My contribution to a LinkedIn thread entitled, does adherence to rationality lead to Atheism?
Martin: Regarding your confusion about what I mean when I say that truth doesn’t exist, I should have been more clear. I am referring exclusively to moral truth, that is the truth created by legal systems and upon which belief systems are based—though belief systems are not the subject of this essay. Other truths indeed exist, such as scientific truth, historical truth, truth regarding the location of resources, and truth about how we feel. These truths apply to either the past or to the present—none to the distant future. Only legal truth applies to the distant future, which is why such truth frustrates life’s ability to survive.
The distant future cannot be predicted. For a species to survive, it members must be free to react to unpredictable future events in ways that serve the species. The pleasure we experience in relationships is our instincts way of telling us that, through those relationships, we are free to react to future events in ways that serve our species—and vice versa. Therefore, it is important to life, that is, to the life of our species, that we remain free to disband relationships that require effort or that are painful.
I question any truth that applies to the distant future, such as the legal truth that authorizes the institution of marriage. Such truth proclaims the love the couple are experiencing is to last for life. Based on experience, all too often this is not true. As long as a couple remain subject to this legal truth, they, in effect, are agreeing that they will not be true to life should the relationship not work out according to plan. When having to pretend to love, instead of experiencing the real thing, we are not happy, which is our emotional nature’s way of telling us that we are not free to be true to life.
In a previous post I illustrated another shortcoming of legal/moral truth: The truth that, having planted something just a smidgen over my property line, you are subject to all the punishment deemed appropriate by the state; And the truth that a man must be imprisoned if proven to have had sex with a young women 30 seconds before her 16th birthday. These truths are not only nonsense, but also artificial. They have nothing to do with sustaining life, and therefore, without being legally imposed, could not exist.
Humans began instituting legal truth thousands of years ago. They did not know that all species are governed by innately based feelings that evolved as expressions of life. Back then, we didn’t know about evolution, much less about the natural role of instincts. Had I lived then, I would have been in full concert with the idea of institutionalizing truth, the very practice I now question.
Because we are so adaptable, we have yet to recognize the mistake of equating legal truth with the truth. If the king, or the immortal king—the one that lives in heaven—says we are going to live by legal truth, because of our adaptability, legal truth becomes our truth. Being both adaptable and well intended, we have made the very best of it. Consequently, we all too often abide by legal truth in our most personal family relationships, even when those relationships are making our lives miserable. We also apply ourselves to learning truly remarkable skills, the skills necessary to make money, while simultaneously losing all the skills required to thrive in a natural culture by taking care of one another. So, quite naturally, we do not take kindly to the idea that to live in a state of unconditional love and to thrive as a species, we must return to a way of life that we hardly know of, let alone how to personally survive. I didn’t take kindly to it, either, when these thoughts began germinating in my mind years ago. Indeed, I was in shock. Talk about returning home to find it burnt to the ground.
Now that I have recovered from the shock of it all and, given that mankind now knows about evolution and is learning about our emotional natures, maybe it’s time to think about why feelings exist. If it is true that feelings provide the only reference a sustainable way of life, should we again trust our lives to relationships that we find comfortable, instead of to relationships based on legal truth, our emotional/spiritual natures may be free to solve a lot of problems for us.
We would, of course, have to relearn a lot of skills.
Fortunately, we wouldn’t have to relearn anything about relationships. Presuming I am right, should a body of people dispense with moral truth in their relationships—including any rules on file prescribing how they intend to serve one another—in that act they would again be trusting their lives to the human spirit. Free to come and go according to how they feel, from such a body relationships based on unconditional love would form naturally. Love, you see, is not something we learn or unlearn, or that we do or don’t do. By the authority of our emotional natures, love, be it motherly, romantic, or the relational intimacy of interdependent relationships, is simply there for our pleasure, indeed, our ultimate pleasure, should we regain circumstances that our spirits deem appropriate for love’s expression.