Intent and Justice

Without intent, there is no action, therefore, a lack of accountability. That, to me, is passivity or indifference, which neither seeks to maintain nor destroy productive equilibrium or harm. Indifference, though, especially in light of a society that has attempted to change nature in order to fit its selfish wants, rather than adapting itself to what nature provides and natural law, still obligates us to culpability. For example, if I see a group of men murdering a creature, my indifference and doing nothing puts me in a moral position of being as culpable as they are. Here's where we need the carpenter's level of indisputable truth. In our culture we have given value to money. Money now equals life. Literally all of our basic necessities are designated a cost of this fabricated value system. Further, in order to protect those who may have more than others, we have created laws that apply to this situation. Because our species places value upon fabricated ideas, and because we cater to our fears of mortality, we create technologies and laws that bolster our security, laws that even strictly oppose natural law. Legal systems are subjective. In our country, stealing gets you a fine, community service, or jail time depending upon severity, and we utilize an adversarial system. In another country, one may have his hands amputated as a consequence of stealing. In the natural world, stealing implies possession, but possession is only based upon the fundamental truth of survival. A shelter, a carcass, a child--possessions of necessity and even altruistm, but not of fabricated or materialistic value. If another creature takes one of those things, it is a matter of survival that weeds the sicker and the weaker and maintains equilibrium. A big difference is that the INTENT is to survive. There is no maliciousness behind it. In our culture, revenge and malicious intent are rules. In fact, our criminal subculture exists BECAUSE of our culture's values and eugenic process. Looking at tribal, aboriginal cultures, this concept of possession and fabricated values was quite tame to nearly non-existent. In other words, I may possess a pair of really nice mocassins, but if you needed to take them, then the tribe would deal with the situation in a hollistic circular manner, in that everyone would be involved, and even family members would share culpability. The tribe would seek to mitigate the core of the problem, not simply punish one for the act. Further, if you need them, then I will give them to you; or I will help you make some. Stealing was quite uncommon in those societies. Anyway, legal systems and the like are for another thread, I think. In actions of defense, my intent must be to preserve the predetermined cycles of nature or natural laws. It's not something I apply "at the time," so to speak because living this way means always having the presence of that mind. In other words, I cannot claim to be better than that which made me, and it is part of my existence to offer thanks all day everyday in my life to all of nature because the energy and intent I put out to the universe is a reflection (both ways), and I have an obligation to represent nature as a point of unconditional love all the time. Therefore, if I am attacked with force, it must resolve to the purest result that I can apply. If it means death, then that is the outcome. We tend to have a significant moral issue with death, because we are taught for the most part to fear it and do whatever it takes to avoid it. Our natural survival instinct has been supplemented and layered with fears and preventions--we even fight aging with all sorts of artificial methods. I won't go on. What it boils down to is taking it to nature. You're correct, I believe, in saying that the legal systems wouldn't agree. Nature is to be conquered and treated as a commodity in most modern culture. If we take our actions to nature, which is our gift, which sustains us, then we see if the outcome will be productive and contribute to the perpetuation of natural cycles, or whether our actions are detrimental, which means they should be abandoned. This is where free will comes into play. And our free will causes us great confusion when trying to determine what is moral and what is not because life has become subjective and we have lost our ties to the reality of natural laws. If I use free will and decide that I want to catch a fish for supper instead of eating berries, then I must choose a place where fish live in order to increase my odds of catching one. I might use a very long stick to reach way out over the water, as well as a thin line of cordage, which increase my odds. I may choose to use a hook made of bone, and I may continue to use my free will to choose a bait of worm rather than fly to catch a particular fish. All of these things I do are designed to increase my odds and create a desired outcome based upon my free will. However, none of the things I use are synthetic. None of the things I use are detrmental in their existence to the predetermined cycles of nature. In fact, much of my outcome is going to be determined by my skills. However, the free will options I apply are restricted in nature. At some point, I must simply wait. I will either catch a fish, or I will not. I believe that there is enough room in this universe for all of the popular elements: skill, intent, prayer, luck, fate . . . why not? So intent is actually quite relative. I even ask the fish for help, and I honor them with respect and by using every part of the sacrifice they provide for me. But, still, my intent to catch a fish is driven by my primal need to eat, which means survival on a basic level. In the cycles of natural law, this is just, because I am not causing imbalance or harm to nature. I am part of the process. Further, in doing this thing, it is important that I only take what is needed and help to maintain a pristine habitat so that I give something back. I am a Caretaker, and I fulfill my natural role. If I am attacked, then I respond with the intent of finding resolution. But I am a nuetral center only seeking an equilibrium. Nature is also a nuetral center seeking equilibrium, there is no ill-intent, only the intention that all life perpetuates. If creatures choose to live in a contradictory way to natural law, then the consquence is going to ultimately be imbalance and death. It is not malicious intent on the part of nature, it just simply is the outcome that is most productive for the overall balance of natural law. I must mirror this. If the attack means that one of us dies, then that is how it shall be. But it must resolve itself, so my actions must be honed, thoughtless--oddly enough, and centered, and they must also reflect my spirit, which should happen naturally as a result of training with my spirit in this place of indisputable truth.