What should be stated here at the outset is that if certain human actions are to be viewed as 'good' (right), and others as 'bad' (wrong), then a basis for ethical evaluation is needed. I have previously placed the identification and evaluation of ethical potentials with nature where 'right' preserves our ecological foundations, and 'wrong' does not (Leopold 1949:224-225). A further development of this idea is: "If what you have done is unjust, you have not succeeded" (Carlyle 2000), which adds a useful definition of what is and is not success in terms of human motivation, goal setting and derivative activities. The logical expansion of these central ethical references of 'right' and 'just-ness', and appeals to the heart of all cosmic and human dynamics, is that they describe love, and that this loving theme should serve as the basis for respect for fellow man, and respect for the environment. In other words, respect for the nature of nature, the status quo that came before us. However, if we fail to intellectually register what is the nature of nature (at the very least what nature generally prescribes), then we will have yet again allowed human thought to wallow in an ethical vacuum (leaving exposed a whole universe of relativity) without having a good (logical at worst, and consistently 'right', ecological and humane at best) understanding of the essential prerequisites for all human activities.

I firmly believe that the evidence, once established by this difficult discourse, will support my contention that the cosmos internally resonates and, in so doing, establishes a law of compliance with natural processes that we are beholden to.

Further, the special character of the infinitely sophisticated human mind - a disposition encapsulating a native metaphysical need to love and be loved (obvious in terms of common knowledge and anecdotal evidence; by psychological theory especially describing children's' need for love; but also evidenced by virtue of the damage generated to the human body by a cortex and diencephalon reacting to a lack of love, or fear) - should serve as a guide for all motivation. Overt human actions and responses seem to only partially (and often only temporarily) draw from this template in the positive (given how strong is the human predisposition for selfishness and shallow infatuation), while demonstrating larger and more persistent capacities of a contrary deficit on all levels. That we largely fail to sense this positive requirement in its totality speaks of unconsciousness. Therefore this is a generalization of the great fundamental flaw of the creative human mind, as noted in the Propositional Statement.

As such, my continuance with the subject of ethics, especially considering the small matter (!) of Fascism in the next Chapter, confirms that it will not be an ethical system that asks for an absolute criterion for ethics to be fashioned via confusing humanist objections and recommendations as to what degree morality should be authoritative (Columbia University Press 2002b). I am trying hard to avoid this slippery approach, as much as is possible, because my aim is the development of a basis for ethical evaluation that goes well beyond utilitarianism and even a broader altruism that focuses through the human factor. This might appear a difficult concept for, although I certainly include ethics as they apply to people, I am not basing the ethics solely within a strictly human element found to be unreliable on so many counts.

This chapter represents the continuing development of a broadly spaced, but grounded appreciation of human mind and ethics from a more historically situated philosophical perspective, ultimately to be blended with phenomenological and some religious interpretations that serve to tie my ideas together.