Lurking UOA Pitfalls

A few months back I wrote a post concerning what I believe encapsulates the prime general virtue of Geocentric Design Code. As such, utilitarianism of access (UOA)  qualifies a social philosophy that pertains to effecting the most good for the most people.

Because authentic good originates only from God – and not from the vagaries of human beings – utilitarianism here is specified further by access which pertains to very basic conditions necessary for souls to enter Heaven or the Kingdom of God. Those conditions are 1) the existence of living souls, 2) freely returning the love by which the Moral Being created those souls, and 3) being informed of the choices within such freedom. So UOA pertains to affording the most access for the most people – while in no way claiming that the access will be utilized as hoped for.

It is in the specifications of the UOA conditions where the pitfalls lie, or as the saying goes – “the devil is in the details”. This is especially true of UOA because it, as well as the code hoping to realize such, is an outside/in approach. Generally speaking, the pitfall for each and all of UOA’s goals lie in the human tendency of replacing that which is supposed to be served with the narrower goals themselves, disregarding their ultimate purpose. From the beginning of human history to the present time, replacements have appeared in the differing guises of rituals, technology, etc.

With replacement, the common attitude is “we don’t need Him anymore because . . .” Often replacement escalates to “brave” competition that ironically uses “principles” taken from godly behaviors while gutting the Source of such, with the result of many being fooled by the hollow high grounds attained.

In the code’s realm of physical design, its specific UOA pitfalls pertain to: environmental sustainability (to support more living souls); greater personal independence and less materialism (for the freedom requirement); and geometric framing and orientation (to inform that freedom).

The pitfall of the latter, Judeo-Christian friendly symbolism notwithstanding, are found in the potential for something akin to idol worship. As to whether such occurs can be impossible for mere humans to determine, let it be known for the record that when the architect of a totally geometric endeavor hears the new age phrase “sacred geometry”, he believes there is no such thing.

Regarding how the code addresses freedom with the personal independence and anti-materialism it is conducive to, the former can work against that which it serves if it becomes so anti-social (and thus fruitless) as to totally deny the interdependence necessary for people to work out their differences. On the other hand, by taking the latter to extremes, spiritual growth can degenerate into a sort of sublime selfishness, or it can prematurely preclude what is necessary to house the spirit! Amid the fights on where to draw the lines, what should be kept in perspective is that the freedom of interpretation, and to act on it in however seemingly small a way, is there regardless.

Lastly, there is the area of environmental sustainability which UOA holds necessary to support the emergence of more souls farther into future. Perhaps the greatest specific crimes in the over elevation of this otherwise noble goal – aside from the general pitfall of worship of creation over Creator – are preservation of species that have come and gone without our input for eons while seeking to reduce our own population such that the majority of environmentalists assent to, if not encourage, vast swaths of the population selling their souls in an increasingly shame-free “progressive” society of perverse (but most importantly non-reproductive) sexual lifestyles.

Although the code, by treating the 3 UOA objectives in an wholistic manner, mitigates the pitfalls, it is a limited outside-in endeavor nevertheless. With or without it, (relatively) recently instilled moral conscience via The Word into the heart of man is still the realm where what really counts to Him (and us) ultimately transpires. Against the 4 plus billion years of survival-of-the-fittest evolutionary momentum preceding this transformation of home sapiens to humankind, there is but ONE WAY to prevail against the rebellions fired by such – as stated boldly in the book of John (chapter 14) and given perspective in the 1st epistle of Peter (chapter 1).

So if the code, like other things claiming virtue, is really 6 of one, half a dozen in theory and how it is applied with a high potential for abuse, why proceed at all with it? My answer uses a stadium analogy, where a lot of people can be packed together by reason of an orderly design. Some are on one side, others on the opposing side. One side wins, the other loses. I humbly posit that half and half is a better outcome than perhaps the one out of a hundred or thousand gained in chaos.

This entry was posted in Code Application, Contemporary Relevance, My Journey, Philosophic Bases and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s