Commercial and political decisions, based purely on scientific rationale, override the basic electromagnetic ethical considerations crucial to our survival on earth. Using whaling as an example, which is deemed unethical by many countries, Japan justifies its stand declaring that decisions about whaling had to be based solely on 'sound science' and alleged sustainable numbers.
But what about our emotions concerning this? Are we to discard them once we enter the hallowed halls of classical science?
Although many great philosophers, including Plato, Aristotle and Kant have pointed out that sensory perception is not a solid foundation upon which to base reality, it does at least provide us with a sensitivity radar to alert us concerning what is right and wrong. For example, killing intelligent animals unnecessarily, simply because there are enough of them to cope with the slaughter, cannot be reason enough to continue with such a practice. It is simply downright wrong! This example is not being used to single out any particular nation for its unethical transgressions but rather because it indicates a dangerous trend that is threatening future human existence on earth. We could just as easily use, depletion of marine stocks, destruction of rain-forests, dependence on fossil fuels etc.
When our emotions tell us something is 'wrong' with the picture it is prudent for us to sit up and take notice. In 1974, scientists Candace Pert and Saul Snyder discovered that the brain has its own opiate receptors, showing its ability to produce drugs like morphine. Endorphins, such as those produced during exercise, are the body's own natural mood enhancers and/or painkillers. Pain is a natural warning mechanism that tells the body something is not right. Taking painkillers to alleviate unbearable pain suppresses the electromagnetic signals in the nervous system that would otherwise warn us that something is out of balance in our system.
However, there is another type of pain we suffer from, albeit a more subtle variety. It stems from being misaligned with the electromagnetic ethical process. Ethics has nothing to do with concepts of good or bad, only what is 'right'. This rightness is an instinctive response to human survival requirements and has nothing to do with a personal morality, prejudice or a sense of gain or loss. This more subtle pain of ethical misalignment is overshadowed by the stronger self centered aesthetic pain that disconnects us from common human ethical purpose. Only when this greater pain is alleviated can we respond to our ethical misalignment. This aesthetic pain can manifest in many ways: through fear, frustration, anxiety, anger, feeling unloved etc. Dulling the pain with this or that drug only serves to separate us from our natural survival instincts.
Ethics are a true measure of perfect balance between the brain and the heart, logic and the emotions. Scientific rationalism, of itself, can only result in a mechanical outcome that completely ignores the heart as part of this equation. The ancient Kemetians (Egyptians), in their 'The Book of the Dead' depicted the 'weighing of the heart' ceremony, in which the heart was weighed against a feather (Maat). Being light-hearted, apart from being care free, humorous, clowning etc. indicates a clarity of heart and mind, pain free and ethically aware. Such a state of being is a very important indicator when it comes to 'doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do'. This cannot be achieved with scientific rationalism alone.
This shows us that those 'emotions' that tell us something is wrong with scientific rationale are not to be merely brushed aside as being trite and unimportant. They are really expressions of values, based on human experience, and as such they deserve our undivided attention. Although, they themselves do not constitute Kantian 'Noumena' (something as it really is), warning emotions, as an expression of aesthetic pain, can point us in the right direction. Only when we achieve the perfect ethical balance between being light-hearted and light-minded can we evolve and progress in line with electromagnetic universal purpose.
To be fair, science and philosophy have given us both the material strength and the freedom of thought, required for humanity's evolutionary progress but only if each is in equal measure. Unfortunately, however, ethics lags behind. Man, in his dubious wisdom, supplanted natural ethics with his own brands of morality, reinforced by various types of dogma.
Science-Art or logic and aesthetics is perhaps the only system of ethics worthy of the present revival of the Platonic Science for Ethical Ends, which needs to be taken advantage of by the new Platonic Fullerene Chemistry, to bring about a nano-science for the betterment of all humanity. This crucial work can and must reconstitute the very foundations of ethics on a wider philosophical basis, which would give to the civilised nations the inspiration required for the great task that lies before them.
Such a system has now been produced but it is not yet widely recognized as such. This new 'real' ethical science will have to be free from superstition, religious dogmatism, and metaphysical mythology. Modern cosmogony and ethical philosophy imbued with these higher feelings and brighter hopes, inspired by the modern knowledge of Man and his history, is what humanity needs to be persistently demanding. This ethical science is already here. It embraces the life of the Cosmos, the evolution of all living beings, the universal laws of physical activity and the development of ethical society. It also provides us with a rational origin and source of moral feelings and must be able to direct us to where the electromagnetic ethical forces lie that are able to elevate our moral feeling to an always greater height in consciousness and awareness.
The need of real ethics has been felt by some, from the very dawn of the scientific revival, when Bacon laid the foundations of a soulless mechanistic science, based only on determined outcomes. Such a science, bereft of feelings, cannot be considered ethical, and, as such can only be destructive. It can be reasoned that continued study of the universe has taught Man to consider himself as but an infinitesimally small particle of the cosmos, thus providing him with a necessary lesson in humility. Although it has dissipated Man's self conceit, under which he considered himself the center of the universe and the object of the special attention of his chosen Creator, it has also deluded Him into thinking He can imitate and supersede the powers of nature. Man has to realize he is part of the universal hologram and does not need to be in competition with it.