D81 Our “UAA” (MORALITY).

OUR “UAA” (MORALITY).

 

Our WOA, then, is not a God with hominiform attributes (Good, wise, powerful...), at least in the literal sense that you give to such qualities. For us there is no “problem of evil” that we must impute to WOA. Moral and physical “evil” is “lived” by the OEMII of UMMO, although in forms somewhat different from those of EARTH. But that “evil” is generated by our “FREE-THINKING-SELF” which, in distorting the transcendent (the AIIOOYA), reflects onto our consciousness a whole very rich variety of physical forms and forms of existence, more or less “beautiful” at times, more or less “bad” at others, insofar as they disturb our affectivity.

 

The tendency to seek security in God, commonplace in the present socio-religious context of the man of EARTH as a response to his own anxiety and anguish, the anguish of the insecurity of his existence, is not shared by us. We do not “ask” anything of WOA: we only “convey” gratitude to Him. We love the Generator; but since He is inaccessible to us, since He transcends our consciousness, since our concepts of the WAAM and of the scale of psychic or ideal values can in no way resemble the AIIOOYA, we project that love onto the other EESEOEMII (our brothers), and this love is translated into a refined social morality and into strict commitments towards the AYUYISAA (Social Network). (See Note 5).

 

NOTE 5. -

We liken the whole of the OEMMI to a Network whose nodes or points of convergence would represent the physiological organisms, and the “branches” links of a physical, psychological, moral order... A measurable flow of information between two IBOO (nodes or centres) would define this relationship analytically at a given degree or stage of the NETWORK.

 

We thus elaborate this morality from a twofold source: one eternal, unmodifiable and static, provided by the revelation of our UMMOWOA; the other through the active participation of our brothers, the continuous elaboration of new interpretations and forms carefully adapted to time and space, conditioned by a culture in full progress, by the slow process of neurocorticalization, by the application of technology to our ways of life. Our morality is thus changing, adapted at every moment to the circumstances of the OEMII and of his social environment. Never on UMMO have the WOALAOLOO (experts in religious Philosophy) called for a regression to stages of ancestral civilization. The EARTH myth of the “bon sauvage” has no expression on our OYAA.

 

Nor does our ethics feel bound to a pressure of the social environment that strangles it and saturates it with an empty content of irrational habits and “taboos”, stereotyped conventions that would suffocate the OEMMI, injuring his freedom.

 

We can offer you, Mr. Ribera Jordá, a synthesis of our definition of moral Law.

 

UAA is the range of laws imposed without mental or physical coercion on the EESEOEMII by a constellation of ideas grounded in the present stage of knowledge. Laws that are articulated into specific norms according to the situation and mental level of the OEMII, a situation and level always in full process of progression.

 

The genuineness of our changing Ethics is assessed according to the balance achieved between the demands of a morality of the individual and a morality of the AYUYISAA (Society).

 

We shall enlighten you further on concerning our concept of IGIOI (Freedom).

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

(U-C Note: Notes 1, 2 and 3 belonging to letter D74 appear in this letter, as well as Note 9, whose point of reference we have not yet located)

 

NOTE 9. -

Although you are unjust when you attack Religions or philosophical Schools, accusing them of prostituting the truth. Is the Catholicism of Rome to blame if it was not fortunate in faithfully interpreting the thought of its master, and if, in becoming institutionalized and complicating its structure, it has become dramatically entangled in its own nets until it ended in a sad crisis with serious internal tensions?

 

Are the evangelical churches to blame for having become atomized in their anguish to find in the biblical texts a literal interpretation that must necessarily give rise to a chaotic polymorphism?

 

Is Marxist Dialectical Materialism to blame for rejecting the hypothesis of an anthropomorphic God who can never satisfy a man of science, a God who permits evil, a God who seems to protect the powerful, the rich, against the poverty of humble OEMII?

 

Is an existential philosophy to blame that is conscious of the tragic problem facing man when he turns his own EARTH into a hell, when he is unable to understand or be understood by his fellow men?