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evidence confirmed that God did not exist; and, that for anyone to believe in the existence of God was such an outdated, superstitious way of life that it would hold them back from fulfilling their human potential and would likewise block the human race from achieving its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 v