Conscientology: The Study of Conscience
By: Daryl Mowat
Tags: Politics, Psychology, Conscience, Law, Religion

Preliminary Comments

To express the attitude of love for what you are and who and how you are being is considered by some theologians, like Calvinists, to be a sin. According to Calvin, you have to forsake your expression of love for what you are as well as your expression of love for how and who you are being so that you only direct your expression of love towards Calvin’s fantasized Creator because Calvin thought that the soul you are is corrupt, while the ego and self you are being can only be egotistical and selfish, respectively. Consequently, Calvin believed that souls, egos, and selves must be redeemed by the Creator, instead of by us, so that soulishness, egotism, and selfishness could be extinguished and we could be unified with Calvin’s fantasized Creator.

Not only Calvin, but all Christians, all Jews, all Muslims, and all Baha’i, believe that we are sinners who cannot redeem the sinners we supposedly are, but can only be redeemed by their fantasized Creator. Christians believe that only through Jesus, whom they suppose is ‘the’ Christ or God, are we able to become saints who do not sin anymore. These Christians believe that they cannot be perfect saints until they are ‘given a new nature’ by Christ and cease to sin or ‘miss the mark’ and, thus, have no insane desire to either disobey or obey Yahweh’s rules because they are always ‘led by the Spirit’ in their new nature so that they are incapable of sinning (going against Yahweh’s rules).

Christians believe, absurdly, that their minds have to be transformed by Yahweh, instead of by them, because Yahweh is thought by Christians to be Jesus, while Yahweh (Jesus) expresses the Holy Spirit; therefore, Yahweh (Jesus) is believed to be the absolute Creator (the absolute Christ) which means that Yahweh supposedly ‘came down to earth’ through his Holy Spirit and ‘incarnated’ as Jesus in the womb of his earthly mother Mary. Consequently, Christians believe in the ‘mystery’ of the Christian Trinity, despite the fact that the word ‘Trinity’ is not to be seen anywhere in the Christian Bible, because they believe in the ridiculous hypothesis that their supposedly unbounded Creator can become Its own center (the Christ), while continuing to remain the unbounded Creator.

But if Yahweh came down to earth as Jesus, why did Jesus pray to Yahweh, if Yahweh was indeed the ‘Father’ to whom Jesus was praying? And why would Jesus pray to the Creator if Jesus was, in fact, the Creator as well as the center of the Creator on earth? Was he merely behaving ‘as if’ he were praying without really praying so that his insincere praying would set a ‘good’ example for those whom he thought he had to persuade to pray?

The truth is that Jesus was not the Creator as well as the center of the Creator on earth, but was a simple human being who prayed futilely to his fantasy of the Creator because he did not realize that there is no Creator who could hear his words of prayer because the Creator is only a word without a real referent.

Christians do not realize that the true goals at which we all spontaneously aim are to learn to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love and to attain wisdom, not to believe in Jesus as well as worship him. We need to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love for what we are as well as how and who we are being, and we need to appreciate God, but not express God’s unconditioned attitude of love to God, because God cannot feel, aware, or conscious that we are expressing Its unconditioned attitude of love to It. We also need to develop our knowledge so that we can understand our knowledge and attain our true goal of wisdom.

We must not be commanded to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love (as Jesus is reported to have commanded us to do); rather, we must freely choose to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love on the basis of the merits of this attitude. And we do not need to wait to have wisdom ‘bestowed’ on us by God, but only need to develop wisdom on our own, because God has no wisdom to bestow on anyone.

The Judeo-Christian-Muslim-Baha’i believers hold that we are corrupt because of the mythical story of Adam and Eve told by their god, Yahweh, to those who wrote the so-called ‘Holy’ Bible. This myth maintains that Adam and Eve were the first humans who were supposed to have been created by Yahweh who also takes the alias, ‘Allah’.

Yahweh told the fib that he was the infinite Creator. Yahweh falsely reported to the prophets that Adam and Eve fell from Yahweh’s grace because they disobeyed Yahweh’s rule (commandment) not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. According to Yahweh’s myth, Yahweh did not want Adam and Eve to gain the knowledge of good and evil because then they would have the knowledge that eating the fruit from the tree of life would give them immortality so that they would live forever, like Yahweh and the other gods. Why Yahweh did not want humans to live forever is not stated by the authors of the Bible presumably because they could not report a reasonable explanation for Yahweh’s insane desire to keep humans in the straight-jacket of mortality even before they had demonstrated that they could sin by eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Because Adam and Eve disobeyed Yahweh’s rule in this myth, Yahweh reported that he cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden so that they would have to toil to maintain their existence, while Eve would have to suffer the pain of birthing children as an additional punishment supposedly because she had tempted Adam to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, just as the serpent in the Garden of Eden had supposedly tempted her.

Yahweh is supposed to have harassed and tortured our ancestors by way of his cohort, Satan, because Adam and Eve sinned against his commandment. Consequently, Yahweh’s moral commandments are, supposedly, the target at which we are shooting our arrow of obedience; however, we are told by Yahweh that we are sinners because we purposely choose to ‘miss the mark’ of the target (the bulls-eye of obedience) by choosing to disobey Yahweh’s commandments.

The Judeo-Christian-Muslim-Baha’i traditions suppose that we should aim at obeying Yahweh’s moral laws; however, these traditions also point out that it is impossible to always obey Yahweh’s commandments or moral laws because of what these traditions suppose is our totally corrupt nature. These religionists believe that we anger Yahweh so that we ‘fall from Yahweh’s grace’, although certain humans are supposed to have found favour with him, such as Noah and his family whom Yahweh is reported to have saved from the earth’s encompassing flood — which Yahweh supposedly instigated. Yahweh is also supposed to have found favour with Abraham and Moses with whom he is supposed to have established covenants, agreements, or promises (which are more like the trust of a hand-shake, than the legal contracts which Satan is supposed to offer).

For example, Yahweh established a covenant with Noah that he would never flood the earth again and marked this promise by supposedly ‘creating’ a rainbow. How Noah, Abraham, and Moses could find favour with Yahweh, despite their totally corrupt nature, is not explained in the Bible.

One of Yahweh’s promises to Abraham and Moses was to send a Redeemer to humanity who would be our Messiah or Saviour. This Redeemer, Messiah, or Saviour would only cleanse the sins of those of us who believed in him so that Yahweh would grant us immortality; however, believing in this Saviour was a rule which had to be obeyed so that immortality would be granted.

Obeying Yahweh’s rule of believing in Jesus as the Redeemer, Messiah, Saviour, or ‘Christ’ produces a delusional feeling of elation in the Christian. This delusional feeling of elation is called being ‘born again to the Spirit’ by Christians. This feeling is delusional because the Christian believes that he or she has been saved from death by Jesus, the Christ (Yahweh), when, in truth, everyone is already immortal and will never die, like their mortal bodies.

Those who subscribe to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim-Baha’i traditions do not understand that the myth of Adam and Eve is the attempt to rationalize the invention of the principles, rules, or laws that are imposed on us by the rulers of our societies who use force to get us to obey them. We obey these principles, rules, or laws, not just because we fear the sanctions of rulers, but also because we stupidly fear the supposed power of Yahweh to end our existence if we do not obey the moral laws which are the foundation of the religions whose adherents worship him. If we realized that God is the Evolver and Grower of our continually dying, but continually appearing, infinite Universe, and is the Developer of us as the immortal souls who are developed with immortal luefs and mortal bodies, we would realize that no soul, like Yahweh, could possibly kill us along with our bodies.

The moral laws which you have hallucinated do not compose your conscience, but are actually part of your memory. Your memorized morality is used by you to deny your conscience so that your conscience becomes repressed. What most people refer to as their conscience is actually their memorization of the moral laws of their society which are unfortunately embedded in their societies’ religious, political, legal, and educational institutions and even trespass into the memory systems of our artist-philosophers. Even our artist-philosophers are tempted to lose their courage and give into the fear-mongering of our religious-political-legal-educational institutions whose adherents have compromised their integrity by letting our institutions become dependent on principles, rules, and laws so that their needs to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love and become wise are compromised.

A person’s need to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love, sanely or benevolently, is the basis of an artist-philosopher’s conscience. The artist-philosopher continually expresses these attitudes through what he or she is as well as how and who he or she is being; therefore, to express these attitudes in the souls we are as well as in our egos’ sane productive-inventive character type and sane adult player personality role is not a sin because our sane productive-inventive character type and sane adult player personality role are not delusional rules or ‘marks’ to aim at obeying, but are illusions to aim at assimilating.

Unlike the Christian, we must not rely on the ‘Holy’ Bible for our understanding, consciousing, and recognizing of God, but must rely on our expression of God’s unconditioned attitude of love, our own conditioned attitude of hate, and our own understanding of these attitudes in contradiction to the advice in the Bible which is that we should not rely on our own understanding. The Christian does not reason that we need to understand, wisely, on our own, instead of superstitiously relying on the dictates of the Bible — which is the ignorant advice of those who wrote the Christian Bible.

Because moral laws are our hallucinations, there is no virtue or morality of ‘rightness’ and there is no vice or immorality of ‘wrongness’. There are only appropriate takes and inappropriate mistakes, not moral rights and immoral wrongs, and there are only relatively sane and relatively insane gods, not absolutely Good (Divine) and absolutely Bad (evil) gods. Unlike those gods whom we judge to be ‘wrong’, those gods whom we discern are mistaken do not need to be forgiven their mistakes because forgiveness is only necessary if we have judged, rather than discerned, how and who they were being; however, these mistaken gods do need to honestly apologize and make amends for their mistakes if their mistakes prompted other gods to suffer unnecessary psychic and emotional conflicts because these suffering gods have had their minds disturbed. These mistaken gods need to apologize and make amends because they may also have intentionally or unintentionally activated irritation to the luefs of other gods or activated unnecessary pains to these other gods by damaging their bodies.

We do not need to judge that a man or a woman expresses evil because absolute Badness (evil) is an impossibility. And we do not need to judge that a man or woman expresses the Good or Divine (like John, the ‘Divine’, who is supposed to have written ‘Revelation’) because only God always expresses the Good or the Divine.

It is safe to say, ‘Only God expresses the Divine,’ because only God always expresses Its unconditioned attitude of love, perfectly. God always expresses Its unconditioned attitude of love, perfectly, because God does not experience the emotion of fear; therefore, God does not develop the unconditioned attitude of hate which develops from fear. Also, God does not have any expectation of benefitting anyone nor does God have an expectation of receiving Its unconditioned attitude of love back from anyone because God does not have the ability to know which is why God has no knowledge; therefore, God does not know that anyone exists.

God does not have the ability of knowing so that It could know in Its faculty of mind or consciousness. Unlike God, we do have the need to know because we have the need to relate to each other. God does not have the need to know because God is not an individual; therefore, God does not have the need to relate. Ironically, God has the need to be wise, but, since God does not have the need to know, God cannot develop towards the meaning or goal of wisdom.

God’s unconditioned attitude of love is used by us to condition and guide our unconditioned attitude of hate, sanely or benevolently, while we use our unconditioned attitude of hate to condition God’s unconditioned attitude of love in us, insanely or malevolently. Thus, even though God’s use of Its unconditioned attitude of love is absolute, God’s unconditioned attitude of love is used with relativity by gods, like you and I.

As gods of God, we must learn to use our consciences to guide our varying levels of relative badness with our varying levels of relative goodness from our need to express God’s absolute Goodness (God’s unconditioned attitude of love) which is the basis of our consciences. If we could be absolutely Bad (evil) through our unconditioned attitude of hate, our expression of such an attitude could not be reconciled with our ability to express love, sanely, because it would be an absolutely insane intentional action or behaviour.

God’s unconditioned attitude of love could not exist in individuals if they could express evil. Fortunately, because all individuals are developed from and by God, it is an impossibility for an individual to exist without God’s unconditioned attitude of love.

A person can only morally judge that he expresses evil because he believes he is a sinner. A person’s judgement that he expresses evil results in his misinterpretation of God, his body, his needs, his sane desires, his insane desires, his abilities, his disabilities, his faculties, and his disfaculties as well as the subject, person, anima, soul, psyche, or god ‘he’ is. These misinterpretations, including the misinterpretation that every subject is a he or a she, rather than it (Martin Buber did not know that I and thou are ‘its’), compels the moralizer to seek behaviours that are neurotic, such as the behaviours associated with veganism and vegetarianism.

We do not have a supernatural need to be vegans or vegetarians. We only have a neurotic desire to be vegans or vegetarians because we do not have a need to eat just vegetables. We have the bodies of omnivores which God evolved and grew with our help which means that we have a supernatural need to grow our bodies by using them to eat the flesh of animals as well as vegetables. God’s use of Its Will in my omnivorous body influences me to eat the flesh of animals as well as vegetables, an influence which I feel no delusional desire to fight by becoming a vegan or a vegetarian. Nor do I feel the delusional desire to apologize for using my body to eat the flesh of other animals that are killed for me to eat any more than I would blame an omnivore or carnivore for eating my body because I know that I will live on after my body’s death. Although I am in no hurry to leave the earth, it would be stupid of me to resent those in the food chain who might knock me off my high horse and kill my body so that they could eat it.

If I killed an animal merely for the ‘sport’ of it, I would feel remorse because my behaviour would not only waste the food that is the flesh of the animal, it would also only serve to enhance my neurotic pride at my supposed prowess over the anima of this animal; however, killing these animals for food is ‘part and parcel’ of our supernatural existence on this planet, a supernatural existence which God is instinctively, unintentionally, unknowingly, and meaninglessly responsible for maintaining. Therefore, we should not feel guilty about being omnivores because we did not choose our omnivorous bodies; rather, God instinctively, unintentionally, unknowingly, and meaninglessly evolves and grows our omnivorous bodies with our instinctive, unintentional, unknowing, and meaningless help so that there is no instinctively intended knowledgeable choosing involved in our development as omnivores.

Because an animal is a body, rather than the anima who inhabits this animal or body, it is only good manners to thank the departed anima of its animal that has been killed to supply me with its animal flesh to eat for my body’s sustenance. So, when I am about to eat meat, I usually honor the anima of the animal’s flesh I am about to use my body to eat by acknowledging that, without the animal’s death, my animal (my body) would not continue to exist either; therefore, I thank the anima whose animal was killed to be my ‘daily flesh’ (rather than my daily bread) by sending this anima my thanks, emotionally, rather than symbolically, because chances are that the animal of an anima whose animal portions I have eaten with my body would not be human (since I am not a cannibal) and would not be able to acknowledge my thanks in words. There is no need to thank God for having evolved the anima’s animal that was killed because God is deaf to our thanks as well as to our accusations.

Although vegans and vegetarians believe that their intentions are good, they are denying the reality of their own psychological needs, such as their psychological need to feed their bodies meat, because they are afraid that they would be expressing evil if they were motivated to kill an animal for food — which is also why vegans and vegetarians tend to be pacifists. Pacifists, like vegans and vegetarians, are in denial of what is needed because they do not realize that occasionally a violent response by wise people is necessary to meet the violence instigated by ignorant people so that these ignorant people will learn that they should never have instigated such violence in the first place.

My Study of Conscience

Erich Fromm was a psychologist, psychoanalyst, and sociologist. Unfortunately, Fromm subscribed to scientism’s doctrine of human ethics which means that Fromm could have been considered a pseudo-scientific psychologist, psychoanalyst, and sociologist. He believed ‘that virtue is the same as the pursuit of man’s obligations toward himself and vice the same as self-mutilation (E. Fromm 1947, 123).’ Fromm’s use of the words ‘virtue’, ‘vice’, and ‘obligations’ to describe a soul’s need to love the soul it is, its ego, and its sane self or role demonstrates that Fromm remained mired in the dictates of authoritarianism. Fromm apparently did not understand that a soul who is attempting to be freed as much as possible from its own strait-jacket of authority does not dwell on words that arise from authoritarianism, like ‘virtue’, ‘morality’, ‘obligations’, ‘duties’, ‘principles’, ‘rules’, ‘laws’, ‘ethics’, ‘vice’, and ‘immorality’, nor does the soul use these words to describe its sane way of being because these words can only be used to describe the insane way of being of authoritarians.

All authoritarians are insane because all authoritarians are sadomasochists. We are all occasionally sadomasochistically insane authoritarians because we all ‘slide’ into this role, occasionally. To be insane means to be malevolent. To be psychotic means to be oversensitive so that you are prone to experiencing bizarre delusions; therefore, ‘oversensitives’ (whom psychiatrists mistakenly refer to as ‘psychotics’) are people who are not necessarily insane, while insane people are not necessarily oversensitive.

But an insane person who is also oversensitive is very dangerous because he or she is an authoritarian who is experiencing bizarre delusions, such as that he or she is the Creator; therefore, he or she may think that he or she must kill you because you are interfering with what he or she thinks are his or her ‘Divine’ plans. This is why The Gospel of John 3:16 is a declaration of the insanity of Yahweh because this passage of the Bible has the words that we shall ‘perish’ (be killed by Yahweh) if we interfere with his supposedly Divine plan to convince us to believe in his supposed incarnation called ‘Jesus, the Christ’.

Incarnation is as impossible a feat as reincarnation because a god cannot switch the identity it is from one body to another. A god can only switch its roles or selves in the identity it is. This is why a so-called ‘dissociative identity’, formerly referred to as a multiple personality, is not composed of many identities, but is composed of the many roles or selves existing in an identity who does not really dissociate the identity it is, but only dissociates the many roles or selves that it acts out.

Fromm distinguished between five different character types which a soul uses its ego to develop. I realized that these character types were used by the soul, in turn, to develop five roles or selves in the personality which correspond to the character type from which each role or self was developed. Fromm discovered and called our social character types or caricatures ‘productive’, ‘receptive’, ‘marketing’, ‘hoarding’, and ‘exploitative’, while I discovered and called our respective social personality personae, selves, or roles the ‘adult player’, the ‘infantile victim’, the ‘childish authoritarian’, the ‘preadolescent trickster’, and the ‘adolescent hero’.

The productive caricature (which I realized is also the inventive caricature) is the sane expression of the soul, while all the other caricatures are insane expressions of the soul. Likewise, the productive-inventive caricature’s persona, self, or role of adult player in the personality is the person’s sane way of playfully acting out, while all the other personae, selves, or roles of the personality are the person’s insane way of destructively acting out by toying with other people.

The secondary goal of the person or soul is to express the person or soul it is as a productive-inventive adult player because only this typecast persona can be used by the soul to express its benevolence. Of course, the soul can also express its benevolence without using its productive-inventive adult player to do so in which case the soul is not pretending in the type-cast persona of inventive and productive adult player, but is genuinely, sincerely, and authentically expressing its benevolence without expressing its intentions through a caricature and a persona, which is the primary goal of the soul or god.

The conscience is what a soul uses to express its playing, although not necessarily through its productive-inventive adult player; therefore, the soul who pays attention to its conscience is not moral, but playfully expresses God’s unconditioned attitude of love without pretending as an adult player, which is why we treasure children who play without pretense. We treasure them because we know that they are conscientiously playing from the basis of their conscience which is God’s unconditioned attitude of the love in them that results in their joy in playing without the pretense of being a moral adult player.

A soul who pays attention to its conscience is not ethical because a soul’s ethics is the study of morals (principles, rules, or laws) which it has hallucinated to govern its behaviour so that it could deny its understanding, consciousing, and recognizing of its need to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love. A soul’s need to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love results in feelings of remorse when the soul makes the mistake of intentionally causing another soul to suffer, but a soul who believes in moral law experiences guilty feelings which cover up his remorseful emotions so that he does not feel his remorse.

Such a human soul does not feel his remorse because he is attempting to stop feeling guilty, rather than feel his remorse. The person’s guilty thinking prevents him from feeling his remorse. Such a person’s inability to feel his remorse is unfortunate because only by feeling his remorse will the person experience the need to make amends for the mistake he has committed that resulted in another person’s suffering.

There is no reason for a soul to feel guilty for breaking moral rules because moral rules are not intrinsic to a soul, like the soul’s conscientious needs are. Insane sadomasochistic authoritarians attempt to convince a law-breaker that he should feel guilty, when the truth is that these insane sadomasochistic authoritarian enforcers of the moral law should feel remorse because they are using force to compel others to obey their unnecessary moral hallucinations. You should note, however, that needs should not be trespassed against which means that there would have to be penalties handed out to those insanely destructive people who trespass against the needs we all share in common.

No case can be made for ethical morality because ethical morality is a poor substitute for the need to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love. Consequently, there is no reason to feel guilty for breaking the moral law; however, there is a reason for a soul to feel remorse for trespassing against another soul’s need to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love because the need to express this attitude is the basis through which a soul conscientiously organizes its meanings.

Likewise, our judgement of our own innocence covers up our ability to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love. When we are accused of having committed a mistake which has supposedly resulted in another’s suffering, even though we know that we haven’t behaved inappropriately, we judge ourselves to be innocent if we are ethically moral, rather than simply realize that we have behaved appropriately; therefore, if we are ethically moral, we develop the obnoxious stance of innocent self-righteousness, rather than stand, confidently, in the realization that we have behaved appropriately.

Fromm described a soul’s ‘assimilation’ of a society’s ethical morality as the assimilation of ‘the voice of an internalized external authority (E. Fromm 1947, 148)’ He called this internalized external authority the ‘authoritarian conscience’, not realizing that this internalized external authority was not a soul’s conscience, but was this soul’s authoritarian memory. To contrast the internalized external authority with the internal guidance of a soul, Fromm called this internal voice the ‘humanistic conscience’, which he also described as a ‘voice’ of the soul. Therefore, for Fromm, the internal guide, which he called the ‘humanistic conscience’, was a soul’s authentic voice, while the internalized external authority, which he called the ‘authoritarian conscience’, was the soul’s inauthentic voice.

It is unfortunate that Fromm did not realize that our memories can be used to instigate our authoritarianism because he might have realized that principles, rules, and laws do not exist a priori, i.e., do not exist in God or Nature. Then, Fromm might have realized that we can only develop an authoritarian memory system and cannot develop another conscience because our conscience can only begin, innately, with us, not be developed by us a posteriori, i.e., after we have started to experience.

Memories are developed in a soul’s memory system after the soul and god have developed the soul’s brain because the soul’s brain has to be developed before the soul can develop its ability to store memories in its faculty of memory by channeling its memories through its brain to arrive in its faculty of memory; however, a soul can use its conscience to realize that it has used God’s unconditioned attitude of love, wisely, to condition its own unconditioned attitude of hate or has misused its unconditioned attitude of hate to stupidly condition God’s unconditioned attitude of love in it. Consequently, a soul’s conscience continues to flow as the soul’s realization of its fairness or unfairness (not its innocence or guilt) in every situation (when the soul is wise) or the soul remains ignorant of its fairness or unfairness in almost every situation (when the soul is stupid) because the soul is pretending to be innocent or guilty without understanding that its so-called ‘innocence’ or ‘guilt’ is only its pretense.

If Fromm did not believe in scientism’s doctrine of ethics, he might have realized that we only have a conscience, not a humanistic conscience, because Fromm knew that what he called the ‘authoritarian conscience’ was not innate. Fromm knew that our authoritarian moral laws were assimilated from other souls in the environment; therefore, we do not need to label our consciences, ‘humanistic’, because we have no opposing authoritarian consciences which we could use to assimilate moral laws. We can only have an authoritarian memory system, not an ‘authoritarian conscience’ because it is our memory system that contains our ability to memorize moral laws so that they are stored in our memory system. Consequently, a person only has a conscience which does not have to be distinguished by an accompanying label, such as ‘humanistic’, because a conscience is a specific realization of fairness or unfairness which is not memorized, but is derived from God’s unconditioned attitude of love.

Fromm did not realize that a conscientious person tends to wisely and unconditionally express God’s unconditioned attitude of love as well as his or her conditioning of his or her unconditioned attitude of hate; however, if the person stupidly ignores his or her conscience, he or she tends to express his or her unconditioned attitude of hate without conditioning it and express God’s unconditioned attitude of love, conditionally.

Fromm was unknowingly equating conscience with memory. He did not realize that conscience is our need to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love so that we are able to continually develop and change our expression of all the rest of our needs around it. We do not have to memorize the need to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love. We only need to continually realize this attitude so that we can know it, develop knowledge in relation to it, and memorize this knowledge. Consequently, your conscience is the continual realization of your need to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love, not your memorized knowledge about this attitude which Fromm mistakenly called ‘the humanistic conscience’, rather than the humanistic memory.

Because our consciences are our continual realization of what we are doing, not our memorization of what we are doing, our consciences are not our memory stores. Nor are our consciences the authoritarian roles at which we play or toy; therefore, we have no authoritarian consciences, which means that we have no humanistic consciences either. We simply have consciences, authoritarian memories, and humanistic memories.

Fromm should have realized that the laws of our societies are memorized by us, not assimilated by our use of our consciences, because laws can only be defined in our subjective worlds, not realized in our objective world. Politicians, judges, lawyers, and the police may think that they are able to realize the laws (which they force on everyone) in the objective world, but they cannot realize these laws because these laws can only be realized as our subjective fantasies. A law can only be used as the delusional basis for a commander to use force so that our fear of the force of these commanders will make us obey them, but a law is not realizable in our objective world, because a law is only nominal, i.e., a law is only a word without a real referent.

Even though laws are meant to keep us from being destructively impulsive, they keep us from being productively spontaneous and do not work at all in helping us to curb our destructive impulses. If anything, they add to our desire to be destructive because we hate the commands of these ‘rulers’ so much that we end up wanting to destroy them if we are not wise; however, if we are wise, we simply play within society’s Game of ethics, without obeying or disobeying it, as well as without toying, destructively, with others in this Game.

God’s unconditioned attitude of love, however, can be appreciated and assimilated, because God’s unconditioned attitude of love is the motive or need of God with which God spontaneously, instinctively, unintentionally, and unknowingly acts and which we can use to deliberately curb our impulsivity without using force to do so, a fact which the ‘Holy’ Bible’s Jesus of Nazareth did not fully realize because he is reported to have commanded us to love, instead of letting us realize our need to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love.

Fromm understood that unconditional love is a spontaneously expressed attitude, not an intellectual law, which is why Fromm knew that authoritarians seldom feel free enough from their obsessive concern with principles, rules, and laws to act, spontaneously, from their need to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love. Fromm also knew that The Golden Rule (‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’) could just as easily apply to sadomasochists as it applies to lovers because the sadist has an insane desire to hurt, while the masochist has an insane desire to be hurt; therefore, the sadist would have the masochist hurt him so that he would have an excuse to hurt the masochist which means that the sadist is following The Golden Rule because the sadist is doing unto the masochist as he would have the masochist do unto him. Consequently, ‘The Golden Rule ain’t so golden.’

An authoritarian is a compulsive sadomasochist whose sadism feeds his or her masochistic obsession with moral laws and immoral laws, just as his or her compulsive masochistic obsession with moral laws and immoral laws feeds his or her sadism. Likewise, every sadist fits into a chain of command so that every sadist is the masochist of the sadist in command of him or her. Even the top sadist in a chain of command thinks of the soul it is as the masochist of ‘God’ because he or she unconsciously (or consciously) believes that his or her ‘God’ (who is really only a god) is the absolute Sadist, although he or she pays lip service to falsehood that his or her god is the ultimate Lover.

The authoritarian is a compulsive sadist as well as an impulsive masochist who is obsessed with morality and immorality because she is attempting to seek security through force, rather than simply allowing God’s unconditioned attitude of love flow from her need to express and receive this attitude so that she would feel secure. The authoritarian does not allow God’s unconditioned attitude of love to flow through her unchecked because she has the insane desire to block her need to express and receive this attitude with her obsessive obedience; therefore, she is not able to accept God’s unconditioned attitude of love until she ceases to depend on moral and immoral laws to govern her actions and behaviours.

Ethicists are pseudo-philosophers who have a pathological desire to obsessively obey which is why an ethicist studies goodness, right and wrong actions and behaviours, applied ethics, metaethics, moral psychology, and the metaphysics of moral responsibility. A serious ethicist attempts to live consistently according to the ethics of duty by way of the laws of morality.

“Conscientology” is a word coined by me meaning the study of conscience. A conscientologist is a true philosopher who studies goodness, sane as well as insane actions and behaviours, conscientiousness, metaethics, the psychology of conscientiousness, and, most importantly, the spontaneity of need with which the conscientologist expresses God’s unconditioned attitude of love and his (or her) conditioning of his own unconditioned attitude of hate as this need relates to responsibility. A playful conscientologist attempts to excel at living in whatever he does according to his need to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love by way of the meanings that he values.

A conscientologist is an aethical amoralist, not an ethical moralist or an unethical immoralist. The definition of an aethicist is a psyche who acts responsibly according to its conscientious need to love, while the definition of an amoralist is a psyche who responds to its needs, although not necessarily to its conscientious need to love. Consequently, the definition of an aethical amoralist is a psyche who acts responsibly according to all the needs of its conscience.

An aethical amoralist is not concerned with ethical or unethical principles (rules) nor is the aethical amoralist concerned with moral or immoral laws. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were all concerned with ethical principles which they believed best governed the way for us to behave in living as souls and in dying our bodies; however, unlike Socrates and Plato, Aristotle maintained that a soul dies with its body because he thought that the soul was merely the form, epiphenomenon, or secondary characteristic of the body and does not continue to live beyond the death of its body. Unfortunately, these three Greek philosophers were so enamoured of the principles, rules, or laws of mathematics (which they thought fated the movements of the planetary bodies, such as the earth’s moon and sun) that they attempted to transpose these mathematical principles, rules, or laws to the study of the movements of the human body so that they could understand how our bodies’ movements are supposedly fated as well. Although this mathematical transposition of principles, rules, or laws from planetary bodies to our bodies was bad enough, it paled in comparison to their very bad idea of transposing them from our bodies to the souls we are.

The soul supposedly learned to use moral laws in its ludicrous attempt to control how it conducts its actions and behaviours so that its actions and behaviours would follow these moral laws. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle used moral laws to rationalize their belief that our actions and behaviours are fated. The soul’s supposed ability to control was also rationalized and believed by these pseudo-philosophers to be fated by principles, rules, or laws, even though the soul was thought to have its own free will. These three ancient pseudo-philosophers did not have the insight that the soul is able to freely use God’s Will without being fated by principles, rules, or laws. Likewise, Western Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Baha’is as well as Eastern Hindus do not have the insight that their Creator does not fate us morally because, not only is morality their fantasy, their Creator is also their fantasy.

With Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle’s development of ethics, the dye was then cast for their misinterpretation of the freedom of God’s Way as well as for their misinterpretation of the freedom of their own ways within the World or Reality of which God and humanity both partake. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were all advocates of scientism who misinterpreted Divinity as our fate because they wanted to be fated by morality, rather to be freed through the realization of their need to be wise by developing their actions and behaviours in accord with God’s unconditioned attitude of love. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle substituted their hallucinated moral laws and fantasies of omniscience for God’s supernatural need to express Its unconditioned attitude of love and Its need to strive, instinctively, unintentionally, unknowingly, and meaninglessly for a wisdom which It can never attain.

Conclusion: The Need for Apolitical Coordinators of Our Social Systems, Rather Than Anonymous Political Rulers

The pseudo-philosophers of the West, who followed in the footsteps of these three Greek pseudo-philosophers, were equally enchanted by moral laws and the regulation of force which they studied as the supposed means by which their hypothesized Creator, Yahweh, was thought to have created and controlled the evolution of their hypothesized finite universe. Pseudo-philosophers, like scientism’s Immanuel Kant, came to misunderstand that ‘right’ and the rule of law had to be enforced, while those who exhibited ‘wrong’ behaviours — i.e., disobeyed the moral laws of their society’s authorities — had to be forced into submission. Kant did not realize that those whom he considered to be ‘wrong’ had their own moral laws which were simply at odds with the established moral laws of their society. Kant did not realize that morality and immorality are both evaluated in ‘the eye of the beholder’.

Kant did not realize that there is a difference between logical intellectualizing and inferential reasoning. He did not realize that we use our ability of inferential reasoning to distinguish the difference between our relative sanity and our relative insanity, while we use our disability of logical intellectualizing to distinguish between our fantasies of the ‘absolutely right’ and the ‘absolutely wrong’. Rights and wrongs are the real fantasies of ethical moralists, but proper takes and improper mistakes are the real actualities of conscientologists. Kant was an intellectual ethical moralist, not an intelligent aethical amoralist; therefore, he did not know that practical reasoning is not the soul’s ‘intellectual’ capacity to determine what is right or wrong in every event, but is the soul’s intelligent ability to determine what is appropriately taken or inappropriately mistaken in every situation.

Kant also defined a moral law which can supposedly be applied in every event to be a ‘categorical imperative’. Kant supposed that such a universal law was used by us, commandingly and authoritatively. Kant, like Plato before him, did not question whether such commands and authority were needed, but simply assumed that we needed them — whether or not Kant thought that God Existed. Unfortunately, Kant did not know that we receive our need to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love from God so that we can enjoy life as our use of God’s Power to guide, rather than suffer from our delusion that we can use this Power to control.

Kant was a child of the West’s ‘Age of Enlightenment’; therefore, Kant knew that our freedom to let a maxim ‘control’ us or God’s unconditioned attitude of love guide us cannot be dictated to us by anyone, but has to be our own choice. Unfortunately, the thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment, like Kant, believed that our ability to choose is ‘a law of our nature’, rather than a need of our supernature.

Although Kant’s basis for human existence was freedom, he contradicted this basis by maintaining that rules should govern our behaviour. Kant did not understand that freedom cannot co-exist in accord with the governance of a universal law (Kant’s categorical imperative) because a law is inflexible, unlike our needs — which is why we have a need to be free from morality so that we are free to use our ability of reasoning to help us choose the needs we will use in coordinating our actions and behaviours, rather than use our disability of cogitating to hinder us in our choice of laws in governing our actions and behaviours.

Despite his delusion that ‘right’ has to be enforced in us while those who do wrong (in Kant’s authoritarian opinion) have to be forced to submit to the ‘righteous’, Kant did not believe that we should have rulers, not even an absolute Ruler in heaven. Rather, Kant seemed to believe that we should have authorities who lead, ethically and morally, by example in a constitutional republic, rather than as rulers in a constitutional monarchy. Kant did not realize that anyone who wants to be an authority also wants to be a ruler, rather than a coordinator, so that authorities in a constitutional republic may pretend that they are not rulers, but they obviously do want to rule as anonymous rulers.

Unfortunately, Kant was not wise because he did not assimilate the knowledge that even the ethically moral political leaders of a constitutional republic remain deluded because they are convinced that the ‘right’ (ethical) obeyer of the law must enforce the law and that the ‘wrong’ (unethical) disobeyers of the right must be forced to submit to the obeyers. Kant failed to realize that sane people only want to be the coordinators of their society’s needs, while insane people want to be the authorities of their society’s policies. He also failed to realize that everyone must be helped to learn how to become benevolent, while only using force on the malevolent if we are left no other choice by the malevolent.

Using force is insane if the use of force is unnecessary, but all authorities irresponsibly use force (when they do not need to use force) based on the Machiavellian rationalization that authorities have to politically rule. The truth is that political authorities only insanely desire to use rules to rationalize their use of force to get their own way. The term ‘Machiavellian’ came into use because Niccolò Machiavelli psychopathically recommended the use of what some consider to be immoral rule in the book he wrote entitled, The Prince, which he dedicated to the Medici family so that he could persuade the rulers of this family to conduct a crusade against invaders, like the French.

Unfortunately, most of us fail to realize that our democratic leaders tend to think secretly that they are our anonymous rulers. Machiavelli would have been proud to have invented the Machiavellian role of ‘the anonymous ruler’.

Democratic politicians try to ‘lead’ the populace of a country as anonymous rulers, rather than participate in the populace as one of the people. These anonymous rulers are anonymous because they pretend that they are not our rulers, while secretly behaving as if they are our rulers. Any soul who wants to rule any other soul and also tries, absurdly, to rule the soul it is, is a politician. Many parents are politicians because they want to rule their nuclear family or ‘rule the roost’, rather than cooperate with their family members. As a consequence, the members of their small social group are prevented from coordinating their needs and fulfilling them.

Politicians do not have the insight that their true goal in life is to learn how to stop insanely seeking an expression of emotional affection from God so that they can learn how to sanely express God’s unconditioned attitude of love to the souls they are as well as to other souls. Politicians must realize that they do not have a need for emotional affection from God because they can only gain the strength to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love through their own understanding of God and the gods they are.

Goodness is a category of study for the philosopher of conscientology as well as for the philosopher of ethics, with the difference being that the ethicist attempts to understand goodness in relation to the ethical rule of moral law, usually in terms of Creationism, while the conscientologist attempts to understand goodness in relation to the conscientiousness of need in terms of Activation. To a conscientologist, the good is simply the appealing or the attractive, while the bad is simply the unappealing or the repulsive; however, to an ethicist, the good is the morality he calls ‘laws’, while the bad is the denial of these moral laws. Consequently, according to an ethicist, I am bad because I am not moral, despite the fact that I only help and do not attempt to activate the suffering of conflict, hurt, or pain to the soul I am or to other souls.

The good is our conscientious use of God’s Power so that we do not use force, unnecessarily. Our use of God’s Will, Power, or Spirit to force is only good when we have no other choice, while the bad is our use of God’s Will to force when we do not have to use force. Thus, the good is our ability to indirectly and appropriately use God’s Will to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love, while the bad is our ability to indirectly and inappropriately use God’s Will to condition God’s unconditioned attitude of love.

It is not good for you to be dependent on another because you and the other become caught up in a relationship of co-dependence where you both repress the integrity of your conscience by dependently feeling the negativity of your emotions for each other; therefore, you are not independently feeling the positivity of your emotions for each other. The integrity of your conscience is your need to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love to what you are and to how and who you are being as your primary priority and to express these attitudes to what others are and to how and who others are being as your secondary priority. Consequently, establishing a relationship of interindependence with other people is very important because you and all other people need to maintain the integrity of your consciences.

The Greek word for enjoyment is ‘komos’, while the Greek word for suffering is ‘pathos’. We label the study of suffering ‘pathology’; therefore, I have coined the term, ‘komology’, to refer to the study of enjoyment. We use pathology to recognize psychological unwellness, such as neurosis and oversensitivity, as well as to recognize physical diseases and illnesses, such as chicken pox and measles, because our psychological unwellness and our diseases and illnesses disable our ability to enjoy life; therefore, we can use komology to recognize psychological wellness, such as our ability to be free from psychological disturbance and disruption, as well as to recognize physical healthiness, such as our ability to be free from physical disease and illness, because our psychological wellness and physical healthiness contribute to our ability to enjoy life.

Just as there are psychopaths who spread suffering, there are also ‘psychokoms’ who spread joy; therefore, in accordance with the study of suffering, termed ‘psychopathy’, I have coined the term, ‘psychokomy’, to refer to the study of the tendency of a god to enjoy and help other gods to enjoy their experiences. The ultimate psychokomy is wisdom because we realize that we are centers of God, (the absolute Psyche) as well as realize what we are when we become wise.

When we realize what we are, we need to realize: (a) how we are being which is the ‘howness’ of our sane and insane caricatures which are developed through our egos or minds; (b) who we are being which is the ‘whoness’ of our sane and insane personae at which we instinctively play or toy; and © why we are brought to exist out of God which is due to God’s need to strive for the wisdom which It can never attain. We can then realize that God is unbounded No-thingness and how God is the perfect Lover and the perfect Guide to Its unconditioned attitude of love; however, to question why God Exists demonstrates one’s ignorance of God-Energy as being everpreceding and everlasting in Continuity as well as the ignorance of God as the Activity that continually uses Its Will to activate the absolute Motion of Energy.

The pinnacle of our komos or enjoyment is our realization that we can spontaneously enjoy all that we do and experience; however we must realize that our komos or enjoyment is not our goal because komos or enjoyment is a by-product of our ability to express the supernatures we are, genuinely, sincerely, and authentically. Because komos or enjoyment arises, spontaneously, from the need to express what we are as we can be, genuinely, sincerely, and authentically, we do need to have the goal of reaching for enjoyment any more than we need to have the goal of reaching for suffering; however, we can only enjoy if we have a goal to fulfil our needs, such as our need to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love and our conditioning of our unconditioned attitude of hate for how and who we are being as well as our need to continually develop our wisdom.

Right and wrong are believed by ethical moralists to be axiomatic; however, these two opposing delusions are not axioms; rather, they are falsehoods, not truths. The word ‘right’ carries the connotation that right is absolutely exact or precise, while the word ‘wrong’ carries the connotation that wrong is absolutely inexact or imprecise. Not even God’s actions and behaviours can be exactly or precisely right nor can our actions and behaviours be inexactly or imprecisely wrong, but are always the result of a combination of needs which are neither right nor wrong; therefore, actions and behaviours are only appropriately taken or inappropriately mistaken because there can be no right or wrong actions and behaviours.

There are either wise actions and behaviours because the soul is expressing them from God’s unconditioned attitude of love and its own conditioning of its unconditioned attitude of hate in its acting and bodily behaving or stupid actions and behaviours because the soul is in denial of its need to express God’s unconditioned attitude of love and its conditioning of its unconditioned attitude of hate in its acting and behaving of its body, but there are no right or wrong actions and behaviours.

We hallucinate principles of right and wrong so that we can enforce these moral principles. We have the tempting and quite insane desire to control others whom we cannot trust because they have shown that they will take advantage of us. We feel anger at such people because they have taken advantage of our need to be liked.

We have a sane desire for people to like us, but we do not have a need to trust that people will like us any more than we have a need to distrust people when they like us. To trust that all people will like you is a neurotic desire to be liked because some people, who have learned to neurotically distrust their own need to be liked, will appropriately distrust your neurotic desire to trust that all people will like you; however, they will also inappropriately abuse you because you have trusted them which results in them feeling unconditional hate for you because you have reminded them that they have a neurotic distrust of their own need to be liked. These people hate how and who everyone is being as well as how and who they are being so that they lash out cruelly at people who trust them and open their feelings to them.

The anonymous authorities of our system, our political, judicial, and military leaders, are supposed to ‘stand on guard’ for the citizens of Canada; however, these anonymous authorities laugh behind our backs because these anonymous authorities know that the ‘sheep’ who obey them so docilely are masochists to their sadism. These anonymous authorities do not want the citizens who are under their authority to wake up and realize that needs must replace laws, and freedoms must replace rights, because these anonymous authorities do not want any citizen to realize that all anonymous authorities are insane.

These anonymous authorities laugh at us behind our backs because they know that, despite the use of the word ‘freedoms’ in a democracy’s Constitution, this word remains only a word for these anonymous authorities because they do not want us to be free. If they wanted us to be free, they would not maintain that they have the childish sadomasochistic authority to give and take away our ‘rights’, because they would know that rights do not actually exist. Only freedoms exist, not rights, because only needs exist, not laws. Our bodies can be restrained, but our absolute freedom to improvise our emoting, thinking, and reasoning cannot be restrained. Nor can our needs be taken away, like our laws. Our despicable anonymous authorities are politicians who do not want us to realize that we are always absolutely free because they do not want to be accountable to us for their absolutely free actions and behaviours.

Our primary responsibility as Canadians is to persuade our politicians to stop being politicians so that they stop covertly acting like rulers who are also greedy businessmen and businesswomen and, instead, act overtly as socially competitive cooperators and coordinators so that they can change our societies and develop them as democratic anarchistic socialistic competitive cooperatives, rather than democratic capitalistic uncooperative competitive governments. The first step in this changeover would be to establish a maximum wage which could be around $1,000,000.00 per annum and a minimum wage which could be around $200,000.00 per annum to reflect the various responsibility levels of the workers and managers of our society’s businesses and other institutions. By establishing a maximum wage, there would be plenty of funds necessary for the running of our society’s businesses and other institutions.

Unfortunately, we will all need to realize the sanity of having apolitical leaders who are coordinators of our social systems, rather than having anonymous political leaders who are governors or rulers of our social systems, before it will be possible for us to develop a sane society in which to live.

References

1. Audi, R. (Editor). 1999. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Second Edition. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

2. Fromm, E. 1947. Man for Himself: An Enquiry into the Psychology of Ethics. Greenwich, Connecticut: Fawcett Publications, Inc.

3. Kant, I. 1949. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals. Indianapolis, Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing.

4. ‘Kant’s Social and Political Philosophy’. 1 Sept 2016. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. Accessed 18 March 2020.

5. Machiavelli, N. 1979. The Prince. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.