich and varied musical form.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems there is some good in all things.

TINNY: Since rock and roll music has such wide appeal, it could be a very powerful influence for the good. All that is needed are lyrics with a positive message and musicians and singers who are good role models for their fans.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You always ask for a lot.

TINNY: I never ask for more than is right.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I suppose television and movies could also become a positive influence.

TINNY: All forms of entertainment could and should be a positive influence and aid in the progression of the human race. All aspects of human life should work in complementary ways to achieve our shared goals.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If this was done, would entertainment still be fun?

TINNY: It would be different, but it would be more enjoyable than entertainment has ever been.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It's good that entertainment has a place in the future of human society.

TINNY: No one should ever think the future will be dull and boring just because the total energy of the human race will be dedicated to achieving our grand destiny. The quest for perfection will be richly satisfying. As every thought, word, and deed is directed toward the betterment of humanity there will be a never ending increase in personal enjoyment and satisfaction.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you give me an estimate of how much human thought, word, and deed is presently directed toward the betterment of humanity.

TINNY: I couldn't be sure how much but I know it is only tiny fraction. I would be surprised if even one per cent of all our thoughts, words, and deeds are truly directed toward the betterment of the human race.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is a very poor effort, particularly when, as you say, every thought word, and deed should be directed toward that grand purpose.

TINNY: What is presently being done to better humanity is virtually nothing.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does this discourage you?

TINNY: Actually, that is one of the reasons I feel quite optimistic about the future. If we were now working to improve humanity at ninety nine percent of our capacity and the world was as bad as it is I would feel very discouraged; but, since we are probably working at less than one per cent of our capacity for improvement then our potential for improvement is incredibly huge. It is for this reason that I say the world could be a veritable utopia in a generation or so after this new level of human consciousness is reached. Our potential for the future is unlimited.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Well then, we had better continue our discussion about this new world view which will help open new vistas in human consciousness. The more that is known about the problems caused by the present world view the more will be known about the new world view.

TINNY: Next I'd like to talk about something very different. Obviously the way people think about and relate to each other is important to the future development of the human species. An increasing number of people are coming to realise it is also important how we think about and treat animals in order for us to have a peaceful and loving future. Ideally that attitude should be taken further to include our feelings toward, and treatment of, all physical forms we now share this material plane of existence with.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let's go through this systematically. First, how should people think about and relate to each other?

TINNY: We should think about each other with love and respect. We should treat each other lovingly and respectfully.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And we should relate to animals in the same way?

TINNY: All animals deserve our love and respect.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you say all animals do you just mean all the more developed animals like dogs, cats, cows, and horses?

TINNY: I meant the whole animal kingdom, from the most highly developed animals to the most primitive one celled animals.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you really mean one celled animals deserve love and respect?

TINNY: I really do. It's very important to realise the importance of all forms of life.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why are all forms of life so important and deserving of love and respect?

TINNY: There is one very basic reason and innumerable other reasons.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Just tell me the one essential reason.

TINNY: All forms of life, all physical forms, are stages in the development of perfected being.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you say that more simply?

TINNY: All physical existence is part of God's Grand Cosmic Plan.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean when you say all physical existence is part of God's Grand Cosmic Plan?

TINNY: That every bit of matter in the physical universe is of God's nature and is involved in the developmental progression toward perfection, toward a godlike existence. Nothing can be separate from God.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the name of that belief?

TINNY: I don't know if it has a name and I don't think it really needs one. It is part of the unified theory of existence. Some things are so grand that to name them diminishes their glory. I think that is the reason I prefer the term 'perfected being' to the word 'God'. The term 'perfected being' is descriptive. It describes perfect and infinite existence. God, while a very beautiful word, is not descriptive but instead is a name.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean it is wrong to call perfected being God?

TINNY: I would never say that. I think each individual's relationship with perfected being is such a personal thing that no one should presume to place restrictions on any aspect of that most intimate of relationships. Actually, I often refer to perfected being as God.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does God have a personal nature?

TINNY: Perfected being is the ultimate manifestation of all true characteristics. Perfected being is the one absolute personality. God has the ultimate personal nature.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is the physical universe, which you describe as the womb of God's nature, a manifestation of the one absolute personality?

TINNY: The physical universe is a manifestation of God's infinite personality. All existence is a manifestation of the one absolute personality of God.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there more than one physical universe?

TINNY: Physical universes exist without number.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are all physical universes the same as ours?

TINNY: They all serve the same purpose, to allow the development of material form to progress from a simple deterministic beginning to a perfect transcendental existence. The actual characteristics manifested by these universes fill the range of possibilities which allow that purpose to be achieved.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So all material form, from the simplest to the most complex, in all these physical universes are stages in the development of perfected existence.

TINNY: They are, and this is why all physical forms, no matter their level of progression are deserving of love and respect.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think I understand what you mean when you say all physical forms, but would you be more specific.

TINNY: I mean from the human and highest order animal forms to the least developed forms of plant life; and I mean from the highest order molecular forms to the least developed sub-atomic particle.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can you really feel love and respect for simple animals, plants, molecules, atoms and sub-atomic particles?

TINNY: I truly do feel love and respect for each and every physical form.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even an electron?

TINNY: Yes, an electron is very beautiful. It is like when I was describing how life and consciousness have no definite point where it can be truly said they came into existence. Both life and consciousness should be seen as direct lines of progression from the beginning of the physical universe. All things which exist are on that continuum which stretches back to the beginning of the physical universe. Just as there is no cut-off point where life and consciousness cease to exist, there is no cut off point at which love and respect cease to be deserved. An electron is a very simple physical form expressing the most rudimentary aspects of life and most simple characteristics of consciousness. But an electron is an important part of the overall progression of matter toward perfection as is a human being. Without the developmental stage of the electron the human developmental stage would never have the opportunity to exist.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I agree with all you say, but you would have to agree that an electron hardly brings about as much emotional feeling as a cuddly kitten.

TINNY: Obviously that is true.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Might not this mean that the amount of love and respect we should give to an electron could be minimal?

TINNY: I think some questions will be best answered in the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'll let you get away with that answer. I'd like to know more about what this all means in a practical sense.

TINNY: It means we should re-evaluate our attitudes and behaviour toward all that exists. We should not look upon anything that is not human as having no self worth. We should not see that which exists around us as ours to control and use for our pleasure. The world is not ours to control and use; it is all part of a complex environment of life and consciousness sharing with us a common goal, to progress toward perfection in every aspect. We don't own the world, we share the world. We should exist in harmony with all material forms with which we share a common environment and a common purpose.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Some religions teach that human beings are given dominion over this planet and all that exists on the planet.

TINNY: They are correct. We human beings have been given dominion over this planet and over all that exists on this planet. We have the power to do as we will with this planet and its inhabitants. We also have the responsibility to never misuse this power. Since we have free-will to a degree never before known on this planet we are under high moral obligation to behave in a right manner toward the planet and those less developed life forms which inhabit the planet. Our dominion is not to control through power, but is instead the obligation to nurture with love. We have been given the most glorious opportunity to learn to act in a godlike manner toward the planet and its inhabitants as part of our path of progression toward the perfection of God. We are to act, within the limits of out present abilities, toward the planet and all forms of life inhabiting the planet as God acts toward us while exercising dominion over us.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can human beings be expected to behave in a right manner to other forms of life when we can't even treat other human beings right?

TINNY: Until we can treat less developed forms of life in a right manner we will never be able to treat each other right.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many forms of animal and plant life are used to sustain and provide comfort to the human race. Is this right or wrong?

TINNY: When I was defining good and evil I said that at the human level of development there are some things which, while evil from the absolute perspective, are necessary to maintain human life. When this situation occurs it is right and good from the relative point of view to do what must be done to maintain life. From a relative viewpoint that which aids the progression toward perfection is good and that which impedes that progression is evil. From an absolute perspective it is always evil for a human being to destroy any form of plant or animal life, even if it is for sustenance. From the relative point of view there are occasions which necessitate the utilisation of various forms of animal or plant life for the survival benefit of humanity.

(NOTE: I had been a vegetarian for many years when I wrote this; and, while I am no longer a vegetarian I still have sympathies somewhat similar to these writings. I do not, though, oppose the correct slaughter of animals for food, or the eating of meat; but I think these are issues that may in some future time come under further scrutiny. Muhammad al'Mahdi, 2004)

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean, for example, the butchering of animals for food?

TINNY: I most certainly didn't mean that. Let me leave no doubt about this important question. It is wrong to kill animals for food.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But you just said that from a relative viewpoint it is all right to use animals to provide sustenance. It seemed you meant food.

TINNY: I didn't mean for food. It seems quite horrible to me that people are willing to slaughter many millions of innocent animals each year for food. If human beings were carnivores or had no other way to survive then I would agree that it is necessary, therefore right, to eat meat. Human beings are not carnivores and there are now many alternatives to eating meat. Animal flesh is not now necessary for the nutritional requirements of human beings.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you say it is wrong to eat animal flesh do you just mean of the higher animals or all animals?

TINNY: Well, I don't want to get caught up in telling others exactly what should or should not be eaten. I would rather speak generally and then let others determine the specifics for themselves. Obviously human beings have not yet progressed to the point where they can survive without eating. This does not give license to eat any food and to do anything to get that food. The right path is to maximise the goodness and minimise the evil in all that we do. In relation to what foods we eat and how we obtain them the restrictions on maximising good and minimising evil would seem to be as follows: We should be sure we are meeting our nutritional requirements and not merely seeking the experience of pleasure; we should obtain our food in a way that causes the least possible harm to any other life forms and while acknowledging the present necessity to eat other life forms, we should choose those that, while meeting our nutritional requirements, are at the lowest developmental stage possible.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean when you say what we eat should be at the lowest developmental stage possible?

TINNY: Human life has the most highly developed level of consciousness on our planet. The lower the level of consciousness of the potential food for human beings the better. It is for this reason that it is generally preferable to eat plants than to eat animals. Plants are lower on the continuum of consciousness than even the most primitive animals.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All plants are also living beings. Is it all right to take that life from plants as we use them for food?

TINNY: We should have love and respect for all life, therefore even the taking of life from a plant is a moral issue. It is always best to gather food in the least harmful way possible. There are ways to obtain food from plants without the taking of life. To all these ideas there are limits of practicability. We are not yet perfect; we cannot yet be perfectly good. This is why our task must be to maximise good and minimise evil. We are as we are at the moment; we should always strive to be better.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How much harm can it really do if we continue to eat meat?

TINNY: It could mean the human race would fail to survive.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you mean?

TINNY: In the world today some of the main sources of meat are cows, sheep, and pigs. These are, relatively speaking, animals of very highly developed consciousness. It is an act of great aggression by humanity to kill so many millions of these animal beings of high consciousness each year. A society that can accept that much aggression toward other highly developed life forms will continue to manifest a great deal of aggression among its own members. As long as we kill animals for food we will have war. If war remains a part of human society then we don't have a future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I understand, the connection between killing animals for food and warlike behaviour is clear.

TINNY: Human society to survive must be in harmony with nature. If we cannot exist in harmony with the animals with whom we share this planet then we cannot exist in harmony among ourselves.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about all the other ways in which people use animals? For instance to do farm work, to carry loads, and to ride, are they all right?

TINNY: It is never right to use an animal but this doesn't mean the things you described are wrong. Animals, just as humans, have a wide range of behaviours they can engage in. The actual things done from within that range depend on the particular environment in which the animal exists. When human life developed this changed the environmental circumstances, and greatly broadened the range of behaviour animals could engage in. Since animals and humans share this planetary environment there is no reason that animals and humans should not relate to each other in many different ways. There is no reason animals and humans should not work together. Any animal that does farm work, carries loads or carries a person should do so because that relationship with a human being is complementary. It should not be a one way relationship. The animal should have its physical and emotional needs met, just as should the person. In this relationship the animal should come to no harm and should not be overworked. The relationship should be one of fairness and caring. The human being, having greater free-will and power within the relationship, has the greatest responsibility to see that the relationship is a right one. If the animal is treated with love and respect it will respond with love and respect. We humans are not to be the masters of animals, but should be their caring guides and benefactors.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't animals adapted by nature to living free in the wilderness?

TINNY: And so are human beings. Any relationship between an animal and a human being in any environment is acceptable so long as all the previous requirements are met. The relationship and circumstances should have freedom, love, care, and respect. There should be no harm caused, the physical and emotional needs should be met, and opportunities for developmental progression should be maximised.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there any circumstances which could justify taking the life of an animal?

TINNY: Yes there are. In a situation where taking the life of an animal would save the life of a human being it would be justified.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There are some who would disagree violently with that belief.

TINNY: Violence should never be part of any disagreement. I acknowledge some do not like to believe that the life of a human being is more important than the life of an animal, but to believe otherwise is to deny the logic of our reality.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I know you don't say anything is true without good reason. What is the logic behind your claim that the life of a human being is more important than the life of an animal?

TINNY: First I'll explain the reason then show the logic behind the reason. It is true that a human life is more important than an animal life because the purpose of existence is to become perfect in every aspect. Human level consciousness is the closest life has come on this planet to reaching that perfect nature. While all levels of progression are necessary to the ultimate achieving of this goal the levels which have been passed, while still progressing themselves, also serve as a base for the more advanced levels of conscious development. The higher the level of consciousness the greater the importance because of the greater amount of energy that has been expended to have reached that level. The logic behind this can be seen by a series of comparisons. If there must be a choice between the life of a human being and the life of an animal, the human takes precedence. If there must be a choice between an animal life and the life of a plant, the animal takes precedence. If there must be a choice between a plant's life and the life of a molecule, the plant takes precedence. If there must be a choice between a molecule's life and the life of an atom, the molecule takes precedence. And if there must be a choice between an atom's life and the life of a sub-atomic particle, the atom takes precedence. It is the degree to which the purpose of material existence has been fulfilled which determines the relative importance of any particular physical form.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Once again your reasoning seems unassailable. Are there many instances when this should be put into practice, when the lives of animals must be taken to save a human life?

TINNY: There are very few. Any that do exist should be used only as a last resort and even then alternatives that do not require the sacrifice of animal life should be sought for the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I don't suppose the life of an animal should ever be taken only for pleasure, or sport.

TINNY: Such reasons are never justified.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We have talked a lot about how animals should be treated. How about plants?

TINNY: Just as we cannot take animals for granted and use them however we please, neither should we take plants for granted nor use them however we please.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It's quite clear how badly we have mistreated animals. Have we done as badly with plants?

TINNY: We surely have. Since human life developed we have been responsible for the deaths of billions of animals and the extinction of many thousands of animal species. The human race has also been responsible for the destruction of many billions of plants and the extinction of many thousands of plant species. Our whole planet is a complex living system which requires a harmony between all who share this environment to continue a healthy existence. The living beings that share this planet have long cooperated to maintain this delicate balance of nature. One of the most pervasive and critical of these complementary relationships is the oxygen/carbon-dioxide cycle. All animals need oxygen to exist and plants supply this oxygen. All plants need carbon-dioxide to exist and animals provide this carbon-dioxide. The plants that provide the greatest amount of the oxygen to fulfill the needs of animals are trees. Until fairly recently in the history of our planet there were plenty of trees to provide the needed oxygen, but in recent times the human species has destroyed most of the world's trees. The number of trees destroyed is so large that the balance of nature is severely threatened. If we continue at the present rate most life on our planet could become extinct because of our wrong treatment of trees and other forms of plant life. If there is no longer enough oxygen for the animals they will die. When there are fewer animals there would be less carbon-dioxide so plants would die. As more plants die more animals will die. As more animals die more plants will die.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Until there are no animals or plants left.

TINNY: Human ignorance could not only destroy us with war, but could also destroy us by creating an imbalance in the harmony of nature.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The human race certainly has a lot to learn.

TINNY: And we must learn it quickly or it will be too late.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Didn't you tell me earlier that you had once hugged a tree?

TINNY: I did say that. It might sound funny but I don't think it should. Trees are very highly developed beings and they're beautiful too. Some of them are hundreds of feet tall and live for thousands of years. It saddens me to think that billions of trees have been killed unnecessarily. Many people in the world seldom get to walk among the trees and experience their majestic personality. They are missing a lot. Trees are such gentle giants.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are trees the only plants you like?

TINNY: Not at all. While trees have their stately beauty, it is perhaps the flowers that among all things in nature are the most exquisitely beautiful. Not only are most plants beautiful and provide oxygen, but they do so many other valuable things to help maintain the harmony of nature. I often wish human beings could be such good citizens of our planet as plants.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Few people would consider plants to be citizens of our world.

TINNY: That also is due to the egocentric nature of the human species. Plants and animals are as much citizens of our planet as we humans are. If we were to treat them as fellow citizens we would all get along much better.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Every person has a responsibility to be a good citizen don't they?

TINNY: Yes, every person has a responsibility to be a good citizen of our planet and so does every animal and every plant. Most animals and plants live up to that responsibility far better than we human beings.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is a good citizen?

TINNY: At the human level there is no difference between being a good citizen and being a good person. Any being who lives in harmony with the natural order is good. This harmony manifests itself through a full complementary participation with all other developing material forms to reach the highest level of progression possible. This includes both the progression of the individual and the progression of all other material beings.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you be more specific about how a good citizen would be?

TINNY: At the human level a good citizen would act in a loving and caring manner to themselves and to all other beings. They would work for the creation of a clean, healthy, beautiful world. They would work for the general betterment of society. They would work to acquire as much knowledge as possible and work for the spread of all knowledge to every member of society. All this and much more.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is heartening that you said people should act in a loving and caring manner to themselves, not just to others.

TINNY: That is extremely important. Our physical bodies each provide a home for and manifest the growing seed of spiritual consciousness. It would be well for us to treat the physical body as a temple. We should respect our bodies and keep them clean and healthy. The way we treat ourselves has a lot to do with how we treat others. Just as we should never bring harm to others we should never bring harm upon ourselves.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you tell me how we should treat our bodies?

TINNY: I'd rather tell you how I treat my own body.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That would be fine.

TINNY: My goal is for my physical body to be in as good health as possible. I want it to be active and strong.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is this so important?

TINNY: I want to have a body that will enable me to participate as long and as fully as possible on the material plane so I may reach the limits of my potential. I want to be able to fulfill my purpose, which is to progress toward perfection in every aspect.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you expect to achieve that perfection?

TINNY: I don't really think much about achieving it, I'm too involved in all the small steps along the path to that perfection. Those steps offer such inner satisfaction that attaining the final goal assumes no immediate importance.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't you desire perfection in every aspect?

TINNY: When that perfect state is reached it will be the ultimate ecstasy; but it is not mine at present. I try not to desire that which I don't yet have, but rather I try to appreciate what I do have to the fullest. Even the smallest movement in my progression toward perfection brings a taste of the nectar of that perfected state of existence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you do to keep your body healthy and strong?

TINNY: I exercise, eat healthy food, I get enough rest. I think good thoughts about my body.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does it matter what thoughts you have about your body?

TINNY: That is a very important part of health. The physical body must feel loved and cared for to blossom in fullest health. There must be a harmony of mind and body to allow the body's natural health to prevail. It is the natural state of the physical body to be in good health. Negative mental or physical conditions can prevent this natural state of good health from being maintained. Not only do I think loving and caring thoughts toward my body but I will my body to reject harmful influences and maintain its natural healthy state. The body has mechanisms to fight all negative influences; these physical mechanisms to be most effective must work in a harmonious, complementary relationship with the mind.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can the mind will the body to resist or overcome illness?

TINNY: The mind and body can work together to resist and overcome illness to a degree far beyond any present expectations.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: To keep your body healthy and strong you said you exercise. What kind of exercise do you do?

TINNY: I don't do any exercises. My exercises come from active work and active play. It doesn't seem necessary to make exercise a separate part of my life, it is already available to me in my natural living.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about people who have jobs that only involve mental activity and no physical activity?

TINNY: No one should have such a job. It is important to exercise both body and mind during the natural process of life. It is good for the body and mind to engage in both physical and mental play.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should work and play always be kept separate?

TINNY: When the world is right there will be no difference between work and play. Our work will be fun and our play will be productive.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: To keep your body healthy and strong you said you get enough rest. Do you sleep for many hours each night?

TINNY: No, actually I only sleep five or six hours each night.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't you need more sleep than that?

TINNY: I don't, perhaps some might. There is individual variation in all things. I do know, though, there are a lot of reasons why some people sleep many hours each night and they don't all have to do with physical health. My waking life is so full of exciting things and I enjoy all the things I do so much that if I were to sleep any more than my body truly required for health I would feel I was wasting my time.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is sleep a waste of time?

TINNY: All things have a good and bad component. Maximise the positive and minimise the negative. Sleeping to rejuvenate the body is part of the good component of sleep. Sleeping because of boredom, laziness, to escape from an unhappy existence, or for merely for the pleasurable experience is part of the negative component of sleep.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think it would be possible to get by on less than five or six hours of sleep each night and still be alert and healthy?

TINNY: I think so. When I get older I'm going to experiment with my sleeping patterns and see what is best for me.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You sound like a scientist.

TINNY: Sometimes I find it helpful to look at my life as a scientist, sometimes from other points of view.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: To keep your body healthy and strong you said you eat healthy food. Are there unhealthy foods?

TINNY: There are many things that cause harm to the body. Some foods cause harm, some drinks cause harm, and various other things people put into their bodies can also cause harm.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean by causing harm to the body?

TINNY: There are two main kinds of harm caused by what is taken into the body. One kind of harm is caused by direct physical damage and the other is caused by taking away the body's ability to maintain its natural harmony and health. Some foods, drinks, and other substances aid the body to maintain health and strength, while some foods, drinks, and other substances destroy the body's natural health and strength.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it hard to know what is right for the body and what is wrong for it?

TINNY: There is a lot to know about nutrition and it is all valuable knowledge. It is knowledge that everyone should have.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you ever eat anything that wasn't good for your body?

TINNY: No, never.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What if it tasted good?

TINNY: I like healthy food that tastes good. Unhealthy food that tastes good has no attraction to me. I don't seek pleasure for itself; I enjoy pleasure only when it comes naturally from right living.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you ever drink anything that wasn't good for your body?

TINNY: No, never.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many millions of people drink alcohol. Is alcohol harmful to the body?

TINNY: Alcohol can cause great harm to the body and through destroying the body, can destroy the mind.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why then do so many people consume large amounts of alcohol?

TINNY: Partly through wrong social influence and partly because of physical sensations, often considered pleasurable, which come from drinking alcohol.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are these wrong social pressures?

TINNY: There are many. For example many young people wrongly see drinking alcohol as a symbol of independence and maturity. This places a great deal of pressure on young people to drink to prove themselves. Another wrong influence is the widespread belief that it is necessary to drink alcohol to have a good time. Also our society has reached such a stage of sickness that to do the right thing is often frowned upon and even ridiculed. To show disdain for positive values and behaviour has become a commonplace attitude. Sometimes to refuse alcohol is looked upon as being socially inappropriate.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The world is very mixed up at this point in human history.

TINNY: I believe common sense will soon prevail.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I would imagine you would not be attracted to the pleasurable sensations of drinking alcohol just as you were not attracted to the pleasurable sensation of harmful foods.

TINNY: That's right. Just as I don't seek pleasure in food I don't seek pleasure in drink. I only eat and drink those things which provide the necessary requirements for a strong and healthy body.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you be able to resist the social influences? Would you be able to say no to an alcoholic drink in front of your friends if they were all drinking?

TINNY: It would be no problem at all for me to say no to alcohol, regardless of the circumstance. I direct my life by my inner free-will based on what I know to be right. I wouldn't ever be tempted to act against what I knew was right because of any social pressures.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Have you ever tasted any alcoholic drink?

TINNY: No, never.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't you think you might some day take just one drink to see what you might be missing?

TINNY: Probably not. What I am missing by not drinking alcohol are the poisons which would damage my body. I will never mind forgoing that damage, and as I said, the pleasurable sensation, if there really is one, means nothing to me. I seek to transcend the desire for physical pleasure not to experience it. Unless it became known that alcohol was useful for the advancement toward perfection I would have no desire to ever taste it.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is alcohol the only harmful drink commonly used?

TINNY: There are other common drinks that also contain harmful substances, none so harmful though as alcohol.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about drugs? Many millions of people in the world take drugs of various sorts. Some of these drugs are supposed to aid the body maintain health, and other drugs are taken for the physical or mental experience.

TINNY: It is my preference to take no drugs at all. Neither as medicines nor for the experiences they bring. If I live right in body and mind I would seldom be in an unhealthy state which would require medication. And as I seek no sort of pleasure for itself alone the various drugs used for that purpose have no attraction.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you ever take any drugs as medication?

TINNY: I would, but only under circumstances where I had no other choice to maintain my life and health.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Have any such circumstances ever arisen in your life so far?

TINNY: No. I have never yet needed to take a drug of any sort.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Have you ever had any illnesses?

TINNY: A few, but a healthy body and mind can recover from any illness. If I had relied on drugs to heal myself I would be taking that responsibility away from my body and mind. Once that responsibility is given up the ability is soon lost. I want to be as independent of outside influences as possible. Even to be healed by drugs restricts the exercise of free-will. One of the characteristics of perfected being is good health. This perfect health would be self-maintained with no external assistance. It is perfection which is my goal.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The main usage of drugs other than for medication is for the physical and mental experience, for the pleasurable sensation. How do you feel about that?

TINNY: All things that are sought for the pleasure of the experience are wrong in that they bind us to the material plane and therefore inhibit our progression toward perfection.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Some of these drugs which are taken for the experience have been used for thousands of year for religious purposes. It has been claimed they enable the user to reach an enlightened state, to become aware of the true nature of reality, and to commune with existence beyond the material plane. Would this make the use of these drugs all right?

TINNY: If those claims were true and if there were no other way to attain those benefits then it would be right to use those drugs for that purpose. I'm not sure whether those claims are true, although I am open to the possibility. I feel quite sure, though, that reaching an enlightened state, becoming aware of the true nature of reality, and communing with existence beyond the natural plane are all possible without the use of any drugs. If drugs are used as an aid to achieve this spiritual state then the freedom to make the journey by self alone is lost. I choose to make that journey by my unassisted conscious being. That is the natural way to fulfill human potential.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: One last question about drugs. What do you think about tobacco?

TINNY: Tobacco is perhaps the least reasonable of all drugs. An unparalleled victory for wrong social influence and material greed.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think that answers my question.

TINNY: Wrong foods, wrong drinks, alcohol, tobacco and other drugs kill many millions of people each year. They cause severe illness and unhappiness to many, many millions more. We will never have a right world while such problems exist. We will never achieve our human destiny unless we can throw off this awful burden.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If people ate and drank only those things which their bodies required and didn't use alcohol, drugs, or tobacco there would be few unhealthy people in the world.

TINNY: If all those things were combined with a physically and mentally active life virtually all present health problems would disappear.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you think about health care?

TINNY: Health care is experiencing the same sickness that permeates all aspects of human society. The present system of health care is misdirected. The emphasis has focused exclusively on the body and has ignored the mind. There is virtually no attempt by the medical profession to assist those who are treated in re-establishing an inner harmony of body and mind. Illness is treated as something separate from the holistic entity of body and mind. Doctors tend to over treat with the vast number of drugs now available.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean by over treat?

TINNY: Even in those cases where a drug is necessary to help bring the body back to health the treatment should always be the smallest dosage of the mildest drug. This is seldom the case.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't modern technology in medical treatment able to do amazing things?

TINNY: A healthy body and mind in a balanced state can also do amazing things. I have nothing against technology. In fact, technology is a natural part of existence at the human level, but all things can be used wrongly. Much medical technology would be unnecessary in a right world. Doctors, hospitals, medical technology, and drug manufacturers have become big business and high finance. The prestige and material rewards which come from the practice of medicine are pushing the practice of medicine in wrong directions. We need a new kind of healer. One who is beyond the desire for material gain. One who is an enlightened being, knowing how best to assist those who are ill. One who would make use of each individual's natural self-healing abilities. All treatment should be done in a comfortable caring atmosphere. Those requiring treatment should be fully participating partners at every stage of the healing process. Healers should not be aloof from those being treated, but should enter an empathic relationship with them.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What you are describing doesn't sound like most doctors in the world at present.

TINNY: All things about our present society must undergo great changes if we are to survive and progress. Doctors of the future will not be like doctors today.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will natural healing be the way of the future?

TINNY: It will, but it will be different than what are called the natural therapies at present.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How will natural healing of the future be different?

TINNY: There will be a merging of the vast medical knowledge and technology of modern medicine with the natural healing and folk remedies of the past. The two schools of treatment will merge into a complementary whole that will have success through a natural healing process that far surpasses anything either method has ever achieved.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will doctors, hospitals, and medical technology make great changes?

TINNY: Doctors, hospitals, and medical technology will be so different from how they are at present they will be almost unrecognisable.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should health care be as separate from the rest of our lives as it is at present?

TINNY: All that exists should be one harmonious holistic system. Health care should be part of every facet of human society. How we live, how we think, how we relate to others all affect our health. We can think ourselves to sickness or we can think ourselves to health. We can, in the way we relate to others, influence them toward sickness or toward health. We need an environment that nurtures health, not one that breeds sickness. In many and varied ways our present environment brings about physical and mental sickness. Health care that is not fully included in all aspects of our social and physical environment will never achieve great success.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there any physical or mental illnesses that cannot be eliminated or cured by a healthy social and physical environment, and natural healing?

TINNY: Few, if any.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The world you see in the future keeps sounding better and better. I wonder if it can really be that good, and if it could be that good why people don't just give up the old ways which are so destructive to health, happiness, and even survival and rush headlong into this beautiful future.

TINNY: Everyday more and more people come to know these truths and turn from the old life to begin the new. The few shall become many and the many shall become all.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: At times it appears the human race is constantly getting worse in every way rather than better. The movement of humanity at present seems swiftly headed for disaster. Do you really see signs of sanity in this increasingly mad world?

TINNY: All that exists on the material plane goes through cycles. As one set of conditions predominate they tend to generate, house, and nurture the seed of their opposite, which will grow large and bury the old. As human society becomes more evil it sets the conditions that generate seeds of goodness. This growing goodness if given time to blossom will overcome the evil.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does this mean that in the future as good becomes predominant that the cyclic nature of material existence will once again generate the seed of evil within the world of goodness?

TINNY: It has meant that, yes.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then what future does the human race have if condemned to recurring predominant evil. Won't this eventually bring an end to the human species?

TINNY: The cycles of material existence are not simple. I can say this about our future without going into the nature of cycles; it is within the potential of the human race to achieve a world of goodness, never again to experience a predominance of evil.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let me ask one question about the cycles of material existence.

TINNY: All right.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does the nature of the cycles vary depending on the stage of progression that has been reached on the path to perfection?

TINNY: It does. The nature of the cycles change in every characteristic as material existence approaches perfection. It is for this reason I say the cycles are not simple. To consider the nature of cycles to be simple will lead one from truth.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there cycles beyond the material plane?

TINNY: Cycles are linked to time. When a flow of time is not experienced no cycles are experienced.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is our destiny determined by these cycles?

TINNY: You were only going to ask one question about the cycles of material existence, but now you have asked three.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This will be the last. I know you have reasons for not wanting to go too far into the nature of cycles.

TINNY: You're right; I don't want to say too much about the nature of cycles. Much of my reason is due to the limits of my knowledge in this area. I try not to mislead through ignorance. Anyway to answer your last question; no, our destiny is not determined by the cycles of material existence. It is our destiny which determines the nature of the cycles.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you think about reincarnation?

TINNY: This isn't another way of asking a question about cycles is it?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Couldn't all questions be ways of asking questions about cycles?

TINNY: Yes, they could. Anyway, I think the most commonly held belief of reincarnation, that upon death the soul moves on to inhabit another earthly body, is in error.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you don't believe in reincarnation?

TINNY: Yes, I do believe in reincarnation, but not in that way. I believe that the soul, which I think of as the spiritual aspect of being, does arise in new life after death, but not to inhabit another earthly body. Our conscious being, separate from the physical body, continues its progression through perhaps innumerable higher stages on the path to perfection in every aspect.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you sure of this?

TINNY: I believe my answer to be the truth of highest probability. In some instances the probability of truth is so high as to represent virtual certainty. Reincarnation is not one of those instances.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why are you less sure of the truth about reincarnation than about other matters?

TINNY: Because there is a lot of conflicting information about reincarnation and it is hard to judge how much credence should be given to this evidence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The question of reincarnation is very closely related to the question of whether death is the end of our existence or does some part of us, often called soul or spirit, continue on.

TINNY: Sometimes the question is, "do we go to heaven when we die?" It is true, all of these are various ways of asking for an answer to one of the most important, long standing questions in human history.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If you had to answer the question, does the conscious essence of human life continue to exist after the death of the physical body, with a yes or no answer, what would you say?

TINNY: Yes.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How certain are you of the truth of that answer?

TINNY: Virtually totally certain. The probability of continued existence of the conscious essence after death of the physical body is extremely high.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: From your answer about reincarnation I gather while you may be virtually certain that there is a continued existence after the death of the physical body, the exact circumstances of that existence are much less certain.

TINNY: That's right. I'm sure it happens, but I'm not so sure exactly how it happens.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can you tell me how you can be so certain that the conscious essence of human life continues after the death of the physical body?

TINNY: It has to do with the nature of human consciousness. Consciousness is manifested by patterned energy exchanges within the physical structure of the brain. All information transmitted is done through the medium of light, the exchange of photons of electromagnetic energy. Photons have a transcendental quality. They exist beyond the limits of the material plane, unbounded by time or space. It is this timeless quality beyond the material plane that allows human consciousness to exist after the physical body dies. The physical aspect of human life is bound by the laws of the material plane; the conscious aspect of human life exists beyond the laws of the material plane.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I have never heard such an answer given to the question of what happens to the human essence after death. I can see why you say the probability of continued existence is so very high. Your answer is very logical and scientifically based.

TINNY: That is the true nature of existence according to the new world view.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This knowledge brings to mind a whole range of further questions. First, though, I'd like to briefly restate some of the earlier information you have given me which allows you to come to this conclusion. I want to be sure I understood you correctly.

TINNY: That's good; I'd like to hear what my words meant to you.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Before this physical universe existed there was God, or as you say, absolute and perfect being. One of the characteristics of this perfect being is expression of its own nature. Perfect being expresses its nature through the creation of material existence, a physical universe. This occurs by the manifestation of light which imparts the perfect characteristics of God to less than perfect physical matter. This beginning light gave rise to sub-atomic particles which followed the natural laws of God's expressive process and combined into increasingly complex arrangements. The various major stages in this developmental process which began with light are sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, biological life, and human beings. Each of these stages manifested in increasing degrees the characteristics of the creative parent, perfected being. Light brings the essential characteristics from beyond the material plane to the physical existence. Light imbues the sub-atomic particles with a tiny spark of consciousness. Each new developmental level expresses a greater degree of consciousness as the sub-atomic particles organise together in increasingly complex arrangements. When the human level is reached this consciousness manifests the self-reflective quality which includes symbolic thought, language, and contemplation of self. It is at this point of human development that consciousness can be considered as being expressed in the image of the creative parent. Until that human level is achieved natural law externally determines the path developing physical existence must take. After that human level is reached further progress toward the perfect expression of all characteristics in maturity must take place according to the inner direction of our free-will.

TINNY: Yes, that's what I said. You were able to explain my words well, very briefly and clearly.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Now for some questions which arise from these truths. First, if consciousness is an essential aspect of every physical form, from the sub-atomic particle to human beings, wouldn't it be true that the conscious entity of each of these forms would continue to exist beyond the material plane after the destruction or death of that particular form?

TINNY: That's correct.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So human beings are not the only ones whose existence continues beyond physical death.

TINNY: The essence of every physical form that comes into being exists eternally beyond the material plane.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So not only human beings but monkeys, dogs, birds, frogs, lizards, fish, worms, amoebae, flowers, trees, rocks, molecules, atoms, and sub-atomic particles will all have their conscious essence continued eternally beyond the physical existence.

TINNY: All of those physical forms and more have their essential nature which existed before time and continues beyond time. They are all eternal.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What makes the conscious essence of human life different from all these other physical forms if they all continue into eternity?

TINNY: The difference is self-realisation. Self-realisation is required to continue advancement beyond the level where progression is externally determined.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: More simply please.

TINNY: External control through force of physical law does not exist beyond the material plane, therefore any level of conscious development that has not progressed to the point where it has taken over responsibility for its own continued development through the exercise of free-will will not continue to progress beyond the material plane.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That wasn't much simpler than the first explanation.

TINNY: All forms of physical existence below the human level will develop no further after death or destruction on the material plane. Human level consciousness can continue on toward perfection after being released from the material plane by physical death.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That was quite clear. Does this mean that every human being will continue on after physical death and attain perfection in every aspect?

TINNY: No, I don't believe it means that. Perfection can only be attained through the exercise of free-will. Not all will choose to follow that path to perfection.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wouldn't anyone be foolish not to accept perfection if it was within their potential to reach that state?

TINNY: It would indeed be foolish not to accept perfection when it is offered; but, that is not a decision to be made after physical death, it is a decision to be made during life. How many people in the world today have made the decision to live a life that is the path to perfection?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Most in the world are then being foolish since they do not use their free-will to walk that perfect path.

TINNY: It would be the rare person who after choosing wrongly during this earthly life would then choose rightly after this earthly life.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it is possible to fail to choose the right path during life and to choose the right after death.

TINNY: Perhaps possible, but certainly unlikely. Anyone who believes they can live a wrong life now then choose perfection after death is in grave error. During life is the time to choose right over wrong, good over evil. That is the purpose of physical existence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wouldn't God be kind to those who had failed during physical existence and offer another chance?

TINNY: God is always kind. The door to perfect existence is never locked, but many will never choose to open that door.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You said earlier that the purpose of life was to progress toward perfection in every aspect. By this did you mean that is the purpose of life in general or that this was the purpose of each individual's life.

TINNY: To progress toward perfect existence is the essential purpose of all physical form. It is both the general purpose of all envolving life and it is the purpose of every individual life.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it so necessary at the human level to have committed to the right path before physical death? If it is possible as you say to make the decision after physical death, what is it that would keep the conscious aspect, which continues beyond the material plane, from then making the right decision after physical death?

TINNY: It is for the same reason that all forms of physical existence below the level of human consciousness cannot continue to progress after physical death. Since external influences do not impose their will beyond the material plane those physical forms that have not developed consciousness to the point of effectively possessing and utilising free-will cannot continue to progress. Continued progression beyond the material plane comes about only through the exercise of free-will. Those human beings who have not reached a state of enlightenment sufficient to allow the potential of their free-will to be manifested would be not much better off after physical death than the animals. Their free-will will not be miraculously transformed by physical death. The conscious development you die with is the conscious development you enter the realm beyond this material plane with. Since progression no longer takes place by external influence in that realm it is of extremely low probability that those beings who had never exercised their free-will to choose the path to perfection during physical life should choose to do so after physical death.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So there are rewards in the afterlife for progression made during physical existence.

TINNY: It's not quite correct to call them rewards. The development of conscious being toward perfection is one ceaseless continuum. Any point on that continuum is the natural progression from the point immediately preceding it. Whatever point has been reached on the developmental continuum when physical death comes determines what the next step on the continuum will be. So what one receives after physical death is not reward, but is only the next natural stage on the continuum of developmental progression toward perfect existence. What we earn during earthly life is exactly what we receive in the afterlife. No more and no less.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Some people believe it is only through God's grace that anyone may enter heaven.

TINNY: Those are words of traditional religious language. I agree that they are true, but believe them to be often misunderstood. As you know I prefer the terms absolute existence or perfected being to the word God, I also prefer the term beyond the material plane to the word heaven. The misunderstanding is about what God's grace means. Some people interpret this as meaning that our individual progression and good works during physical life do not get us into heaven, but that it is only through God's grace, meaning God's favour or goodwill that we enter heaven. If this was true all physical existence would be without meaning.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why would this take meaning from physical existence?

TINNY: If it was in accord with the natural order for beings to be created perfect then God would create perfect beings. It is in accord with the natural order that we must attain perfection through a physical progression as material beings developing the characteristics of godlike existence and completing the journey to perfection through the exercise of free-will. It would serve no purpose for this natural process to be terminated after a long and arduous journey, the attainment of perfection being then granted rather than earned.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If you say this is true what do you mean when you agree that entry into heaven is only through God's grace?

TINNY: It is by the grace of God that the physical universe exists. It is by the grace of God that the nature of the physical existence creates beings possessed of consciousness and free-will. It is by God's grace that at the human level we have the potential to exercise our free-will to follow a path that will permit entry into heaven and allow us to mature into perfection in every aspect. It could be said that through the grace of God we are all freely given the key to heaven, but we must each still choose by the exercise of our free-will to use that key to open the door.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mind using the words God and heaven?

TINNY: Not really, though I usually think in different terms; but, those words are convenient for those who still think in the language of traditional religious thought.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think those words will ever disappear from human language?

TINNY: As long as there is human language those fine words are likely to remain. Human language will some day cease to exist though.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When will that be?

TINNY: When we are no longer human beings.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What will happen to the human species?

TINNY: If we don't become extinct through an act of self destruction we will continue to envolve, eventually progressing beyond the human level.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: After the death of the physical body is the continuing conscious essence still a human being?

TINNY: The term human being refers to a particular combination of physical body and conscious mind. Once these characteristics are transcended the new being is at a different stage of development.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the name of the beings which envolve beyond the human level?

TINNY: It is a particular trait of human language to name things. This may not be appropriate at higher levels of conscious development.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even so, it still may be useful while we remain at the human level to name these higher beings.

TINNY: I'm sure someone will.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But not you?

TINNY: No, I won't be the one to name this higher level of conscious development.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Getting back to the concept of reincarnation, would you explain why you say you don't believe in the most common meaning of the word, which is, that after physical death the soul passes into another earthly physical body.

TINNY: When I say I don't believe in that concept of reincarnation I am not saying definitely that the concept is wrong, only that it is of much lower probability than the understanding of reincarnation which I described.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I always realise that. I know you remain open to the truth of all possibilities, but speak and act as if the truth of highest probability is real truth.

TINNY: I think it's important to maintain that open mind, but to remain open must not become an uncritical acceptance.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Absolutely.

TINNY: In answer to your question, my reasons for not accepting that traditional understanding of reincarnation are two. First, it does not follow from the general process of developmental progression called envolution; and second, there is no substantial evidence to support that particular understanding of reincarnation.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain each of those reasons in some detail?

TINNY: First then, about not following from the process of envolution. One of the most basic characteristics of the process of envolution is that each level and each stage within any level builds upon the previous level as a base from which to reach further heights of developmental progression. The cycles are not repeated steps but are progressive steps. The steps do not travel in a circle but are moving along an upwardly spiraling pathway.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Couldn't it be said that the repeated bodies the spiritual essence are believed to inhabit are progressive steps which must be taken until consciousness has reached a point of enlightenment that allows the cycle to be broken and the physical existence transcended?

TINNY: That is often a part of the traditional belief about reincarnation. I would even have to agree that it sounds quite plausible.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then why do you say that it is wrong?

TINNY: I don't say it is wrong, only that it is much less likely true than the alternative view which I presented.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Your argument so far hasn't been persuasive.

TINNY: I see that myself. I'll try to explain further. If the traditional understanding of reincarnation were correct it would mean that at any moment there would be many non-material conscious beings who had already inhabited physical bodies, or souls, awaiting the creation of new physical bodies so they could re-enter and live a material life hoping to make sufficient progression in the next physical body to break from the cycle requiring material existence and exist eternally in a higher realm.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't that more or less what some religions claim to be the case?

TINNY: A number of religions hold that belief in one way or another.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying they are wrong?

TINNY: I acknowledge that claim as one of the possibilities. I say, though, that it is of lower probability than the alternative I have proposed. I think the evidence indicates it is much more likely that each soul which God links to a newly created physical body is a new soul. This view is most consistent with the overall evidence provided in the unified theory of existence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain how the traditional theory of reincarnation is in conflict with the unified theory of existence?

TINNY: I'll just give a few significant examples. According to the unified theory of existence the sole purpose of the physical universe is to bring into existence conscious beings capable of attaining perfection in every aspect. The purpose is not to create mechanistic physical shells to be inhabited by already developed beings of non-material consciousness. If this were the purpose of the physical universe the natural order of physical progression would not be likely to require the many billion year long continuous development of matter until human form was reached. Perfected being would simply create a physical existence at the level needed to meet the needs of these waiting beings of non-material consciousness. There is a harmonious logic and pattern to the physical universe and all forms of material existence. Any belief that does not fit comfortably into this natural order must be considered suspect. It appears so much more likely that as each new human being is conceived that a unique new conscious being is brought into existence having the potential to attain perfection in every aspect by the expression of their own free-will. The promise is not that every human being upon physical death will be granted godlike existence; the promise is that each human being who comes into existence has the potential to achieve that exalted state. Some human beings will fail to reach that highest goal just as innumerable less developed material forms have failed in their quest for perfection during the maturation of the physical universe.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Your further argument is more persuasive, but I'm still not convinced.

TINNY: Nor should you be. Do you agree, though, that the traditional belief in reincarnation is of lower probability than the view that says new conscious beings arise from each human life conceived and are not a repetition of old consciousness in new bodies?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I can certainly agree to that. The new view is definitely of higher probability than the old beliefs about reincarnation. I would maintain the right to change my assessment of the likelihood of one over the other when more is known about the true nature of our existence.

TINNY: That is how truth must always be approached.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any proof to substantiate the traditional beliefs about reincarnation?

TINNY: That's not an easy question to answer. It is claimed there is proof. There are two problems with the evidence held up as proof that one spiritual being can inhabit a succession of human bodies. The first problem is whether or not the evidence is true; and second whether or not the evidence, if true, has been correctly interpreted.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is this proof?

TINNY: There has been quite a number of people who have reported being able to recall past lives.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And you don't know whether or not this is true.

TINNY: There is always a difficulty with subjective evidence. It is hard to verify.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it just the word of these people who say they recall past lives or is there any more to the claims than that?

TINNY: There sometimes seems to be knowledge or abilities which were not available to the present person but could be attributed to past lives.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think these people who claim to recall past lives are lying or using tricks?

TINNY: Probably some are. Others appear to at least be genuine in their beliefs. I remain open to the possibility that some people have had experiences where they have been in contact with the non-material aspect of persons from the past.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you rate this as very likely true?

TINNY: It is hard to say.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And, even if it is true, you don't think it proves the traditional beliefs about reincarnation.

TINNY: That's right, I don't. I have wondered why it is people have so often claimed these experiences of contact were related to their own past lives. It would seem to me at least equally plausible, and probably more so, that if the experience of contact with past lives were true it was with someone else's life, not connected with their own. Since consciousness has its transcendental nature through light, and has a timeless aspect, then it would be the case that the conscious aspect of every being who ever lived would be available if only we had the means to reach them. Since all is one, and space and time disappear as factors in the absolute reality, then the conscious aspect of every human being has the potential to reach beyond space and time to communicate with all consciousness that has already passed beyond the material plane. Just because this contact with the consciousness of past beings may occur does not in any way prove that there is a transmission of one spiritual being through a succession of physical bodies.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I agree, there is nothing in the experience to indicate the truth of the traditional beliefs about reincarnation. You said you wondered why this was the widely held interpretation of the reported experience of contact with past consciousness. Do you have any idea why this is so?

TINNY: If the nature of existence according to the process if envolution was not understood the belief that the contact was with one's own past lives would not be unreasonable. This traditional belief has been handed down for thousands of years and I don't think anyone has really thought to consider other possibilities.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it appears these are two possible alternatives to what happens to the soul or continuing consciousness after the death of the physical body. Are there any others?

TINNY: There is also the possibility that just as the forms of life below the human level have not made sufficient development to complete their quest for perfect existence beyond the material plane, the human level of development has not reached that point either.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it is possible that consciousness must envolve beyond the human level to be able to complete the journey to perfection after the death of the physical body.

TINNY: That is one of the possibilities I have considered.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How high do you rate the probability of this being the reality of our existence?

TINNY: Quite low.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the reasoning behind that assessment?

TINNY: It seems to be clearly the case that the human level of consciousness is the turning point where free-will first achieves dominance over the external deterministic influences. This fact provides strong evidence to indicate that the human level of development is sufficient to continue progressing toward perfection after the death of the physical body. This of course makes the probability that the human essence can continue to progress after physical death very high.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there still more possibilities as to what happens after physical death?

TINNY: Theoretically there are millions of possibilities, but most of such low probability that they can be treated as if they were impossible. The three possibilities we just discussed would be considered most likely, with the one standing as far more probable than the other two.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The three are: that the human level of development is not yet sufficient to continue progression after physical death; that the soul or continuing conscious aspect of the human life does continue progressing after physical death, and does so by inhabiting a succession of earthly physical bodies; and, the far most likely possibility, that each new human being who comes into existence has the potential to continue progressing toward perfection after the death of the physical body, and the conscious development made in the one lifetime on earth is the starting point for the continuing non-material being after physical death.

TINNY: That covers the three possibilities most worth considering.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the human level of existence were not yet at the level that could continue the path to perfection after death then some more advanced form of conscious life in the future would achieve the necessary level.

TINNY: That is undoubtedly the case.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How would you feel if it turned out it was not to be the human race but some future beings of higher consciousness descended from the human race who achieved the goal of perfection in every aspect? This would mean not you but only your distant descendants would achieve that perfect condition of existence.

TINNY: I could accept that reality.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wouldn't it change the way you live your life if you knew you could not personally earn the opportunity to continue the progression to perfect existence by living a right life and achieving a high consciousness?

TINNY: Just as all forms of physical existence before the human, I would fulfill my necessary role in the natural order. The less developed forms of life not having sufficient consciousness to realise the critically important role they play in the grand plan of physical existence are not aware of the honour that is theirs. I cherish that honour whether the final benefits are to be mine or reserved only for my descendants.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would there be any difference in what is right living regardless of which of the three alternatives about the continued existence of consciousness after physical death were true?

TINNY: Right thought, word, and deed would remain identical no matter which was the actual truth.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think there will be any conflict between those who favour one alternative over the others?

TINNY: I hope not, that would only impede the quest of us all for perfection. All conflict at the human level slows progression. The truth will become known naturally and comfortably as we continue to envolve.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In traditional religious language, besides the concept of heaven there also exists a concept of hell. You have described heaven as the continued progression toward perfection in every aspect beyond the material plane. What do you think of the concept of hell?

TINNY: If hell exists I'm sure it would not be a place of an eternity of torture and pain. In reality hell would most likely be the situation where one has achieved a sufficient level of consciousness to be aware of the sublime condition of perfect existence, but not of sufficiently high consciousness to achieve that most grand goal.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That would be the condition of those human beings who did not choose to exercise their free-will to follow natural law and live a right life. They are the ones who, having not chosen the right path during earthly life, would pass beyond the material plane still unable, or at least unlikely, to make that right choice.

TINNY: Keeping to religious language, this would be the condition of sin. Sin being wrong behaviour through conscious choice when right behaviour was within the individual's potential.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This fits very closely with the beliefs of some of the world's major religions.

TINNY: I don't seek truths which are consistent with traditional religious beliefs, but I am glad that important ideas from the new world view and traditional beliefs are so often the same. Truth is truth regardless of who professes it or whatever its source. Traditional religious truths are often consistent with the truths revealed through the unified theory of existence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it possible that after physical death the continued conscious existence, which you say is beyond the material plane, may not be beyond all physical existence, but only beyond physical existence as we know it?

TINNY: I wouldn't deny that possibility either. As consciousness envolves toward perfection it may be that there are levels of material existence, each higher than the previous one, which allow further progression before absolute and perfect existence totally beyond the material plane is reached.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would this mean that in higher physical levels the matter existing there would be of a finer nature, unable to be perceived as matter in the lower levels.

TINNY: If there is a series of progressively higher physical domains each would likely consist of finer material forms, which could not be readily perceived from the coarser lower levels.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How likely is that to be the true nature of existence?

TINNY: I don't have enough evidence to make a valid objective judgment on that question.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If that were the true situation would it be consistent with the unified theory of existence?

TINNY: It would be fully consistent.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it change what is right thought, right word, and right deed during this particular physical domain?

TINNY: Not in the slightest degree.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems that in many instances there can be a number of possible alternatives without affecting the general truth of the overall reality.

TINNY: That is part of the power of this new world view. It allows cherished beliefs to be maintained without resorting to dogmatism to protect those beliefs. We are left free to explore many alternatives. We are left open to receive truth. It seems this new world view is close enough to the true nature of reality so that the consideration of various alternatives within the new world view does not prove a challenge to the whole of the world view, and therefore does not provide a threat to cherished beliefs.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When we were discussing the traditional religious concept of hell you seemed quite definite that it would not be a place where people were punished for their failure to follow the right way of life on the material plane of existence. Why was that?

TINNY: Because of the essential wrongness of punishment. Punishment at the human level does not satisfactorily teach right behaviour. Punishment often only serves one purpose and that is for vengeance. Vengeance is not one of the characteristics manifested by a perfected being. Vengeance and the belief in the need for punishment came from wrong human thinking. We must correct those errors in our thinking not only to progress, but also to survive.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Obviously revenge is a very unworthy human desire, but is it true that punishment can do no good?

TINNY: I didn't say that no good could come from punishment. As we discussed earlier all that occurs on the material plane has an outcome which includes some degree of both good and evil. While some good can come from punishment, the good will always be accompanied by an evil component. What I was really saying is that punishment at the human level is not an effective way to teach anything. Whatever is learned will always be accompanied by powerful negative side effects. The long term damage done by the continued use of punishment in human society would result in the eventual destruction of humanity.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If punishment is not the right way to teach anything, what is the right way?

TINNY: The best way to teach is by directed positive influence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does the name describe the process?

TINNY: Directed positive influence as a name is a very accurate description of the process.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I have a feeling this term, directed positive influence, will have an important place in our future.

TINNY: You're right. Directed positive influence will become the way of life in the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We'll leave the discussion until later then. Since we have begun talking about teaching and learning this might be a good time to discuss education. I would imagine one of the social problems facing human society is the failure of educational systems to produce a society of well educated citizens.

TINNY: The present state of education in human society could best be described as a disaster. Basically education is teaching too little, teaching even that small amount ineffectively, and much of the little that is taught is incorrect.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That does sound disastrous. What is the best thing you could say about education at present?

TINNY: That there is a lot of room for improvement.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you talk about education are you just talking about schools?

TINNY: Education is, by the essential nature of human life, part of every aspect of society. The same problems exist in the general educational processes of society and the specific educational programs in the schools.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then let's talk about schools. I have a number of questions about schools.

TINNY: Even though I have been educated at home I know quite a bit about schools.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could we start with a very brief overview of the problems with schools?

TINNY: I'll just list a number of problem areas in no particular order. Schools are seldom a fun place to be. Schools often tend to be punishing. Schools offer too few rewarding experiences. Schools are often boring. Schools often have many meaningless rules. Schools do not cater to individual needs. Schools are too difficult for the slow learner and too easy for the fast learner. Schools are often compulsory. Schools restrict individual expression. Schools stifle creativity. Students aren't taught how to learn. Students are seldom given a choice in what they want to learn. Many students have little desire to learn. Students often treat each other badly. Teachers often treat students badly. Students often treat teachers badly. Teachers often don't respect students. Students often don't respect teachers. Teachers often don't like students. Students often don't like teachers. Too much time is spent in controlling behaviour. Not enough time is spent learning. Teachers aren't adequately trained in managing the classroom environment. Teachers don't sufficiently understand the process of learning. Students and teachers do not cooperate enough. There is too much violence in the schools. Many teachers are poor adult role models for students. Many school books are poorly designed. Parents do not prepare their children sufficiently before they start school. Many parents don't support the efforts of the schools. Parents don't participate enough in the schools.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's quite a list. Is that all?

TINNY: I only listed a few of the huge number of problems in the schools.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You listed problems with students, teachers, and parents. Can you say who is most responsible for the problems in the schools?

TINNY: The responsibility must be shared by every member of society. No one group can be singled out as the main cause of the problem. The school environment is a microcosm of world society therefore showing the great range and complexity of general social problems.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let's discuss a few of those problem areas in education in more detail. To start with you say schools are seldom a fun place to be. What do you mean by fun?

TINNY: The overall school experience should be enjoyable to the students.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: School is not generally thought of as a place to have a good time.

TINNY: I realise that, but the reality remains unchanged. To best fulfill the educational function that is the responsibility of schools then school must become a place where the students have a good time.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Schools are thought to be a place where students work hard.

TINNY: And so they should be. Students should work very hard, but that does not mean they be made to work hard. They should put full effort into their work because they want to. The work that students should put so much effort into should be enjoyable work.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can school work be really enjoyable?

TINNY: School work must be learned effectively. Many things are learned in schools besides academic subjects. As children learn that school work is enjoyable they can take this knowledge into adult life and will experience the work of their vocation as enjoyable.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But most jobs are not enjoyable.

TINNY: All jobs should be enjoyable and all jobs could be enjoyable. Unfortunately this has seldom been considered of importance in adult work, and it has equally been denied due consideration in school work. We need new attitudes to all forms of work and this will require major changes in the types and circumstances of work.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it so important that work be enjoyable?

TINNY: As things are at present many adults dread going to work and many students dread going to school. If this is the feeling before even arriving at work or school it certainly doesn't provide a mental attitude conducive to being productive. It would be much better if adults looked forward to going to work and students looked forward to going to school.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does this have to do with the importance of free-will in human behaviour?

TINNY: It has a lot to do with the importance of free-will. If we go somewhere we don't want to go, and do something we don't want to do, then we certainly aren't doing these things due to the exercise of our free-will. We would be doing them because we would suffer or be punished in some way for not doing these things. It would be fair to say we were forced to do these things which we wouldn't choose to do by free-will. If schools were attractive enough so that students wanted to go to school, and if school work was attractive enough that students wanted to do the school work, then these choices would be made on the basis of free-will. At the human level of existence force is evil, free-will is good; force is wrong, free-will is right. It is impossible for the potential of schools and learning to be fully expressed unless students are attracted to them by free-will.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That sounds quite logical. It's a shame it wasn't realised long ago.

TINNY: It was, most important truths have been known for thousands of years.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why hasn't human society acted in accord with those truths then?

TINNY: While these great truths have long been known by a few, they have at the same time been denied by many.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are these truths better accepted today than they were in earlier times?

TINNY: Human society is still in the dark, but happily on the verge of enlightenment.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that schools tend to be punishing. Do you mean generally punishing or that punishment is used in the schools?

TINNY: Schools are generally punishing and punishment is used in schools.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can a school be generally punishing?

TINNY: It has to do with the meaning of the word punishing. The common definition of the word 'punishing' includes such terms as disagreeable, unpleasant, and boring. I think that throughout the world the feelings about school by many students would be aptly described by that definition. There is also the technical definition of punishment which is - any consequence of a response or any stimulus which follows a response which reduces the future rate of that response occurring is punishing.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'd like to hear that technical definition more simply said.

TINNY: If you do something and what you do is followed by something you don't like then you'll be less likely to do that thing in the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's easier to understand. How does this make schools punishing in the technical sense?

TINNY: The student's initial response might be going to school. If going to school was followed by an unpleasant or boring day while at school then in the future the student would be less likely to go to school. The student's response could also be considered to be having positive thoughts about school, which if followed by unpleasant or boring experiences at school would result in positive thoughts about school being less likely to occur in the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is easy to see that actions are responses, but are thoughts responses also?

TINNY: Thoughts are responses just a much as actions are. This is why when I speak about the changes which will take place, as the new world view sweeps through human society, I always refer to changes in thoughts, words, and deeds. Words and deeds can be described as overt behaviour because they can be heard and seen by others. Thoughts can be described as covert behaviour because they are really known only to the one who thinks them.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You covered the generally punishing nature of schools, what about punishment being used in the schools?

TINNY: The use of punishment has no place in human society, and in particular it has no place in the schools. The use of punishment in schools inhibits learning, drives students out of school, and teaches them that wrong is right.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does the use of punishment teach students that wrong is right?

TINNY: We learn from everything that we experience, with no exceptions. When a student sees a teacher punish someone the student learns that using punishment is socially acceptable behaviour. The teacher while trying to attain any goal through the use of punishment gives powerful social sanction to the use of punishment. As we discussed, evil is the imposition of will by force. Punishment is one of the processes of material existence which allows the imposition of will by force. Any teacher who uses punishment teaches their students a disastrously inappropriate social behaviour. They teach their students that wrong is right.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Haven't many of the world's schools done away with corporal punishment? It is becoming increasingly less acceptable for teacher to hit students.

TINNY: Punishment is by no means limited to hitting. Sometimes words can be used to do far more damage than physical blows. There is probably no teacher who has never hurt a child with words. The developing personality of a child is most fragile. Great care and patience are necessary to nurture these developing personalities so that maximum positive growth is attained.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do teachers who hurt their students with words always mean to harm them?

TINNY: I would hope it was more often the case that the teachers were ignorant of the effects of their words. Teachers are taught how to teach but are seldom taught how students learn. To be the most effective and least harmful a teacher must understand the learning process. Anyone who truly understands how we learn would know the potential harm that can be done through punishing words.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So punishment has no place in the schools at all.

TINNY: Better to say punishment very rarely has a place in schools.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Besides being punishing you say that schools offer few rewarding experiences.

TINNY: Just as schools mistakenly rely too heavily on punishment in their attempt to teach and manage, they also mistakenly fail to rely heavily enough on rewarding experiences in their attempts to teach and manage.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So schools do too much of the wrong thing, punishment, and not enough of the right thing, offering rewarding experiences.

TINNY: That's a good way to put it. Rewarding experiences are the opposite of punishing experiences. Even the definitions are opposites. The common definition of the word rewarding includes such terms as satisfying and worthwhile. Throughout the world the feeling about schools by only a relatively few students would be fairly described by that definition. And, just as there is a technical definition of punishment there is also a technical definition for the rewarding experience, often called reinforcement. Any consequence of a response or any stimulus which follows a response which increases the future rate of that response is reinforcing or rewarding.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And could I have that technical definition more simply stated?

TINNY: If you do something and what you do is followed by something you like then you'll be more likely to do that thing in the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How would schools be if rewarding experiences were predominant?

TINNY: I'll compare this to the example I gave earlier about punishment. If the student's initial response was going to school and that response was followed by satisfying and worthwhile experiences then in the future the students would be more likely to go to school. And if the student's response was having positive thoughts about school and these thoughts were followed by satisfying and worthwhile experiences then these positive thoughts about school would be more likely to occur in the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So schools should have a generally rewarding nature and reinforcement should be used in the schools.

TINNY: In human society good must transcend evil, peace and love must transcend force and aggression, the exercise of free-will must transcend the imposition of will by force, and reinforcement or rewarding experiences must transcend punishment. The use of reinforcement has a very important place in human society, and in particular it has a very important place in the schools. The use of reinforcement in schools facilitates learning, attracts students to school, and teaches them right over wrong.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does it teach students right over wrong?

TINNY: Just as when students see punishment being used they learn that the use of punishment is socially acceptable behaviour, when they see teachers using reinforcement, or directed positive influence, then students learn this to be a socially acceptable behaviour. The teacher using these positive methods of influence gives powerful social sanction to reinforcement. As we discussed earlier, good is the exercise of free-will. Directed positive influence is one of the ways which allows free-will to be expressed. Any teacher who uses reinforcement teaches their students an appropriate social behaviour. They teach right over wrong.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't both punishment and directed positive influence ways of controlling others?

TINNY: There is a major essential difference. Punishment makes a demand, while directed positive influence offers a positive rewarded alternative. Punishment and reinforcement are not just things that are done to us by others but can also be ways in which we influence ourselves with our minds. Punishment is as wrong if done to yourself as it is if it is done to you by others. Directed positive influence remains the right way whether guided from within or initiated by others to provide guidance.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could directed positive influence be used to teach something that is wrong?

TINNY: Yes, the word positive in this case refers to the means used, not to the content of what is taught. It could equally be used to teach right or wrong.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And punishment can also be used to teach both right and wrong.

TINNY: That's true also. Here we can see further the difference between the two methods. Using punishment there is little opportunity for the student to make a personal assessment of the rightness or wrongness of what is being taught, while directed positive influence leaves the student free to choose whether or not to accept that which is taught. If a student chooses an alternative path to that which is being taught through punishment they would come to harm because of that decision. If a student chooses an alternative path to that which is being taught through directed positive influence then they come to no harm. Indeed if they choose an alternative right path they don't necessarily even take a loss of reward since rewarding experiences occur along all right paths. It is for this reason that directed positive influence does facilitate the exercise of free-will, while punishment does restrict the exercise of free-will.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You also say that schools are boring.

TINNY: Yes. Little effort is made to either choose interesting material or to teach the chosen material in an interesting manner.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't there things that everyone should know whether they are interesting or not?

TINNY: I would agree with that, but it must be said that at present schools teach a fair amount of material that is neither interesting nor necessary.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should schools stop teaching those subjects which are not necessary and many students find uninteresting?

TINNY: Schools should make all subjects available and allow students to choose which they want to study. Even subjects which are not necessary and that many find uninteresting will be chosen by some. No matter what the subject though, great effort should be made to present that subject in the most interesting manner possible. Those which are most necessary should be made the most interesting.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that schools often have meaningless rules.

TINNY: One of the greatest problems in the schools is the management of students' behaviour. I would say that it is not a legitimate function of schools to manage students' behaviour. The role of the school is to provide educational opportunities not to manage behaviour.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But if schools don't control the behaviour of the students then learning wouldn't take place.

TINNY: As schools are presently organised what you say is true. Schools provide an environment that is not at all conducive to teaching and learning, so it is not surprising that students do not choose by their free-will to act in a manner appropriate to a learning situation. Schools provide an environment that rewards inappropriate behaviour then use that inappropriate behaviour as an excuse to rigidly control the behaviour of students. If schools provided a right atmosphere for teaching and learning to take place the management of students' behaviour would become unnecessary. Students in this right educational environment would choose by their free-will to act in a manner appropriate to the teaching-learning situation.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Won't there always be some rules necessary in the schools?

TINNY: All rules limit the ability of the individual to maximise their progression. Just as the future of human society is to exist without laws, the future of schools is to exist without rules. When the members of society reach a sufficiently enlightened state to make right decisions without external influence laws become unnecessary. When the students in school reach a sufficiently enlightened state to make right decisions without external influence rules become unnecessary.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But that high level of consciousness has not yet been achieved. What should be done until then? Can laws and rules be forsaken before enlightenment is achieved?

TINNY: Without enlightened consciousness a world without laws and rules would be self-destructive. Until that high conscious state is realised we must have some laws and some rules. It is extremely important, though, that the laws and rules be kept to an absolutely necessary minimum and even these few being under constant evaluation, to be dropped as soon as is practicably possible.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it is harmful to have either too few or too many laws and rules.

TINNY: If we have too few laws and rules before we can handle the freedom this stands in the way of our progression. If we have too many laws and rules after we can handle the freedom this also stands in the way of our progression. If the discrepancy between our ability to accept personal responsibility and the imposition of laws and rules becomes great enough it can result in the destruction of human society.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean either too few laws and rules before we are ready or too many laws and rules after we are ready can result in the destruction of human society?

TINNY: Ultimately either could have that result if taken to the extreme. As with all aspects of material existence, and certainly of human existence, the point most conducive to maximum progression is one of balance and harmony. The greater the imbalance or disharmony the greater the potential for harm.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is this true only for the social whole or is this also true for the individual?

TINNY: This truth about the necessity for balance and harmony is true for all material existence from the simplest to the most complex, both the individual and all the varying degrees of social groupings. Balance and harmony provide the perfect path to the fulfillment of our destiny.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you don't oppose all rules in schools, just unnecessary rules.

TINNY: I would never oppose that which must be.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Who should decide whether or not certain rules are unnecessary?

TINNY: This is not a matter for anyone to decide. What is right and wrong at any level of physical development is determined by the natural order. Laws and rules should be determined by this natural order until the only law is natural law.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But someone will have to interpret the natural order.

TINNY: The laws and rules to be applied at any time should then be objectively determined by the logical assessment of the natural order. Subjective opinion would have no legitimate place in these decisions.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is never easy to separate the objective from the subjective in human decision making.

TINNY: This is why it is so helpful to have a good understanding of the true nature of existence. A world view such as the unified theory of existence allows decisions on matters that would have previously been largely subjective to be measured against an objective standard.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that schools do not cater to individual needs; that schools are too difficult for the slow learner and too easy for the fast learner.

TINNY: Each person is different in many ways, their preferences, their abilities, even their perception and thinking processes. Schools, because of their inability to understand learning or develop appropriate teaching-learning environments, have had to make do with an essentially one dimensional teaching plan and have required all students to fit into that program. This means the educational program, while designed for the so-called average student, actually fails to fit the specific needs of even one student.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the educational program is designed for the average student how can you say it meets the particular needs of no students?

TINNY: Because there is no such thing as an average student. This is a concept with no objective reality in everyday life. Every student is different. Those who are less far from the average are harmed less than those who vary greatly from the average, but no one really gets the educational opportunity that would benefit them most.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do those who are above the average suffer as much as those who are below the average?

TINNY: Those who are below or above the average suffer differently. It could not be truly said that one group suffers more than another. Neither those who are below the average nor those who are above the average are able to reach their potential for learning. Those who are below the average may learn that education is difficult and to be avoided. Those who are above the average may learn that education is boring and to be avoided. Both groups will tend to experience a number of emotional and behavioural problems as they find themselves not fitting into the educational system.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are the long term effects of this failure of the educational system to meet the individual needs of the students?

TINNY: The students lose the opportunity to maximise their progression and tend to lead lives that bring them into conflict with society. As a result they are often not happy and satisfied with their lives. Many also end up being punished by society because they do not fit established norms. It is not only the individual that loses, but there is a loss to all of society. The loss of potential of the many millions who do not conform to the average which schools are geared to teach is immense. Many potentially good workers and fine minds are lost to society.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that one of the problems with schools is that they are compulsory. If schools were not compulsory then very few students would go to school. Isn't it necessary to make school attendance compulsory?

TINNY: No schooling should ever be compulsory. If it is necessary to make going to school compulsory to ensure attendance then there is something wrong with schools. School should be such a desirable and rewarding experience that no student would be willing to miss the opportunity. If schools were not compulsory educators would be required to provide school opportunities more relevant to the student's needs. With compulsory schooling the true needs of the students are often neglected in educational planning. Schools are presently more often created around the educational philosophies and personal preferences of administrators than the true needs of the students.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't school administrators know better than students what is needed in education?

TINNY: Nobody knows as well as the person being educated what their educational needs are. The student should have the ultimate say in every aspect of the educational process. They should decide what they will learn, how they will be taught, and who will teach them.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean that students should really be allowed to choose who will teach them?

TINNY: No student should ever have any teacher forced upon them. Any teacher that lacks the qualities that make them a desirable teacher in the eyes of the students should not be allowed to teach.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Almost any large school would have some teachers that virtually all students dread. What should happen to the teachers that no students want to be taught by?

TINNY: They should be given the choice of becoming a teacher who is desirable to the students or giving up teaching.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't you being a bit hard on the teachers? You are saying that if enough students don't like a teacher then that teacher should not be allowed to teach. It takes a lot of time and training to become a teacher. How could you ask then to give that up?

TINNY: Being a teacher is much more than just a job. Being a teacher is a sacred trust. No one should ever become a teacher unless they are fit to teach. It takes more than time and training to be teacher. If you are not a good and right person you should not teach. It is no one's right to become a teacher. It is an honour to be allowed to teach, an honour that must be rightfully earned. Far too much harm can be done by an unfit teacher to allow an unfit person to continue teaching.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There are already processes by which an unfit teacher can be removed from teaching duties.

TINNY: The present criterion of what makes a teacher unfit is virtually meaningless. Any teacher who is not a good teacher is an unfit teacher. There are many teachers who are not good teachers.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that schools restrict individual expression and stifle creativity.

TINNY: This is another negative outcome of the attempt to teach to the average student. Anything in personal or academic behaviour that falls too far from the expected norm is seen as detrimental to the overall learning situation. This often results in individual expression and creativity being punished, or at least not rewarded. There is a conscious attempt in most schools to teach conformity. Schools have no right to do this.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is conformity desired and taught in the schools?

TINNY: Conformity is desired and taught for two main reasons. One is that teachers often believe that anything that is different is disruptive, and therefore hinders their teaching plan and activities. The other main reason is that the established social order requires conformity among its citizens to maintain control.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean by the established social order?

TINNY: Society as a whole, government, and all other organisations both private and public that are part of the established social order. All of these are threatened by individual expression and creativity.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do individual expression and creativity really threaten the established order?

TINNY: They surely do and rightfully so. As long as society consists of public and private organisations demanding control there will be a threat from those who express their individuality and creativity. Without individuality and creativity the human race will not continue to progress. As long as any person or organisation attempts to control others there will be threats to that control. It is in accord with the natural order that control shall be overcome.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that students have little desire to learn.

TINNY: As with all these statements of problem areas in schools this is a generalisation. Children during their early years are consumed by an almost overpowering desire to learn. This desire to accumulate knowledge could continue through our lives and would provide great benefits if it did. The school environment very often quashes this thirst for knowledge. School can make the process of learning a task to be avoided.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does this happen?

TINNY: By association with things that are negative. Learning often becomes associated with punishment, hard work, boring experiences, and other negative aspects of the school environment. If anything is associated with that which has a negative nature then that thing tends to be perceived negatively. Anything that we perceive negatively we tend to avoid. Schools should be allowing the natural desire to learn to grow and remain strong. For this reason it is important that learning be associated with positive experiences at school so that learning will gain from this positive association.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that students often treat each other badly, teachers often treat students badly, and students often treat teachers badly. Also that teachers often don't like or respect students, and students often don't like or respect teachers. It seems that poor interpersonal relationships predominate in the schools.

TINNY: This is because the overall school environment is very sick, so therefore it produces sick social behaviour.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is this only the fault of the school environment?

TINNY: Not at all, the specific problems in the schools stem from the general problems in society. Human society is very sick, and produces sick social behaviour in all areas of social activity.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you use the word sick what exactly do you mean?

TINNY: I'm using the word sick in this case to mean mentally ill. I am referring to the fact that human society has become insane. It is this insanity that pervades every human social endeavour. It is this insanity which exists in the schools and is the cause of the many problems in the school environment. It is for this reason that teachers and students are unable to relate to each other in a manner which is conducive to positive, caring feeling for each other and right treatment of each other.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I agree that is generally true. Would you explain specifically how the poor treatment, dislike, and lack of respect come about?

TINNY: The insanity I refer to as existing in society and in the schools results from an inability to correctly perceive reality. Since students and teachers do not have a clear and correct perception of the true nature of reality their behaviours are based on false beliefs, and are then not very likely to be right behaviours. Therefore they present a danger to themselves and others. This results in educators using negative influence to teach and manage students. This results in students using negative means to fight against those who attempt to teach them things they don't want to learn, using a teaching approach they don't like. Teachers are met with hostility and rejection by students. Teachers are faced with avoidance, aggression, and violence from students. Students are met by all these same negative social attitudes and behaviours from the teachers, and from their fellow students. The negative actions of the students promote and support the negative attitudes of the teachers. The negative actions of the teachers promote and support the negative attitudes of the students. An environment is created where positive social interaction is seldom rewarded and negative social interaction is often reinforced. Few feel the social responsibility to treat others in a right manner. Few feel the social responsibility to care for, like or respect others. This social insanity breeds and intensifies in schools just as it does in world society. The school environment becomes less productive and more destructive just as in world society.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can this trend be reversed?

TINNY: It can be reversed in the schools and it can be reversed in world society. We need only understand the true nature of our existence and these social problems will disappear. If we continue to remain blind to the true nature of our existence the human race will die.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps we can talk more about education later. I can see the recurring cause of all the problems we have discussed so far and realise the truth of the one solution to all those problems.

TINNY: If only we all could do that.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Before we move on, is it really necessary for teachers to be good role models for their students?

TINNY: This is more important than any other aspect of the educational system. Teachers must be good and right people in all areas of their lives.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even their private lives?

TINNY: Due to the interconnected nature of all things there is no such thing as a private life.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Shouldn't teachers be as free as any other person to live their lives as they please and to believe whatever they choose?

TINNY: No person is free to live as they choose or believe as they choose without the responsibility of their effect on others. Those who teach children have a particularly great responsibility since they affect so many lives during the critical early phases of development. If a teacher cannot live as a good and right person they should not teach.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How should it be determined whether or not a teacher is a good and right person?

TINNY: That issue is decided by the natural order. If a teacher lives in accord with natural laws and understands the natural order then they are good and right.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And no person who does not live in accord with natural law and who does not understand the natural order should be allowed to teach.

TINNY: They should not.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps in the world today to have such stringent prerequisites for teachers would mean that no one would be eligible to teach.

TINNY: However things are at any time is the immediate reality. That reality must be accepted, but with that acceptance must come an objective evaluation of the present state and a constructive plan by which we can move closer to the ideal, ultimately to perfection.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What should actually be done about deciding who can teach at this present time?

TINNY: Teachers should be chosen who live as closely as possible in accord with natural law. Teachers should be chosen who best understand the natural order. Teachers should be chosen who will strive to live in closer accord with natural law and will strive to better understand the natural order.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is asking a lot of teachers.

TINNY: No one who is unwilling to give that much is worthy to teach.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As is often the case your unwavering idealism is likely to offend.

TINNY: No offence is ever meant. It is unfortunate that human society has gone so wrong that to speak simple and obvious truths may be seen by some as offensive.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you feel toward those who may take offence to the truths you propound?

TINNY: I feel very sorry that I offend them.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even if you are right and they are wrong?

TINNY: If I do or say anything that causes discomfort to another I feel sorry that I have done so regardless of whether I am right or wrong. Perhaps if I were a better person myself and understood better the true nature of our existence I would be able to say these truths in a manner which would offend no one. At present I can only act from this imperfect level of progression which I have reached and offer my sincerest apologies to all who are offended.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps if some truths offend you should not speak them.

TINNY: I am under high moral obligation to offer whatever truths I may possess. I must do so even if it occasionally offends. I accept the responsibility for my actions. I only hope that the positive outcome outweighs the negative. If I can maximise the good while minimising the evil then I have fulfilled my responsibility at my present level of progression.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I hope any who find discomfort from your words will forgive you.

TINNY: I do too.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It appears that schools in the future will be very different than they are today. I suppose communities will also be very different in the future.

TINNY: Every aspect of human society will be different. Communities being one of the most basics aspects of human society will change drastically.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are the main problems with communities at present?

TINNY: Probably the worst types of human community at present are the cities.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is so bad about cities?

TINNY: Cities have virtually no good points. Cities are unnecessary and dysfunctional.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you be more specific?

TINNY: Cities bring too many people together in one area. Cities breed crime and violence. Cities are dirty and polluted. Cities promote and maintain many wrong social values. These are but a few of the many problems with cities.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If cities are so detrimental to human well being why do they exist?

TINNY: Cities originally developed for two main reasons. One was to provide protection from roaming barbarians bent on rape and pillage. The other initial function of cities was to provide an opportunity for great material wealth to be amassed.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So cities arose out of human violence and materialism.

TINNY: Two of the major wrongs of the human race.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the practice of violence and the desire for material gain were not part of human culture wouldn't cities still have developed?

TINNY: Not unless they developed in response to some other wrong in human society, cities are not included in the natural progression of the human race. If human society had not strayed so far from the natural order we would never have developed cities.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Most of the world's population now lives in cities.

TINNY: For this all human society pays a great price.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What type of community would better meet human needs?

TINNY: The primary consideration would have to be size. As soon as any community gets too large it loses its ability to successfully nurture human development.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since big cities are so harmful, what size community would be best?

TINNY: The ideal size would be a small town.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The term 'small town' is pretty general. What population would you say was the maximum that could exist in a town before the harmful effects of size began to be felt?

TINNY: I wouldn't like to give a specific number, but I could still give a fairly definite answer. The ideal size for a community would be small enough so every member of the community knew every other member, and large enough so that quite a long time could pass without any two members seeing each other.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Compared to today's cities that would be a very small town.

TINNY: It would be more than a few hundred and less than many thousand.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it so important that towns be small?

TINNY: There is probably only one critical determining factor. Our present level of social development is better able to function within those limits. Once we go beyond those limits we tend to lose the powerful social influences which moderate and facilitate our personal interactions in a small community.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As the level of humanity's social development rises will the limits upon the practical size of the community change also?

TINNY: There will come a time when such a question will no longer have meaning. Until that time comes many different social living arrangements will probably be tried. Some which now would seem most unreasonable or impractical may prove to be of great benefit. I doubt though, regardless of what progress is made in the level of human social development, that vast cities as we know them will ever prove functional or desirable in the future. As consciousness rises needs will be reassessed. It is unlikely beings of higher consciousness will be attracted to that which is only offered by large cities and massed populations. There is little if anything of true value in the cities that could not be available in the small towns.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say there is one critical factor, the level of human development, which makes small towns the ideal human living situation. There are many other benefits to small community living, even if they could not be considered critical, aren't there?

TINNY: There are innumerable benefits, which would come from life in small communities. It might be valuable if we discuss a number of these since they typify the solutions and changes which society as a whole must undergo to insure a future for the human species.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The problems which arise in large cities are not simple.

TINNY: They are extremely complex. It appears that all forms of life have an ideal population density and once that is surpassed social problems of all different forms occur of greater magnitude and with increased frequency. All that had earlier only existed as potential wrong begins to exist as expressed harmful reality.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The dense populations of cities magnify the existing flaws in our present level of human social development.

TINNY: For example, we humans still have the potential for aggression and violence so in cities aggression and violence occur of greater magnitude and with increased frequency.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What effect does a high population have on positive social characteristics?

TINNY: All positive human social characteristics occur of lesser magnitude and with decreased frequency in the densely populated cities.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: City living brings out less of our good qualities and more of our bad qualities.

TINNY: In general that is true. Of course there could be individuals who do not follow the general pattern, but they would be a small minority.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If everyone lived in small communities trade, manufacturing, government, in fact virtually all organisational structures of human society could no longer exist on a large scale.

TINNY: That is one of the many benefits of small community life. Without cities centralisation would begin to disappear.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see. Without centralised organisation and control everything related to the ongoing success of the local community is the responsibility of the local community.

TINNY: Local responsibility and control are a step toward individual responsibility and control.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So big cities by their very nature tend to restrict the exercise of individual free-will.

TINNY: Most definitely.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And small communities by their very nature tend to enhance the exercise of individual free-will.

TINNY: That also is, or at least can be, true.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wouldn't that mean the ideal living situation would be that of a hermit?

TINNY: As in all things balance is the ideal. If we live among too many people or too few, restrictions are placed on the degree to which we can fulfill our developmental potential.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If production and distribution were done on a small scale rather than on a massive scale wouldn't the cost be much greater? Wouldn't the profit be much less?

TINNY: Now we are entering the realm of economics. The answer to those questions hinges on our long term goals. I would say that profit should not be a consideration and that cost involves factors which must be considered far beyond the scope of traditional economics.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean when you say profit should not be a consideration?

TINNY: I mean there should be no profit. There should be no profit from production, and there should be no profit from distribution. Indeed, no human endeavour should result in profit.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean that no individual should profit or that no profit exist at all?

TINNY: I mean no individual, no organisation, and no government should receive a profit from human endeavour.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But you don't mean to say no person or social group should receive the benefits of human endeavour do you?

TINNY: The true benefits of human labour are the purpose of our existence. Profit has no place in the development of our potential. Profit refers to surplus, meaning that which is left over after costs are deducted. In a truly balanced society nothing would be left over.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain the idea further?

TINNY: We can consider our planet as a closed system. All that exists within that system has a goal, to maximise the overall developmental progression. To simplify we will just consider the human beings which exist on our planet. We have some specific number of individuals. Those individuals have certain needs which must be fulfilled if they are to be able to maximise their developmental progression. The combined efforts of all the world's individuals should be directed toward fulfilling those needs. The full requirements of developmental progression will always be greater than the combined efforts of human endeavour. The collective endeavour of the world's individuals would ideally result in a perfect balance of cost and production. As cost, or more specifically time, labour, and resources increased, production would increase; always remaining in a harmonious balance of maximised developmental progression.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I understand now how profit or surplus cannot exist in such a system. Increased production takes the place of profit. Increased production is of collective benefit to every individual.

TINNY: This is only possible because increased production can never meet the demand.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Maximised developmental progression has seldom if ever been considered as a product.

TINNY: It is the only truly meaningful product. It is the natural product of physical existence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The concept of cost will alter greatly with the product being maximised developmental progression.

TINNY: That's true, vastly different factors will be involved than in determining costs of production for profit.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I know the differences will be many but would you give me an example of this different perception of cost.

TINNY: When financial considerations determine cost it is often the case that it is deemed desirable to receive the maximum amount of labour for the minimal wage. In other words, there is an attempt to get as much as possible from the worker and give as little as possible in return. Such a system invariably results in exploitation of the worker. But, when maximised developmental progression is the desired product financial considerations play only a small part in economic decisions. Since satisfaction and happiness on the part of the worker are critical aspects of human developmental progression they become part of the product not part of the cost. Time and resources spent to enhance worker satisfaction and happiness become valuable and necessary expenditure.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps we could talk more about economics later, but for now we can get back to how this new perspective on costs relates to the type of community people live in?

TINNY: When financial considerations and profit are the prime consideration centralisation of production and distribution are necessary. Therefore cities become necessary. Mass production requires a massive labour force, mass distribution requires massed consumers.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: With small community living mass production would not be possible, would it?

TINNY: Certainly mass production wouldn't be possible as it is at present.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Might this not cause problems in meeting demand for products?

TINNY: We could not have a world as it is now without cities. There would be far fewer material items available to all people. This does not cause a problem, instead it provides a solution. We need a de-emphasis on material acquisitions so that we may more fully realise our spiritual nature. The desire for financial gain, beyond all realistic needs, provides the motivation for a large portion of all items presently mass produced. The greater the diversity and quantity of the items sold the greater the profits. Realistic human needs don't determine the nature and quantity of the products, only the market potential influences those decisions. Since many of the products do not fulfill natural needs and desires the market must be artificially created. Virtually the whole present social structure of the human race plays some part in creating and sustaining this artificial market. The very nature of small community living would serve to overcome this artificially created desire for material acquisition. Small community living could provide for the full material needs of every member of human society. This is a goal which the present profit oriented system of production and distribution could never achieve.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Sometimes it is hard to imagine how different the world of the future will be.

TINNY: It will be the long sought, but always believed to be unattainable, utopia. Few believed utopia could ever come to be; now remarkably we find there can be no other future but utopia.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Our choice is heaven on earth or extinction of the human species.

TINNY: I've made my choice. If enough others make the same choice utopia is ours.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since you say the future will have less emphasis on material goods, do you foresee these small communities of the future forsaking modern technology and reverting to a more primitive way of life?

TINNY: This future I foresee is not one of the noble savage living in a simple, primitive harmony with nature. To the degree that such a lifestyle ever existed, other than in the minds of philosophers, it is part of the history of human development. I expect small community life in the future to utilise science and technology to a degree never before attempted or possible. Human life, both individual and social, has certain requirements which must be fulfilled. Some of these tasks will be edifying and enlightening, some will be far less than that. All these tasks must be carried out to sustain and advance human development. All science and technology that truly facilitates our further development should be welcomed and accommodated. Science and technology rightly used can lessen our burden and quicken our journey.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Won't the small communities of the future be isolated from each other? Might they not be cut off from the benefits of new knowledge and achievement? Won't they be bound to subsist on that which is in near proximity and have restricted access to the abundance of distant places?

TINNY: All of those potential difficulties can be overcome by efficient and available transport and communication. These communities will have instantaneous worldwide communication with full access to news, information and new knowledge. Transport also will link all corners of the world. Nowhere need be more than a brief journey away.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wouldn't all this advanced communication and transport be prohibitively expensive?

TINNY: They will be free to all; they will be among the readily available products of a world economy geared to maximising the developmental progression of all life on our planet.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it will not only be human progression that is the goal, but the progression of all life on our planet.

TINNY: As human brings become enlightened, aware of the unified nature and destiny of all physical existence, we will seek not only our own continued progression but will seek also to assist those forms of physical existence less envolved than ourselves. The dominion we have been given over less developed forms of life on this planet carries with it certain responsibilities which must be met if we are to achieve our full destiny. We must prove ourselves worthy of the grand glory that is our destiny. We cannot progress unless those we share this planet with also progress.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say transport and communication will be free in the future world. What about all other things such as food, housing, and clothing, will they also be free?

TINNY: Everything we need or desire will be free.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If everything is free, why would anyone work? Their wages would have no value.

TINNY: In a world where everything is free there would be no need for wages. Wages are a way of exercising external control over the behaviour of individuals. People will work because of inner desire. That desire will be for the advancement of all life toward perfection. Every product of every person's labour will act in some way to further the developmental process.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If everything is free won't some people take too much?

TINNY: Only in a world conditioned to falsely value material wealth does such greed exist. An enlightened being would never take more than was necessary. Either more or less than is necessary leads one from the harmonious path. The inhabitants of these small communities of the future will have reached a sufficient state of enlightenment so that their desires would not exceed their needs.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have a great trust in human nature.

TINNY: I do not say such things through trust. If we are fulfilling our potential then such a future will exist and such idealistic behaviour will be natural. If we are not fulfilling our potential then such idealistic behaviour will not exist nor will it be expected. In a right future world it will be easier to never take more than is necessary than it is to take more than is necessary in today's world.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even though all things will be free won't there still have to be some controls on how much people take?

TINNY: The only controls will be inner controls.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say these communities of the future will make use of high technology. Will there still be a place for that which is natural?

TINNY: Technology is natural at the human level of development, but I think you mean will these communities have the characteristics of sterile laboratories.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is what I meant.

TINNY: Harmony with all nature is an important part of our developmental progression. I could not predict how these small communities of the future will look, but I am sure they will be designed to exist in harmony with the natural environment. It may well be that houses as they are at present, both in concept and design, will have no place in the future. The particular structure of each community will vary greatly depending on the combined special needs of the residents and the local environmental conditions.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the small communities of the future be self-sufficient or will they depend on other communities for some of their basic necessities

TINNY: Each will be as self-sufficient as circumstances allow. This will mean some will have virtually all their basic needs internally met, while others will be able to supply few of their basic needs internally. Individuals within each community will joyfully share with the other members of their community. Communities throughout the world will joyfully share with other communities.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will each person require a return equal to that which they give? Will each community require a return equal to that which they give?

TINNY: Never a thought would be given to the equality of the return. Such concerns only have meaning in a world that emphasises material acquisitiveness.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since these communities of the future will have as their sole emphasis the maximised developmental progression of all life, might not life in these communities become a bit dreary?

TINNY: Many are the ways in which the advancement of the human species may be realised. All of these ways can provide great enjoyment.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But will people still have time for the arts, for sports, and for recreation?

TINNY: Advancement can certainly be made through the arts, through sports, and through recreation. In a world not seeking financial gain and material wealth there will be much more time to devote to such activities.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Developmental progression is a very inclusive process, isn't it?

TINNY: All right action is directed to developmental progression. All action which is in accord with the natural order at our level of progression is part of our developmental progression. There is a greater range of human behaviour possible that can further our quest than has ever been expressed before. The communities of the future will provide the opportunity to expand our behavioural horizons to limits never before imaginable.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How will all this be possible in small communities? Wouldn't it require the resources of sizeable cities to provide so many opportunities?

TINNY: Please don't ever underestimate the potential of a small community of totally committed, enlightened human beings. That small community could provide resources beyond those of any city today. Besides, it is wrong to think of these small communities of the future as being isolated, they will be linked units of a world community, having the full facilities of a whole planet available.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will life in these future communities be private or communal?

TINNY: Aspects of both private and communal life will be combined. People will be free to be as private as they choose or as communal as they desire.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will some communities emphasis private living and some emphasis communal living?

TINNY: Various communities may specialise through a commonality of interests in many different aspects of human endeavour. Some may choose to emphasise private living and some may choose to emphasise communal living. The majority may choose to accept the benefits of both systems.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will there be competition between various communities to prove their choice the more successful?

TINNY: It is likely every community will be an experimental living environment. Whatever competition exists will be within the community as they strive to improve their individual situations and community practices. No community will be trying to outdo any other; each will simply be trying to improve themselves. Those in any one community will welcome the progress and success of all other communities. Each will gladly share their successes with others and will welcome input from other communities who have made valuable discoveries.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since many of these new communities will function communally, will there still be private ownership?

TINNY: In many ways the concept of private ownership stems from selfish material acquisitiveness. Such feelings will not exist in our future so private ownership as we now know it will not exist.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would the community own everything?

TINNY: The community would own nothing.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then who would own everything. If no one has anything which can be considered their own does this mean any person could freely take the belongings of another?

TINNY: It would be useful if we discussed some specifics of the concept of ownership. Ownership is in reality a construction of human thought. In the true sense ownership has no meaning. Given the nature of the physical existence there is no mechanism to allow ownership.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can you say it is impossible to own anything?

TINNY: Consider what is meant when something is said to be owned. Ownership may be described as a social agreement of possession. Social agreement is a function of human thought, not of physical reality.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will anything replace the present concept of ownership?

TINNY: Ownership refers to a certain class of relationships between human beings and various other physical forms. For example it might be said some person owns a house, owns a piece of land, or even that they own a cow or a cat. In each of those cases the concept of ownership indicates some special relationship between a person and the thing referred to as owned. In the future there will still be special relationships between people and various other physical forms. These will not be based on possession as characterised by ownership. They will be based on mutual responsibility. The human being, having higher consciousness and therefore greater free-will, must accept the larger share of the mutual responsibility; but, it is important to realise that the other partner in the relationship must also accept responsibility at their developmental level. The development of these relationships of mutual responsibility is in accord with the natural order in the material plane of existence. Interference with these ongoing relationships would oppose the harmony of the natural order and would not take place in a right world.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm not sure I understand the implications of what you are saying.

TINNY: We do not need to own things to maintain our right to participate in an ongoing relationship of mutual responsibility with them. For example, my parents and I do not own the land we live on; we do not own the house we live in. We have formed a relationship with the physical forms of the land and the house. In a right world no one would attempt to live on the same piece of land or occupy the same house where my family lives. The harmonious relationship which has developed between my family and the land would be respected. If we decided to move we would give up our special relationship with that particular piece of land and it would be available for another family to initiate and develop a special relationship of mutual responsibility with that land.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Sometimes the language you use to describe the various aspects of human existence seems quite strange.

TINNY: I'm sure it must seem odd. I am describing the world from the perspective of the new world view, these new ways of looking at things would naturally sound strange when first put into words.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it be true that when ownership is a concept which drops from usage the relationships between people and other physical forms will be on a more personal basis?

TINNY: When ownership no longer exists there will be no relationships of mutual responsibility that extend beyond direct personal influence. While at present a person can own a piece of land they have never seen, such a prospect could not occur in the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This would mean no person could accumulate great material wealth.

TINNY: Wouldn't that be wonderful. We would no longer be burdened with those things which most restrict the fullest expression of our developmental progression. It is only through this shift from ownership of property, to relationships of mutual responsibility with other physical forms, which can allow every member of human society to have their material needs fully met. As long as some members of human society extend their ownership beyond their direct personal needs there will be others who cannot have their direct personal needs met. When we each seek only what we directly need, and none take more than is necessary, there will always be plenty for all. Such a condition will be an economic harmony.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't economic factors determine human history? Wouldn't this balanced economy be static? Might not human society cease to change?

TINNY: Those beliefs come from a flawed understanding of our true nature. They stem from a materialistic view of existence. They are part of a larger philosophy which has greatly influenced recent social change. It is not economic factors that determine the course of human history, and it is not violent revolution that brings about changes in human history. It is the world view which prevails in the collective human consciousness that determines economic factors and brings about social change.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You refer to relationships of mutual responsibility, how can land, for example, exercise its responsibility to the human occupants? Doesn't land just passively sit waiting for things to be done to it?

TINNY: As I said, the human partner in these relationships carries the greater share of the mutual responsibility, but in this example the land has a very involved and important part to play. In a harmonious relationship the land will always fulfill its responsibilities which is more than can be said for the human partner. When land is treated with respect and its needs met it will provide for a very wide range of human needs both material and emotional. Land is a living organism which can only function to its fullest when in a healthy condition. When a human being enters into a relationship with the land the maintenance of this health is part of the mutual responsibility. It is impossible to take without giving in return. If more is consistently taken than is given in return the land will eventually die.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If human beings help the land to remain healthy the land will help human beings to remain healthy. Is this how the relationship of mutual responsibility works?

TINNY: That is the result of harmonious mutual responsibility.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the health needs of the land are taken care of is it then that the land can be made to produce its maximum?

TINNY: The goal of existence is not to maximise production but to maximise harmony. Maximised production is a short term gain, while maximised harmony provides long term gain. The greatest degree of developmental progression can only be realised through the harmonious path. Besides, we would do better in our relationship with the land if we did not think in terms of 'making' it productive but, instead, 'encouraged' it to be productive by right treatment. It is the natural condition of land to be productive and when in a balanced state it will produce abundantly.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you say the land will be more productive, what do you mean?

TINNY: The land will be able to fulfill more of the functions that are its basic nature. It will produce a better environment for all forms of plant and animal life. It will better meet housing needs, nutritional needs, emotional needs, and recreational needs.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You view the products of the land very broadly. Products as you define them transcend the material.

TINNY: Natural production always involves more than the material factors. It is only a misunderstanding of our true nature that allowed production to be defined solely in terms of material products.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it be true to say that one of the natural products of land is improved land quality?

TINNY: Unless improved land quality is one of the products of the land there will eventually be no healthy and productive land.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any land so bad that it cannot be returned to health and productivity?

TINNY: No land is yet so far gone that it cannot begin again to fulfill its natural functions.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the land on which the communities of the future exist be allowed to remain in its natural state or will it be altered to best meet human needs?

TINNY: The natural state of all physical forms is determined in part by the unique circumstances of their relationship with the environment. Land before human beings came into existence experienced different environmental conditions than land after human beings developed. The natural state of the land before human beings came into existence was different than the natural state of the land after human beings developed. Land that best meets the needs of human beings will be land in its natural state given the present environmental circumstances.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the land in and around the small communities of the future have to be cleared to provide for human needs? Will all land look like cleanly cultivated fields and well planned gardens?

TINNY: In the future our whole planet will consist of natural parks and gardens. The communities will exist harmoniously as a natural part of these parks and gardens. The growing of fruits and vegetables will be fully integrated into this worldwide ecosystem. It will not always be easy to distinguish between fields, parks, and gardens.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will much attention be given in the future to the physical layout of communities and how they look?

TINNY: The physical layout of the communities will be designed to facilitate personal and social growth. All aspects of the community will be the result of conscious planning. Aesthetics will play an important and integral part in this community planning.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does aesthetics mean?

TINNY: Aesthetics refers to the search for beauty.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So these communities of the future will be beautiful.

TINNY: As we seek perfection in all things the world will become a paradise.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is the quest for beauty really worthwhile? Might it not be better to seek practicability rather than beauty?

TINNY: If something is practical, that is good. If something is practical and beautiful that is better. As we seek to maximise our progression in all ways we would seek to maximise the beauty in that which is practical.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: To what extent should we include the goal of maximising our developmental progression as we go about our lives?

TINNY: Maximal progression should be the natural prime consideration in all that we do. Fulfilling our destiny should be the prime consideration in our every thought, word, and deed. If fulfilling our destiny is not the prime consideration we will be doing less than maximising our developmental progression.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Must we really consider maximising our developmental progression in every tiny aspect of our lives?

TINNY: There is more opportunity to maximise our developmental progression in the small, everyday things than there is in the momentous occasions in our lives. Unless we can succeed in the small things we will never realise our full potential. It is for this reason I say that all, and I do truly mean all, aspects of the community will be the result of conscious planning.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Doesn't spontaneity have a place in the communities of the future?

TINNY: Our developmental progression entails the full expression of all positive characteristics. To the degree that spontaneity has a positive character it will have an increasing part in our future. The positive aspects of spontaneity will come to be perfectly manifested.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it possible to have a community in which all aspects are the result of conscious planning and still have a place for that which is spontaneous?

TINNY: Only in a well planned community can spontaneity be expressed most positively. In a chaotic community spontaneity would more likely be expressed negatively. Order is necessary to allow potential to be expressed.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean when you say, order is necessary to allow potential to be expressed?

TINNY: That is the nature of the physical universe. The beginning of physical existence is total chaos, electromagnetic radiation producing sub-atomic particles, scattered without any order at all. At each stage of development there is increasing order. It is this increasing order which allows the expression of new characteristics. Subatomic particles when ordered were able to express the characteristics of atoms. Atoms when ordered were able to express the characteristics of molecules. Molecules when ordered were able to express the characteristics of biological life. Biological life when ordered is able to express the characteristics of humanity. Each lower developmental stage possessed the intrinsic potential to express the characteristics of the more developed stages, but was only able to express that potential by becoming ordered.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is perfect order one of the goals of envolution?

TINNY: It is. Perfected existence is perfectly ordered.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems planning and order could be restrictive. Would you explain how spontaneity could coexist with planning and order?

TINNY: Planning and order could only be restrictive if done wrongly. The true purpose of planning and order is to allow greater freedom. Spontaneity refers to natural and unrestricted action. It is order that allows natural and unrestricted action to take place. Natural and unrestricted action comes about by the expression of free-will. It is order that allows progressively greater free-will to be manifested.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When we were discussing sexual behaviour I could see how that major aspect of your life was well planned for and would be called orderly. Could you give me an example from your life where orderliness carries through into small areas of daily living?

TINNY: I think the way I keep my room would be a good example. There is nothing in my room that has not been subject to conscious decision making. I have given thought to what things would have a place in my room and I have given thought to where the things in my room are placed. I try to consider every detail. Each item is placed in a way that is appropriate to its nature in relation to the unique environment of my room.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you know the way you organise your room is the right way? Couldn't other items and other placements also be right?

TINNY: Certainly. The number of right ways my room, or any room, could be organised would be virtually infinite. All of those right ways will be harmonious and aesthetically pleasing.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would one of that infinite number of right ways in which a room could be organised include just throwing things around and letting them lie where they fall?

TINNY: All things progress through a series of stages. A disordered room is a stage in the progression toward an ordered room. Every stage is right in its place on the path of developmental progression. At every stage it is right to be striving toward a higher stage.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you ever just place something in your room without giving any thought to the harmony and aesthetics of its position?

TINNY: I'm not prefect in any of the things I do. I'm not perfect in the orderliness of my room, but I will never stop trying to improve.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Considering all the important aspects of our lives which require thought and effort to progress, might you not be using too much of your time on something of relatively small importance such as the planning and order that goes into your room?

TINNY: If keeping my room in an ordered condition took much time from other more important tasks in my life I might feel the effort was not worthwhile. What I find to be the case is that it takes virtually no more time to consider harmony and aesthetics when placing anything in my room than it would take if I gave no consideration to those matters. I have been working toward fully conscious developmental progression from a very early age. Only rarely now do I need to give undivided attention to the creation of harmony and order in my room. The process has become part of my natural way of living, it has become virtually automatic. I can now give conscious attention to the quest for harmony and order while simultaneously attending to other matters.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do your parents give as much attention to harmony and aesthetics in their lives as you do in yours?

TINNY: I think they try to but they are not as successful as I am.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?

TINNY: My parents grew up under different environmental conditions which did not give as much emphasis to individual developmental progression. By the time they had come to the realisation of the importance of planning and order, of harmony and aesthetics, in all aspects of their lives they had to overcome the effects of many years of learning that did not include those values. They struggle to overcome those limitations, but realise it may never be possible to achieve as much as I.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't your parents ever feel bad that you are able to achieve more than they can?

TINNY: Not at all. They take great pleasure that they had the opportunity to provide me with an environment and early learning experiences which allowed me to more fully express my potential than they were able to do. Progression is the natural process of material form. Each generation should surpass the previous generation. Children should always surpass their parents. That is the path by which the human race may achieve its grand destiny.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can we only expect small increases in developmental progression from one generation to the next?

TINNY: It is possible for each new generation to make progress beyond the greatest expectation of the preceding generation. There are no true limits to the amount of progress that can be made from one generation and the next at the human level.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there limits to the amount of progress that can be made from one generation and the next of material forms below the human level of development?

TINNY: There are limits to the progression of those material forms below the human level; although, the higher the level of development the greater the amount of progression which can take place within any given period of time.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is human progression unlimited when the lower forms of development have limits?

TINNY: Human progression is unlimited because we have passed the turning point where development, which had previously been more controlled by external factors, is now more under the control of inner factors, our human free-will. External factors are bound by physical limits while free-will is linked to existence beyond the material plane, unbound by physical limits.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You said your parents provided you with an environment and early learning experiences which allowed you to more fully express your potential. Is it also the duty of the community to provide its members with the environment and early learning experiences that will allow each individual to more fully express their potential?

TINNY: That is the duty of human society at all levels. Individuals should provide right environments and right learning experiences for themselves. Families should provide right environments and right learning experiences for their children. Communities should provide right environments and right learning experiences for all their members. And worldwide human society should provide a right environment and right learning experiences for all the world's communities.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If responsibility was fulfilled at each of those social levels human development would take place very quickly.

TINNY: There is no other way for human destiny to be fulfilled. There is no other path which leads to perfect existence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There are a lot of people in the world, will they all have the opportunity to fulfill their destiny?

TINNY: That opportunity will be available to all.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Much of the world's population is now crowded into large cities. Would there be enough room for these city dwellers to migrate to small communities? Might not the number of small communities needed to house those leaving the cities be so large the planet would be overcrowded? When so many people are crowded into cities they do not take up nearly so much room.

TINNY: There would be room enough for all the world's present population to spread out into smaller communities.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: World population is increasing at a very high rate. Will it always be true that there is room and resources enough for all?

TINNY: We must be careful the human population does not reach a point which no longer allows a harmonious relationship between the human species and our planetary home.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you suggesting it might be necessary for population growth to be restricted?

TINNY: Yes I am. Unless the present population explosion is reversed we will never be able to solve the many problems facing human society, we will never be able to attain the full blessings of human destiny.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many of the people in the world believe it is right for as many new human beings to be brought into the existence as possible.

TINNY: I wouldn't argue against that belief, they are correct. It is indeed our duty to create as many new human beings as possible.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If that is true, how can you justify suggesting human population growth be restricted?

TINNY: The purpose of all material existence is to reach increasingly more advanced levels of development, constantly striving for perfection. The greater the number of physical forms that make progress the more the purpose of material existence is achieved. It is not only the goal of the physical forms on our planet to progress, but it is also important that the greatest number of physical forms progress. It is not only the goal of material existence that some human beings will progress to higher developmental levels, but it is important that the greatest number of human beings achieve that exalted state. Ideally all would achieve perfection. It is important to realise that the purpose of human life is not simply to maximise its number, the goal is for the greatest number to fulfill their destiny through achieving maximum developmental progression. The number of human beings must be balanced against the level of developmental progression which can be achieved. If the number of human beings is so great that general human development can longer continue to progress, that number of human beings acts against the purpose of human life. At that point it is right to restrict the growth of human population until circumstances allow greater numbers to exist while further developmental progression continues.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it true that no aspect of material existence takes precedence over the need for developmental progression to continue?

TINNY: That is the ultimate purpose of all material existence. All other aspects of material existence are sublimated to that primary directive. Nothing can be right which interferes with material existence carrying out that responsibility. Right and wrong are determined as measured against the standard of continued developmental progression. Increased human population is only right so long as the increased numbers are consistent with achieving the goal of continued developmental progression. When increasing human population acts in opposition to continued developmental progression those increased numbers are wrong.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will one of the duties of future human development be to create an environment that can provide successful nurturance of greater numbers of human beings?

TINNY: The responsibility to ensure that the greatest number of beings are given the opportunity to reach higher levels of developmental progression is secondary to the primary responsibility of maintaining the continued developmental progression of all material existence. We must create a future world which will allow the greatest number of new human beings to be brought into the world, but it is irresponsible to bring new human beings into a world that cannot provide the opportunity to fulfill their destiny.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It would seem in many areas of human knowledge the truth is known, but not fully understood.

TINNY: The human species is on the verge of attaining enlightenment. So very close, but due to the many pressing social problems brought about by an incorrect world view, still so very far away. Sometimes I can almost feel the shell of consciousness enveloping our planet resonating as the threshold is approached where a quantum leap of human consciousness shall send us soaring into an enlightened state.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the small communities of the future have as one of their direct goals the expansion of human consciousness?

TINNY: The expansion of consciousness is only one of the many human attributes that will be the focus of emphasis.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There will be many practical problems which must be overcome before these future small communities could become a reality.

TINNY: The problems are numerous and extensive but the solutions are well within our potential.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As you describe these idealistic communities of the future they seem so far from the way the world is at present. Might the future ideal be so far from the present reality that the gap cannot be bridged?

TINNY: If the gap is too wide to be bridged in a sudden great leap then there is always a viable alternative. What a giant leap sometimes cannot do a successive series of small steps can always achieve. When I speak of the future small communities I am referring to an ideal, a goal. I have no illusions that the world will suddenly change from being what it is at present, with the social and physical wrongness of humanity heaped into large cities, to the emotional and spiritual health of the future small communities. Such changes may occur slowly or they may occur quickly; but, will only take place when the time is right.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I was wondering, what will happen to the cities as people migrate to smaller communities more conducive to personal development? Will the cities be left as empty and decaying hulks to be despised and avoided?

TINNY: If that was the way the move from the cities to small communities was done it would be a great waste of resources, and would leave a terrible blot across the face of our planet. The land occupied by the cities must be reclaimed and brought back into harmony with the natural environment. The material resources which made up the structure of the cities could be used effectively in the creation of new communities. Resources should always be recycled.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would all cities be completely obliterated so no hint of their past existence would remain?

TINNY: that would not be necessary or desirable. Most of the physical structures making up any city have no historical value and should be removed. A few of the physical structures in every city will have historical significance and should be maintained. That which remains of historical value from the world's cities will serve the function of letting future generations better understand the path which human social development has taken. The better we understand the past the better we can know the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will any of the small communities of the future occupy lands presently taken up by cities?

TINNY: Cities often cover vast areas of very desirable land. At least the land was desirable before cities stripped it of its finer qualities. That land can once again become desirable and available. This good land will once again provide a worthwhile home for part of the human population.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will each small community of the future have to be widely separated from all other small communities?

TINNY: Some communities will be widely separated from others, some will be very close. The important characteristic of these new communities is that their members be able to establish a personal relationship and close ties with their particular community. Communities and their members benefit if they share an identity, each being responsible for the other.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the relationship of world society to the small communities have a similar nature?

TINNY: The small communities will need to establish personal relationships and close ties with the united world society. World society and its members benefit if they can share an identity, each being responsible for the other. The individual should be an integral part of the community while remaining a unique and distinct individual. The community should be an integral part of united world society while remaining a unique and distinct community.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will each individual work to fulfill the needs of the local community?

TINNY: Each individual will be working to best fulfill their own needs. By doing so they will be working to fulfill the needs of the local community.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will each community be working to fulfill the needs of the united world society?

TINNY: Each community will be working to best fulfill its own needs. By doing so they will be working to fulfill the needs of the united world society.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the united world society be working to fulfill the needs of the communities, and will the communities be working to fulfill the needs of their members?

TINNY: Every level of human social existence, from the individual to the united world society, will be in a harmonious reciprocal relationship; each level providing for the needs of all others.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What will happen when the population in any community becomes too large to receive the benefits of small community living?

TINNY: At that point a new and separate community will come into being.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where will it come from?

TINNY: As I said earlier, each community will have unique characteristics and may specialise in certain areas. As new communities form they will draw those with similar or harmonious interests into a new social bond. The resources will be provided by whichever communities have an abundance which meets the needs of the newly forming community.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How will those forming a community be able to pay for all that is required to create a new community?

TINNY: The concept and function of payment will no longer exist. It will be need that will determine supply. Any new community that forms will have their needs fully and freely supplied.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where will the labour come from to create a new community?

TINNY: Most of the labour will be supplied by those who will be members of the new community. Any necessary labour that is not available from within the membership of the new community will be freely provided by other communities.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I can see why those who will be members of the new community would be willing to put their labour into its creation, they will directly benefit. Why will members from other communities be willing to freely put their labour into the development of a new community?

TINNY: Those enlightened beings of the future will know the unified nature of all existence. They will not be able to distinguish the benefits to a new community from the benefits to their own community. They will see that whatever benefits one can only benefit all.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would not free material resources and labour be given somewhat grudgingly even by those who realised the unified nature of all things?

TINNY: Enlightened beings of the future will do nothing grudgingly. The opportunity to provide needed resources and labour for the benefit of others will be an experience sought after and cherished.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those enlightened beings of the future don't sound much like the human beings of today's world.

TINNY: Some of those enlightened beings of the future are the human beings of today's world.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will some of those alive today really be able to change so much and progress so far?

TINNY: That degree of change is within the potential of all.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In these communities of the future, who will decide what needs to be done and who will do whatever needs to be done?

TINNY: What needs to be done will be determined by the nature of the community. The needs of the community will be obvious to all. Each individual will decide for themselves what they will do to fulfill the needs of the community.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Each community has some jobs that, while necessary, are not at all desirable. Who will do that work which is most unpleasant?

TINNY: Admittedly some necessary jobs in any community would be considered less than desirable. Such community needs and the work that fulfils those needs would be a high priority of future planning. As much as possible meeting those needs should be made as pleasant as possible and should take as little time as possible. Technology and innovative community planning could alleviate much of that which is unpleasant. Until it can be totally eliminated that which is unpleasant in the fulfilling of necessary community needs should be equitably and harmoniously shared.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Only among enlightened beings would such a suggestion be workable.

TINNY: While unpleasant tasks remain necessary, fairly and cheerfully accepting and performing those unpleasant tasks is part of our path of progression. If we cannot accept a fair share of that which is unpleasant we cannot receive a fair share of that which is most desirable.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If work that was unpleasant was fairly distributed no person would have much unpleasant work to do, would they?

TINNY: Each person would have so little to do that was considered unpleasant that it may no longer be considered unpleasant.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How large a role will technology have in our future?

TINNY: We would have no future without technology.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't technology the application of our sciences? Doesn't our future involve more than science?

TINNY: To consider technology only to be the application of our science is a very limited understanding. Technology would refer to the application of all our knowledge. Our future involves much more than has traditionally been included in the fields of science. Our future involves the application of knowledge from all areas of human endeavour, scientific, philosophical, spiritual, artistic, and others. This full application of technology can make that which now seems impossible easily possible.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As city living declines and cities are replaced by the new small communities, will people still live in the same countries as they do now? If the whole of human population were to live in small communities they will have to be much more widespread than at present. Many of the areas where large numbers of people have chosen to live would be the most hospitable. Many of the areas presently unpopulated would be the least hospitable. Will some people choose to move to the less hospitable areas?

TINNY: Technology can assist us in ways that can make even the least hospitable area comfortably livable.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean that with technology we can alter the inhospitable environments and make them places where we can live comfortably?

TINNY: We should not always think of technology as a means to conquer nature. Technology can just as easily, and much more desirably be used to facilitate our attempts to live in harmony with nature.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would these communities of the future be able to exist in high mountains, dry deserts, dense forests, and deep seas?

TINNY: Those are but a few of the environments that will nurture human communities in the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Won't there always be some people who will be able to live in the most desirable places and some who will have to live in the least desirable places?

TINNY: Everyone will be able to live in a place that meets their needs, both physical and emotional. Everyone will live in a place where they choose to live. Human desire is at least as diverse as the varied environments available. There will always be those who will choose to live in any environment available.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about national boundaries?

TINNY: The concept of national boundaries is an artificial one. The dividing of the planet's surface into individual countries was one of the many social wrongs which stemmed from the desires of a privileged few to protect and maintain their wealth and power.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't some of the boundaries that divide countries natural?

TINNY: Our planet has many different physical characteristics, some of them at times have acted as boundaries, but that is not their natural function.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Hasn't some good come from the different paths of human development which have arisen as various sections of the world's population have been isolated for long periods?

TINNY: Isolation and separate development is one of the many ways in which the human race could have progressed. The early isolation due to the physical characteristics of the planet were of a vastly different nature than the national boundaries created for economic gain and the accumulation of power.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the present distribution of human population across our planet will not necessarily be maintained in the future.

TINNY: There will be great shifts of population as a worldwide redistribution of humanity takes place.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Who will direct this redistribution of human population? Who will decide who can and should move to a new location?

TINNY: At present the movement of individuals and groups across our planet is controlled by governments. Passes are required to leave and permits are required to enter. No one has the right to restrict the movement of any other person around our planet. Each individual's ultimate relationship is with the whole planet, the relationship is natural. Every individual has among their natural rights, free access to any part of our shared planet.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will there be no restrictions on where any person may choose to live in the future?

TINNY: There will always be natural restrictions. There cannot be existence on the material plane without the restrictions of natural law. Every person is subject to those natural restrictions. What each person must be freed from are the artificial restrictions placed upon them by human law.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are all limits placed by human laws examples of artificial restrictions?

TINNY: There is no reason human law can not be in accord with natural law. In those instances human law does not place artificial restrictions.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What kind of restrictions will natural law place on an individual's right to live where they choose?

TINNY: As a general example, no person has the right to choose to live in a place that will bring about a lowering of the level of developmental progression that exists in that area. No person has the right to live in a place if by doing so they cause a disharmony within that community.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Couldn't such restrictions be the basis for unfair discrimination, against certain individuals or social groups?

TINNY: In the present world such restrictions are often used as a basis for unfair discrimination. In a right world unfair discrimination will not exist. Natural law will serve only natural functions. In our present world, suffering from so many social ills predicated on a wrong world view, even natural law has been perverted in an attempt to achieve false goals.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is sometimes difficult to understand the true nature of an idealistic future from the language, concepts, and perspective of our present troubled society.

TINNY: I feel that very much in our discussion. I feel so inadequate as I attempt to express the true nature of existence and make predictions about our utopian future. At least I know that the enlightened beings who will live in that future will be able to see beyond my flawed attempts and will not be bound by my errors.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The importance of your message does not depend on the truth of the specifics. The great importance of your message is that it opens a door that has been long closed.

TINNY: I'm glad I don't have the responsibility to speak only words of perfect truth. Unless it is acknowledged I can be wrong I would be hesitant to speak.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many should heed such inner caution.

TINNY: Do you have any more questions about the small communities of the future?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I have wondered how it is that you possess this type of knowledge. Surely you have not given prior thought to every aspect of community life in the future which we have discussed.

TINNY: I have given some thought to how communities would likely be in the future, but many of your questions and things we have discussed had never before crossed my mind.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems you always have an answer, and usually a good answer.

TINNY: Once the unity of all existence is truly realised new knowledge, when needed, seems to fall readily into place. I am constantly surprising myself that I know answers I had no idea I knew. The answers to even the most difficult questions become obvious.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps we could now discuss another area of human social difficulty in our present world. This is the last one I will ask you about, and I will not even ask you to finish the discussion of this last area of social difficulty.

TINNY: Why are we stopping here?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is a good time to leave for others the opportunity to carry out further similar discussions of areas of human social problems for themselves. You have provided a good basis and direction for such discussions, and we will leave the discussion of this next area of human social problems unfinished so as to make the transition of responsibility smooth and easy for those who take over from you in planning for a future world right in every way.

TINNY: That sounds like a good plan to me, since I am obviously not the fountain of all knowledge, nor am I the only one who will be able to understand what is necessary to help ensure a successful, right future for the human race. I will be anxious to know the ideas of others as we move into a future directed by beings understanding the true nature of our existence, and highly motivated to do what is necessary to bring about a future world of peace and love.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So let us move on to our last topic of discussion.

TINNY: O.K. We've been discussing the small communities of the future for quite a while now. It will be good to move on to another topic. Human social problems are so pervasive and there is so much more which could be discussed it is hard to know what would be an appropriate problem area to end our discussion on.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let us finish our discussion by considering crime. Presently crime is rampant throughout much of the world, and it is fast increasing almost everywhere. Is crime a natural part of human life?

TINNY: Definitely not. All criminal behaviour is in opposition to the purpose of human life. Crime is a very complex concept and has been defined many ways. Essentially anything which is injurious to the public welfare must be considered as a crime.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And how would the public welfare be defined?

TINNY: Here a great difficulty arises. Not everything that is claimed to harm the public welfare actually does so, and some things that are not considered to harm the public welfare actually cause damage.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it so difficult to determine what is and what is not of harm to the public welfare?

TINNY: Once again we see a social problem caused by the failure to understand the true nature of existence. Without an objective standard by which to judge the harmful or beneficial results of any action it is impossible to know what harms or does not bring harm to the public welfare. Unless we know what the true needs of the public welfare are we cannot know when actions stand in the way of those needs being met.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What other reasons might there be for laws except to prevent harm to the public welfare?

TINNY: Many human laws are used not to protect the true public welfare, but instead are used to protect the interests of special groups. Some laws protect the right to acquire and hold unacceptably large hoards of material goods and wealth. Some laws protect the power of a few over the rights of the many. Some laws provide special privileges to the rich and powerful. Some laws are used as a means to impose the beliefs of a few on the many.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: None of those laws would protect the public welfare.

TINNY: No they wouldn't, they would act in opposition to the true public welfare.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If certain laws act against the true public interest wouldn't those laws be crimes?

TINNY: That is true, the enacting and enforcing of some laws is actually a crime.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you think crime should be defined?

TINNY: There is no difference between a criminal act and an evil act. Any act that opposes our developmental progression is an evil act. Any act that opposes our developmental progression is a criminal act.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you speak of acts that are crimes do you only mean physical actions?

TINNY: Thoughts, words and deeds are all classes of actions. Thoughts, words and deeds can all be good acts and serve to assist our developmental progression, and thoughts, words, and deeds can all be evil acts which impede our developmental progression.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So thoughts, words and deeds can all be criminal acts. There can be crimes of thought, crimes of speech and crimes of deed.

TINNY: That is so.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It would seem almost everyone would at sometime think thoughts, speak words, or perform deeds which would impede developmental progression. Are all these people criminals?

TINNY: In the sense we are using the word 'crime' it is true that any person who thinks a thought, speaks a word, or performs a deed which opposes the fulfillment of our destiny through a continued developmental progression would have to be considered a criminal.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Have any of your thoughts, words, or deeds ever impeded the continued developmental progression?

TINNY: More times than I would like to admit.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So even you have offended against the public welfare, even you have committed criminal acts.

TINNY: Yes, I have.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since every person in some form or other has committed criminal acts does that mean that everyone is deserving of punishment? Can't punishment bring an end to these wrong actions? Couldn't punishments be used to reduce or eliminate wrong thoughts, wrong words, and wrong deeds?

TINNY: The belief that punishment can be used to get rid of wrong behaviour is very widespread. It is also a completely mistaken belief. Although it would seem punishment, by definition, would always result in a decrease in the rate and magnitude of the response that was being punished, it is very often the case that in the long term punishment actually results in increases in the rate and the magnitude of the behaviour being punished or of associated harmful behaviours.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How could so many people wrongly believe in the successful use of punishment for so long?

TINNY: Punishment appears to work, so people come to believe it really does work. I don't want to go into much detail about punishment now because it will be easier to understand later when we are talking about the principles by which learning takes place.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then I'll wait for that further explanation of the ineffectiveness of punishment. For now I'll accept that punishment is not an acceptable way to deal with wrong behaviour.

TINNY: Not only is punishment largely ineffective, but it is very unpleasant both for those who receive the punishment and for those who apply the punishment.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I agree with you that all actions which in the true sense interfere with the continued developmental progression are crimes, but let's get back to crime as it is more usually thought of in today's world. Would you give some examples of different classes of criminal behaviour and some idea of why these behaviours occur?

TINNY: Most crimes have for thousands of years been mainly of three classes; crimes for material gain, crimes of aggression, and crimes of sense gratification. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between the three.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Tell me about crimes for material gain first.

TINNY: Crimes for material gain include a very wide range, all of which result in the taking of material wealth that belongs to others.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are the causes of crimes for material gain?

TINNY: Among the many causes of crimes for material gain are; private ownership, excessive accumulation of material wealth, poverty, excessive emphasis on the desirability of material wealth, lack of internalised moral/ethical values, and the acceptance of crime for material gain by society at large.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is not a complete list of the causes behind crimes for material gain is it?

TINNY: No list of causes is ever complete. This list is sufficient to provide a general understanding of this particular crime.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain each of those causes. It is not immediately obvious how some of them can be responsible for crimes of material gain.

TINNY: No behaviour in society, either right or wrong, occurs independent of the holistic dynamics of society. Because we live in a world of private and exclusive ownership sharing is not a widely experienced social behaviour. If our world was one where sharing predominated, crimes for material gain would seldom occur. Because we live in a world where some people accumulate excessive amounts of material wealth there will be others who possess very little material wealth. Because some live richly others must live in poverty. Because the desirability of possessing material wealth is so powerfully instilled into the prevailing world consciousness, that which has little true value becomes conditioned as a focus of desire of most members of the human race. If our world was a place where no one took more than was needed, where no one had to live without their material needs being met, and where material wealth did not stir the desire, crimes for material gain would seldom occur. Because we live in a world without an accepted body of moral/ethical standards there are fewer each generation who grow up having internalised a positive value system. If our world was one where natural law formed the basis of an accepted system of moral-ethical beliefs these would result in virtually all children growing up having internalised that positive value system, and crimes for material gain would seldom occur. Because we live in a world that in many ways legitimises crime for material gain by the rich and powerful, although their theft is not called crime, and where portrayals of crime for material gain are widely promoted and accepted as entertainment there is a vanishing minority who truly reject crime for material gain. If our world was one where crime for material gain was met with widespread abhorrence crime for material gain would seldom occur.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see now how the causes you outlined do contribute to crimes of material gain. There are people who will not like hearing your claims. You lay part of the responsibility upon those who would acknowledge no share in the causes of crime for material gain.

TINNY: It is much more comforting to lay full blame for crimes committed on those who commit them, but that is not our social reality. Those who commit crimes are victims of a wrong society and their guilt must be shared by all.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you suggesting criminals are not more responsible for their own actions, and that other persons must accept as much responsibility as the one who commits the criminal act.

TINNY: Not at all. Each person is ultimately responsible for their own actions and no other person must accept as much responsibility as the one who commits the act.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You explained some of the causes behind crime for material gain quite well. I was next going to ask you to explain some of the causes behind crimes of aggression, but I am sure, given the example you have set, many could now answer that question without your help. I think now is the time to pass on the opportunity to the reader, who I pray will accept their obligation to use the knowledge of this new worldview they have learned to be part of the movement toward a future world better in every way.

TINNY: I hope the responsibility you are shifting to the reader is not going to scare them, it is a huge undertaking.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You and I alone, no matter how much we discuss, can never change this world full of terrible problems into a virtual paradise, a world of peace and love. Only if those who have been reading these words and learning this new worldview also take upon themselves the responsibility to help achieve this most grand of all goals can we have any hope of success.

TINNY: I know you are right. Even if the reader at this point only makes a small effort to continue understanding this new, positive, accurate, and motivational worldview it will be the beginning of a process of worldwide social transformation toward all that is good and right.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We can only wait and see what the result will be.

TINNY: Dear reader I have to put my trust in you, I believe you will do something, whether it be great or small, to ensure that goodness wins over evil. This is the Holy Struggle we are all part of. I am convinced good will win - are you?