Merit Stories
The concept of "deserving" is purely a human construct
If ultimate reality is not based in space-time but in something else, then justice is the way in which that “something else” acts outside of mechanical causality—that is, through “extra causes” or the idea of a final purpose.
(If, on the other hand, ultimate reality were based in space-time, the idea of justice would not exist.)
Merit is the way justice has an impact on us.
Gravity is a principle. Things falling on us is the way it impacts us.
In the same way, justice is a general principle and merit is the way it impacts us.
Judgment about the idea of merit is based on the hypothetical fact that we understand justice, which presumes knowledge of the ultimate nature of reality.
Since we cannot know the ultimate nature of reality, any judgment about merit is pointless.
An airplane does not fly because it deserves to fly, but because it is built so that it can fly, and the same applies to us.
The concept of deserving doesn’t make sense. Things either happen or do not happen. If a plane is well built it will fly. If it is poorly built it will not.
If it has the right design it will fly. With the wrong design it will not fly.
It’s the same for us: If we do a certain action, we will get a certain result. If we do another action we will get another result.
There is always a perfect match between what happens and what someone “deserved.” To believe otherwise would mean confusing our simplified map of reality with reality itself, composed of an infinite number of variables.
If we think there is a disconnect between what happens and what our simplified map of Reality tells us “should” happen, it’s because our map is wrong and not because Reality is wrong. Reality is never wrong. It’s always the map that is wrong.
If a thief enters your house and uses a saw to cut the safe in two and steal its contents, do they deserve what they stole? It depends on the perspective we take. From the perspective of the laws of physics, the answer would be yes: if they were able to use the right saw, successfully cut through it, and thus remove the contents of the safe without violating the laws of physics, then they “deserve” to keep what they took.
Justice can be understood in two ways: “universal” justice or “sociological” justice. Merit is therefore twofold as well, because, as we have said, merit is the manifestation of justice. In its sociological sense, justice is tied to agreements between individuals or to the “social contract.” In this case, I “deserve” what we agreed upon. “Universal” justice, on the other hand, would be the idea that there is a pact with the Universe (God, karma, and so on) and that, as a result, I believe the Universe should give me what I am owed—for example: “I deserve to be healthy; I deserve to have loving parents.” In this chapter, we refer to “universal justice.”
In general, I agree with the idea that the concept of “deserving” may be a limitation of human perception. We do not know the ultimate nature of Reality, and therefore we cannot state with certainty that there is some kind of cosmic court that rewards some people and punishes others.
However, my own practical experience has led me to a different observation. Over many years, I have repeatedly encountered situations in which an imbalance between people eventually resulted in a form of compensation through other areas of life.
For example, in a relationship, one person may continuously invest their time, energy, attention, resources, and emotional support, while the other only receives and gives little or nothing in return. If we look only at the immediate situation, it may appear that the second person is benefiting from the imbalance. Yet over time, I have often observed compensatory processes emerge: health problems, financial losses, the breakdown of important relationships, missed opportunities, or other forms of limitation.
For this reason, I am more inclined toward the idea of balance rather than the idea of merit. Reality may not operate through concepts such as “good” and “bad,” or “deserving” and “undeserving.” It may instead operate through a tendency toward equilibrium.
In that case, a person is not paying for their actions in a moral sense, nor are they being punished. Rather, any persistent imbalance appears to trigger processes that eventually restore balance. The form this restoration takes can vary greatly and is not necessarily connected to the original situation.
Using a comparison with physics, this is not a matter of reward or punishment, but of a system seeking to return to a state of stability. We may not fully understand the mechanisms involved, yet we can observe their effects.
Therefore, I do not see these events as rewards or punishments. To me, they appear to be manifestations of a more fundamental law of balance, expressed through life events, circumstances, and the consequences of our interactions with other people.
SAB the room looking for a second and fades like it and divaneh