By mind principles, if it is believed consciously or subconsciously that an omni god exists, then it must also be believed that the omni-god is controlling the universe. Within this belief is the belief that the omni god must logically and necessarily be responsible for everything. One need not subscribe to formal religion to hold this belief. It is evidenced in every instance of an expressed or implied "infinite entity" and corollary "objective values". "Free will under God" is a conscious declaration to absolve "God" of guilt for the "creating of evil man" and all derived therefrom. Subconsciously, the logical inference that "God" is responsible is the directive belief.
The god concept psychologically negates real individuals. The psychological negation of the real individual has a corresponding negation of individual responsibility. Since the god concept to which responsibility is assigned is illusory, this leaves no one as responsible. This "divine miracle" culminates in the conclusion of effect without cause. Although I know of no one who would consciously make such a claim, this belief is manifest from top to bottom in the prevailing philosophy. The blatant contradiction is simply obscured by word games and ignored.
In the geographical area called the United States, the official governmental system is sometimes called a constitutional republic, democracy, representative form of democracy, or majority rule. Since it takes the form of election and selection, the concept of majority rule is central to the process. What is majority rule? One thing that majority isn't is an entity. Majority is an idea. The term majority means one more than half the total of a given number. In this case, a given number of human individuals. Since majority is not an entity nor a causal thing in itself, we know right away that majority rule is an illusion. What is the truth of the matter?
First, observe that the concept of majority rule as an operational premise in effect states that the agreeing opinion and common desire of two shall prevail over the third. Thus is the dissenting third regarded as property of the two. This idea is a little unsavory to some, so it is obscured and qualified by the phrase "constitutional republic" (or some other phrase) of "guardian laws" to temper the unpleasant truth. The question of how this constitutional republic came to be is ignored. Its "majority rule" base is disregarded by word games of convenient omission.
In any event, when the majority rule idea is put into practice in the official governmental system, it creates a circle of floating abstracts as "causal infinite entities" and real individuals and individual responsibility is not to be found anywhere in the entire scenario. A legislator is elected by "majority" heralded as "the will of the people". He makes laws for the "public welfare". They are implemented by "public servants" for the "good of society" and in the "national interest". Notwithstanding argument to the contrary, the implementation of these laws is by initiation of force and coercion. However, duly note that although all the laws are made by "abstracts" for "abstracts", the initiation of force and coercion is directed not at abstracts, but real individuals. Wherein lies the responsibility for creating and implementing these coercive laws? If there is effect, there must be cause. What is it? Or who is it?
Let's look at a hypothetical illustration in pursuit of the answer. Suppose that an individual sees the governmental system as ultimately destructive and wants nothing to do with it. This individual wants nothing via the system and doesn't want to support any of the destructive activities carried out under the auspices of the god called government. Suppose this individual refuses to pay taxes. This individual does not steal nor impose his will upon anyone else. He simply wants nothing to do with the destructive governmental system. What happens if this individual won't voluntarily submit the tax monies that it is claimed that he owes?
First, let's examine the concept that he "owes" tax monies and try to find out how he came to "owe". If this individual didn't enter into voluntary agreement to support the ideas and implementation of the system called government, on what basis is it claimed that this individual "owes"? A corollary question is: "owes whom"? The answer usually given is that he "owes" the "government" and we're right back to the popular illusion of valuing "abstract infinite entities". Let's take a different tact and see if we can find out how this money came to be "owed" and who is to be the recipient.
Suppose this individual approaches every finite human individual in the United States and ask each individual, "Do I owe you money?" Suppose that in every instance he receives the answer, "No." From what then comes the argument that he "owes" money? Here we have literally 100% of the individuals saying as individuals that he does not owe, yet via the magical governmental system and "divine abstracts", the 100% no's become a yes upon threat of life and limb. Suppose this individual refuses to accept the declaration that he "owes", physically resists, and is killed in a hail of gunfire. Wherein lies responsibility? The one that pulled the trigger is "just doing his job according to law and for God and Country". Those that made the law made it because it is the "will of the people". The lawmaker exists by "majority rule". Literally no participant in the sequential action accepts responsibility. All is in the name of the non-entity's non-existent abstracts. No individual responsibility. Thus do we have the miracle of effect without cause.
One often hears that a particular politician won the election by a majority of 10 votes, 100 votes, and so on. This bit of language distortion and illusion helps to sustain the illusion of no individual responsibility. Majority is one more than half a given total. One. That is the truth of elected by "majority". If a politician is elected by only one vote over half, which vote elected him, you might ask. Wrong question. Each vote, each one elected him. This may not fit emotions, but it is quite true. Any argument that proposes to excuse any one as cause simultaneously excuses each one as cause. Thus do we arrive once again at the miracle of effect without cause - as predicted via the god concept at the outset. To take the issue of cause and responsibility a step further, whether one votes for a given politician or not, support of the system itself definitively places each and every voter and supporter as responsible for every act committed via the system. This truth may not be emotionally palatable, but by identity, it is logically inescapable. (Voters are fond of saying that if you don't vote, you have no "right" to complain. Exactly backward, of course.)
The god concept system is a system of rule predicated upon a hierarchy of command. Although the hierarchy of command is evident throughout, it is epitomized in the military organizations that openly places it up front as the revered operational premise. To disobey a direct order of a superior officer is a serious crime subject to severe punishment. It may be argued that a military organization can operate in no other way, that individual decisions would result in chaos and destroy military effectiveness. Aside from the fact that one may find himself in the order-taking position without volunteering for it, notice that the "merit" of this argument depends on admitted denial of self and denial of self-responsibility. This should come as no surprise since this is the root premise of the god concept and rule which gives rise to the "necessity" of the military force and "justification" of conscription or confiscation of property for "the cause".
All the way down the line, the individual is left out of the scene except as an expendable unit to be sacrificed for the "good of god and country". In this god concept thinking and system, the words "individual responsibility" are randomly and arbitrarily applied for the convenience of the moment in assigning of guilt to some while absolving other no less causal parties. A trial of "war criminals" or similar proceedings is a scapegoat maneuver designed to create an illusion of different philosophies where no fundamental difference exists.
The psychological negation of the individual, individual volition, and individual responsibility is repeatedly evidenced in an infinite variety of applications. In economics, corporations and bankruptcy laws are clearly a means of denying and lawfully evading individual responsibility. On the "crime scene", a thief may be "excused" because of his background and for being a "product of society". While not denying environmental influence, this premise leads backward to affix responsibility to the "original sin" in a "mind world of infinity". If responsibility lies not with each individual, it lies nowhere. "Nobody's fault" is the absurd and destructive legacy of the god concept.
Violent behavior is also frequently attributed to a "chemical imbalance" in the brain. Yet, no one attempts to explain how one can act against one's beliefs, or how chemicals create beliefs independently of individual volition. Then comes the "genetic propensity" for the "disease" of alcoholism or other "drug dependencies". In this prevailing "no fault" philosophy, there is literally no belief or action that is not excusable on the grounds of non-volitional cause. Currently in vogue is the catch-all exoneration, "addiction".
The term addiction has been around for a long time, but in recent years has become the catch all buzz word alleged to justify, not explain, a wide assortment of behavior. Whether it is the consuming of food, alcohol, cocaine, or other substances, or active pursuit of other interests, including sexual interest, there are those quick to attach the label addiction. They then talk about treating the problem of addiction without defining and saying exactly what it is they propose to cure.
"Genetically disposed" is an expression also currently in vogue and alleged to be the underlying cause of certain "addictions" to particular substances and even to cause "abnormal behavior". Everything is conveniently packaged under some label of genetic determinism, or "neuro values". Treatment, of course, necessarily requires genetic alteration or chemical additives as behavior modifiers.
What is truly incredible in this scenario is the selectivity in these conclusions. What is the most highly visible genetically caused characteristic of literally every human individual??? Answer. Volitional mind, of course. Yet, this natural genetically caused capacity to calculate and make choices is left out of their equations. To mention it would call for some explanation of how one reconciles the idea of predeterminism (or "chemical thought") with individual volition. Since the contradiction can't be logically reconciled, it is simply ignored.
I certainly am not saying that genetic makeup plays no part in an individual's life. What I am saying is that one element of genetic composition does not and cannot negate another element of genetic composition, even if that derivative of genetic composition is a non-physical phenomenon called mind. To express or imply the negation of volition via a "neuro tech" diagnosis and prognosis is a de facto denial of mind itself. To presume to study and understand the mind by a method which denies its existence is a contradiction of the first magnitude that portends adverse and most serious consequences.
I dare say that we are all creatures of habit in large measure. Do we not all repeatedly engage in eating, drinking, bathing, sleeping, and routinely pursuing our individual interests on a regular basis? If body and mind become accustomed to certain pleasant experiences, it follows that cessation of these experiences will be accompanied by discomfort. There is nothing mystical about this. It's a natural part of the human condition. Isn't this really the crux of the fiction of addiction?
To be sure, mind and body may undergo some rather drastic changes if certain substances are consumed. The changes may well register as pleasant and cessation of intake of the causal substance will result in discomfort. How is this fundamentally any different from the eating, drinking, bathing situation described above? Isn't everything "addictive"? Many persons smoke or imbibe alcoholic beverages on a daily basis, sometimes for decades. Then one day, for whatever reason, a person decides to quit - and does. Obviously in these cases, "addiction" was servant to volition and was summarily dismissed. Are we now to believe that some are addicted and some not although all evidence the same natural capacity to calculate and choose? Perhaps, the real problem is "addiction" to illusion.
Copyright at Common Law, Delmar England,
1997
Permission in hereby granted to copy this work for personal
use or for FREE distribution provided that the work is copied or distributed in
its entirety and that this copyright notice accompanies each copy.
