A minimum of order

The purpose of life^[1] of the individual in uncertainty is to live life to the limits of your potential by the dictates of your conscience however that conscience may have been shaped. 

Implicit in this is that society and leading citizens will be tolerant and flexible enough to allow a wide range of "consciences" to co-exist - as wide a range of belief and value systems as is possible without subverting the overriding social objective of the indefinite survival of the species^[2]. 

To achieve this society as a whole, and any agencies or institutions that act in its name, should avoid taking sides on moral issues wherever possible.  Society should take a moral position only where it has to - where it is clear that it must.  The laws and institutions of society as a whole need to be minimalist, and clinically pragmatic. 

Within such a minimalist order there would be nothing to stop groups forming that choose to restrict the choice-sets^[3] of their members, provided of course that they were voluntary associations.  A loose and broad moral code can accommodate restrictive and severe moral codes within its boundaries as long as the groups that subscribe to them are not intent on imposing their particular truths on others - it is not unusual for those who have found truth to insist on sharing it. 

A tolerant secular society will not only allow religious and ideological groups of varying creeds to practice their faiths and beliefs - it will actively protect their rights to do so. 

A society that is not founded on an absolute truth should aim to support as many truths as possible.  That does not necessarily constitute a denial of absolute truth, rather, it is an acknowledgment of the ignorance of such truth.  Any one of the varied truths held and practised in a tolerant secular society might very well be that one true truth, if indeed there is one.

It is undeniable that absolutist or restrictive belief systems, including the free market ideology^[4], will be regularly challenged, and their adherents "tempted", in fluid secular societies.  But let them think of it as character building and faith strengthening rather than as a reason to capture the State and deny others their chosen though "wayward" paths.  It is certainly not the State's function, and neither should society organise itself to make it easier to keep their faith. 

If an order must be imposed on society, then it ought to be a minimum of order, because any order, no matter how broadly based, constrains choice and diversity^[5] - order reduces options of truth, and limits freedom of individual action. 

As individuals living within such a minimum of order we have the right to exercise in private^[6] whatever faith or belief system we hold to be true.  We also have the responsibility to promote and safeguard the right of others to the same, particularly when their faith or belief system is different from our own.

Equally, that minimum of laws which is applied needs to be resolutely and effectively enforced.  This is an important differentiator between Truth in Uncertainty and the moral relativism and ever-yielding tolerance of the contemporary West.

Where there are no effectively enforced limits, there is no integrity, there is no substance and no future.  A civilisation that does not have a backbone^[7], that does not draw a line and hold it, is a civilisation that is in decline and that will be overrun. 

Truth in Uncertainty is liberal and tolerant to a dynamic boundary.  Beyond that boundary it is unyielding^[8].

The purpose of life of the individual in uncertainty implies a vision of society that is pluralist, liberal, tolerant, and secular, with a minimum of constraints on individual freedoms. 

This vision for society appears not to be very different from that proclaimed by the ideologues of freedom - the "New Right" "neo-conservatives" and libertarians.

The vision would seem to imply a minimalist and minimal State; a minimum of government intervention in the lives of citizens and markets; and a minimum of civil activism by citizens.  That is certainly the neo-conservative message.  But is it also our message? 

Absolutely not. 

The world view contained in Truth in Uncertainty is quite different from the neo-conservative world view, but neither is it a Marxist nor a humanist view:

• The Divine^[9] and Faith^[10] are subtly central;

• The individual is sovereign^[11];

• Though we all have equal rights, we are not equal^[12] and do not have equal responsibilities;

• The free market is an untruth^[13], but modulated markets are important;

• Conflict and suffering^[14] are an unavoidable and necessary part of the human condition;

• Power, wealth, and choice concentrate^[15] by default in the hands of a self-preserving elite; and,

• Without proactive and constant intervention by sovereign global citizens acting directly^[16] or through governments and other agencies, even the medium term civilised survival^[17] of humanity is doubtful^[18].

The minimalist State of the neo-conservative is a lackey of the privileged^[19] and has effectively cancelled itself out. 

Our social garden^[20] needs constant gardening to thrive to the end of time.  We, the mindful and empathic citizens of the world, are the gardeners.