If it is true that Conscience arises from the reception of that higher guidance which is communicated to us by the telepathic link which binds us to Alpha-Holon, how then are we to explain the apparent fact that, like religious beliefs, ethics are very much a matter of social environment? The answer to this question is that Conscience is modified and distorted by two elements. These are firstly 'instincts', the behavioural patterns which are the inheritance of past lives; and secondly 'learning', the behavioural patterns taught by parents and other authoritative figures of childhood.

How to sift true Conscience from these pollutants? Let us look at just one example, the moral issues of sexual behaviour.

We shall not need to discuss whether 'sex' is in itself good or bad. We know the pivotal role it has played in genetic evolution. But the sex act is simply a physical matter, as morally neutral as eating and sleeping.

In fact, where moral doubt arises in sexual matters is when sex involves mutual attraction between one individual entity and another. For it is then that sex is underpinning the attractive force of Love and, as such, must be wholly virtuous. But, unfortunately, it is not as simple as that, for sexual activity may result in children, who have the right to grow up and develop in a stable and loving environment.

It is of course because sex can cause suffering and deprivation for its offspring that most societies have condemned it outside wedlock. But it is the selfishness in the disregard for the welfare of the offspring that constitutes the moral wrong, not the sexual act itself.

The advent of effective contraception on the one hand and of the killer AIDS on the other have clearly altered the moral force of this question. Nevertheless, sexual reinforcement of the attractive force cannot be wrong and, depending on the degree of love involved in the relationship, may be wholly good.

Married men and women, however, are in a different situation. Marriage is a state of emotional interdependence, so that unfaithfulness to it can inflict terrible suffering on a partner, however misguided such jealousy may be in absolute moral terms.

Now consider two identical acts where a young man has sex with a young woman. The only difference between the two acts is that while one is committed within a 'permissive' society, in which chastity is not considered very important, the other is committed within a strict Muslim society, where unchastity is treated as a punishable crime. Clearly, there is a profound difference in the morality of these two acts. In the first, no wrong has been done to the young woman and the sex act, if it has consummated an expression of love, has been morally good. But in the second case, the young woman's life will be blighted and grave wrong has been done her, so that the act was morally wrong.

It can clearly be seen from this discussion that the moral issues posed by sex are by no means absolute. Indeed, returning to the central question of Conscience, our example shows that it can be morally wrong to outrage what is no more than local prejudice, a spurious pollutant of true Conscience which owes nothing to divine communication but has simply been learned from the prejudices of a particular social environment. Moral wrong arose, not because the act was intrinsically bad, but because violation of the standards and prejudices of a society can bring grief and suffering to its members.

"Well," you might say "If we cannot know absolute standards of behaviour in practical matters like sex, what is the point of writing about ethics at all?"

This is a fair question. It is all very well to have deduced the divine attributes of love, influential power, knowledge, creativity and free-will and to assert that our purpose in life is to foster the growth of these attributes in ourselves. But the fact is that when we have to make choices, when we have to decide how to behave, we are rather rarely faced with a clear straightforward choice between 'good' and 'bad' alternatives. Such choices are relatively simple. No, the difficult choices, the ones which confront us much more frequently, are those between 'good' options: the problem of deciding which of them is 'the best'.

Take a simple example. Truthfulness and honesty are clearly genuine virtues. So what if one is tired and a friend rings up to ask "Would you like to come round to supper this evening?" If honesty and truthfulness are our only criteria, then the 'good' answer would be "No, thanks all the same, but I'm very tired." But this answer could be modified by the call of Conscience for unselfishness, another virtue, into "No, I am rather tired, but I'll come round all the same." Or the answer could be further modified by the virtue of kindness into "Well, I'm rather tired, But I'd love to see you, so I'll come." Or it could be still further modified by the Love imperative to the extent of becoming wholly untruthful "That would be nice, I'd love to come".

Or take a similar, less trivial example. The doctor has told you that your husband has incurable cancer. Do you say to yourself "I must be honest with him. I must not betray his trust in me. He has the right to know" - and tell him? Or do you say to yourself "I must not add the suffering of fear and despair to his pain. Let him be happy for as long as possible" - and not tell him?

Or again, should a hospital withdraw life-support to terminate pointless agony? Is abortion right or wrong? Should you vote Left, Right or Centre? The list is endless.

But the answer to all such questions is really very simple. "There is NO absolute 'right' or 'best' choice." And the reasons for this follow directly from our hypothesis... Suppose there was only one absolutely right choice, only one truly correct behaviour. If that were the case, then the only way a developing Aether could exercise its divine attribute of free-will would be to choose behaviour which was different and therefore 'not right'. And even if one supposed that the existence of these 'not right' options was enough to preserve the Aether's free-will, one would still have to admit that this offered the Aether no opportunity to develop the divine attribute of creativity in 'right' behaviour.

For you see, if there were only one path upwards, then graduation from the School of Earth could only be achieved by Aethers who behaved in this one correct way and who had therefore become as like one another as peas in a pod. The rich diversity of individuality on this plane of existence would give way to a uniform sheep-like army of 'angels' in the next - as stimulating to each other and to Alpha-Holon as a plateful of cold porridge.

No, the examination papers of the School of Earth are not mathematical, allowing only one correct answer, but qualitative - more like being asked to compose a piece of music or poetry. Conscience does not provide the answers, only the notes or the words, the principles. And graduation will be achieved by the craftsman who has learned to weave the principles laid down by Conscience into a tapestry of behaviour which satisfies his own innate self-knowledge.

There is no other criterion. There is no other test.

But if there is no single path upwards, if there is often no single right action, there is one 'activity' which is certainly and always wrong. Its name is inactivity. Inactivity takes its place alongside powerlessness, ignorance and indifference as a vice.

'RIP', we write over our dead, but rest is stagnation and peace is stagnation. Write rather 'EHD' - Enjoy the Holiday of Death!.