The core of agápē reality is to facilitate the development of the individual to the highest level of humanity humanly possible. The next critical element of agápē is that it is a condition of being and not a philosophical construct, nor is it a religious dogma. It is my contention that agápē reality is the next solution to continuing the advancement of evolution along the path of stratified stability.
Agápē reality is the necessary requirement to enhance the survival of the human species. Just as philía realities helped our ancestors improve their personal safety and well-being by developing villages, then cities, states and nations, agápē realities are significantly important for survival of human beings and quite possibly Earth itself.
Creative destruction is not the road to advance human life on Earth. Looking around to the condition of Earth today, I wonder if humans will collectively correct their past misunderstanding, judgements, and momentous mistakes that have brought civilization to this point in history. I never thought that I would hear in general public discussions that an existential threat to human habitats on Earth was a plausible threat. The polar ice caps, which I thought would last forever, are melting at an alarming rate. According to Wikipedia:
The 2019–20 Australian bushfire season began with several serious uncontrolled fires in June 2019. Hundreds of fires have been or still are burning, mainly in the southeast of the country.
As of 14 January 2020, fires this season have burnt an estimated 18.6 million hectares (46 million acres; 186,000 square kilometres; 72,000 square miles), destroyed over 5,900 buildings (including 2,779 homes) and killed at least 34 people. An estimated one billion animals have been killed and some endangered species may be driven to extinction. Air quality has dropped to hazardous levels.
Fire-fighting the Australian bushfires was greatly aggravated by the strong winds and by the increased temperature of the planet. Scientists have been reporting that the extreme nature of contemporary climatic events like strong hurricanes and such are going to be the new norm. Then there is the problem of plastic refuse collecting in huge quantities in the ocean. Look up “the great pacific garbage patch” on the internet to see visual proof of our polluting behavior. We, humans, have significantly polluted our water. We, humans, have significantly polluted our air. By our behavior, we, humans, have significantly increased the temperature of the whole planet.
Then there is the issue of health. The current global health issue is the coronavirus outbreak originating in Wuhan, China. The significant issue to highlight is that health problems occurring in one country becomes a problem for the citizens of all other countries due to the mobility of humans as they board planes, ships, trains, busses and cars etc. to cross over every border when they are unknowingly or knowingly sick. Illness in one country is a potential threat to humans in other countries. I remember the ebola outbreak of 2014-2016. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
Ebola in the United States
Overall, eleven people were treated for Ebola in the United States during the 2014-2016 epidemic. On September 30, 2014, CDC confirmed the first travel-associated case of EVD diagnosed in the United States in a man who traveled from West Africa to Dallas, Texas. The patient (the index case) died on October 8, 2014. Two healthcare workers who cared for him in Dallas tested positive for EVD. Both recovered.
On October 23, 2014, a medical aid worker who had volunteered in Guinea was hospitalized in New York City with suspected EVD. The diagnosis was confirmed by the CDC the next day. The patient recovered.
Seven other people were cared for in the United States after they were exposed to the virus and became ill while in West Africa, the majority of whom were medical workers. They were transported by chartered aircraft from West Africa to hospitals in the United States. Six of these patients recovered, one died.
The ebola outbreak began in a small village in Guinea. It is believed that an 18-month-old boy was infected by bats. It became clear that if Africa could not get control of this ebola outbreak then the problem would become a global problem. Consequently, health personnel from the United States volunteered to help the medical personnel in Africa. Consequently, ebola crossed over the border and into the United States of America. It is clear to me that what happens in one country or in one area of the world can affect the population in other parts of the world. Look at how the vast exodus of refugees from Syria and other areas in the Middle East has affected so many countries in the world.
Problems of survival are not efficiently resolved through competition. Problems of survival are solved efficiently through cooperation. When our ancient hominid ancestors lived among the animals, they acted like other animals. They competed for food, shelter, and safety. While other animals that found safety in numbers and in herding, our ancestors moved beyond herding principles and developed small groups and then villages. Our ancestors began infusing their daily lives with philía realities like cooperation, trust, loyalty, and dependability. We, humans, flourished because we tempered animalistic competition with more humanistic qualities which are philía realities. I believe that it is a matter of survival to move even further away from animalistic tendencies.
What started this treatise on “What Is Love . . . Really?” was my self-reflection one night that awakened my realization that I was in an agápē relationship with my wife. This realization provoked the question and further reflection. I have been in a partnership with my wife for 25 years. It is a second attempt at such a relationship that currently has lasted longer than my earlier attempts. (My older brother has been married three times.) My relationship with my current partner has been the teaching element for my true learning of agápē. Our relationship has been and continues to be the natural reciprocity of facilitating the development of each other to the highest level of humanity humanly possible. What I discovered in my reflection was that from the very beginning of our relationship up to this very moment, there exists a mutual nurturing of each other to be the best human that each of us can be in spite of our individual naiveté.
To move this understanding of agápē into the realm of national communities as opposed to a single relationship between partners is to add a short phrase, “each and every individual” into the descriptive definition of agápē — to nurture and facilitate the development of each and every individual to the highest level of humanity humanly possible. To infuse agápē beyond a single relationship between two individuals into a family of four and then to a small town; to a city; to a state, let alone a whole country—much less the world —is a very difficult task. It is the immensity of the task that motivates the belief that such a task is impossible; that it is “pie in the sky”; that it is utopian naiveté; that it is just plain foolishness, and so forth and so on. However, if this next step in evolution upon the path of stratified stability moves humans collectively to succumb to the difficulty in taking the next step and turn their backs on the work needed to be done is to greatly diminish the likelihood that humans will survive and quite possibly be the product of self-annihilation.
So, what work needs to be done?
First and foremost in importance is the absolute fact that this work cannot be done by only one individual or by only a few individuals. And yet, it all begins with an individual. I am only one individual. I have lived my life thus far and I am writing this treatise which is the second deathbed reflection that I have written. If this gets published and another individual or some other individuals read these words and the message resonates with one or two or three, then I am not alone in this work.
Next, it is likewise critical to note that I am not going to record a detailed definitive account of what that work is and how to infuse agápē realities throughout my local community much less the whole world. Even if I could create such a volume, I would decline to do so. It is for individuals to collaborate together among themselves, to talk amongst themselves in small groups, to struggle together to make sense of how to live better and how to support each other.
For me, this last part of this treatise is to paint a description with broad strokes of some particulars that I feel would be helpful in facilitating movement along the vast amount of work that needs doing.
Regarding Economic Structure
Currently, I consider the placement of the economic slider on the sliding scale between animalistic and humanistic economic structures to be more on the animalistic side. Creative destruction, reliance, and reverence for competition over cooperation and the billions to trillions of dollars on war machines is the rationale for positioning the economic slider on the animalistic side. Monies will have to be reallocated. This will be very difficult because all of the individuals who make considerable wealth on war-mongering will be very reluctant to give up that money supply. They will fight tooth and nail to keep the money flowing. The question of how to restructure the economy to reflect the priorities of agápē realities is critical, multifaceted, and quite challenging especially when self-defense can neither be ignored nor minimized, but change is the reality of evolution.
Economic restructuring cannot and will not happen overnight. More than likely, economic change or restructuring will need to evolve as other elements of the society become transformed into agápē realities that take hold within the various institutions that constitute the framework of the society. Therefore, I note that as life and society change to assimilate more agápē realities, that change will need to be reflected in the economic structure. Particulars will have to be discussed and worked out by all affected individuals, as actions to change for the better are pursued. It is particularly important and critical that all individuals have significant ownership in the process of changing their small community to cooperate with other small communities who are engaged in their own similar endeavors to evolve a better, more agápē infused society.
My Vote for Where to Start Working
The natural first step is the education of those seeking an expansion into agápē reality. If education is the first step, then infusing our educational institutions with agápē realities is one of the first arenas to attract our attention. Nurturing each and every individual to achieve the highest level of humanity humanly possible needs to become the mission statement for every educational experience in public and private institutions and in the family and anywhere and everywhere individuals are learning. This would mean that all teaching / learning situations are holistically oriented. Every aspect, the mental, emotional, intellectual, physical and spiritual aspect of the individual being educated is equally important to the teaching-learning experience. As stated earlier, I am a believer in the learn-by-doing approach which would imply that a real life experience is desired as much as possible.
Is it not now obvious that developing the character of each and every individual is the major task of the educational system built upon agápē reality? It must never be forgotten that agápē is not a construct or a cognitive thought. Agápē is a condition of being. Educators must be truly attentive to character-building. Bloom’s taxonomy for the affective domain must be valued and implemented with as much concerted effort, attention, and value as that placed upon his cognitive domain.
The character of the individual can be understood as the value that the individual places on each issue composed of polar opposites and the position along that sliding scale that represents the position on each particular issue. If the consciousness of the individual surmises that the issue of animalistic or humanistic is of the greatest value, then that would be the priority which is assessed first of all. Even though this is the high priority, it has not been determined where the slider lands on the spectrum between animalistic and humanistic behavior. Below is a demonstration of three possible positions along the animalistic / humanistic scale. In order, left to right, is a neutral position followed by an animalistic position and finally a humanistic position to the far right.
If the individual is neutral about animalistic vs humanistic, then that slider would rest on zero (0). Or this individual could move the slider to zero, because this individual chooses not to live by the decision-making coin and just randomly acts without conscious decision. (Recall the discussion about the Decision-Making Coin.) There are many issues with opposing sides to be considered. Below are just a very few. Individuals will need to perceive other people’s perceptions, attend to those perceptions, and reflect further upon those perceptions to tease out their understanding about their positions and rationales.
Complexity in assessing character in this fashion arises when considering the interplay of issues. As an example, consider the issue of abortion. Anti-abortion is put forth as pro-life and therefore is easily considered humanistic. Abortion is put forth as pro-choice and therefore also appears to be humanistic because of the notion of ‘choice’ — that the woman is to determine who and what is to be done to her body. The pro-life position would argue that pro-choice is animalistic because of the ‘killing’ of the developing life. In this verbal fray, I ask two questions. First, should the individual’s worldview be internally consistent? Second, If the idea of pro-life is to preserve life, then is it consistent to have 38.1 million individuals living in poverty (which means that these individuals do not have the resources to sustain that life)? Such an inconsistency leaves me to surmise this: You cannot destroy the developing zygote but our economic system can slowly destroy that life that would have been otherwise aborted by a woman who knew that she did not possess the needed resources and probably would not be able to care properly for that developing life. Is it more humane to interrupt the development of a life not yet conscious than to bring that life into the world so that it can consciously suffer chronic poverty until its life is slowly diminished to its death? What is the correct humane action to take? To my thinking, all individuals who are pro-life would have to be strongly in favor of a very humanistic economic system that did not revere Greenspan’s “creative destruction” foundation. It has been my experience that most individuals (myself included) have inconsistencies in their value systems. Just because many, if not everyone, has inconsistencies in their value systems does not mean that inconsistencies are beneficial and should be acceptable.
Using sliding scales of issues composed of polar opposites to evaluate human character renders a mathematical description of that character. If we consider the existence of one issue with opposing sides of 100% one way and 100% the other way, then there exists 201 possible positions including the neutral position of zero defining all of the possible positions that an individual could take. An individual charting his or her position on 2 such issues would have 402 possible positions from which to plot those 2 positions. Plotting 10 issues with opposing positions would yield 2,010 possible positions of which that individual would plot 10 positions. If there were 20 such issues then the possible choices to define that individual’s character would expand to 4,020 possible choices. If there were 100 individuals so inclined to be rated on 20 issues the array of choices to be marked would come from a pool of 402,000. If this mathematics is correct, then it is quite easy to surmise that it is highly probable that those 100 individuals would have different characters with a very high degree of diversity.
Diversity of character is precisely the difficulty of governance especially in a democracy. Military dictatorships or kings and emperors are less frustrated by diversity of character because they rule through fear, the fear they invoke by their authority to kill whomever they deem necessary. The rule of absolute autocratic power tolerates diversity only so long as that diversity follows the wishes of the ruler. Otherwise such diverse ways are squished with ever increasing application of crushing power. Since agápē reality is not harmonious with such forms of governance, we are left with the daunting challenge of governance via a democracy because that is the form most open to receive agápē realities. Under democratic governance, applied agápē realities will serve to unite diverse human nuances into a unified, cooperating whole.
However, to see a thing for what it is, nothin more; nothing less is to see that by definition issues of polar opposite positions cannot coexist harmoniously if 50% of the population plots to the animalistic side of the issue while the other 50% plot on the humanistic side. Such a reality defines a divided state and a democratic state so divided would produce a deadlocked governing body. There is no way to ignore such a possible reality. In the final analysis, democratic rule, by its very nature, reflects the character of the collective of individuals constituting that democracy. Infuse this possible reality with all of the elements of stratified stability and it becomes clear that the choice of which side the majority stands will determine whether or not the human species advances along the evolutionary path or goes the route of extinction. In the end, while there is choice, while there is free will, there is also the absolutes that govern stratified stability. If the population as a whole plots issues that are not sustainable and stable then the outcome will reflect that lack of stable sustainability. Is it possible that this is the current reality of the United States and possibly the whole of Earth? In the United States, the outcome of our elections is an excellent spotlight on the collective character of the people.
Important Sidebar:
As the population of individuals increase, the diversity potential increases.
As the number of significant social issues increase, the diversity potential also increases.
HENCE
Since it is my belief that the Uncaused Cause of the First Cause (UCFC) by definition is the Creator of The Universe,** and is replete with agápē reality, then increasing consciousness about The Universe, will decrease the overwhelming diversity potential because as consciousness development increases, agápē reality potential increases. As agápē reality per individual increases, the sliding scales move collectively more toward the humanistic side of polar opposite social issues.
**(See the merging of Thomas Aquanis and Stephen Hawking’s perceptions in What Is the Function of ______? found in the dropdown menu of this site.)
The Vast Diversity of Individuals Is a Blessing and a Curse
Framing the essential challenge of successfully navigating to the next level of evolution along the stratified stability path requires the given individual to keep in mind four important facts. First, every individual is unique, but every individual is a human being. We, each of us, are all the same even while each of us is, on the whole, different from any other individual. Our characters are developing. Each of us has different growth points and we have those different growth points at different times in our life. These are phases in our learning that are the current challenge to be understood. Each of us has our unique array of growth points at any given time in our unique histories.
Additionally, since I am a believer in learning-by-doing and since learning is a process sprinkled with errors until our learning is fully understood, we, all, make mistakes. Some mistakes are severe and some are minor, but we all make mistakes. The more diverse the population, the greater the array of mistakes made. All of these mistakes must be correctly rectified. With all of this diversity, creativity has a greater chance to blossom. With all of this diversity accompanied with successful learning and application, the population produces a cadre of learned individuals who can assist others in their development. With all of this diversity, boredom and complacency are minimized. Risks are taken. Tragedies must be endured. Enlightenment is a genuine possibility.
Second, with all of this diversity, points of view are equally diverse giving a vast, wide angle view of any issue and providing a rich and fertile ground upon which to cultivate solutions to any problems that may arise. The great difficulty with such a vast array of points of view is how to come to any agreement pertaining to the action or actions to be taken. Additionally, with the diverse array of character development within the population, a certain amount of those points of view will be flawed by a not yet correctly developed character. This is a substantial problem for finding common ground.
Third, just as an individual has the potential to continually develop up to the moment when the last breath is taken, so does a group of individuals, communities, states or nations continue to develop, stagnate, or die.
Fourth, chaos theory’s principle of sensitivity to initial conditions and the pervasiveness of nonlinear elements greatly reduces the ability to predict specifics of any given moment of reality. Knowledge, like the exact position of a given electron in the electron cloud, is difficult to predict at any given point in time but the parameters of the electron cloud as a whole is more easily understood. Certainty must be balanced with a healthy skepticism. This is true of your own positions as well as the positions of others.