Honesty

There is no clear separation between honesty and lies. Instead there are honesty, mild lies, ordinary lies, outrageous lies and acting. Honestyy is a way to get things work well. It is a way to gain position, influence things even otherwise and form better bonds with people and prevent others from hurting you.
People want some information to be a ground for their actions, and if they have noticed that they can rely on your information, it is likely that your view get heard and taken into account. So if you have points that are worth something, you gain position via honesty. It is also easier for others to take you along if they can be sure about what  they get.
Being honest it is easier for one to notice how honest others are, so you kind of get the same level of honesty in return via social eye.
If you are both honest and at least sometimes outspoken, not too polite. Then you can stop dangers before they happen, just by telling "I do not believe that." and not going along in dangerous things. While liars often don't have such emergency stop possibility in their relationships because they are afraid of others pseaking the truth about themselves.
If you are yourself worth some quite high position, you get it easily via honesty, but if you would lie, you wouldn't get it.
In groups honesty makes the group work well together, as things get treated accordingly what they are like and reactions are with wisdom and common sense with the whole group working well together. But that demands goodwill and freedom. Honesty gives room for deserved freedom and freedom to good spirit and that to good will.
If you are somewhat honest, you get somewhat the benefits of honesty. If you lie and act a lot, continually, you get into a mess where people use harsh measures and rotten things get impossible to cure, where people find room only via more harsh ways - so as to reach realism and real power balance, which were in a sense the central point in arranging things when people were honest and sincere and there was goodwill around.

European moral does not mean copying European arrangements

European moral means mainly justice, human values, carrying responsibility about big things in life, in the lives of others, in the society and in the world, common sense like objective thinking with a picture of the whole, safeguarding the future, protecting nature, compassion and freedom and grass roots democracy. (not in this order)
European arrangements on the other hand are ways to arrange culturally European people to form a society that is good to live in and responsible also otherwise. For example the yusefulness of many professions comes from them not being corrupted. If some profession is rotten, there is no use keeping it, since it does not do it's work well and it supports unjustice and maybe cruelty. So of all kinds of people one cannot form an European type of society just by copying the professions etc. Instead one should try to build a better moral and not in looks only but in what people really do, which values they respect in practise when evaluated by the end results of their actions and nonactions.

Freedom to say No

Typically one needs to be able to estimate things oneself and decide freely, whether one participates in something or not. Otherwise one cannot take part with a full heart. If beer makes one social with all without much estimates of how that works, then it at the same time makes one take distance from those social relationship, to not to fully take part and commit oneself to them in the long run.
The Finnish word for "angel" is "enkeli" which literally means "I do not" "Weather" or "No" "Weather" which seems to contain the same wisdom: you cannot ask someone to behave like an angel, if they do not have the freedom to say no and not participate in things that they do not like or agree about. Full support needs the freedom to say No.

13th of April 2024 in Espoo

Would the right English equivalent be "Myweathers" or something like that?

Use a picture of the whole

Typically foreigners think that the advice to use a picture of the whole means a certain kind of picture of the whole with rules etc, and so they refuse tyo use it because nobody teaches them such. But a picture of the whole means any kind of picture of the whole, it means your own version. Just mark in it the things that you know, for example instead of just mentioning "She is a Finn.", mention also "Finns live in Finland.". For example a map of the world is an ok picture of the whole. If you mark like this "She wants that and I want this. " and also "I live here, I am doing this. She lives there and shre is doing that.", then you can easily solve most problems by grouping people with different opinion to different groups, like "I do this and they do that." or "We live here and have our lives here. And they live there far away and have their lives there." Just include all your knowledge in your picture of the whole, and it becomes easy for you to avoid needless conflicts.

Symbolic colours and moral

I have always found moraö easy and natural for me, kind of a version of happy life wth an easy landscape like view of life in the environment. As a child I had two chairs and one knife which had colours that made moral easy: One chair was of reddish wood, kind of practical wiht feelings allowed. The other chair was of reddish wood with a red cushioning partly balckkish from dirt, kind of practical life with a tsrong inclination toward reaching for happiness allowed and some black so as to not to be down for any shortcomings, which are quite natural when one is still young and just in the learning phase in many things in life. My very evil brother had a chair of very light wood with a white bark with black broken places in it. He tried to reach for moral that way: too dilgently, lot of work but unbearable in the long run. His knife was of the same kind of wood with dark grey lines in it (that is one sort of that tree), and mine had a handle of reddish brown wood with something slightly lighter like holiday spirit in it. I often think that all people have a different idea of moral. If that idea is easy for they skills, kind of very natural and brings good life for them, they tend to be moral easily and often. But if their view on what is moral is diffcult for their skills and ruins their life, they tend to be evil. White is too difficult. I have two dogs: white and light brown, so I sometimes wonder if I too should sometimes wear a white coat, but white is the end result of doing something pleasant, I meant that good quality is the end result then, but symbolic colours indicate typically the starting ground, for which easiet is slightly reddish middle brown. Mixing in some whte is ok, kind of indication a value, but in order to reach it in practise brown, green and red are easier and bring a good moral in the long run - Well, that is so according to my experience.

Honesty

Honesty allows treatings things according to what they are like. Honesty as a practise in a society allows complex cooperation. Honesty is supported by the possibility to check everything by oneself - and to not to check them if one is an enemy. So honesty is very different from a trusting attitude! Generally those who demand trust are liars and often enemies too.
For an individual one's own honesty is like moral: it keeps things running well always when others socially copy your ways or treat you much like you treat others. A liar would meet lies roughly as much as one oneself lies, and so lose safety, which is typical for Asians who do not show themselves openly to others.

Get support from religion & Arts

Moral looks like religion, so often moral people are not at all socially pressured toward religion, while nonmoral evil people are strongly pressured toward religios life. So it often happens that the huge strength of religion supports in practise wrong typ ofg people. Religion would be a natural ally for moral people, who also often are fascinarted by the beauty and dedication of religious life. If you as a moral person would pray at least once in a half an hour for something important in your own life or in the world at large, that already could help a lot, if you also visited church at least twice a year.

There is the same type of error with who practices arts. The not-at-all artistic feel that arts are everywhere, that others kind of live a life of arts, their feelings music etc., so they too start an art hobby. While those feeling people with healthy mind and spirit who find arts fascinating and near their own nature, feel that the modern world lacks arts, so their social life too, and so they feel that they do not get a proper good chance to practise arts. But if you find sensitivity to impressions, nature, feelings, wisdom of life etc. near your heart, you could be the one who gets lots of wisdom from practising arts!

The ability to social maneuvers

Often when one gets social influence from a more evil type of person, one notices that that person is dizzy and does not observe much, his movements are clumsy and elementary in skill, and in social matters he does not observe much at all. Such features are likely to lead to social collisions and short-sighted tactics, which make evil a temptating option for him. Such lack of skills is a consequnece of a hostile uncaring attitude toward others. It also makes the person's actions quite transparent to the average person.
If one gets social influence from a good willing person, one notices that they notice a lot, complex landscapes of things with ease. They have sensitive movements and a great variation in maneuvers. If they are sincere with their heart, they can choose many styles and emphatize with the views of others.  So they are not at all so transparent and  they are capable of clever tactics.
A person who values thinking and theory above social matters etc., is in a sense uncaring and that is why he/she does not observe much in social metters and is not able to perform complex maneuvers.

The young and unexperienced would have guessed that real criminals cheat all and do things nastily, but that is not so easy, since a hostile attitude makes one clumsier.

Whom groups support

The thoughts of those who are much more stupid than oneself are easy to follow and usually block like. Such thoughts are easy to agree about if there is no error in them, and generally one can find ways to support them further on that road since one oneself can think farther on those same lines.
The thoughts of those who are much more intelligent than oneself, go too quickly, cover vast areas and may have obscure grounds for their views. Such thoughts are not as easy to follow and they tend to leave one speechless and without clear opinion along the same lines. Often one answers just "Maybe so." or the like.
This is the reason why groups tend to support the position of their stupid members who do not have much to give to the advanging of the common cause of the group. And gorups tend to leave aside the view of intelligent experienced ones who would have superbly much to give to the advancing of the common cause of the group.
This way women, elderly and intelligent ones tend to get bypassed in groups and stupid men gain position, just because all others are up to their level of understanding, and easily!
Maybe if one would notice this tendency to support more stupid views than one's own, one could learn to benefit from the wisdom of the most skilled and intelligent.

Skilled peaceful tactics

If someone is stupid, sort-sighted and lacks skills, he errs in some of his choices, causes lots of damage as a side effect of his tactics and ends up in collisions with others. He needs to fight and that rresults in damage and nothing much gained.
If someone is intelligent, wise and skilled, she succeeds a lot and is able to pay attention to all sides of things so finding well working solutions that others too like. She finds herself in nice friendly social life and has no need to fight, she has found a much better end result without fighting at all.
If the skilled peaceful one meets a short-sighted person who wants to fight, she can well see the grounds for her own peaceful choices and see where she has advantage that has led her to choose her tactics like she has. Her skills give her advantage too. And social eye brings allegiancies.
All do not end up in conflicts, and they make better choices with wisdom and social skill, with an eye for the workings of the world and of the social relationships.

One correction - or two

In my opinion, it may be that all evil in the world is a consequence of copying the straight lines and boxes of the looks of the build environment into thinking, social observations etc. Instead one should use the sense of structures of the nature: just think while admiring a tree and compare your thoughts to the looks of the tree, keeping the tree as a model of the ideal. Thinking by words is another error to avoid. Please see the thinking course at http://finnishskills.blogspot.fi . + Another correction is this blog's advice on children upbringing. Also the ordinary rationally grounded moraö helps a lot.

Society agreement

The term "society agreement" refers to the rights and obligations that an individual has in a society: wanting certain rights brings certain obligations. My island model explains how these two connect if one wants to optimize the society toward greatest benefit and least obligations:
Each thing produced in a group is produced by certain inidviduals or groups: for example food by farmers and cooks plus transported and sold in shops. Let's group all these persons to an island.
The society agreement says: If you want some benefit, support the slands that create the benefit. For example safety (moral & police), exchange (moral, trustworthiness, trade and money), hobby groups and  federations which support certain cause, etc. If you do not support an island, you are not allowed to gain the enefits that that island produces except via exchange. You can support a general cause like all ok hobbies. This view point in use in a society can make different parties and organizations an expression of the major current of the life in the society and so support the freedom of opinion a lot, and of course support moral freedom at large a lot. All groups fit together via justice as a practise in the society, as a practise supported by the people in that society at large, by the general opinion and by the individual deeds f all who get to know about those things - this is so because their best understanding, heart and mind together and their moral, learned wisdom, the words of the wise, and their likings WITH a picture of the whole in thinking etc. support such course of action. In addition responsibility, common sense like thinking with a pictrure of the whole, and the rule "Live and let others live!" support success in such arrangements. See http://Finnishskills.blogspot.fi
When one sees all islands in a society, one can see all the things that that society produces and say who is allowed those benefits. In addition one needs such picture of the whole world.
This way one can optimize a society morally ok. On each island the benefits and obligations are shared according to justice.

https://youtu.be/pDCfgR0TM2M

"Live and let others live!"

See http://finnishskills.blogspot.fi/2012/10/live-and-let-others-live.html

Types of evil persons

There are many different types of evil persons. Here are classified some common types:
* The stupid person who acts intelligent: If one does not know what one is doing, one typically errs badly. The stupid who acts intelligent takes extra priviledges and uses them disastrously. Since he has noticed that evil people err as badly as himself, he may call himself evil to appear wiser than stupid. He may also identify himself with the evil because of the consequences of his actions. Often stupid people want to see results clearly so that they may appear disastrously big to others.
* One who does short-sighted selfish social calculations: The world affects a lot how our own lives turn out. To care the world to a good state brings be3tter circumstancies for life, so it is worth investing in. Likewise the state of the society. One who is not skilled loses much and has serious dra2wbacks in one's plans and considers them just natural while they are disastrous in the eyes of others. Wise calculations bring moral values as tool for happy life and success. Short-sighted calculations bring criminal choices, which the person sees as benefical (money, position) because he is unable to count and avoid the losses that come along.
* Ones who copy from computers neglect feelings and true understanding: Understanding is the same for all, also for machines, but machines are not yet good at it, but if they have some typical error in their understanding, that is not benefical to them and as the time passes, they will get rid of it. Feelings help to answer needs which keeps us fit and the society in good order. Emotional memories also mark how well we succeed in each strategy, so positive feelings mark roads which are benefical to choose. The biggest matters arouse the biggest feelings, so true understanding demands thinking also in those questions.
* Formal social ways squeeze one to agitation: Anger is a way to get rid of some nasty thing. If one does not oppose formal social ways that force one's life to some nasty continuous situation which should be cured, but misdirects the aggression to something else, it becomes irrational destructive aggression that is of no use but just maliciousness without benefits. If one would direct it right, it would be a curing force, benefical both to onbeself and to the society.
* Copied ununderstood wise tactics used under the command of stupid tactics. Wise tactics bring force and success even if one does not understand why they work. Such is often emotional wisdom of life, arts and religion. If one uses such wise tactics as investments but guides one's forces by stupid clumsy mechanical kind of thinking, the stupid tactics which in themselves could not have caused much harm, cause great harm because they have too much force behind them. One should compare the intelligence of different ways to think and use only the wisest understanding in deciding about goals, tools and values. Intelligent way to think notices more and does not make any errors.
* Soldierlikedness mistaken for causing any big harm needlessly: War too has it's goals, one of them is the protection of the nation. Aggression should be guided by a picture of the whole society and of the wide world and by moral, values and wisdom of life & healthy mind & spirit. Destruction is often a question of stupidity, not of choice. Strenght brings benefit that exceeds the harm done, otherwise it is not worth using or not stremgth. Healthy ways of living bring strenght.
* Liars who seek for realism often cause lot of harm: Honesty would bring you the realism. Most other arrangements don't bring it to you.
* Being enemies toward all foreign nations: The big world matters a loty to your own nation. If you could ally with foreign peoples, for example via trade, it could bring great benefits to your nation. But if you get enemies, the enemy like foreigners outnumber your own people. Most cultures are different. Most people know people only from their own culture, so those who treat foreigners kindly are often fgrom a culture worth respect and those who attack and dispise foreigners are froma culture which should be opposed and cured.

Nationalism and selfishness-based moral

Big matters matter much more than, say, 1 millionth part of them. So it matters enormously for a country to choose a wise strategy in it's foreign relations. Count as a vector sum from 5 (China and India) to 1000 (Finland) as big vectors as your own country's intentions: all to the same direction as your own efforts or all opposing your own country. Cooperation world wide pays well! The small scale cannot compete with a so huge force.

Beware of whom you support

Whether you are intelligent, religious, moral or in high position, etc., it is most likely that you are completely unaware of your own huge forces compared to others in your social environment. The differencies of people's capacity are enormous. When you mean to just fix some minor issue like is customary or your obligation, it is likely that you by so doing determine who is next to you in position. Like if there is some evil person who causes problems partly because he does not understand something, if you then teach him those things that you think that everyone should know, it is very likely that he gets so much support from that that nobody else can compete with him, except you yourself. So never support, not even very little, the worst people, but only those who well deserve good position because they are so moral in their heart and actions. Do so even if they appear not to need your help. No-one does well completely without support from likeminded and your helping hand can make a huge difference of how their lives go and what kind of social situation rules in your environment, just because you decide3d to give a helping hand to the most moral people in your environment.

On being accepted

Typically when people meet you, they see a glimpse of your way of life and your perspective to life which brings your way of life and your values. So on seing you, even when passing by on a street, they momentarily tend to understand and accept also your moral. At least if you yourself are a social good-willing person without judging too harshly or causing harm maliciously.
That far ok. But on seing you they do not immediately accept the moral of all those people whom you accept as people like you. For example on seing a good willing social person, they do not immediately accept all religious, happy, liberal minded, beauty oriented, mild, polite, law-oriented rigidy moral, etc. persons, they just do not understand the grounds for their choices on life any more than usual. So do not classify yourself "the same" as all moral people, but only much the same as other people who have the same likings and views that produce in practise the same choices that you find central in your life, since meeting you makes their choices also understandable. Of these others, you can mark that you tend to like their style and value their choices in life because of the good that their choices bring; that much others too can understand and momentarily agree about when they see you.

Social skills for moral people

Many people are fed up with their mum, and even when they are fully grown up, they still fight for room for their own choices without their mum deciding things for them. So if their mum, lika many mums do, claimed to be moral, they have learned to avoid that obedient type of "moral" that just means that their mum dominates. So if you claim to be moral, they instantly start to think about their mum, and instead of attcking their mum they attack you.
There is the same problem with school, since it too claimed to be moral and was not wise in wisdom of life. Your moral may be mistaken as obedient school likedness and opposed fiercely.
Many who are evil, pretend to be moral and boss people around. Also the stupid like to do that. So rules are typically opposed and instead common sense that tastes like life is ´valued.
Also, you may look alienated from your true self, too soft, without realism, etc.
You avoid these pitfalls and the hundredfold number of enemies that they bring, if you stick to being ordinary or roughly ordinary and emphasize the selfish grounds for your moral choises. Also an inclination toiward a happy life is accepted by most. A view of the whole in thinking, is typically accepted as a characteristic of your way of thinking, even if it brings perfect moral, and is not opposed. Emphasizing life instead of rules is generally agreed about and even valued.

Bastards versus everyday ways

Every time that a plan is intelligently enough made, it aloows everyday life to run smoothly without anything special, things just go easy for all.
But if someone cannot follow so complex thoughts and thinks that they are just a mess of nonsense, they typically try to replace such well working plans by simpler more clumsy alternatives that have some idea, lots of rich sounding claims without proper grounds and have consequencies that are not thought of and lead to failures, generally to harm to smaller ones or more sensitive ones. The more intelligent others see those faults, compare to the original commonly agreed well working plan that allows everyday life run nicely, and say to him or her: "You bastard, you cannot do that!". The stupid one thinks: "These bastard like ways bring money and position.", since that is his/her best guesss of what a good plan for success in the world looks like. But of course he/she is badly, sadly mistaken, all wrong! And the nice everyday ways much more intelligent!
A stupid plan typically has lots of straight lines and boxes and the like, lots of clumsy guesses without proper grounds and ruthless running over obvious facts that are too difficult for him/her to take into account but which others and everyday ways can well care for in nice objectively intelligent ways. Good plans look realistical like the sensed reality in it's complexity, and taste like life and not like some institution. Good plans care friendlily for, since they are so skilled: succeed a lot, in big and small matters, and fail only rarely and even then in only little matters. Good plan care for life and for the ground of the future, good plans have wisdom of life and responsibility. Poor plans play everything on some onbe card of which they cannot be sure of to succeed but on which everything is placed, grounded on trust on words without the ability to check important things for sure always by all roughly moral or otherwise healthily living ones like common sense and wisdom of life demand.

Children upbringing and moral

Kinderkarten aged children make lots of estimates of what would be a good tactic in the world and in life. Here is what you can teach them about such estimates, so thaqt they learn to think them through correctly in a way that supports lots of things that adults find worthy and agrees with a happy allowing kind of moral that brings strenght in the world and a happy fullfilling life:
Healthy is strong and happy. Broken does not function at all and even partly functioning is weak and does not work well. Each time that you want to estimate the strenght of some tactic, apply the comparison healthy versus broken to each whole. The biggest wholes influence the most, so it matters the most to get them healthy. A healthy part of a healthy whole is rthe best tactic in everything. The whole world is the biggest whole, it is important to keep it healthy. Of enemies it matters more that they should be healthily parts of the bigger wholes that you belong to, than it makes sense to avoid them being strong.
In tools, rechnology and other man-made things "healthy" means fully functioning, optimized to several purposes at the same time (like evolution or god's wisdom in creation work) and meaningfully used in the light of one's whole picture of the world. Everything healthy is the best tactic in the world.
In the future scenariuo that machines, mafia or enemy nations take control, one can opitmize things for their benefit: everything healthy gives the best working force etc. See http://2013paradise.blogspot.fi