Theupbringing of children, thinking errors and moral

Some quite easy things, if you notice them, help you to be moral.
Children at some age are interested in what is a good tactic in the world and in life. Healthy versus broken is a good comparison to make estimates on strenght. Noticing that healthy is also according to feelings, helps to fit into the same picture likings, needs and civilized values.
Babies have a great potential but all do not end likewise intelligent. That seems to be commected to how they make divisions, what is the basic structure like that they seek for and that seems to be connected to the visual environment as a baby. Admiring trees and the nature as a baby could offer more sensitive, more intelligent, more feeling, more rational, more practical way of looking at things and understanding them intellectually. Also later on comparing one's thought to nature landscape could increase understanding.
Already as a child people have different liking on what areas of life they want to most associate with and work in as adults. Trying to compete with others in their strenghts often ends up trying to replace those areas of life by one's own favorite areas of life. So instead of competing about position, searching for one's own place in the world, the smaller the more one area of life centered one wants to be, and using on other areas of life other ways of thinking and values suited to cultivating those things could bring a much more moral result as long as one understands that soldiers fight for better life and inbetter living conditions and not just for destruction only and that soldiers too need skills like sports etc and that one has the right to be an individual as far as one is moral enough, for example follows the saying "Live and let others live!".

Tidying behaviour to moral

If some group or nation, which has high skill but a lack of moral, would like to by it's own common effort tidy it's behaviour to superbly moral, then setting the areas that deeds affect in the world according to the rule "Live and let others live!", see http://finnishskills.blogspot.fi/2012/10/live-and-let-others-live.html , would without altering much of what is done and what is not done or people's level of moral otherwise, lead to excellent moral and so propably to a much much higher position in the world.

Also, if some group is interested mainly at the level of individuals and has a lack of moral, it could propably tidy it'sbehaviour to quite moral by adding to each deed at it's planning phace as the last thing done looking at the thing in the wide context of the world and finding ways to somewhat alter the thing done so that it would be moral in the world. This has to do with the fact that you need to look at the world before you can arrive at things well for the world, you have to aim at moral efore you can succeed at being moral. And the last thing thought of typically settles side issues, the ones not central in one's attention.

Translation rights

One can tranbslate this blog and my texts and my videos (khtervola) on links from this blog, morally to other languages.

Moral is the most benefical option

Please see the English text at http://paratiisiteoria.blogspot.fi/2013/09/paratiisissa-on-kaarme.html

Preventing violence

There is a need for violence f some get too squeezed, for example if some institution needs repairing or has as it's workers malicious people who lie. So the ability to notice lies, especially outrageous lies that cover evil deeds, and the tendency to not to accept lies as excuses for doing evil lessens the need for violence. If some institution goes all wrong, that is a serious fault and should not be tolerated "even if" the workers there lie. Better than having a wrongdoing worker, is to have no such worker at all, at least not in a deciding position.
The ability to notice well crimes done by foreigners, would in my opinion demand an understanding of how climate differencies, closeness of borders, major money sources etc affect culture, normal ways to do things and moral - and how to recognize what country people are originally from.
One also needs a good idea of how to defend things and how much violence to use and how much room for freedom to leave to each person or gorup. The Finnish rule "Live and let others live!" is very good for that purpose!

Justice in hierargies brings good will in return

Typically if you have difficulties with people not being at all moral, you have assumed a much much too high position in hierargy, a position that demands much more skill than what you have and much more good will and wisdom of life than what you have, so that people get angry about yoi messing their lives badly or that when you try to guide something you do not have the faintest idea of how it works well. But then if you assume the position which justice determines to you, then these problems get solved, you respect the wisdom of others and get treated well in return.
Similarly, if you assume a much too low position compared to your skills and your amount of moral, then it is like neglecting caring about important things and so other people who copy from you run around carelessly and some not at all wise men speak out loud. If you then assume your correct position according to justice and care about things, decide to somewhat, things find their places, there is peace and love around and people treat you with peace.

Avoiding causing great harm

Often worst deeds are with complete disregard for the value of the things in question. They are done because the person does not care about those things so he/she throws them away, sets them aside from the road of other things without paying attention to what happens to them.
They are typically situations where he thinks that those things do not matter in the world - and that if they would matter, he/she would have no power to influence them. So when it ends in a disaster, it is typically so that neither the person doing wrong, nor the victim, have decided who has power to influence things if it is a big thing in practise for someone. Instead it has been some third party saying that now the man dicedes the hen's life or the like, maybe someone who was estimated to be a neutral side watcher but who instead was an enemy of the woman and a sexual admirer of the man to a degree that makes no sense.
Things like this happen also when people want to distance themselves but a third party forces them to be close. Like when children grow up and people think taht they need some other adult, some like-minded adult to support them and they call that kind of adults "mothers", and then some idiot (a sexual admirer of the biological mother?) thinks that it is their biological mother who should get to influence their lives so much more than this far, which neither the mother or the adult child want, and so they end up the mother destroying the life of her child in order to get distance.
So it matters a lot that third parties should not be allowed to command people to be close or influential in each other's lives.
It also matters a lot that if you do not care about something or someone, do not touch that thing in the slightes, do not influence that person's life in the slightest - or it will be the biggest worst evil deed in your life.

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