Therefore, I wrote a second book, PSYCHOFRAUD AND ETHICAL THERAPY (117), which was much simpler and more focused, in the hope that it would lead others to read and properly understand THE MORAL SOCIETY (116). This did not happen, and I spent the next fifteen years trying to help others understand my first book, while simultaneously trying to understand why so many ethical, intelligent well-educated people could not understand what to me seemed like a relatively simple, very clear book. Finally, after twenty years of effort, I thought I had the solution to the problem.

In 1991 I published my new book, CREATIVE TRANSFORMATION (115), hoping that I had now corrected the errors in both of my previous books. This book was much clearer than my previous two books, and it did not lend itself to misunderstanding, but, still, very few people understood it. I now know that my problem was not due to a lack of education or intelligence on the part of my readers, but due to the fact that what I was most trying to communicate was, to many, a new system of ethics.

It seems that most people cannot understand a rational system of ethics unless they fully share its values, no matter how intelligent or well-educated they are. The ethical values that I was trying to communicate are the natural universal values with which we are all born. They were the ethics taught by Moses, Jesus, and Spinoza. But as Nietzsche said, "There has been but one Christian, and he died on the cross." I would correct Nietzsche and say, "There has been at least one other Christian; he was a Spanish-Jew accused of atheism, despised by the Jews and Christians of his time; and deprecated, but ever less so, by academics up to the present; his name was 'Baruch de Spinoza."

Spinoza is a very difficult philosopher to understand. I did not begin to understand him until I had independently derived his ethical system using my own reasoning, together with over three hundred years of scientific knowledge not available to Spinoza. All my work is at best an aid in understanding how to practically apply the Ethics of Spinoza, whom I regard as probably the greatest thinker who ever lived. The best I can do to help you understand Spinoza is to tell you how I came to understand him, and guide you down the same road that I took, without your having to repeat all of my many mistakes made along the way.

Many great minds have read and appreciated Spinoza, but few have understood him well. Among the greatest minds who have commented on Spinoza is Leibnitz, who appreciated him intellectually, without sharing his ethics, and as a consequence did not understand him well and, in fact, attacked him publicly, while privately incorporating Spinoza's ideas into his own philosophy (358). This line of misunderstanding led to a series of further misunderstandings of Spinoza's philosophy that through Kant, Hegel, Marx, Engels, and others eventually led to Lenin and the Soviet Union, possibly one of the most evil systems of government in the history of world.

The second line of misunderstanding of Spinoza by great minds went from Locke, Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, and others to Thomas Jefferson, and the United States' Declaration of Independence and Constitution, which represents among the best systems of government in the history of the world, at least in theory. However, this system, it is now obvious, is filled with errors and inadequacies and is breaking down. The governmental ethic of Jefferson, as well as some of the other Founding Fathers, that freedom is the greatest good and tyranny is the greatest evil is ethically only partially true. Freedom is necessary, but not sufficient, for ethical government.

In the United States, and almost all other countries, the concept of "democracy" has been corrupted to mean "majority rule". "Democracy" means "the rule of the people", not "majority rule." The notion of "democracy" to mean "self-government", as well as the democratic ethic, are ethical but incomplete. By "democracy" I mean solely "self-government" without any form of tyranny, without anarchy, and without bureaucracy. This will be seen to be a radical new concept of government never before tried on a national level, although it has been used effectively within small groups. Theoretically this concept of "self-government" is the concept of government originally entertained by the Founding Fathers of the United States, and still advocated by the Libertarian Party in the United States. However, it has never been made functionally practical. It is my intention to do so.

Every form of tyranny is unethical. Majority Rule is inherently unethical, because it is, at best, a tyranny of the majority over minorities; at worst it is a tyranny of a plutocratic few over an ignorant majority which is manipulated to exploit the most creative minorities that a nation can produce. The manipulation is done by telling the ignorant majority the comforting lies that they wish to hear, and by confiscating the fruits of the labor of the most creative minorities and then redistributing them among the majority, with large commissions to the plutocratic minority, and the bureaucrats and politicians who support this system.

The third line of great minds who misunderstood Spinoza stemmed from Moses Mendelsohn, the grandfather of the composer. This line led to what today is known as Conservative, Reform, and Secular Judaism. This line preserved Jewish ethics within a modern social context, but it could not preserve Judaism itself, or its ethics, for long, since the descendants of these Jews were quickly assimilated into modern society, and within a few generations lost their Jewish ethics along with their Jewish identity. It was thus a political failure, although it was an intellectual success.

The ethics of Spinoza and Reform Judaism are preserved within a non-Jewish context by religions such as the Unitarians, the Universalists, and the more secular Ethical Culture Society, but they seem to be having ever less impact on modern life, as more and more people become ethical hedonists and/or followers of the consumerist ethic, wherein the more material wealth is the greatest good, and poverty is the greatest evil. Spinoza's ethics are theoretically correct, but have not been very effective. I hope to make the ethics of Spinoza practical and effective.

The two greatest modern appreciators and interpreters of Spinoza are Bertrand Russell and Constantin Brunner. Both of these great minds were influenced by two other great appreciators of Spinoza, Einstein and Goethe. Brunner more by Goethe, and Russell more by Einstein. Few people, who do not read German, know about Brunner, but almost all educated people know about Russell. He was the first great thinker who had a significant impact on my life.

As a young man I was trained as a scientist, with good undergraduate and graduate backgrounds in biology, chemistry, psychology, physics, and mathematics. I had tried to understand Spinoza, but I simply could not; I was neither sufficiently intelligent nor ethical. However, the two men whom I most admired at that time also greatly admired Spinoza. They were Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell. Therefore, I read everything I could by both Einstein and Russell, and used them both as my role models.

The best summary I have ever read of Spinoza and his philosophy is in Russell's HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY (358). I recommend that everyone who wishes to understand Spinoza begin with this summary. However, the entire HISTORY should be read in detail, cover to cover. It was this summary which kept me coming back to Spinoza, and forcing me to try to better understand him. I am still doing that today.

I read Constantin Brunner late in life, and know him primarily, and indirectly, through my late good friend, Henri Lurié (225). Henri was one of the most brilliant, ethical persons I ever met, and he was a devoted follower of Brunner. Shortly before he died, Henri gave me a complete set of his translations, commentaries, and presentations of the works of Brunner and Spinoza. I have put my Spanish version of Henri's presentation of Spinoza's ETHICS on-line, and I hope to eventually put all of Henri's writings on-line at www.see.org.

The main value that I got out of Brunner was to understand, for the first time in my life, that the ethics and teachings of Moses, Jesus, and Spinoza were one and the same. Furthermore, I realized that the most beautiful and greatest expressions of the teachings of Moses, at the mystical level, were those of Jesus, and the most beautiful and greatest expressions of the teachings of Moses, at the intellectual level, were those of Spinoza, although I also regard Spinoza as a mystic, and Jesus as an intellectual (38-41).

It is not possible to understand the teachings of Moses well unless one knows Hebrew and Aramaic well enough to read and understand the Old Testament (Torah) and the Talmud in their original languages, as did Jesus and Spinoza. It is not possible to understand the teachings of Jesus well unless one knows Greek well enough to read and understand the New Testament and Socrates-Plato in the Greek in which they were originally written. If they were first written in Aramaic, the language of Jesus, then no copy of the original Gospels is known to survive.

It is not possible to understand the teachings of Jesus well, unless one understands Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and Germanic languages well enough, as did Spinoza, to understand modern science and the teachings of Maimonides. It is not possible to understand Spinoza well unless one knows the essential languages known to Spinoza, as well as English, in order to understand the most modern science. I have known solely one man in my life who had this understanding of language, the most modern science and technology, and the teachings of Moses, Jesus, and Spinoza. His name was Henri Lurié. He was a devoted follower of the teachings of Constantin Brunner. He was the best friend I ever had, but I did not realize it until after he died at the age of 95 in 1994.

The great thinker who had, in fact, the greatest impact of all on my life was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. I first read his book, THE PHENOMENON OF MAN (438), in English translation, although I read French well, at the age of thirty-four; it changed my life forever. However, I recommend that all who can, try to read Teilhard in the original French (431-439). His language is gorgeous.

After reading Teilhard, I began to develop a better understanding of Russell, Spinoza, and myself. I was at the time a very successful high technology entrepreneur. Afterward I became more and more concerned with ethical values, and ever less concerned with material success. Within one year I had changed into a man indifferent to material wealth, and obsessed with communicating the combined ideas of Spinoza, Teilhard, and myself to others. This obsession verged on a form of temporary insanity.

The first thing I did was begin to write my first book, THE MORAL SOCIETY (116). This led me to understand well, for the first time in my life, the philosophy of Spinoza. However, my first book was much less popular than Teilhard's, and less intellectually complete than Spinoza's. This led me to a series of experiments, and further books, including that which I write now. I am now not so obsessed, and I hope I have fully regained my sanity.

My goal is to help you, and myself, understand well the ETHICS of Spinoza, as well as to implement them practically in a viable, ethical government. The best way for you to begin is to give a quick reading to what you can understand of Spinoza's major works without trying to follow his proofs. Then do your best to acquire the best broad background you can in mathematics and science (1-600), while reading all you can of Bertrand Russell's many excellent books (346-358), but focusing on his HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY (358), and particularly focusing on his summary of Spinoza's philosophy.

The next step is to read as much as you can of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (431-439), focusing on finishing and understanding THE PHENOMENON OF MAN (438). Then see how the philosophies of Spinoza and Teilhard fit together. Few people can see the connection between the two. My own books will help you in accomplishing this task. I now realize that the major value of my life is bringing together these two apparently disparate systems of values and philosophy. To the best of my knowledge no one else has done this. The followers of Constantin Brunner whom I know personally, including my late friend Henri Lurié had, at best, mild contempt for Teilhard and little sympathy for the evolutionary perspective. I nonetheless respect Brunner's followers, and I greatly loved Henri. But my ideas are different. What we all have in common is a great love and respect for the teachings of Moses, Jesus, and Spinoza.

With Teilhard I share the love and understanding of Jesus, Darwin, and the Evolutionary Process itself, which I, and others, call God. This is the God of Spinoza and Einstein. It is also the God of Moses and Jesus. This God is truly our Father.

Once you have read the aforementioned books, the goal is then to understand my last book, CREATIVE TRANSFORMATION (115); give this book a quick reading. If you understand it well, then read it again, and read my other books solely to see how my ideas developed. If you do not understand it well, then read first my other books in any order you wish, then make sure you read some of the books by David Bohm (31-35). Some of Bohm's books require a graduate level knowledge of physics to understand, but some, such as SCIENCE, ORDER, AND CREATIVITY (33), are relatively easy, and philosophically sufficient, requiring no mathematical sophistication.

Next to Russell, Teilhard, and Spinoza the thinker who had the greatest impact on my understanding of Spinoza was David Bohm. Although I do not know of Bohm ever mentioning Spinoza, I believe he must have read him. Bohm, like Einstein before him, has Spinoza's spirit and ideas throughout all his writings, most of which I read after writing my last book.

In my last book I integrated the philosophy of Spinoza, Teilhard, and myself through an early, imperfect understanding of Bohm's model of nature and quantum mechanics. I understand this much better now. Bohm's model implies that the underlying ultimate reality in nature is not energy or matter, but information. And furthermore that there is a universe of infinite true information at our finger tips, which is the ultimate, unifying cause behind all physical, biological, mental, and spiritual phenomena. This model enables us to unify true science with true mysticism. There can never be a conflict between true science and true mysticism; when there is, either the science, the mysticism, or both are wrong.

I recommend that you begin a study of Bohm by first reading his SCIENCE, ORDER, AND CREATIVITY (33), which he co-authored with F. David Peat. If you cannot understand it, I recommend that you go back and study more physics. The book is written for a general audience.

If you already know physics well, I recommend that you then try Bohm's last and best book, THE UNDIVIDED UNIVERSE, which he co-authored with Basil Hilley in 1993. It was published shortly after Bohm's death. This book is written for professional physicists. Bohm has written many excellent books for professional physicists, as well as for the general public (31-35).

Bohm is somewhat difficult to read and understand, but he is much easier to understand than Spinoza, although not easier to read. Although Bohm was a great physicist, he was, unlike Spinoza, not a great writer. Bohm is easiest to read and understand when he writes in collaboration with an excellent writer of English, such as F. David Peat or Basil Hilley.

The last, and perhaps least essential books you should read are those of Constantin Brunner (38-41), which make a creative and very original synthesis of the teachings of Moses, Jesus, and Spinoza. These books have considerable value, but Brunner was somewhat academically oriented, and he was also somewhat anti-scientific, highly polemical, and much less than rigorous in his thinking, which is primarily polemical and esthetic in orientation, as is much of German philosophy. Furthermore, he wrote all his books in German, and they are not readily available in translation. I will eventually have many of his books, in English and French, on line at see.org. He had an impact on my life and led me to a much better appreciation and understanding of Moses, Jesus, and Spinoza.

This understanding was particularly enhanced by my personal friendship with Henri Lurié. I have put Henri's translation of Spinoza's ETHICS, directly from the original Latin, on my website, www.see.org, in a Spanish version which I produced. Henri was a great linguist. He was a master of Latin and Greek, and elegantly fluent in French and German, but English was a language he acquired late in life, and he did not write it very well. My Spanish presentation is superior to his English presentation, but probably not as good as his German and French presentations of Spinoza. I hope eventually to have all of Henri's translations of Brunner and Spinoza in French, German, and English on www.see.org, together with the Spanish version of the ETHICS already there.

There is some irony in this, because Spinoza's native language was Spanish, a language he spoke fluently, but in which he apparently never wrote any of his known works. Spinoza wrote mostly in Latin, which is very close to Spanish, and less in Dutch, which is further from Spanish. He also wrote in Hebrew, which is much further from Spanish than Dutch, but not unrelated to Spanish. The 800 years during which the Jews and Arabs flourished in Spain had a great impact on the Spanish language.

Spanish is my native language, and I speak it fluently, but I write best in English, as those of you who read both will discover. I now realize that the ETHICS represents the work of a great mind that could think and write equally well in Spanish, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, and Dutch. Read my on-line play, BARUCH: THE TRIAL OF SPINOZA, which was deeply edited by my friend, Roberta Meyers, and you will understand why.

The opening of myself to true mysticism, through an appreciation of modern quantum mechanics, came from an interaction I had with Amit Goswami, a professor of physics at the University of Oregon. Although I know physics well, my understanding is less than that of professional physicists such as Amit Goswami and David Bohm, and much, much less than David Bohm. Both Amit and Bohm are totally mystical in their science, and totally scientific in their mysticism. Amit is a thoroughgoing mystic, born in India. Bohm was a student and collaborator of the Indian mystic Krishnamurti.

Amit Goswami is also my friend. He wrote his ideas in an excellent book, THE SELF-AWARE UNIVERSE (123). Although there is some conflict between Amit's and Bohm's models of quantum mechanics, as well as with my synthesis of the two, the three models all have much in common. Someday there may be a single, information-based model of quantum mechanics which resolves all the differences between them and unites their large areas of commonality. I recommend reading Amit's books (121-123).

In this book I unify all the important concepts and ideas from my previous books (115-117) that still seem correct and summarize them in this first chapter together with all the new ideas and concepts that I have developed since 1990 when I finished writing my last book. My basic conclusions follow:

The sole true ethic in the universe which does not lead to its own contradiction when it is applied to Government is the Evolutionary Ethic, which is summarized in the following statements:

1. We must do our best to maximize the creativity of every person in the universe, including our own, without ever decreasing the creativity of any person, including our own.

2. We fulfill our moral obligation to maximize creativity by giving first priority to our children, then to our spouse, then to ourselves, then to our friends in proportion to the friendship between us, then to our neighbors, then to our fellow citizens, then to our fellow humans, then to other species in proportion to the ethical development of the species.

3. Creativity is the process of increasing ethical truth for at least one person without decreasing ethical truth for any person.

4. Ethical truth is information which increases the intelligence or ethics of at least one person without decreasing the intelligence or ethics of any person.

5. A person is ethical if, and only if, he or she values truth more than happiness.

6. Information is true if, and only if, believing this information enhances our ability to predict and control some aspect of the total environment, physical, biological, and/or psychosocial, without decreasing this ability in any other aspect of the total environment for anybody.

7. The first obligation of any ethical government is never to decrease ethical truth for anyone.

8. Any government that decreases ethical truth for even a single person has behaved unethically, no matter how many other people are allegedly to be benefitted by this "sacrifice." Unethical means can never achieve ethical ends. The ends never justify the means. It is unethical to ever harm a single person. "Harm" is any decrease in ethical truth or creativity for any person.

9. A government can be ethical if, and only if, it limits its activities to protecting well the life, liberty, property, and privacy of its citizens without ever imposing undeserved harm on anyone, or ever trying to do good for anyone.

10. No government can do good, outside of protecting basic civil rights, for anyone without in the process imposing undeserved harm on someone.

11. Harm is the decrease in ethical truth for anyone; undeserved harm is imposing unnecessary harm on anyone against the will of the person harmed; solely the minimum harm necessary to defend our life, liberty, property, and privacy against an aggressor can ever be ethically justified. This is a deserved harm.

12. No government can be ethical if it is in any way subject to majority rule, anarchistic, bureaucratic, tyrannical, or inadequate in protecting the life, liberty, property, and privacy of all its citizens and their dependents.

13. The right to the basic human rights of life, liberty, property, and privacy cannot be maintained without an absolute right to private property (309).

14. A person's life and property belong solely to that person; no person has a right to any part of another person's life or property, except, possibly, by prior mutual, voluntary contract, which is kept by at least one of the parties to the contract. When someone violates his or her contract with us, that allows us, at our discretion, to abrogate our obligations to that person, under this same contract. This is true no matter how great the need of anyone for the life or property of another.

15. Every form of socialism is unethical, unless it is totally voluntary by unanimous consensus between all the persons involved in producing wealth, redistributing it, and receiving it; charity must be entirely voluntary and not imposed by government; otherwise charity becomes evil and destructive.

16. In order for any system of government to be ethical and effective, the unit of autonomy and sovereignty cannot be larger than five men and five women, nor much smaller than four men and four women, which is optimal.

17. There should never be more men than women in the unit of sovereignty, called an "Octet", if it is to be effective and remain ethical.

18. The optimal size for a unit of sovereignty is four men and four women, not the nation state, however small. If any organization has any unethical persons in its membership, and this membership is greater than ten persons, it shall become increasingly bureaucratic and unethical until it reaches the potential to become totally unethical and completely destructive, at a membership of sixteen or more persons.

19. Men and women are neurologically, as well as sexually, complementary to one another; all decisions of government at all levels, including the family, are better made by consensus between at least one man and at least one woman, who share a common set of true ethical values, and voluntarily choose to work together (115-117,527-600) This unit is called "a Complementary Pair." Complementary Pairs need not be married to one another, and, in fact, may be married to, and have families with, persons who are not within a Complementary Pair with them, although a good marriage will always be between persons who are a Complementary Pair.

20. The most creative interactions between Complementary Pairs are achieved within Octets, which work by consensus among the up to five Complementary Pairs that compose the Octet.

21. There exists a technology of creative synergy between Complementary Pairs and within Octets, called "Autopoiesis" which facilitates consensus and amplifies individual and collective creativity. This is described in detail within my book, CREATIVE TRANSFORMATION (115). This is a generalization of a much more specific biological term coined by Varela and Maturana (462). It would be better to call this process of creative information exchange between complementary pairs of entities simply "Creative Synergy." Otherwise it produces confusions with persons who have used the term its original sense.

"Autopoiesis," in its more specific, biological sense, basically means creative synergy between DNA and Protein within a living cell. I believe that my definition of "autopoiesis" includes the concept originally conceived by Varela and Maturana. I was trying to honor them, and instead I produced confusion. This confusion will not occur in persons who even partially share the Evolutionary Ethic. It is too late to change my use of "autopoiesis," which I have now communicated to many thousands of people. I apologize to Varela and Maturana for usurping their word, and to all people who have been confused by this.

22. The closest approximation to ethical government is given in the draft of the Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson (229). This version of the Declaration was never adopted. Almost every other aspect of American Government, , has diminished the ethical principles of the original Declaration of Independence. except for the Bill of Rights, as well as the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments to the U. S. Constitution, the checks and balances system, and other features which protect basic human rights and somewhat limit Government corruption.

23. How to understand and apply practically the fundamental ethics of the teachings of Moses, Jesus, Spinoza, Teilhard, and Jefferson is part of the goal of this book.

24. A reading of Thomas Jefferson's writing on ethics and government, particularly the original Declaration of Independence, and his book known as THE JEFFERSON BIBLE: THE LIFE AND MORALS OF JESUS OF NAZARETH (176), is good way of beginning to see how Judaism, Christianity, Spinoza's Ethics and the ethical foundation of American Government are all interrelated.

25. Whoever does not share and understand Judaeo-Christian Ethics and the ethical foundations of American Government will neither share nor understand the ethics and governmental concepts to be developed in this book; such a person is neither a good Jew, Christian, nor American.

26. No one can intellectually understand an ethical system that he or she does not intuitively share at the unconscious or mystical level.

27. The understanding of ethics inherent in Judaeo-Christian ethics is more mystical than intellectual.

26. The greatest mystical understanding of ethics is the understanding of Jesus.

29. The greatest intellectual understanding of ethics is the understanding of Spinoza.

30. This book is an attempt to combine the mystical understanding of Jesus with the intellectual understanding of Spinoza, and to make it all practical and understandable to an intelligent high school graduate.

31. No one who does not already share the Evolutionary Ethic with me will ever understand this book or any of my other books at any level, no matter how intelligent and well-educated they are.

32. Every healthy human being is born ethical with the potential to fully understand the Evolutionary Ethic.

33. Human beings lose their innate ethics and capacity to understand the Evolutionary Ethic only because they are punished when they behave ethically and/or rewarded when they behave unethically.

34. Every institution of government and society in every nation in the history of the world eventually punishes ethical behavior and rewards unethical behavior; this happens in the home, the school, the economy, and the government; it is the sole, legitimate function of ethical government to prevent this harm when it is undeserved; otherwise, unethical people should be allowed to harm themselves; they deserve it.

"Ethics" is defined by the dictionary as "the study of what is good" or as a set of normative principles. The philosopher Wittgenstein showed, quite convincingly, that there cannot be a scientific ethics, because we can never infer "ought" from "is" (1, 93, 496-499). I believe that Wittgenstein was wrong.

It is a well known theorem in mathematics that one can never optimize a function on more than one variable at a time, although other variables may be constrained. If there were an infinity of normative criteria, as most academic philosophers believe today, then Wittgenstein would be correct, and there could be no absolute criteria of good and evil. However, I believe that there is a single normative principle in the universe that can lead to a logically consistent system of ethics (115-117). Furthermore, the use of any other normative principle will lead to a logically and scientifically inconsistent system of ethics.

This normative principal is implicit in Judaeo-Christian ethics as expressed in the Bible and the teachings of Jesus, and was first made explicit by Baruch de Spinoza (410-412). It is possible, through the use of modern quantum mechanics, to integrate and scientifically explain the notions of scientific ethics, creativity, true mysticism, and traditional religious ethics, particularly Judaeo-Christian ethics (115).

At the core of any civilization is a system of values or ethics together with assumptions about reality. The European civilization, out of which America emerged as a new civilization, had at its core, as was long held by the Christian churches "the natural, hierarchical order of things, Christian ethics, and a notion of the hereditary superiority of some people over other people;" solely the Christian ethics, which stem entirely from Jewish ethics, seem valid. This system was highly compatible with the hierarchical order of the Catholic Church, extending beyond this world all the way to God, but less so with the new Protestant sects, which claimed, and occasionally tolerated, respect for individual conscience, so long as this conscience was compatible with the prevalent interpretations of the locally accepted Protestant Bible.

The scientific revolution, which began at about the same time as the Reformation, and had common causes behind it, showed any rational person that almost all the Christian religious authorities were wrong about nearly everything in the natural world from Astronomy to Zoology; it was reasonable to assume that the same religious authority was probably also wrong about the psychosocial and ethical world as well. Therefore, rational people began to look to reason and science to guide them in Moral Philosophy (ethical behavior and psychosocial sciences) as well as in Natural Philosophy (physical and biological sciences).

The pioneers in this approach were humanists, such as Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes in England, and Michel de Montaigne and René Descartes in France (358). The culmination of this new approach was achieved in Holland, perhaps the freest and most ethical society in the world at that time, in the ETHICS of Baruch de Spinoza. Spinoza was to Moral Philosophy what his contemporary, Isaac Newton, was to Natural Philosophy. Spinoza was the first scientific philosopher of ethics.

Other ethical philosophers such as Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Averroes, Aquinas, and Maimonides tried to be completely rational, but Spinoza was the first to integrate ethics with mathematically-based modern science. As a consequence, Spinoza, the son of Jewish refugees from Spain, was excommunicated by the Jews of Holland and persecuted by Jews, Catholics, and Protestants. It seems he had something to offend everyone. He has been condemned by religious authorities up to the present time, although the State of Israel, much to its credit, readmitted him into Judaism 300 years after his death. Maimonides was also, more briefly, excommunicated (228).

Bertrand Russell, a totally secular, anti-religious, but humane, philosopher, referred to Spinoza as "the noblest and most lovable of all the great philosophers...ethically he is supreme (358)." Goethe so admired Spinoza that he claimed to read him every day as an ethical exercise. When a Rabbi asked Albert Einstein if he believed in God, Einstein answered that he believed in the God of Spinoza. Einstein carefully studied the ethics of Spinoza, which have implicit in them the concepts of relativity, as well as many of the fundamental concepts of modern quantum mechanics, such as the wholeness and unity of God and the Universe (412).

Science tries to be a model of objective reality, although it does not always succeed. Any true system of ethics must also be in full correspondence with objective reality. Which is to say that it must bear up well, according to its own criteria, to scientific scrutiny. There can be no contradiction between true science and true ethics. False ethics will ultimately always conflict with reality.

In the modern world there have been two major experiments designed to create new, ethically based civilizations. Both of these experiments were based on a distortion of Spinoza's ethics. The most recent experiment was the Soviet Union; the first was the United States of America.

American Majority Rule resulted from a distortion of Spinoza's ethical and political philosophy produced by the line of thinkers -- Locke, Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, and others -- leading to Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson may be the most brilliant, ethical, and creative leader any nation ever had (177-179, 229), although like any ethical human he had many ethical flaws (89). He, not Washington, is the ethical father of the United States, although Tom Paine might have been the midwife. (Tom Paine's pamphlet Common Sense, which contained many of the ethical principles of the Declaration, was more widely read and more influential in creating the American Revolution than the Declaration itself, although the Revolution was always a minority movement; only about a third of the adult population supported it.)

Yet, although (1) Jefferson clearly wanted an ethical society, based on the Democratic Ethic that freedom is the greatest good and tyranny is the greatest evil, and (2) he and his two closest disciples (Madison and Monroe) were Presidents for 24 consecutive years, they produced instead an increasingly unethical society that has been destroying individual freedom, almost since its inception.

The Democratic Ethic is self-contradictory; it seeks to maximize freedom, but instead it diminishes freedom through a tyranny of the majority. It is a gross form of self-deception to believe that decisions reached by a large majority are automatically ethical and correct. We should never forget that although Hitler was originally democratically elected by a plurality, that Hitler was able to develop overwhelming majority approval and support for himself and his policies, almost to the end of his regime.

The Democratic Ethic says that the greatest good is that which makes for the greatest liberty or welfare for the greatest number; it is right and proper for a sufficiently large majority to take away some of the liberty or welfare of a sufficiently small minority, if it will greatly increase the alleged liberty or welfare of the majority. For example, an approval by three fourths of the state legislatures can ratify a constitutional amendment abolishing the Bill of Rights, and take away everybody's civil rights (56).

Implicit in the Democratic Ethic is the notion that decisions reached by large majorities are always ethically superior to decisions reached by small minorities. This is clearly false. Jefferson tried to compensate for this deficiency in democratic government by advocating and eventually getting a strong Bill of Rights to protect ethical minorities from unethical majorities and government in general.

Yet, the history of the United States is the history of the ever growing power of government and the destruction of individual liberty for the alleged benefit of the majority. This began with the toleration of slavery in the United States for four score and seven years, followed by government imposed racial segregation for five score more years. Majority Rule led to the military draft, the income tax, the blatantly unconstitutional detention of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps during World War II, the, allegedly, anticommunist witch hunts of the McCarthy era, the nurturing of a huge, parasitical military-industrial complex, and finally to the out-right confiscation of private property with land use laws, and the gross government interference with private voluntary behavior, such as the anti-drug laws and the constant attacks on the Second Amendment by a large majority of Democrats, again for the alleged benefit of a willing, frightened majority. Therefore, the Democratic Ethic is a false ethic that, in trying to maximize freedom, ends up destroying freedom. A true criterion for good must not lead to its own contradiction.

The most recent ethical system used to form a new civilization was the Materialistic Ethic of socialism, expressed in its most extreme form in the Soviet Union, which was in such conflict with true ethics and reality that it destroyed itself in only 70 years. The socialistic paradigm is that the greatest good is government control and redistribution of the wealth of the society so that there is equality of wealth independent of merit, and that the government guarantees the necessities of life to every accepted member of the society. The extreme Materialistic Ethic is "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need (233-235)."

The socialistic distortion of Spinoza's philosophy was produced by the line of philosophers -- Leibnitz, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Engels, etc. -- leading to Lenin and undemocratic, completely tyrannical socialism (388, 450). All forms of tyranny are unethical. The racist National Socialism of Adolf Hitler was another unethical spinoff from Hegel.

The Soviet Union, by its own criterion of good, material security, ended up impoverishing its own people by destroying their freedom and creativity, thereby contradicting its own alleged ethical purpose. This happens in all socialistic countries; it merely happens faster when they violate the criterion of the one true ethics, which was clearly articulated over three hundred and thirty years ago, when Spinoza simply made explicit what was implicit in the traditional Jewish studies that he undertook as a young man.

Spinoza said that the ultimate good was what he called "the intellectual love of God." According to Spinoza we love God by understanding and emulating Him. To paraphrase Spinoza, "we understand God through intuition, art, science and technology, since God is the infinite totality of all that exists." The most outstanding attribute of God is creativity. Therefore, we emulate God by maximizing creativity." This same notion of emulating God ("...walking in His ways") as ethical duty is in the Bible(Deut.11:22).

The one true ethics is based on the notion of maximizing creativity. "Good" is whatever increases "creativity"; "evil" is whatever decreases "creativity." I call this the "Evolutionary Ethic." In my books I argue that any ethical system based on any other notion of good will lead to its own contradiction, as has clearly been shown for the Materialistic Ethic. It is currently being shown for the Democratic Ethic, which has turned out to be a tyranny of the majority, thereby contradicting its own fundamental ethical premises.

I derived the Evolutionary Ethic independently of Spinoza, with the advantage of 330 years of scientific progress, by first observing that the only common denominator in the evolutionary process is ever increasing intelligence. The biosphere becomes collectively increasingly intelligent. The protozoa are more intelligent than the bacteria; the metazoa are more intelligent than the protozoa; the vertebrates are in general more intelligent than the invertebrates; the reptiles are in general more intelligent than the fish; the mammals are in general more intelligent than the reptiles; and humans are in general more intelligent than all other mammals. Furthermore, this is the order in which the biosphere has evolved. However, intelligence is independent of ethics, up to a point, in the evolutionary process.

We all know highly intelligent people who are highly unethical. The two most notorious examples in the last hundred years are Hitler and Stalin. Therefore, the maximization of intelligence is not an adequate ethical criterion. What we wish to maximize is creativity. Creativity grows out of intelligence together with ethics, but it is not identical to intelligence. Creativity will be shown to be a transcendence of intelligence.

"Intelligence," as I will use the concept, is "the ability to predict and control the total environment -- physical, biological, and psychosocial." This ability is what is growing in the biosphere. Eventually this ability grows to the point where we have intelligence of our own intelligence. That is to say, "we can predict and control our own ability to predict and control." When intelligence passes this threshold, then the species begins to be ethical and as a consequence becomes creative, thereby transcending intelligence by adding a new dimension to itself. Creativity (C) is a direct interaction of Intelligence (I) and Ethics (E), which may be expressed intuitively in the equation C = IE. This is the fundamental, process equation of Creative Transformation (15-17).

Intelligence can be used to increase intelligence (good, ethical, creative) or to diminish intelligence (evil, unethical, destructive). Therefore, intuitively, "Ethics" are equal to our desire to increase intelligence minus our desire to diminish intelligence, the result divided by our total desire to both increase and decrease intelligence. Everything we do is done either to increase or decrease intelligence, or it is trivial, although we may not be conscious of this. Subhuman (pre-ethical) animals neither increase nor decrease intelligence, they are merely a natural part of the world which may have stopped evolving.

This definition of ethics gives us dimensionless numbers between minus one and plus one (-1,1) as a measure of ethics. There is no practical way of measuring desire. However, there are practical estimators of ethics, E, one of which is the following: E = (T - F)/(T + F), where T is an equivalent sampling of all the true information we believe and F is an equivalent sampling of all the false information we believe.

The question that next arises is, "Why would anyone seek to destroy intelligence and believe false information, if he or she can otherwise create intelligence and believe true information?" Before answering this question, let some terms be defined:

"Information" is the symbolic representation of events and their relationships.

"Truth" is information that when it is believed increases the ability of the believer to predict and control reality, i.e. the total environment -- physical, biological, and psychosocial, without decreasing the believer's or anyone else's ability to predict and control the total environment.

"Falsehood" is information that when it is believed decreases the ability of the believer to predict and control reality, i.e. any aspect of the total environment -- physical, biological, and psychosocial.

These notions of truth and falsehood are part of a scientific epistemology that leads to the scientific paradigm, which includes scientific method. The essence of scientific method is the experimental testing of hypotheses and theories about reality to see if they are true or false.

Reality is both objective and subjective. Science deals well with objective reality, but not so well with subjective reality. Subjective reality will lead us later to consider mysticism, religion in general, and Judaeo-Christian ethics in particular.

We return to considering the phenomenon of evil and why some persons choose to believe falsehood. I say "choose" because we do not have to believe anything; we can function quite well on the basis of probabilities. A belief is a certainty about the truth or the falsehood of some proposition about nature. We choose to believe because belief makes us happy, although not necessarily more intelligent or more creative.

"Happiness" means many different things to different people. When I use the term I mean solely the following concept: "Happiness" is a state of mind in which we believe that our desires are being fulfilled. Desires that have been fulfilled do not make us happy. Only desires that are being fulfilled make us happy. We all have simultaneously desires that are both being fulfilled and being unfulfilled. Unfulfilled desires make us unhappy. Therefore, we are all simultaneously happy and unhappy. If the strength and number of desires being fulfilled is greater than the strength and number of desires being unfulfilled then the net result is happiness. The converse produces unhappiness.

Intuitively, creativity is the process by which we discover scientific laws, invent machines, produce works of art, and help others do these things. The most creative thing we can ever do for ourselves is to help maximize the creativity of another. This is what in fact maximizes our own creativity.

More formally, a creative act is any act which increases "ethical truth" for at least one person, including oneself, without decreasing "ethical truth" for any person, including oneself.

"Ethical truth " is any information which increases our ethics or our creativity. The latter by increasing the ethics or intelligence of at least one ethical person, without increasing the intelligence of any unethical person. It is unethical to increase the intelligence of unethical persons, because their ethics are negative, which makes them more destructive than creative. But it is ethical to increase their ethics by communicating ethical truth to them. Everybody is benefitted by the increase in anybody's ethics.

THEOREM 1: People are unethical if, and only if, they value happiness more than creativity.

Happiness and creativity are not mutually exclusive. But neither are they the same thing. Creativity is an objective act of increasing ethical truth for oneself or for another person. Happiness is a subjective state of mind that can be induced just as easily by false as by true beliefs.

THEOREM 2: If we seek to maximize happiness, we minimize it and have neither happiness nor creativity in the long run, although unethical people can have a transitory minimal happiness.

THEOREM 3: If we seek to maximize creativity, we always succeed, and trivially also maximize happiness.

"Trivial" refers to an entity or an act that neither increases nor decreases creativity. Trivia is a set of measure zero; almost all acts and entities in the Universe are either ethical or unethical. Theorems and ideas in this chapter are from 115,116, and 117.

Corollary 3.1 There are many more ethical entities in the Universe than trivial or unethical entities.

Corollary 3.2 There are more angels than humans, although, at this time, there are more unethical than ethical humans, and most humans may appear trivial.

Therefore people choose to believe falsehood solely because it makes them happy, and in so doing they are behaving unethically. For that reason E = (T - F)/(T + F) and our ethics are directly related to the proportion of our desire for creativity over our desire for happiness. Note that creativity and happiness are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they identical. This will be elaborated later.

Subhuman (pre-ethical) animals, with a very few minor exceptions, can be motivated solely by their desire for happiness, because they do not yet have intelligence about their own intelligence and do not yet have an ethical component which can produce creativity. These animals have zero creativity. That is why solely humans are systematically creative within the biosphere. That is why only humans, within the biosphere, can be systematically unethical and destructive. What makes us human is our unique ability to ethically choose creativity over happiness.

THEOREM 4: Humans have only two primordial desires, happiness and creativity; all other desires are means for achieving the two primordial desires; by maximizing creativity with no concern for happiness, we maximize both happiness and creativity (115,116,117,).

Therefore there exists a single ethical criterion by which all ethical decisions may be made, which is valid at all times, under all conditions for all ethical beings anywhere in the universe. It is eternally valid. This is what I call the "Evolutionary Ethic"; it is expressed as follows:

WE SHOULD ALL DO OUR BEST TO MAXIMIZE CREATIVITY
WITHOUT EVER DECREASING ANYONE'S CREATIVITY
INCLUDING OUR OWN

From this single, simple, but very deep, ethical imperative, we may derive a complete system of ethics to structure any society or government, to make individual decisions, to start and run a business, to educate ourselves and our children, to guide us in sexual relationships, and to relate to unethical governments, which do not follow or even pretend to follow the Evolutionary Ethic. The entire ethics of the Bible may be so derived.

Such an ethical system is derived in stages, going always from more general to more specific situations. This is the same as the relationship between the Bible (Old Testament) and the Teachings of Jesus. From the Evolutionary Ethic, the preceding considerations, and scientific reality we derive the second stage of eight ethical principles:

1. Any act which increases anyone's creativity, including our own, without decreasing anyone else's creativity, including our own, is ethical. (This is the essence of the meaning of "good." To be "good" is to knowingly and deliberately behave ethically, whatever the consequences.)

2. Any act which decreases anyone's creativity is unethical. (This is the essence of the meaning of "evil." To be "evil" is to knowingly and deliberately behave unethically, for whatever reason.)

3. Unethical means can never achieve ethical ends.

4. Means which are not ends are never ethical.

5. It is unethical to tolerate unethical or destructive behavior.

6. It is unethical to be certain about any cause and effect relationship concerning objective reality; only probabilistic beliefs about objective reality are ethical, but we can never deny the reality of our own thoughts or perceptions, our subjective reality; we err solely when we are certain about the causes in objective reality of our subjective thoughts or perceptions.

7. It is ethical to doubt.

8. Inaction is unethical.

As a third stage derivation, we may directly and quickly derive the Ten Commandments from these eight ethical principles. The Ten Commandments are the ethical core of Judaeo-Christian Ethics. Using the Ten Commandments and the eight ethical principles we can, with varying degrees of difficulty, derive all the ethical norms of the Bible and reach many and perhaps all the ethical conclusions of the Teachings of Jesus. (I suspect that the early Catholic Church, established by St. Paul, not Jesus, distorted the true teachings of Jesus.) If the entire ethical message of the Bible, and the way of life that it implies, may be derived solely from the Evolutionary Ethic, then this ethic too is God's message to humanity, and reflects the ultimate reality of the Universe, as well as its fundamental ethical structure.

This is not true for any other system of religious ethics, although there is some overlap in the ethics of almost all major religions. One may say that Jewish ethics, together with the true teachings of Jesus, represent a super set of ethics which contains all the true ethics of all other religions, but excludes all the false ethics. However, all paradigms are false or incomplete. Therefore, Jewish ethics together with the teachings of Jesus, although true, cannot be complete. We must forever expand all ethical systems. The Bible (Old Testament) together with the teachings of Jesus are the mystically revealed set of ethical norms for maximizing the long term creativity of any people who follow them. The Evolutionary Ethic is implicit in these norms.

Therefore, there is a connection in the world between ethics, religion, superstition, and spirituality. Although all the major religions, not just Judaism and Christianity, have a strong ethical base, almost all religions, particularly the so called "cults," degrade their ethical base by gradually substituting ritual for ethical action, thereby becoming saddled with ever increasing superstition.

RELIGION, SUPERSTITION, AND SPIRITUALITY

Superstition has been defined as "other people's religious beliefs". Similarly a "cult" may be defined as "other people's organized religion." A more precise way of defining "superstition" is "a belief in cause and effect relationships which leads to systematic, repetitive behavior which is totally ineffective in accomplishing what it claims it can accomplish, and which system of belief and behavior is never subjected to scientific scrutiny by those who believe and repeatedly practice it." This is "superstition." It is the basis of almost all organized religions, except perhaps your own.

Organized religions usually have "authority figures" who claim to know what is right and what is wrong within the religion and what kinds of behavior should be condemned or lauded. These notions usually have to do with institutionalized superstition, which apparently is a characteristic of almost all organized religions, and is usually called "ritual."

Those who practice popular ritual are often considered "spiritual." In organized religions, the nonobservance or the defiling of ritual is almost always regarded as the greatest sin. That is why in many Christian religions the devil and his worshipers are almost always portrayed as defiling some sacred ritual. The worst thing that happens in ritualized religions is that superstitious ritual, "spirituality," comes to replace ethical action. This tends to destroy creativity among the adherents of that religion.

As a general rule, it can be stated that the more concerned a religion is with ritual, the less concerned it will be with true ethics, and the less creative its adherents will be. "Fundamentalists," whether they are Jews, Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, or the adherents of any other religion, are militant superstitionists; they are the least creative humans. It is unethical to be certain about any religion.

Superstition and ritual are practiced because they make their practitioners happy through conforming to the prejudices and unquestioning beliefs of a tightly knit group which approves of this behavior; they then have a very strong sense of belonging and community. Loneliness seems to be the greatest source of human unhappiness.

To be highly ethical in a superstitious society is to be a creative, unbelieving member of a tiny minority, which is condemned, and often persecuted and even killed, by the vast superstitious majority. The ethical persons are a minute, unorganized minority, which is sparsely distributed among the superstitious majority in all nations; this is a very lonely type of existence.

Those who see the contradictions and the hypocrisy of the majority religions often compensate for it by forming new quasi-religions of their own, such as the organized militant atheists under Madeleine Murray, the socialists under Marxist ideology, or the many so called "cults" of the minority religions such as the Moonies, the Hare Krishnas, the Scientologists , and all minor sects of mainstream religions in general. All of these persons have substituted one set of superstitions for another, but they have compensated for their loneliness by forming another religion which gives them a sense of belonging, community and "spirituality."

True spirituality is based on dedication to both true mysticism (to be defined later) and true ethics, independently of how lonely or unhappy it might make us. The true spiritual is dedicated to maximizing creativity above all things, including self-preservation. The true spiritual, or Esprital, as my old friend Henri Lurié might have said, is prepared to stand alone all his or her life rather than subscribe to any form of superstition in order to find fellowship and acceptance in a group. Constantin Brunner distinguished between true spirituality, which he called Geistigkeit, and false spirituality, which he called Geistlichkeit, and I call superstition.

Because of their uncompromising attitude, Espritals are extremely rare and can rarely organize themselves into a cohesive group, because they lack a common system of belief. The Esprital acts without believing. All Espritals do the best they can knowing that they may all be wrong.

The sole common belief that all Espritals might share is the belief in the notion that the greatest good is to maximize creativity, and that we should all act and interact with one another on the basis of what maximizes our common creativity, without ever reducing the creativity of single person. However, almost all Espritals will differ on how they should maximize creativity.

I spent the thirty years of my life after age 35 in learning how to identify Espritals and help them organize themselves in such a way that they can all maximize their creativity through 100% mutual consensus. My findings are that this will occur solely in small, autonomous groups of 8-10 ethical, cooperative, free men and women, called "Octets," as described in my last book, CREATIVE TRANSFORMATION (115).

It is extremely difficult to find and organize the Espritals, because they seem to be less than .01%, and possibly less than .001%, of the human species. Furthermore they are not concentrated in any part of the earth. They are a tiny minority because, although almost all humans may be born ethical, almost all aspects of every culture destroy ethics by punishing creative, ethical behavior and rewarding unethical, destructive, superstitious behavior.

A very small minority of humanity has the innate courage and ethics, as well as the fortunate environment, to remain ethical in the face of constant punishment, threats, and loneliness. Almost everyone ultimately succumbs to superstitious conformity and surrenders to their own fear (115).

Espritals are most noted by their significant creativity. But what distinguishes the Espritals are their ethics, not their intelligence. If the Esprital is highly intelligent, he or she will be a creative genius. But not all Espritals are geniuses. They are merely highly ethical and mystical. The great mystics have been the major contributors to human ethics. But many of the great creative geniuses in art, science, and technology are also Espritals. The mythical and metaphorical Adam may have been the first Esprital (377, 388).

All humans may be born ethical, but humans are never born moral. Morality must be deliberately chosen by ethical choice. Morality begins when we become aware of our own ethics and deliberately and knowingly choose to become maximally ethical, and as a consequence maximally creative. We usually have more of a choice over our ethics than we have over our intelligence, if we know what our true ethics are.

The early hominids became ethical when they achieved intelligence about their own intelligence, and as a consequence could predict and control their own ability to predict and control. But humans did not become moral until they had intelligence about their ethics, and as a consequence could predict and control their own ethics, i.e. they could predict and control their ability to predict and control their ability to predict and control.

According to the Bible this occurred when God breathed a human soul into the man he had made from matter. This is to say that after humanity had evolved from matter, individual cells, and more primitive animals, this ethical animal developed intelligence of its own ethics, and as a consequence became a moral being. According to the Bible this occurred about 6,000 years ago. This was the time at which humans created the first great civilization with a true ethical base, Sumer. Therefore, the Biblical Adam is a metaphor for the beginning of morality in the human species and the beginning of the Espritals (388).

More historically accurate examples of Espritals are Moses, all the Hebrew Prophets, Buddha, Confucius, Thales, Socrates, Jesus, the ethical apostles of Jesus, many of, but not all, the Christian Saints, Hypatia, Mohammed, Avicena, Averroes, Maimonides, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Hildegard von Bingen, Saint Francis of Assisi, Saint Ignatius, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Giordano Bruno, Spinoza, J. S. Bach, Beethoven, Thomas Jefferson, Goethe, Mary Ann Evans (George Elliot), Van Gogh, Mary Cassatt, and in our own time possibly Marie Curie, Lisa Meitner, Mahatma Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, Dieter Bonhoeffer, Chaim Weizman, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Bertrand Russell, Einstein, Andrei Sakharov, Barbara McClintock (577), David Bohm, Mother Teresa, the anonymous women who wrote and produced A COURSE IN MIRACLES(510), and among the living, the great composer, Penderecki, and the great biologist, Lynn Margulis (582-584).

There are many other Espritals who have never become well known, but the total sum of all living Espritals is always a very small minority among humanity. They almost never meet one another, and rarely, if ever, seem to work together. It took Jesus his first thirty-three years to put the 12 Apostles together. One of them betrayed him, and the rest did not seem to have understood his teachings well enough to keep Saint Paul and the succeeding Catholic Church from corrupting them.

The real problems are how to best find, concentrate, and then put the very few Espritals in touch with each other. This is further complicated by the apparent fact that no true Espritals ever consider themselves Espritals. The Espritals are always aware of their moral imperfections. It is the followers of the Espritals who recognize them, and then mythicize them by stripping them of their ethical flaws.

If a few Espritals can work together, they may catalyze the creation of an ethical government that can maximize the creativity of all humanity. It will be very difficult for humans who are merely ethical, but not yet Espritals, to create an ethical government, as is shown in the later chapters. An ethical government will never come about through majority rule. Unethical means can never produce ethical ends.

Because there are so few Espritals, and they themselves do not know who they are, conventional means, such as advertising in the mass media, are inadequate ways of locating the Espritals at any reasonable cost. Writing books of relevance to the Espritals, is also inadequate, since the mass media and the academic community will at best ignore books they are ethically incompetent to understand, at worst they will condemn them ethically and intellectually, as has been the case for Spinoza's writings for over three-hundred and thirty years.

Therefore, the Espritals do not know about each other's existence. They only know that they do not seem to fit in very well anywhere, and that they have met few or no persons who seem to fully share their values or their ethical courage.

The only common feature of Espritals, at every stage of their development, is that they lead creative lives. They are usually ethical mystics. Sometimes they are scientific mystics. Because creativity is an interaction of intelligence and ethics, C = IE, not all creative persons are Espritals, although all such persons are ethical. It takes a very high level of ethics to be an Esprital. The critical level of ethics for an Esprital seems to be the level at which someone is ready to die, or greatly suffer, before decreasing anyone's creativity, including one's own.

Therefore persons who are highly intelligent, but only marginally ethical, may be highly creative without being Espritals. What every Esprital does, perhaps unconsciously, is to courageously search out the most creative community that can be found, or tries to create such a community from scratch. Jesus tried to create such a community with the Twelve Apostles, but failed after Saint Paul took over the Christian Movement. Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Mohamed, Saint Ignatius, Lenin, and Hitler did the same, but they all failed in one way or another, Lenin and Hitler in particularly horrible ways. However evil you may consider these last two men, you should understand that their evil came from a perverted sense of ethics, not a lack of intelligence, or even a lack of what might be called "moral commitment."

A Moral Community, however small, is essential to create an ethical government, which can never come about under majority rule. No one person, alone, no matter how genuinely ethical, can ever successfully create a Moral Community. It will take, at least, four male and four female Espritals, as we shall see later in this book. How to find and create such a community will be discussed later.

Almost all current and historical human organizations and communities that were supposed to be creative have become bureaucracies. A bureaucracy is an organization which convinces its members that they are parasites and can be secure solely by living parasitically off the creativity of others. A human parasite is someone who has transformed himself, or has been transformed, so that he or she will do little or no creative acts for the rest of his or her life, and will survive by exploiting the creativity of those more creative than him or herself. An exploitive exchange occurs when we destroy more creativity in others than we create in others.

Organizations such as most schools, universities, not-for-profit foundations, businesses, and the agencies of the Federal, state, and local governments are organizations that were originally supposed to be creative, but became bureaucracies. Within any bureaucracy, the Espritals usually become quickly dissatisfied with these organizations and leave. Almost all those who remain behind usually become parasites themselves, although they may have been creative when they joined the bureaucracy.

Espritals eventually discover that the only way that they can live a purely creative life without ethical compromises is to be self-employed in some creative endeavor as varied as medicine, engineering, carpentry, machining, mechanics, art, music, farming, and many other fields, although not even a small minority of the people in these fields are likely to be Espritals. Similarly, Espritals are not likely to be employed as lawyers, bureaucrats, politicians, or people who live parasitically off other people's creativity, without creating something of their own equal in value to the resources that they are consuming. This knowledge enables us to know something about where to look for Espritals, and where not to look for them.

Espritals will usually find that earning substantial amounts of money will require ethical compromises. These compromises will usually include nurturing totally uncreative parasites. It is always unethical to nurture parasites. Human parasites are those who traffic in money, or bureaucrats who redistribute the wealth that is extorted from ethical citizens by unethical government. Bureaucrats and governments do this without in anyway being creative themselves. Financiers and bureaucrats are often biased against financing Espritals, because they can usually earn more money and/or be more secure, respectively, by financing marginally ethical persons who take few or no risks, and by earning most of their money, not by creative action, but by buying low and selling high, which, for Espritals, is a trivial form of commerce.

Espritals, once they are fully developed from less ethical but still creative children and young adults, always courageously choose to work in the environment which maximizes creativity, rather than in the environment which maximizes income, or even gives them minimum security. This does not, necessarily, mean that Espritals are poor.

Since Espritals are creative, and creativity is the basis of all wealth (115), Espritals will always have all the resources they need to maximize their creativity and that of those they most love, although they may not have any surpluses. This situation becomes even more pronounced when the Esprital discovers that he or she is better off economically by not making any ethical compromises and refusing to cooperate with any persons who are systematically destructive to themselves or others, directly or indirectly. As a consequence, eventually all Espritals who survive will try to make themselves and all those they love as self-sufficient as possible.

Therefore, the best place to search for Espritals is in a community which is highly ethical and creative in many fields and simultaneously promotes self-sufficiency for itself and others. A few Espritals, if they are extremely brilliant, and ethically naive, may survive within the academic community, although the academic bureaucracy is already highly destructive.

At one time I thought that the Libertarian party in the United States might be a community with a concentration of Espritals. However, I soon found that the Libertarians, who have the only political philosophy that is ethically compatible with that of the Espritals, include many persons who are Libertarians primarily out of desire for using drugs, maximizing their discretionary income, hatred of government bureaucrats, or simply a love of liberty, which are not primary motivations of Espritals. A love of liberty is fully compatible with Esprital values, since liberty is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for maximizing creativity, which is the sole end goal for Espritals.

The best place to look for Espritals in the modern world is the Internet. The Internet is the only forum in the world for the free exchange of all information. As a consequence, every government in the world is trying to exercise control over the Internet. This is done in blatantly unethical ways in Communist and Islamic countries, and more subtlely in the democracies. However, this book, as well as all my other writings, will be on the Internet for as long as possible, in the hope of eventually being able to bring together, at least, four Esprital males, and four Esprital females, even if this does not occur in my lifetime. If you are not by now totally bored or outraged by this book, you may be an Esprital and not know it.

In the democracies, the governments use the excuse of controlling pornography, or even of protecting the Internet itself, as an excuse for exercising control over the Internet. All types of control over the Internet should be vigorously opposed by all ethical people, particularly the Espritals. The Internet is the best chance in history for unifying the Espritals, but it will not be easy.

All the great religions of the world, although a major repository of true ethics and true mysticism, have become so bureaucratized and obsessed with ritual that they are also unlikely to lead to a community of Espritals. However, the ethical foundations of Western Civilization and true ethics are to be found within Judaism and Christianity. We will, therefore, consider and incorporate Judaeo-Christian ethics into the concept of an ethical government to be developed in the later chapters.

JUDAEO-CHRISTIAN ETHICS

The great Jewish sage Maimonides (228) observed that Islam is closest to Judaism ritualistically and theologically. But Christianity is closest to Judaism ethically, because Christians accept the entire Bible, particularly the Ten Commandments, as well as the Teachings of Jesus, which are pure ethical Judaism, as divine truth, although Christians may often misinterpret the meaning of the Bible, as well as the teachings of Jesus. I would add that Jews also often misinterpret the true ethics of the Bible.

The greatest ethical error in Christianity, and there are many, although the basic ethics are sound, is the notion that one should behave ethically in order to avoid hell and go to heaven. This same ethical error exists in Islam. The Jewish notion of ethical obedience to the Bible is that one should behave ethically solely because it is God's law. This is similar to the Hindu concept of Karma Yoga: that one should behave ethically as an end in itself without fear of punishment or expectation of reward.

The fatal flaw in Orthodox Judaism is that ritual laws, such as dietary laws, are given the same weight as ethical laws, such as the Ten Commandments. Spinoza first showed in his Theological-Political Treatise (412) why Jewish ritual is, in part, a mistake. This does not mean that all Jewish ritual is an ethical mistake, but merely that ritual is at best a metaphor for ethical behavior. Art associated with ritual, such as Jewish liturgical music, is an even deeper metaphor for ethical truth.

Thus, Jewish rituals concerning hygiene, diet (Kosher laws), slaughter, and even animal sacrifice can all be seen as metaphors related to the ethics of good health. Maintaining good health is an ethical obligation.

Jewish sexual rituals say a man may not have intercourse with his wife until seven days after she has stopped menstruating. Furthermore, he must stop having intercourse with her once she starts to menstruate, but he must have intercourse with her, at proper times, when she demands it. He must never have intercourse with her when she does not desire it. His sexual obligations to his wife are all further governed according to the stress and requirements of his occupation. These rituals are metaphors for sexual ethics, which basically say that a man should first love his wife and secondarily have sex with her primarily to please her and have children with her.

It is unethical to have sexual relations with someone we do not love. We never love someone with whom we would never wish to bear children and whose essential characteristics we would not wish in our children. This does not mean that every sexual act must lead to reproduction. The desire to have children with a spouse, even when this is not possible, is a measure of the love that exists between the spouses. Loving spouses assume full responsibility for maximizing the creativity of each other, and of their children, and of never decreasing the creativity of their children, or each other. This notion of sexual ethics is something that many women can probably relate to, but is probably not acceptable to many men who are not Orthodox Jews.

Great religious art, such as the Kol Nidrei and the Shabat Shalom in Judaism, and the even greater religious music of Bach, such as the Mass in b minor, the Saint Matthew Passion, the Cantatas, and above all the Art of the Fugue, are musical metaphors for the deepest and greatest ethical truths. In the plastic arts, there is no greater religious metaphor for Judaeo-Christian Ethics than the art of Michelangelo, such as the Sistine Chapel, the Last Judgment, and his Pieta. The metaphorical expression of ethics in art goes back to the art works of Atonism in Egypt and even the cave paintings of the Cro-Magnon. All great art is the metaphorical expression of great ethical truth. Artistic freedom is essential to great art.

Although in the Bible God promises the Jews certain rewards for accepting His laws, these are usually long term rewards, rarely short term rewards. The basic reward for obedience to the Bible is that any people who practice the Evolutionary Ethic, implicit in the Bible, will in the long run maximize the creativity of their progeny and the creativity of the people with whom they freely interact. This is borne out by history.

Twenty-five hundred years ago the Jews were highly ethical, but not very creative except in the field of ethics. At the same time the Greeks were highly creative in all fields, but not very ethical when compared to the Jews. The classical Greeks were primarily motivated by their desire to dominate others, although they were ethical in being sincere seekers of the truth, as a means of dominating others. However, within less than one thousand years the Greeks had virtually destroyed themselves, and ceased to be significantly creative in virtually all fields. The Jews, in the meantime, continued to grow in significant creativity in virtually all fields, while maintaining their ethical creativity, although they were constantly persecuted and had no country of their own after Christianity began.

The flaw in Orthodox Jewish ethical evolution, in addition to compulsive ritualism, is that it gave overwhelming weight to studying the Bible and its ethical and ritualistic ramifications, but gave very little weight to studying science. It is ethical and good to study the Bible, but it is unethical to deliberately remain ignorant of science. Although ethics may be more important than intelligence, we have an ethical obligation to maximize both our ethics and our intelligence. We cannot be maximally intelligent, although we may remain ethical, while choosing to be a scientific illiterate. A knowledge of science is absolutely essential to being maximally creative in the modern world. We separate truth from falsehood solely through the use of the scientific method. This notion is actually in the Bible in the book of Jeremiah and elsewhere.

Maimonides and Spinoza had both taught that science was the essential method for understanding God. But it was not until the 19th century, when the largely secular Jews of Germany, the United States, and other European cultures began to study science and technology, that the Jews became highly creative outside of the field of ethics, although they had begun to be highly creative in Spain before their expulsion. Modern science was a purely Christian invention, which is one of the most creative consequences of Judaeo-Christian Ethics.

That is why in order to create an ethical political system we must combine true Christian and true Jewish ethics into a single, coherent, secular system based on the Evolutionary Ethic. Neither Conservative, Reform, nor Secular Judaism seem to have the ethical power of Orthodox Judaism, although they are much more accepting of the scientific method and are more likely to produce creative scientists, engineers and artists than is Orthodox Judaism. But Secular, Reform, and Conservative Jews become assimilated in a few generations into gentile society and lose their Jewish identity along with their Jewish ethics. The same happens to the children of their Christian counterparts in the Unitarian and Universalist churches, and in the Ethical Culture Society.

Today the Jews, at about one quarter of one percent of the human species, are about fifty percent of the winners of Nobel prizes in science and economics; they do almost as well in social science, technology, literature, and the other arts and humanities. In the United States, the Jews at less than 3% of the population, are over 35% of the people listed in Who's Who. The Jews get into Who's Who almost entirely through their creativity. Before the Soviet Union began to persecute the Jews, in a major way, it was estimated by a leading, non-Jewish scientist, personally known by me, that 80% of the major creativity in the USSR was produced by the Jews. The same phenomenon occurred in 15th century Spain and early 20th century Germany.

The Jews today are, relative to their numbers, by far the most creative people on earth. However, unethical Jews are no more creative than unethical gentiles; they are both destructive. Judaeo-Christian Ethics is a system for maintaining ethics within a people, but it is not 100% effective because we all have free will to reject the Bible. Almost by definition, fewer Jews than gentiles reject the ethics of the Bible. This is particularly true of Orthodox Jews. The reasons are ethical choice and natural selection, although the Jews are not a race or even a genetically homogeneous nation (115, 116, 119, also see the work of Dobzhansky), and the Orthodox, as well as all the other Jews, produce unethical persons.

The Jews are a genetically heterogeneous people bound together by a spiritual, ethical code that transcends race and nationhood, although, through ignorance, there clearly exist chauvinistic and racist Jews. All branches of Judaism are open to all humanity, although the Jews have almost completely stopped proselytizing for over 1,000 years, due to Christian and Islamic persecution. It is possible to prove, through blood typing and DNA analysis, that every Jew alive today is much more the descendent of converts to Judaism from many nations than exclusively a descendent of the ancient Hebrews. Judaism is based much more on memes, transmittable ideas, than on genes, transmittable biological information.

This state of affairs has come about because the two major religions derived from Judaism, Christianity and Islam, have persecuted the Jews. The persecutions within Islam were usually, although not always, relatively minor, primarily in the form of extra taxes, until this century and the beginning of Zionism. The persecutions within Christendom were major, and included periodic pogroms, expulsions, the Inquisition, and the Nazi Holocaust. Therefore, there was an enormous practical advantage to the Jews, particularly within Christendom, to convert to the dominant local religion. The sole reason for not converting was because of the higher ethical standards of Judaism, which is more akin to Karma Yoga. Therefore, solely the highly ethical Jews remained Jews, and solely the even more ethical Christians converted to Judaism under the threat of death for them and the Rabbis converting them. Unethical Jews, in turn, eventually converted to the dominant local religions for practical personal advantage.

At the same time in order to survive as Jews, the Jews had to be highly intelligent. Stupid Jews, even when highly ethical, were either exterminated or at least put at a reproductive disadvantage by the persecutions of the dominant religions. Therefore, solely persons who were both highly ethical and highly intelligent could survive as Jews. Because C = IE, the Jews, through ethical choice and natural selection, became highly creative over the last 2,000 years and lost their Hebrew and racial identity from a genetic point of view, although it has survived as a cultural trait. Judaism would be far more ethically effective without this trait.

Modern Jews are the ethical and spiritual descendants of Abraham and Moses much more than their genetic descendants. Although there are purely European Jews, such as the Ashkenazim, and purely Negroid Jews in southern Africa (the Lemba Tribe), there is some genetic evidence that all Jews can trace their ancestry to Aaron, the Biblical brother of Moses, because of a genetic marker that Jewish men of the priestly class, the Kochanim, carry on their Y chromosome. However, all their other genes seem to come much more from the many other races that converted to Judaism.

Through their creativity and their ethics the Jews have had throughout history the same kind of growing, creative, catalytic effect as in the 20th century, but to a much lesser degree: first in ancient Egypt, then in Babylonia, then in Persia, then in Greek Alexandria, then in Islam, then in Spain, then in Germany, then in the United States, and the Soviet Union, as well as in other countries to a lesser degree. With the exception of the United States, every civilization that was significantly catalyzed by the Jews eventually became the worst persecutor of the Jews. This speaks well for basic American ethics. As we shall see in the next chapter, the ethical aspects of American Government are fully compatible with the Evolutionary Ethic, the Eight Ethical Principles, the Ten Commandments, and the teachings of Jesus. American Civilization is a spinoff from Christianity, as was first expressed by Jefferson (177-179). And Christianity is a spinoff from Judaism.

The nations and civilizations that were significantly catalyzed by the Jews eventually all began to lose their creativity in bureaucratic, apparently irreversible decline. That is because the Jews become the ethical conscience of the nations which they catalyze. When such nations become unethical, they ruthlessly persecute the Jews. This may happen in the United States, even though it may today seem very unlikely. It is part of a historical pattern that has repeated itself many times in the past, most recently in Spain, Germany, Russia, and Islam. The Jews catalyze other nations through their creativity, but it is easier to increase intelligence than to increase ethics.

High intelligence with low (negative) ethics leads to self-destruction, C = IE. It is more important to maximize ethics than intelligence, if we must choose solely one of these attributes. It is suicidal to increase intelligence without increasing ethics, or to increase the intelligence of persons who have negative ethics. The Jews have often increased intelligence more than ethics in their host cultures, although they normally do both, at least for a while, until they become assimilated.

A final observation is that the Jews have been most creative within Christian cultures. They have been much less creative within Islamic cultures, although until recent times the Islamic cultures were much more tolerant and less repressive of the Jews than the Christian cultures. The reason for this is, as Maimonides first observed, that Christianity is closer to Jewish ethics than Islam, and as a consequence Christianity is more creative than Islam. Furthermore, the teachings of Jesus add a new and very important component to Jewish ethics, the concept of Christian Love. The Jews are catalysts, not ethical masters, of their host cultures.

The Jews have grown in ethics because they were able to survive as a persecuted ethical minority without a government, i.e. bureaucracy, of their own. They were persecuted because of their ethics, and they survived in spite of the governments and societies that persecuted them.

The "intelligence" of a culture, i.e. its total collective capacity to predict and control its environment, is directly proportional to the number of its members and its wealth. One thousand years ago Islam was collectively more intelligent and dynamic than Christianity, but less ethical. Although the intelligence of individual Jews may seem high, the Jews have traditionally had low collective intelligence because of their very low numbers compared to the populations of the empires and nations among which they lived.

THEOREM 5 : The more ethical a culture, the less attractive its values will be to persons who are unethical, although these same people will be attracted to the wealth of an ethically superior culture, since all wealth comes from individual and collective creativity.

That is why Christianity and Islam attracted many more adherents than Judaism, although the Jews were very active proselytizers at the beginning of the Christian era. Note: Islam is the fastest growing major religion on earth.

Corollary 5.1: There are more unethical than ethical adults in almost all the cultures of the world.

Corollary 5.2: All the sects of Judaism, such as Christianity, Islam, Reform, and Conservative Judaism, are imperfect bridges for gentiles more easily to learn and accept Jewish ethics, as well as for the Jews to become assimilated into the dominant cultures.

Corollary 5.3: It is the ethical duty of all Jews to communicate their ethical system to all humanity without having to dilute it. This is very difficult, but clearly not impossible, within the constraints of traditional, Orthodox Judaism. (Until this century almost all the converts to Judaism were converted to Orthodox Judaism.) The main problem is not to confuse ritual with ethics.

Although the Book of Jeremiah as well as other parts of the Bible (e.g. Deut. 13:2) clearly describe scientific method as the means for distinguishing true prophets from false prophets, Judaism is not based on science, but is a mystically revealed religion based on metaphor. If such profound ethical truths as are contained in Judaism and the teachings of Jesus evolved mystically with little or no benefit of science, then mysticism must be accepted and understood as part of the process for maximizing creativity and discovering truth.

The Mystical Paradigm

Mysticism means many different things to many different people. As a young man I considered mysticism a form of pathological self-deception, in which people, in order to be happy, choose to deceive themselves increasingly more, until they learn to predict and control their own thoughts and perceptions (subjective reality) independently of objective reality. I would often ask the mystics who exhorted me to open myself to mysticism and religion, "What can I predict and control in objective reality by accepting your mystical or religious model of the universe that I cannot predict and control without it?" I never received a satisfactory answer to this question. Therefore, I continued to regard mysticism as a pathology which decreased creativity. I was, at the time, an anti-mystical, antireligious logical positivist (116,117).

As I grew older, I noticed that the most creative scientists known to me tended to be highly mystical, e.g. Einstein, Bohr, de Broglie, Pauli, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Jeans, Edington, and more recently David Bohm and Fred Hoyle, among many others (488). The atheistic, non- mystical scientists tended to be much less creative. Therein I had the answer to my question.

When true mysticism is combined with true science, creativity is maximized. However, there is also an anti-scientific, happiness-producing false mysticism which leads to a form of self-deception, and which is commonly called "superstition." Recall that idolatry is a metaphor for superstition, and that "superstition" may also be defined as "other people's religious beliefs."

What enables us to separate truth from falsehood is scientific method, as previously discussed. Therefore, in order to maximize creativity we must combine true mysticism with true science, and be both thoroughly scientific in our mysticism as well as thoroughly mystical in our science. In order to do this we must distill the notion of mysticism down to its essentials. This is what all true mystics, or as Jeremiah would say "true prophets," i.e. Espritals, have as a common belief system. This gives us the following four part paradigm of true mysticism:

1. The universe has an ethical structure to it; it is neither random, nor chaotic, nor absurd.

2. Within the universe there exists at least one intelligence superior to humanity's which is, at least in part, responsible for the ethical structure of the universe, e.g. God and the angels, or more scientifically and for those less inclined to work with religious metaphors, an infinite hierarchy of Moral Societies (115, 116).

3. It is possible for humanity to communicate with this higher form of ethical intelligence; e.g., Moses and the quantum metaphor of a bush that burned without being consumed, or the metaphor of the ethical communications between Lot and the angels sent to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Prayer is the traditional way of communicating with God, but any creative or ethical act, i.e. a mitzvah, is a communication with God. There are many specific, secular ways of communicating with the higher intelligence of ethical order (115).

4. Behaving ethically enhances this communication, by creating an open communications channel with God of ever greater bandwidth and ever less noise or randomness. The more ethical our behavior, the better our communication with God, and the more creative we are. All truth comes from God. God is truth.

An Esprital is someone who has had a true mystical experience, believes in the Mystical Paradigm, and is highly ethical in his or her personal behavior. A true mystical experience comes from the insight that comes from a true communication with God that reveals to us a significant new truth previously unknown to us. This manifests itself in a deep ethical truth, a great work of art, a new invention, or the discovery of a scientific law. Many of these Espritals do not know that they are mystics who believe and practice the Mystical Paradigm..

An Esprital does not need to be proficient in science. When the Esprital is not proficient in science, he or she is usually a creative artist, as in the case of Michelangelo, J. S. Bach, or Mary Cassatt, or an ethical teacher, as in the case of Buddha, Jesus, Saint Francis, Mother Teresa, or the woman who anonymously authored THE COURSE IN MIRACLES. However, when an Esprital is proficient in the science of his or her time, then the Esprital is a full scientific mystic who greatly contributes to human evolution and/or material progress, as did Thales, Hypatia, Hildegard von Bingen, Maimonides, Spinoza, Teilhard de Chardin, and Barbara McClintock (577).

There is a pattern in nature and in the latest findings of quantum mechanics which shows us how to be a maximally creative scientific mystic. This does not guarantee that we will be an Esprital. A Hindu who has contributed greatly to scientific mysticism is Amit Goswami, a Professor of Physics at the University of Oregon (121-123). However, many of the contributors to this field are Jews. Foremost among them is David Bohm (31-35).

The essence of scientific mysticism is that one must be fully scientific in one's mysticism and fully mystical in one's science in order to maximize creativity. To see that this is the case and to achieve this apparently paradoxical state of mind, it is essential to thoroughly understand quantum mechanics as it eventually became understood by David Bohm, who was raised as an Orthodox Jew but became a secular Jew and a Marxist as a young adult, although he felt compelled to eat Kosher food all his life. David Bohm became a complete scientific mystic later in life (302, 598).

Although quantum mechanics is among the most mathematically rigorous of subjects and among the most conceptually abstruse, David Bohm's model is quite simple and easy to understand without using any mathematics or advanced physics, although a good knowledge of mathematics and physics will deepen our understanding (31-35, 302, 598). Bohm's model follows, together with my own speculative extrapolations of this model.

Quantum Mechanics

Quantum mechanics is based on the discovery by Max Planck in 1900 that energy is not infinitely divisible, but that it can be transferred solely in discrete units called "quanta." In other words there is a minimum unit of energy, the quantum. Einstein used this notion to explain the photoelectric effect in 1907, for which he received the Nobel prize. (Einstein's greatest contributions, special and general relativity, were not so honored.)

Although Einstein was a major contributor to quantum mechanics, he refused to accept what came to be the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Namely, (1) that the universe was at its core random and unpredictable (contrary to the first part of the mystical paradigm); and (2) that the structure of the universe was holistic, such that it was impossible to observe anything in the universe without changing what we are observing by the very act of the observation (contrary to other parts of the mystical paradigm).

Einstein responded to the first interpretation by saying "God does not play dice with the universe;" he responded to the second by saying "God is subtle but not malicious." Remember that Einstein was a scientific mystic who believed in the God of Spinoza, a single God of deterministic universal order and ethical coherence.

As Einstein grew older, he was increasingly in conflict with the physics establishment over the interpretation of quantum mechanics. The establishment interpretation was called "the Copenhagen interpretation," because it was formulated by the Dane, Niels Bohr, who was another secular Jew. The physics establishment was particularly disturbed by the fact that Einstein kept bringing God into the argument. Bohr, in exasperation, finally told Einstein to stop telling God how the universe should be created. Both sides of the quantum argument were dominated by Jews and scientific mystics, e.g. Bohr and Einstein.

Einstein kept coming up with incredibly ingenious thought experiments, which he called "Gedanken Experiments," to disprove the Copenhagen interpretation. Max Born, another Nobel Prize winning Jewish physicist who defended the Copenhagen interpretation, said that every time he received one of these thought experiments from Einstein he knew he had many weeks of work ahead of him to be able to convince Einstein that the Copenhagen interpretation was not invalidated by his Gedanken Experiments.

Finally in 1935 Einstein and two of his post doctoral students at Princeton came up with the ultimate thought experiment which Einstein believed proved that the Copenhagen Interpretation was an incomplete description of reality and that there were hidden variables in nature, which were ignored by the Copenhagen interpretation. If we could discover and measure these hidden variables then the universe would be shown to be properly deterministic and we could observe without changing what we are observing. This thought experiment is known as the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paradox, or EPR, after Einstein and his two young Jewish students (88).

What EPR showed is that when two electrons are quantumly correlated, e.g. by originating at a common source, if we send one to the Moon and the other to Mars, then, according to the Copenhagen theory, the act of observing the electron on the moon will instantaneously, not at the speed of light, disturb the electron on Mars. This contradicts the Special Theory of Relativity (87, 136), which says that a signal cannot be sent anywhere in the universe faster than the speed of light. Therefore, according to Einstein, the Copenhagen Interpretation is an incomplete description of reality and there are hidden variables in nature.

Quantum mechanics passes the test of science because it is a practical predictor and controller of reality. Quantum mechanics enabled us to develop lasers, holography, super conductors, super fluids, microelectronic devices, predict the chemical behavior of elements and molecules, and do many other practical things according to the Copenhagen formulations of Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Dirac, and Feynman. Therefore, it must be true. However, EPR was also true. Therefore, there was a paradox. Bohr resolved the paradox by categorically stating that in this case quantum mechanics, not relativity, made the correct prediction. Naturally, Einstein could not accept this, and he and Bohr stopped talking to each other about these matters, and their previously warm friendship cooled, but both were right and both were wrong.

In 1965 an Irish physicist by the name of John Stewart Bell, deeply influenced by David Bohm, showed that if the EPR paradox was true, then there might indeed be hidden variables, but they must be non-local (25, 26). "Locality" implies a universe where things are tied together in such a way that they cannot interact faster than the speed of light. To say that things are non-local is to say that they are outside of our time and space, and can interact, at some level, instantaneously, no matter how large the distances between them. This implies action at a distance, which Einstein called, " a spooky concept."

Finally in 1982 a team of French physicists led by Alain Aspect (7) showed that EPR and Bell were both right. Therefore, Bohr was right, but Einstein was also right about hidden variables, but they are non-local (25, 26). Einstein believed all variables are local. David Bohm was thus able to show that there is infinite true information in a Universe outside of our time and space (32, 33, 35).

Early in his career, David Bohm had shown that the EPR paradox applied to other quantum objects, such as photons and neutrons, and not solely to electrons (31). Therefore, the EPR paradox is now referred to as the EPRB paradox. It was so referred to by Bell and the Aspect team. After being exiled from the United States because of his extremely ethical, courageous, but misguided, stances against the McCarthy era witch hunts, Bohm worked in Brazil, Israel, and England, where he made many discoveries in physics, such as the famous Aharanov-Bohm effect discovered while working in Israel (132).

In 1951, under the close, personal influence of Einstein, David Bohm began developing a new hidden-variables model of quantum mechanics, while he was still an instructor at Princeton. He continued this development for the rest of his life; it led to him to become a very profound mystic as well as a highly creative physicist. This model was validated by the Aspect experiments; it is known as the holographic or implicate order model of the universe (32-34). I accept it as true, although a large majority of contemporary physicists are leery of it.

The Copenhagen model, further removed from mysticism, is much more comfortable. However, within the framework of the Copenhagen interpretation, two very great Jewish scientists, mathematical genius John von Neumann and Nobel Prize winning physicist Eugene Wigner, proposed as early as the 1930's that quantum phenomena were due to the direct interaction of the human mind with material reality (487). They recognized that human consciousness and quantum reality were inextricably interconnected (487).

The holographic model, as I interpret it (115), says that there is an infinite, non-local holographic universe that, in a sense, contains our local finite universe, as well as an infinity of other universes. This infinite universe is a universe of pure, true information. Quantum phenomena in our universe are an expression of the implicate order of the holographic universe manifesting itself in the explicate order of our local universe. God is truth.

The holographic universe, in my interpretation, contains all of its information at each point, as does a regular hologram. Therefore, our local universe contains all the information of the holographic universe at each local point. The hidden variables are non-local quanta of information which pass through the quantum field from the implicate order of the holographic universe to the explicate order of our local universe. Matter in our local universe is transformed by this information in direct proportion to its degree of evolution. These concepts (115-117) lead to my generalized model of evolution.

Quantum Evolution

Evolution occurs through a growing hierarchy of ever more complex and intelligent species for incorporating ever more information from the implicate order into their genetic and/or neural structures, thereby transforming themselves into still more intelligent species within the explicate order of our local universe.

An electron represents a very low level of material evolution, and it essentially responds randomly, but coherently, as it receives information from the implicate order. A cell is more intelligent and less random in its responses to quantum information than any form of nonliving matter; as a consequence it evolves faster than matter. A metazoan is still less random in its response to quantum information and it evolves even faster than the cell. This process continues in harmony with the evolution of the nervous system from simple metazoa to fish, fish to reptile, reptile to mammal, and the collective intelligence of the biosphere, until humanity begins to respond ethically to the information from the implicate order, thereby catalyzing its own evolution by becoming ever more creative.

I point out in Creative Transformation (115) that this quantum hierarchy of evolution proceeds in systems of complementary pairs and hierarchies of four complementary pairs. For example, the first jump in atomic evolution occurs in a hierarchy of four complementary pairs of electrons and protons that constitute four hydrogen atoms, which when fused give us a helium atom. Protons and electrons are complementary in their charges, masses, and atomic cross sections. Therefore, an electron and a proton form a complementary pair, which we call a hydrogen atom. Hydrogen atoms evolve into all the other atoms through fusion in the stars and other physical processes.

The fusion of helium atoms produces a carbon atom, which is the most chemically generalized atom in being equally an electron donor and an electron receiver. Furthermore, a carbon atom is a system of four complementary pairs, in having four active protons and four active electrons which enables it, with oxygen, phosphorous, hydrogen, and other abundant light elements, to begin to form all the organic compounds which lead to chemical evolution and the beginning of life.

Furthermore, life begins when there is a new chemical hierarchy of four complementary pairs of nucleotides: cytosine, guanine, thymine, and adenine. These in turn form a new complementary pair in the DNA molecule, which in turn forms new systems of complementary pairs with protein, which produces the phenomenon we call life from non-living matter. Varela and Maturana have called this process by which protein and DNA interact within the cell to produce the epiphenomenon of life, Autopoiesis. I have generalized this process in Creative Transformation (115) to refer to a creative exchange of complementary information in a system of four complementary pairs.

This process of generalized autopoiesis leads to metazoa and other multicellular life forms, where there is autopoiesis among cells. Then there is autopoiesis among neurons which leads to the brain in the lower animals. This process continues to the human brain, which is a system of four complementary pairs of brains. Within the human brain there is the brain of a fish; then the brain of a reptile, the R complex; then the brain of a primitive mammal, the limbic system, which we share with all mammals; and finally our highest brain, the neocortex, which we share with the higher mammals. Within the neocortex we have those characteristics of mind that make us ethical beings and uniquely human.

As I have indicated in Creative Transformation (115), the next stage in the evolution is a new higher form of autopoiesis between four complementary pairs of human brains. Men and women can be shown to be far more complementary in their neural structures than in the rest of their bodies (527-555). Therefore the way to maximize human creativity is a new form of autopoietic organization among four complementary pairs of men and women, i.e. four men and four women who are ethically committed to maximizing each other's creativity. I call these basic new forms of human organization "Octets". The concepts of Octets and super-metazoan autopoiesis will be discussed later in the book.

The same process which produces benign mutations, through new hierarchies of autopoiesis, which increase the genetically determined intelligence of ever more new species, produces, in ethical beings, creative ideas which increase the collective, extra-genetically determined intelligence of the species. Reality is based on true information, not on energy or matter. The emotional, personal God of the Bible is a metaphor for the creative, impersonal universe of infinite truth beyond our time and space; therefore, as the Bible says, "God is a spirit" (Gen. 1:2).

In accordance with the mystical paradigm, and my model of the nature of the holographic universe, the more ethically we behave, the more quantum information flows into our consciousness from the implicate order and the more creative we become. However, there is a quantum quarantine in the universe (115) such that unethical persons are closed to this higher quantum information; they cannot create no matter how intelligent they are, so long as they remain unethical. The quantum quarantine also inhibits the ability of ethically immature species, such as humanity, to travel between the stars (115).

Humans, and other ethically immature species, using classical technology based on Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, cannot even begin to imagine how it is possible to travel between the stars in a lifetime at any reasonable cost and using a feasible amount of energy. However, there is a quantum type of technology, suggested by the physics of David Bohm, which can be used to engage in virtual travel between the stars, by using quantum coherence between moral beings in different star systems to ethically transfer true information between the stars (115).

True information is the basis of all existence and the evolution of matter, life, and mind. Quantum technology, still to be developed, may enable us to transfer information instantaneously, as in the EPRB paradox, between the stars, but not to move physical objects between the stars. If humanity can ever develop this quantum technology it will have become a Moral Society. The major purpose of an ethical government is to help humanity evolve from an Ethical State into a Moral Society. These concepts are discussed in my previous book (115).

Because C = IE, an ethical person, no matter how low his or her intelligence, will be creative, because of positive ethics. However, an unethical person, no matter how great his or her intelligence, can never be creative, because his or her ethics are negative; such persons will in fact be destructive in direct proportion to their intelligence. When ethics are negative, creativity is negative. Negative creativity is destructiveness. However, it is unethical to be certain about who is ethical or unethical (EP 6.).

There exist techniques, given in my previous book, for stimulating the flow of quantum information into our consciousness (115). The most powerful of these techniques is simply to behave as ethically as possible in every situation we encounter, without expectation of external reward and without fear of punishment. This is in harmony with the Talmud, as well as the teachings of Jesus, which say we should expect no reward from doing a mitzvah (an ethical act) other than the opportunity to do more mitzvahs. Although there may be external rewards to doing a mitzvah, we should be satisfied with the knowledge that the more mitzvahs we do, the more mitzvahs we can do. Hindu scriptures say the same.

In harmony with Judaism, Jesus, Spinoza, and quantum mechanics, God, the spirit, may be seen as the infinite, quantum process, outside of our time and space, by which the universe grows forever in creativity. Each evolving creature chooses to become closer to God, by growing in intelligence, ethics, and creativity in ever greater quantum leaps of four complementary pairs, which for humans are Octets.

The simple choice to randomly innovate true behavior, which any living creature, even a bacterium, can choose to do, catalyzes the transfer of true quantum information from the implicate order to the explicate order of the genes, thereby producing a benign mutation (115). Humans now do this by behaving ethically and creating new extra-genetic information which they teach to other ethical beings.

Evolution by purely random mutations can be shown to be mathematically impossible, using conventional probability theory (155). To produce creative results from apparently purely random processes requires an additional source of information, the implicate order. Perhaps, solely the implicate order may make the objectively true evolution of the biosphere possible, through punctuated equilibrium (115).

God as an infinite, abstract, spiritual process cannot be represented by visual imagery. Therefore, as per the Bible, we must reject all forms of superstition for which idolatry is a metaphor. God may be seen as the abstract infinite process that engenders both evolution and personal creativity throughout the Universe. We worship the one true God by learning, teaching, and creating new truth to the maximum limits of our capability (115).

When we receive information from the implicate order, so that we may perform a creative act, we are communicating with God. When we have only a little scientific information, the quantum information is communicated mainly metaphorically. As we grow in ethics, intelligence, and scientific information, this communication is ever less metaphorical. A major prophet is someone who creatively derandomizes the ethical information from the implicate order and communicates it to humanity, as did Moses with the Bible and as did Isaiah, Elijah, Jeremiah, Jesus, and the other major prophets. Minor prophets do minor creativity. But as Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets. By their fruits you shall know them."

The highest form of creativity is the communication of divine ethics. That is why the Bible is a repository of true information from the implicate order, which in both metaphorical and non-metaphorical ways tells a people how to become ever more ethical, and as a consequence ever more creative. That is why the Jews, who are not a race or even a nation, have continued to grow in creativity, while many powerful nations who tried to dominate and exterminate the Jews, have collapsed and ceased to be creative or even to exist.

JEWISH GOVERNMENT

The initial Jewish Government, as described in the Bible, was a combination of elected kings, true prophets, and priests. No one could become or remain king without approval of the prophets and priests. This gave effective feedback to the Government and kept it ethical, since the prophets and priests had moral authority but no temporal power. It was their form of checks and balances. As the priests acquired temporal power, and the prophets were no longer true, the system became corrupt, as was first shown by Spinoza (412). These corruptions were the equivalent of "campaign contributions".

In his THEOLOGICAL-POLITICAL TREATISE, (412) Spinoza shows why this form of Government was ethical originally, why it became corrupt, and why it is no longer possible. Instead, we have the example of modern Jewish Government in the State of Israel.

Changes in Jewish ethics may be produced by the state of Israel, which provides Jews with a national instead of an ethical identity. Over the last two thousand years the Jews were able to evolve ethically, in part, because they had no government of their own and consequently no bureaucracy, although they had the moral authority and wisdom of the Rabbis. Israel and the assimilation of non-Orthodox Jews, not the Holocaust, are the major factors influencing Jewish ethics in the future.

Nation states, even when governed by a majority of Jews, tend to put short-term political gains ahead of long-term ethical gains. Not all Jews are ethical, since we do not inherit all of our ethics solely from our mother. (Most forms of Judaism defines a "Jew" as a convert or as someone who has a Jewish mother.) As with other nation states without ethical government, a Jewish state will become ever more dominated by unethical politicians, while its most creative citizens constantly lose power. My Israeli friends all insist that the most corrupt political parties in Israel are the religious political parties. Israel is already highly bureaucratic.

Israel is bureaucratic, socialistic, and inherently unethical because it has a majority-rule form of democratic government. Recall that Majority Rule is inherently unethical and cannot produce, or even maintain, an ethical government, because it is at best a tyranny of the majority. At worst it is a tyranny of a minority that manipulates the majority through comforting, but self-serving, lies that the majority delights in hearing. Such is the case in both the United States and Israel. All forms of tyranny are unethical, including the so-called "benevolent tyrannies."

Nations which have been catalyzed by the Jews, when they reject the ethics of the Bible, persecute the Jews and fall into irreversible bureaucratic entropy. In relatively recent times this happened to Spain, Germany, and the Soviet Union. It may happen in the United States. However, an ethical person's loyalty is first to the Evolutionary Ethic, which is to say to God, not to an ethically corrupt nation state or empire, much less to an individual tyrant.

Judaism transcends nationhood. That is why the Jews continued to grow in creativity, without a nation state or bureaucracy of their own, while many mighty empires that persecuted them have crumbled first to bureaucracy, and then to uncreative nothingness. But the Jews could not create an ethical government through majority rule.

The development of an ethical alternative to all forms of tyranny is the goal of this book. But this takes more than Jewish ethics. It takes a combination of true Jewish ethics and true Christian Ethics, without Christian or Orthodox superstition, plus Evolutionary Ethics and science.

Evil will always destroy itself, but it can in the interim destroy much that is good. Jesus taught that we should suffer evil, but the Old Testament is uncompromising and ruthless about dealing with evil. It is always unethical to tolerate evil (5th EP).

Christianity is much more tolerant of evil than Judaism, because Jesus taught, correctly, that evil will always destroy itself. However, this does not mean that we should tolerate evil. How to deal with evil is a basic problem for ethical government. Although all people may be born ethical, many become unethical through the actions of unethical government, which rewards evil and punishes ethics.

The future of Judaeo-Christian Ethics is to become completely integrated with the Evolutionary Ethic and science, and thereby clearly communicate its ethical message to all humanity. This message is best communicated through ethical and creative example by Jews and Christians, while encouraging converts and becoming more friendly to them. A Jew, as well as a Christian, should be redefined to be a person dedicated to living an ethical life without expectation of external reward or fear of punishment. All unethical "Jews" and unethical "Christians" are apostates. Thus, the world will either become ethical or destroy itself.