Christoicism - The Sacred Sovereign Subjective

Prev: Here 

What does it mean to be human?  Philosophers and Spiritual authorities have asked that question as long as we have had language, but one above all stands out to me.  Descarte and "I Think Therefore I am" shows that we are, and we think and we know therefore that we are.  It is among the most elegant and self evident products of philosophy.   But as near as I can tell; every other Philosophy or "ism" sets that aside and then explores the ideas that they espouse about human activity and compare and contrast that philosophy.

But I think this is a mistake.

Before we step from the basic of individual ethics and see how these principals are applied to a larger scale, I think its important to take a step back and explore what this concept means.

Per Meriam Webster

Sacred: 

as in holy

not to be violated, criticized, or tampered with 

 

Sovereign

main

coming before all others in importance 

 

Subjective

as in personal

of, relating to, or belonging to a single person 

 

So the fusion definition could be said to be....

 

Sacred Sovereign Subjective (adj.) Pertaining to the inherent spiritual authority and autonomy of an individual to define, experience, and determine personal meaning, truth, and reverence according to their own inner experience, without external mandate or institutional prescription. 

 

If everyone is valuable at the root level simply by being alive; and even conservatism concedes this point...then we have to accept what this really means.  This is the root of why Apotelic Kindness is the core principal of Christoicism.   If the definition of being human is being aware of ourselves and experiencing the world at large; then we are all cosoveign and all cosacred and our subjective perspective at root level is our own autonomous right to experience and we should all work together to enable as many of us to be able to make choices as freely as possible.

That's it.  That's the root source of our morality or any moral system; you can argue about who what when or how or why; but if you challenge the root value of all human life, there is no way you can claim anything approaching objective morality.   This is why engaged philosophy matters.  This is why using Apotelic Kindness to measure the effectiveness of a philosophy is so important, but it posts to a larger principal; a simple litmus test to side step conservative chicanery.  

Any philosophy that DOESNT tie a root to the concept of the Sacred Sovereign Subjective; any religion or spiritual movement or code of law or code of human behavior that does not assign dignity value and honor simply to a human life for experiencing itself is an absolute an immediate failure.  This is the foundation of morality itself; it is the 101.  And before going off and exploring more details on how to do things, much less how to measure that success as objectively as possible (remember; self deception is the death of self) it is important to understand the root beneath it all.

An engaged philosophy must be engaged.  An applied philosophy without ideological roots becomes a pragmatic mercinary focus on tactics without a moral strategy.  An ideological philosophy has strategy without moral tactics ensuring that you destroy the village in order to save it.     

Edmond Dantès begins as a victim of men who treat his life as a disposable tool for their own advancement. In his pursuit of revenge, he nearly destroys himself by adopting that same cold logic, viewing his enemies as targets rather than living beings. Only when his schemes claim an innocent child does he realize that no cause justifies violating the inherent value of another person.