Urgently Addressing Immorality - Part C

 

How much respect do you have for scientific truth?

Perhaps that is, in fact, a difficult question for you to answer.

What is respect?

What is science?

What is truth?

And how do you usually put those concepts into practice in your daily life?

Who has taught you about respect?

Who has taught you about science?

Who has taught you about truth?

What, in your view, is thoughtful reciprocity in relation to time and continuity and reasonableness and honesty and freedom and security and certainty? 

Perhaps your acquaintance with the Revolutionary Climatological Needlepoint Committee is not yet substantial enough for you to make a sufficient contribution to its work.

How do you know when you have made a sufficient contribution to an important endeavour?

Urgently addressing immorality is obviously important, yet attempting to do so in the wrong way is likely to cause more problems than it solves.

Most people apparently believe they only need to provide a few words, even though their words rarely contain sufficient wisdom.

Quite a few people apparently believe problems are solved by contributing a little money in relation to a few words.  Such persons fail to acknowledge that empty words tend to deplete financial resources very quickly indeed, unless the funds can quite easily be replenished.

How do you usually replenish your funds?

How do you usually assess the meaningfulness, or otherwise, of your words and actions?

How humane, benevolent and philanthropic are your investments?

Are you a reliable philanthropist in terms of well-informed kindness?

How do you define political philanthropy?

How do you express it and how consistently?

How do you know you do not act hypocritically?

How do you know your words and language are appropriate for the situations in which they are required?

What do you know about health in relation to enlightenment, benevolence, appropriateness, humane principles, good policies, well-informed practices and kind attitudes?

How do you support justice if not through enlightened benevolence, as expressed through appropriately humane principles, policies and practices?

How do you assess urgency?

Do you always regard well-informed kindness as urgently required?

The questions and statements here are intended to assist you to become more aware of your own unreasonableness.

Everyone is unreasonable to some extent.

Yet your duty is towards the truth.  

How you decide upon the manner in which you wish to communicate the truth?

How do you decide when to do so?

How do you decide upon the recipients of your messages?

Perhaps you do not regard enlightenment as humane.

Perhaps you do not regard benevolence as humane.

How clearly do you distinguish between knowledge and aggression, including passive aggression?

How consistently do your own principles, policies and practices reflect the good, the kind, the peaceful, the reliable, the fair and the responsible, and how do you know?

What do you know about peaceful community standards in terms of appropriately humane principles, policies and practices?

How do you know your attempts to address immorality are to the point yet polite enough and purposeful enough? 

How do you know your patronages are enlightened enough?

Where do you prefer to shop, whether for food, clothing, home furnishings, or suitable governments?

How do you know you are a patron of suitably beautiful pleasantness rather than corrupt politics?

How do you prefer to express your patronage, and where? 

What is your acquaintance with all forms of quality communication?

What is your communications policy, as an individual, and how consistently do you practice it, even within organisations with their own communications policies?

Do you always communicate philanthropically?

Do you always communicate with political pleasantness?

Perhaps you are unsure how to define political pleasantness, or even how to express it.

Perhaps you mistake your own pleasure for political pleasantness.

How do you prefer to read the Book of Nature, and why, and when, and with which references and tutors to assist you?

How is your conscience interacting with the questions here? 

The Revolutionary Climatological Needlepoint Committee wishes to ensure you address immorality and other urgent matters in a well-informed and reasonable manner.

When the people most responsible for addressing immorality are not doing so, appropriate bluntness towards those persons is urgently required.

Appropriate bluntness is only necessary when appropriate politeness has failed to encourage appropriate action.

When appropriate bluntness itself does not work, and after several more attempts at being appropriately polite, followed by even more appropriate bluntness, appropriate satire then becomes necessary.

Who are the usual recipients of your verbal communication, and why?

Who are the usual recipients of your written communication, and why?

How else do you communicate, and for what reasons, and with whom, and for whom?

How do you assess the appropriate and inappropriate uses of time?  

How do you identify effective approaches to benevolence and ineffective ones?

What are your values, and how did you acquire them?

How do you ensure you are a good judge of character, including your own?

How do you assess necessity?

How do you attempt to identify the problems within cultures?

What is your current acquaintance with nature?

What is your current acquaintance with the acquisition of insight?

How do you currently prefer to express vigilance, and for what reasons? 

Who is the real you and who is the fake you, and how do you know?

How determined are you to be true to yourself, true to nature, true to goodness and true to the harmonious interplay of beauty, understanding and magnificence? 

How determined are you to maintain accurate records of your attempts to address immorality?

How do you know when any record is accurate?

How do you usually assess your investments if not in terms of enlightened benevolence? 

When the polite provision of information to the perpetrators of harm does not work in addressing the associated problems, what do you do?

What is your acquaintance with quality political satire as philanthropy?

When people are egocentric, they tend to mistake cruelty for amusement.  They regard their own sentience as the centre of everything important.

How do you assess evidence of conflict and psychological trauma and how appropriately do you attempt to respond to that evidence?

How do you usually define the meaning of alertness? 

How do you express pity towards the untrustworthy?

When have you done so satirically?

When have you done so otherwise?

You may have noticed that the Revolutionary Climatological Needlepoint Committee has a revolutionary approach to addressing immorality.

How, though, do you identify morality? 

How have you defined your enlightened benevolence if not in terms of political philanthropy?

How do you know you have been saving the world especially carefully on Friday afternoons?

When have you experienced serendipity through your expressions of enlightened benevolence, on any day of the week?

What are your current policies as a philanthropist, and how did you develop them?

Which of those policies are most relevant to your activities as a political philanthropist?

What are your policies in terms of political practices more broadly?

Perhaps you are mostly curious about art rather than policies, politics and/or philanthropy.

What does art reveal to you about policies, politics and/or philanthropy?

What does art reveal to you about diplomacy?

What do family relationships reveal to you about opportunities in life, and problems in life? 

What does social status reveal to you about problems and opportunities?

What does political status reveal to you about responsibilities?

Who is the authentic you, and what does that person prefer to do, and where, and why?

Perhaps you are yet to use a powerful tool for good in the world in the most appropriate ways.

Why, if at all, are you interested in learning about enlightened benevolence through appropriately humane principles, policies and practices?
 
Perhaps you are interested in putting that knowledge into practice.
 
Perhaps you are interested in preventing that knowledge from being put into practice.

Perhaps you are mainly interested in following your curiosity wherever it may take you.

But what good does your curiosity do in the world?

Perhaps you are quite interested in demonstrations of various sorts.  You may even be excited by them.

How do you usually establish your priorities?

How do you tell when an individual lacks personal insight?

How do you tell when an organisation is run without altruistic insight?

How do you assess ethical compatibility in relation to temperamental compatibility, temporal compatibility and cultural compatibility?

You may be familiar with effective altruism.

If so, what are you views about it, and do you attempt to practice it?

Whether you are familiar with effective altruism as a concept and practice, or not, how do you attempt to define reasonableness in various situations? 

How do you define the physical centre of the Universe, and from which point of view?

How do you define the moral centre of the Universe, and from which point of view?

How do you compare the physical theory of relativity with the moral theory of universalism?

How do you know your moral focus is geocentric rather than egocentric or heliocentric?

How do you know your scientific focus is accurately in accordance with observable facts?

Perhaps you spend much of your time measuring circles, cycles, spirals and feedback loops.

How do you attempt to ascertain and maintain your personal boundaries, whether physically, psychologically, morally or socially? 
 
How do you know when people have incompatible goals, whether personally, interpersonally, internationally or scientifically? 
 
How do you know when expectations of you are associated with incompatible goals?
 
How do you prefer to address the psychological incompatibilities associated with unreasonableness?
 
What is your acquaintance with enlightened statecraft?
 
How do you tell whether a practice is political or otherwise?
 
Why are you still reading these words?

Perhaps you have a few questions of your own.

Displaying enlightened benevolence through appropriately humane principles, policies and practices should be the essence of politics, all over the world, yet the facts are evidently otherwise.

What is a political practice, from your point of view?

How do you distinguish between a political practice and a non-political practice?

How do you distinguish between direct political control, indirect political control and no political control at all?
 
How do you distinguish between vigilance and vanity, and with whose assistance?
 
How do you compare one work of art with another and another and another and another and another and another?
 

How do you compare one important text with another and another and another?

How do you know whether a text is important or not?
 
How do you compare one important moment in history with another?
 
How do you know when a moment in history is important?

What do you know about the history of destruction, in various parts of the world?

What do you know about attempts to prevent destruction, in various parts of the world?
 
Are you sure you have reasonable priorities?
 
When people are dyeing, how do you attempt to learn from the experience? 
 
When people are dying, how do you attempt to learn from the experience?
 
If you are a writer, do you do most of your writing for public or private or community purposes?
 
If you communicate in ways other than in writing, what have you communicated, and how, and why?  
 
What do you know about social structures in various parts of the world, and how did you acquire that knowledge?
 
How do you usually assess political negotiations, whether you are directly involved in the process or an observer?

How is your political philanthropy a reflection of real leadership?
 
Are you good at providing honest, accurate answers to important questions? 
 
Are you good at providing a suitably honest and accurate sense of direction, without dictating what to do?
 
Are you sure you are a gentle and genial guide rather than a bully? 
 
Immorality usually arises when people do not understand the purpose of negotiations.  Such persons regard the purpose of any interaction as an opportunity to impose their own will on everyone else.

Do you prefer to act relatively anonymously in philanthropic terms or do you prefer to act with some sort of public profile?

Do you define your philanthropy mainly in financial terms or educational terms or informational terms or political terms or otherwise?

Perhaps you do not regard the questions here as particularly important to answer, whether you are a direct participant in historically important negotiations or otherwise. 

What do you know about checking facts as a good investment in itself?  
 
How do you know when checking facts is absolutely necessary?
 

How do you usually dress when acting scientifically?

How do you usually dress when acting politically?

How do you usually attempt to assess whether understandings are shared?

How do you usually examine influences?

How do you usually attempt to assess attitudes?
 
Perhaps you are already feeling exhausted by the questions here, and even by the images presented. 

How do you usually prepare yourself for paying attention properly?

What are you, in fact, attempting to achieve, and how, and where, and why? 

How successfully have you been investing in and through well-informed kindness and thoughtful reciprocity, and how do you know?

How have the questions here been influencing your understanding, and attitude towards, the enlightened benevolence of political philanthropy?

How have you been learning how do address immorality properly?
 
And what do you really and truly know, particularly about politics?

Comments

Post a Comment