Reciprocal System #79-Beyond Space and Time EEE [Thomas Newsome]

Transcript

all right everyone hello my name is Thomas and welcome to my channel I do educational videos on many different subjects today we're uh going further into the reciprocal system of theory from Dewey B Larson this is a theory of everything that Larson derived all the way from uh his first uh intuitions about this in 1930 or so all the way up until his death in 1990 and we are actually looking at his final book beyond space and time which came out in uh after he died in 1995 and uh this book is his uh his efforts into metaphysics philosophy religion psychology and the like the occult even a little bit and um we're looking at this just it gives us an idea of his kind of fully uh realized uh Theory where you know it took him very many years to kind of work out the Kinks and so uh we want to look at this and eventually we're going to go back and look at his earlier books that are mostly on the hard Sciences astronomy physics and chemistry especially um now the gist of Larson's theory is that the universe is not made out of matter the universe is not made out of energy the universe is made out of motion and motion is in uh is the relationship between space and time space and time are in a fraction together um they are reciprocals of each other and uh they both so they both have the same type of qualities uh space being three-dimensional uh therefore by the reciprocal idea time is also three-dimensional and time uh being progressing or flowing it's always getting later and later and uh thereby space is also flowing everything is always getting further and further apart that's called the um recession of the distant galaxies now space and time are both in discrete units meaning that there is a minimum unit of space and a minimum unit of time they are quantized and so when they are both one one unit of space in one unit of time we have the speed of light the speed of light is unlike uh Einstein who says the speed of light is the maximum speed of the universe Larson says that the speed of light is the midpoint of the universe half of the universe is moving actually faster than the speed of light that half he calls this Cosmic sector or sector two The Familiar sector sector one or the material sector is the sector where we live in where everything is moving slower than the speed of light this is the world of atoms molecules and although over here we have the world of cosmic atoms and Cosmic molecules um by the reciprocal system again you have the speed of light you have sector one sector two we know about sector one we know how things work there we can extrapolate to over here to figure out how things are working over here they're the same over here we have space over time relationships over here we have time over space relationships uh all you have to do to cross the boundary is invert space and time switch the roles of space and time over here we have 3D coordinate space and we have progressing time that's the scalar motion of time it moves in a uh with a magnitude but it has no particular direction and so over here this is you would Envision this with a balloon and a magic marker put dots on the magic on the balloon blow up the balloon all of the dots are moving away from each other but not in any particular direction over here we have three dimensional time what he calls coordinate time coordinate space and coordinate time um and we also have progressing space um so space is always getting further and further and further apart okay so over here we progress uh through aggregation bonding uh similar molecules or or valent molecules uh or atoms bonding to each other until it gets to its most complex level which is called DNA and at that point DNA becomes eligible to be controlled or taken over by a sector 2 unit sector two comes over and mates with sector one and that is called the life unit according to Larson so life is a mixture of a combination of a sector one uh unit entity and a sector two entity now that's sector two uh that life unit then develops or evolves and up until the point that it gets to its most complex level which Larson uh says is the human being the intelligent human being and at that point the intelligent human being becomes eligible to be taken over in a further control by a sector 3 unit so now sector three is the region that is independent of space and time or outside of space and time or beyond space and time Larson calls this the metaphysical sector and he calls it sector three other people have would call that God or gods or the spirit world or something to that nature now the human is under the control of sector three and sector two sector two is geared toward survival this is the life this is life geared towards survival but sector three is geared toward ethical Behavior or good behavior there are many times when those two things work in Harmony and there's no conflict but there are also many times when they work uh in conflict and the human being must choose uh one or the other that's really the concept of Free Will and Larson gets into that uh in chapter 17 he also in the earlier chapters gets into many different kinds of communications from sector three to to the life life unit and um so uh sector three is geared toward good behavior or ethical behavior and it communicates with us through some kind of transition transmission mechanism and uh it's always right it's always giving us right information but our ability to translate it properly is limited and so sometimes we get our signals crossed um but those different forms of communication are variously known as um ESP intuition religious Revelation scientific Insight those are all forms of communication from sector three okay now we're in chapter 19 which is called Good and Evil and we're taking over here toward the end of the chapter uh where he's talking about philosophers kind of being confused uh with the distinction between moral and non-moral values the term values uh is uh how he's uh identifying like um kind of plus and minus in terms of whether something is moral or whether it's uh immoral but then there is the entire neutral category that is non-moral and this is kind of where you think of as economic decisions am I going to have an apple or am I going to have an orange that's a decision but it's really a non-moral decision um or I would say minimally moral decision and uh there's no real sector three implications on the non-moral uh decisions and then also with the non-moral decisions they are a multi uh faceted you can have an apple or an orange or a pair or a pineapple uh you can choose you have many many options but when you're making a moral decision you have two options you have good and you have evil um and so he's gonna um try to clear this up for us uh the resulting atmosphere of confusion and contradiction is the factor that has opened the door to such ideas as ethical relativism neither the religious nor the philosophical value systems give adequate attention to the fact that the status of an action as right or wrong depends on the net balance of the positive and negative moral values of all of the various elements that enter into the act or its consequences if positive moral values of some kind are involved in a dishonest Act uh or an act that causes injury to another individual that act is not necessarily wrong in its totality even though dishonesty and intentional injury are morally wrong in themselves as brought out in the previous discussion the balance of Good and Evil and any complex action can only be ascertained by considering the act in the setting in which it takes place and summing up all of the positive and negative moral values thus arriving at a net result progress toward a higher ethical level depends not only on strengthening the determination to follow the moral code wherever there's a choice to be made but also on developing a greater Proficiency in evaluating the moral aspects of these complex situations and arriving at the correct balance of values it will not be possible to give the subject any more con comprehensive treatment here one thing that stands out clearly is the need for a critical review of the prevailing attitudes towards some of the specific items that enter into moral judgments Truth for instance occupies an important place in ethical considerations so Central in many respects that some moralists and many laymen insist that the obligation to tell the truth is absolute and that lying is morally wrong under any circumstances those who subscribe to the end theories of morality counter this by citing cases in which serious consequences will ensue if the truth is told a favorite example being that of the individual who lies to conceal a death from a critically ill relative to whom the news might be a fatal shock both of these schools of thought are guilty of oversimplification failing to give due consideration to the complexity of human actions a proper evaluation of the morality of the action must take into account both the act and its direct and indirect consequences in the case cited the positive moral value of avoiding a serious injury to the sick relative far outweighs the negative moral value that could be assigned to the untruth even if we were able to concede that lying is inherently immoral but when we examine the situation more closely we find that such a conclusion is unwarranted lying is not inherently or actually wrong per se it is merely a type of action which may be used for unethical purposes this becomes especially clear if we look at the general category of deliberate deception of which lying is only one form it is obvious that we cannot condemn deception as inherently wrong in many cases we want to be deceived we are even willing to pay such persons as stage of magicians and writers of mystery stories to deceive us and most of us enjoy a well-executed April Fool's joke even if the laugh is at our expense few games could be possible if deceiving the adversary was prohibited certainly much deception is aimed at unethical ends but in order to avoid serious errors in ethical judgments it is essential to realize that it is the use to which the deception is put that determines the moral status of the ACT the deception itself is neither moral nor immoral it is not analogous to such things as deliberate infliction of an injury where the ACT is wrong and accomplishment of some positive moral purposes necessary in order to arrive arrive at a net positive balance of moral value the deception has no moral implications in itself and the net moral balance is determined entirely by its consequences another example of misdirected criticism is furnished by the individual who is disinclined to work the religious Authority is commonly invade against the lazy man and brand his course of Judgment of his course of conduct as a breach of the moral code but in fact this is a judgment based on economic values not on moral values the lazy individual has made an economic decision a decision as to the relative value of the products of effort as compared to that of the Leisure that would be enjoyed if the work were not undertaken this is a decision that is continually being made by others even by the strongest critics of indolence the general adoption of the five-day week for instance is a recognition of the increased relative value placed on Leisure by society as a whole laziness is no more immoral than asking for a reduction of the work week the difference between the two is only a matter of degree quite commonly the result of laziness is that the individual in question fails to do something that the moral code requires supporting his family which is a contractual obligation let us say but the morale morally reprehensible item is the non-support not the laziness and there is no necessary connection between the two this and the discussion of deliberate deception may seem to involve a considerable amount of hair splitting but the objective of the present discussion is to show that the new information developed in this work points the way to the specific and consistent ethical Theory which has hitherto been lacking for this uh purpose careful and precise distinctions are indispensable the essential requirement of morality cannot be equated with or related to anything but morality itself since it is simply the requirement of compliance with the moral code in this respect it is identical with the requirements for legality the Criterion of which is compliance with the law in either case we cannot arrive at a judgment on the basis of the nature of the act or even on the combined basis of the act and its immediate consequences if a shoots B the legal verdict may be first degree murder second-degree murder manslaughter self-defense or accident and the moral judgment may vary within an equally wide range the entire setting of The Act and all of its legal and moral aspects must be taken into consideration in order to arrive at the uh at the proper moral judgment whether or not there is legal culpability is one of the moral aspects even though the legal and moral judgments May differ substantially every person has a moral obligation to obey the law even where no other moral consideration may be involved likewise there is a moral obligation to honor any contractual requirements that may exist if one accepts employment as a member of the police force for instance he has a moral obligation to do his best to apprehend a violator of the law even though this may happen to involve risks that are far beyond anything that the ordinary citizen would be morally obligated to assume this is a contractual obligation that the police officer accepts as a condition of employment the moral code requires meeting these legal and contractual obligations any partial or total failure to do so is one of the debits that we enter along with uh violations of the specific provisions of the code in our balance account and way against whatever positive moral values may be involved in the particular act under consideration the net resultant determines the more morality of an act in its entirety inasmuch as the requirement for Morality is Conformity with the code of sector 3 the fact that an individual believes that he has done the right thing does not make it right it does not conform to the code if it is wrong irrespective of any opinion in extreme cases this is so obvious that it's generally recognized it is now conceded by everyone but the ethical relatives to this that burning Heretics is morally wrong even though those who participated in the burning were thoroughly events that they were carrying out God's will but neither the more or less nor the general public have recognized that this is a general principle that any violation of the code is morally wrong even if the offender does not realize that he is transgressed intent to do wrong is a violation in itself even if no actual harm results but good intentions do not excuse morally wrong actions a comprehensive knowledge of the provisions of the code and a careful examination of their application to all of the factors involved that any issue are just as important from the moral standpoint as the desire to do right this view will no doubt meet with strong opposition not only from those who contend that morality should be judged on the basis of intent but also from those who realize that few individuals have a complete understanding of the code and who feel that it is unjust to require individuals to live up to the rules that are beyond their comprehension but neither intent nor Justice enters into the determination of whether the moral code is being followed this is purely a question of fact that is independent of the intentions and capabilities of this of the individual Justice enters into the situation only in connection with the question as to whether a person should be held responsible for violations that he is not capable of recognizing as such okay uh I think we're about out of time uh but we will resume next time in chapter 19 and move on to chapter 20. here uh so tune in and we'll see you later thanks for tuning in