Quantum thinking assumes multiple inputs and multiple outcomes from a single process, as well as multiple processes for any single question.
Quantum moral reasoning recognizes humans aren’t really in control of much. People prefer to think they can remain in control; the whole issue of the Fall is presuming reality is within range of the human intellect. It is not. Thus, we use some other faculty to arrive at decisions and train our minds to surrender control to that other faculty. The mind can only organize the response. The human intellect is wholly incompetent to play the executive role.
So it’s altogether a common human tendency, as fallen creatures, to play truth police. If our mind is convinced it understands the whole picture, it will not make allowances for other outcomes than what logic dictates. We note there is no such thing as pure logic, only the imaginary belief in it. We should expect people to assume their internal logical process is more or less infallible, though some will permit that they don’t know all the facts. Since most people can’t even rise to that pitiful level, we face a plethora of senseless noise that has no bearing on what we really ought to do regarding this or that.
There comes a point when you simply can’t help someone. Sheeple deserve our best, but only so much of the best as they’ll accept. We can try, but they will for the most part whine loudly that we are being mean and arrogant. They don’t notice we are holding the door open for them to climb up to our level, but that we cannot descend to theirs. What they don’t understand must be called “evil.” Yes, if you are reading this and comprehend any part of it, you are evil as I. It’s not pleasant, but it behooves us to let it ride, since we know better than to play their game of control.
A small example: A blog is a virtual private place with a public facing element. Mine is my office, my virtual vestibule through which the world can enter my world. I control a certain amount of it because it is within my domain. My ground rules apply. Yet it does stand on the public right of way, so to speak, and I have a certain accountability in the sense I can’t expect folks to simply ignore my blather. The whole point is letting folks see what I think of certain things. Without a subscription wall, I can’t limit who sees it. I choose to leave it open; I have thus chosen to let others react in one way or another.
But the ensuing conversation, such as it may be, remains on my turf. I do not surrender control to the visitor. I do not hand them the remote so that they can direct how the conversation turns out. I am not required to accept their assertions nor their logic. They don’t have to accept mine, but they don’t get to say what’s posted electronically on my comment blocks. They have to interact with me on my own terms. I would expect nothing less when I visit other blogs. That recognition of dominion on the small scale means I tend to moderate my own words with a different tone, depending on whether I am supplicant or lord.
Sheeple don’t get that. They have an inflated sense of entitlement about their own “free speech” against mine. Sorry, but I’m not handing you the remote control. This is my domain. You’ll have to figure out best you can what I’m saying and react as best you can. Otherwise, it’s not a conversation but a shouting match. I’ll always win here, and you will always win on your blog. That’s the nature of the beast we call “blogging.” I’ll surely make mistakes, but that’s the give and take we all have. On a forum where neither of us owns the turf, it relies on other factors to win whatever it is people want to argue about. Again, we should probably self-moderate our virtual presence to match the context. Sheeple tend to carry the same attitude, flexing more with their personal sense of control instead of thinking about the effectiveness of communication. They demand certain outcomes at all costs, never understanding the whole issue is offering inputs to the decision-making process of both oneself and others.
The moral question of what we ought to do in each encounter is seldom a matter of intellectual logic, but of the moral logic that requires quantum thinking.
