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.
