Contents section III-b: politics   'Be the master and maker of yourself'                                                            F. Nietzsche          Ordering, democracy and utopia In section III-a the practice of the personal was discussed in the sense of meaning and ritual. The idea was that wishing respect for oneself, the other also needs to be respected - nothing but a fair deal. The religion of regularly associating for the sake of a holy person then, who, including a holy scripture, really is worthy the full respect, constitutes a school of learning. In history the schools are there in succession. From the consecution of the schools one can derive in what way they, each for themselves, fell short and in what respect the science of the person was in need of an upgrade, of an adaptation to time and circumstance. To this upgrading there is never an end, one unrelenting has to keep to time; the dynamical nature reflected in the culture, commands a constant reorienting and readapting, which, as we saw with the method, onlyprogressing non-repressively truly entails the progress. Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) in his Theological-political Treatise said that God's providence is to be understood as the order of nature itself and also Vyâsa described it in the Bhâgavatam likewise, calling nature the virâth rûpa or the gigantic form of God. To the need of the constant adaptation to that personally understood God, the dynamical element of the time of living nature, as being the universal object of worship, is recognized. The idea of God as being a dynamical natural reality at the disposition of a personal choice, is also, in the sense of an alternative paradigm, mentioned by modern physicists like David Bohm (1917-1992) in Wholeness and the Implicate Order and Fritjof Capra (1939), in e.g. his book The Turning Point (1982). So even though we may be erring with the constancy of lightspeed, new physics offers a helping hand, especially those contributions that do not deny the possibility of the existence of a connecting element like the ether. And this is politically of importance, because the ideation of natural science happens to form the basis for the rest of the sciences, just like the story of creation constitutes the basis for the Bible and the Purâna (an Indian book of holy stories). The idea of how the world originated and functions is indicative for the rest of the cultural superstructure. Reasoning from quantum-mechanics and pushing off against a mechanical, fixed, singly cartesian dimensionality outside the dimension of the spacetime of the new physics, Capra almost like the new-age guru Osho most poetically arrives at sayings like: 'There is motion but there are, ultimately, no moving objects; there is activity but there are no actors; there are no dancers, there is only the dance.' Also new-age authors like Marilyn Ferguson at length dilate on the consequences of the dynamical indeterminacy of the true energetic self of the universe, in which we, to her opinion, with that premise being of selfrealization, are all connected in what she (in 1982) calls the 'aquarian conspiracy'. Concerning the resistance against it she states: 'It's not so much that we're afraid of change or so in love with the old ways, but it's that place in between that we fear . . . . It's like being between trapezes. It's Linus when his blanket is in the dryer. There's nothing to hold on to.' The old shoes are worn, but the new ones are not yet comfortable, but it is another type of consciousness, another way of seeing, which we materially political, technical and legal, or else individually therapeutic, have to give shape to following the principle, in order to make the transition with the order of time possible. Ferguson is right in her option of connectedness in this, of the basically operating from the inside, with a 'trojan heart' taking up the karma, as she put it in an interview in 1995; the same old science time and again has to be reformulated and adapted in faith with the dynamical and personal nature, the way we also, time and again, have a new constellation of the same old planets. Without that revaluing, without that adaptation to place, culture, person and time, one is fixed and one fallen thereof has lost one's way or is bewildered in attachment, as Vyâsa puts it (S.B. 4.8: 54). It is, varying to the classical themes of wisdom, always an unfinished structure. Historically we thus first had the Vedic culture itself that, in her rule defeated by the time, came to a fall on the basis of the familial attachments of the aristocracy, which, having become a burden to mother earth, had to wipe itself off the planet at the battlefield of the great war of the Mahâbhârata. Greek philosophy the same way, with the philosopher Socrates being condemned to drink the cup of poison, came to a fall delivering the proof that undermined the authority of the state of the lesser wisdom of the pretentious formalism of the ruling class; with the morale drawn stated in the Gîtâ (in 3: 39): 'one must not upset the people with ones wisdom'. Buddhism came, with the foodpoisoning leading to the death of the Buddha, to a fall in the human tolerance for both impurities and the negation of the world as being an illusion; like an Arjuna blowing the conchshell, one has to hold one's ground. Judaism came to a fall by it's impersonal, institutional denial of the living personal God, the nevertheless as inevitable recognized Messiah or avatâra. Christianity falls down from a poor concept of time with an insufficiently expressed Lord Jesus who in this could not be more specific than stating that it, with the then (45 v. Chr., 709 A.U.C) abolishing of the lunar calendar since Julius Caesar, on earth indeed had to happen as in heaven; for the Lord, the Father happens to be kâla, the Time. Islam, which with the order of time for God and His ether, with the times of prayer did obey the sun - recognized as the will of God, Allah - following, comes to a fall by her fundamentalistic, jihadistic lust for lording over, and being of disrespect for, other forms of belief; for he who always wants to win will, by the golden rule, have to loose it sooner or later as a consequence. There irrevocably happen to be different avatâras and ditto devotional cultures that each have their own historical purpose and maintenance. Reformation, to the self-willed of the compassion and the integration of the social science, must with the Christian fall-down in theological opposition and one-sidedness, next expand into a more multicultural, rationalistic-empirical enlightenment of expanding consciousness, for the reformer S'rî Caitanya (1486-1543) happened to conclude to an 'inscrutable oneness in diversity'. The culture of Enlightenment next, entirely predictable from natural entropy*, comes to a fall because of a lack of consistency and philosophical unequivocalness, with the French Revolution finding fault with all the elitary and false subjectivistic/empirical individualism; for as we knew already: the philosopher must sing. Democracy finally, in a social/revolutionary sense defended with the French Revolution, comes, liberal/conservative finding itself in opposition, to a fall in the degrading of the dictatorships of communism, militaristic fascism and fundamentalism, for the cards of human identity have been shuffled - as is also Vedically confirmed. We therewith, at the onset of the twenty-first century, are awaiting the definitive falldown of the, so divinely lusty, but in particular internationally most unjust, capitalist dictate, with it's sanctification of commercial strife, with which then the limit will have been reached of the possible forms of corruption in the human fields of action of the nepotistic, viz. on friends and family founded, democracy that constantly runs into dictatorship, as was discussed in section Ib. The Hindu goddess of money, S'rî Lakshmî, in the end is but a maid-servant of Lord Vishnu, the Lord of goodness and maintenance. The politics of friends, the faulty combination of riches and connectedness, and the democracy, do not combine that well, so was shown already by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) in his Leviathan. He only knew three forms of state: the monarchy, the democracy and the aristocracy, viz. the people represented by one man, by an assembly of all the ones willing thereto and the representation of a part of that gathering. Nepotism makes democracy an aristocracy in disguise, an aristocracy which Hobbes, in case of dissension with the populace - not so surprising with chosen 'nobles' aiming at a more lucrative position in industrial circles - , calls an oligarchy, a culture of regents far removed from the people and for the countering of which one, in The Netherlands e.g. notably, introduced the monarchy. A monarchy which, with many an illusory smoke curtain of fake-democratic left-right changes, proves itself to be a culture of regents for which the populace has no feeling but only dissent, is according to Hobbes' logic then factually a tiranny. In our case thus a capitalist dictatorship: the confluence of a faulty combination of capital and philosophy on the one hand, with a wrong notion of political power on the other hand. It is only the complacency of the consensus of the anxious, capital-motivated majority, repressing and violating minorities, that thinks less of the volunteer in service of God, calling him unemployed by declaring him subservient to the Mammon. And that being of an unjust treatment neglects the rest of the world; it makes one think one is a democrat. False and ignorant contentment with factual injustice makes no stable state. And thus one could say that the idea of the majority of the voters, yet bears no justice, and carries a false idea of democracy. The republican democracy, or else the monarchy, is only real in case of justice, when everyone is done justice and not just a 60% or 80% majority. Thus we are faced with the need of a general consensus about the installation of election groups (see also synopsis) in a beforehand settled order not allowing mutual repression with a majority-vote: the majority must, on a basis of consensus about this self-knowledge, paradoxically manage to protect itself against itself. Rousseau (see also Charter of Order) said about this in 'The societal contract' II.3: 'In order to really obtain the general will, it is thus of importance that there is no group split off in the state and that each citizen only is opinionated from his own stance. Such was the case with the eminent order of state of the great Lycurgus. And if there would be any groups split off, one must increase their number and see to it that they are equally large as did Solon, Numa and Servius. These measures of precaution are the only right ones to further that the general will (as opposed to the specific will) for sure shall clearly and constantly surface and the people will not be mislead.' The power is, divided in a proportionate representation of, classically tailored, fixed election groups, thus to no one but to God (see further 'A Small Philosophy of Association'). It is the 'easygoing' fake-democracy of nepotism which is wasting her qualities, because of a lack of a societal structure, a structure of fixed election groups representative for all the vocational and professional groups (that thus balance each other at the level of the government). And that way it in fact thus discourages those qualities. Therefrom one sees the political character declining. It is thus paramount to educate democracy anew, or, as Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) it right away in the preface to his study on the democracy in America stated: 'The first duty, which is at this time imposed upon those who direct our affairs, is to educate the democracy; to warm its faith, if that be possible; to purify its morals; to direct its energies; to substitute a knowledge of business for its inexperience, and an acquaintance with its true interests for its blind propensities; to adapt its government to time and place, and to modify it in compliance with the occurrences and the actors of the age. A new science of politics is indispensable to a new world. ' In this context we stress the notion of time and place, since in this is found the essence of our plea for the ether and the order of time associated with it. This re-education is, according Plato's 'The Republic' and his 'Seventh Letter', the responsibility of the philosopher who then in fact is the boss, the philosopher-king, or else the duty of the king or ruler who then has to be the philosopher. In the culture of Vaishnavism around the works of Vyâsa, one therefore speaks of the spiritual master, or the âcârya, who is the Mahârâja or the 'great king', even though he stands more for the liberation in devotional service than for the enlightenment of a sovereign power of self-realization, which is more reserved for the independent esoteric guru. In the culture of Christianity, which as yet was not as conscious of the different types of teachers as is explained section III-a of the synopsis, this would account for the difference between the theologian preaching liberation in being of service in the religious community and the psychologist/psychotherapist who wants to educate the people in the enlightenment of a philosophically responsible way of self-realization less of stressing outside authorities. With the guidance poised in between these two fires of progress, it is clear that, without the philosophically founded reform or re-education of democracy, without the constant upgrading of what is supposed to be the democratic order, and without the filognosy thereto of the - by mediation of the gnosis centering around the order of time, thus mutually as being dependent declaring of the enlightenment of science and the liberation in service of the person of God, we inevitably will fall back again into the darkness of dictatorship and the moralism which constitute the shadow-side of a freedom ignorantly understood. The competition between teachers of initiation and teachers of instruction along the dimensions of the impersonal, local and person minded, must, with the filognosy and the respect therewith for the enlightenment of the teachers operating from within, come to a stop. In terms of our filognosy each must know his place. It is like the japanese confucianist philosopher Ogyu Sorai (1666-1628) said it in his Rules of Study-6: 'A noble man therefore is 'not prejudiced' in matters of right and wrong, good and bad. Bad is when something is not fed and does not find its deserved place. Good is to feed and let something realize its full potential, and see to it that it finds its place'. This last section III-b is directed at shaping this desired revaluation of democracy to the grace of our filognosy. In postmodern time, now, with the synergy exhausted, being depressed under the regime of artificiality and fragmentation, we know faith as such only as, the way the philosopher Jean-François Lyotard (1924-1998) put it, a negative, cynical realization of lost modernistic ideals, in which society fell apart, like it was meat in the showcase of the butcher, and the hope for an all-embracing solution has been given up. One could describe the postmodern situation as the lamentation of the grand but, about the human, religious and moral freedom, somewhat too negativistic, power minded, philosopher F. Nietzsche (1844-1900): it concerns an intellectual depression which, literally in his case, with a brain feverish of venereal disease seeing a whipped horse in the street, in tears falls around it's neck. On the basis of the philosophers, who as mere thinkers are not acceptable anymore today, and with the social activists among them, like Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) and the early, equally anti-religious Karl Marx (1818-1883), postmodern man knows but one belief and one mantra: 'that's nonsense!'. In a depression being disappointed about the enduring abuse by the human being, Religion is nothing but hypocritical nonsense. But was it not the ancient philosopher Epicurus who (341-270 b. Chr.) in his 'Letter to Menoeceus' already said that 'Not the man who denies the gods that are worshiped by the masses, but the one who ascribes to the gods what the mass believes about them, is godless'? Marx is not entirely without a form of belief or a God. He also builds on a connecting element: 'There is, in every social formation, a branch of production which determines the position and importance of all others; and the relations obtaining in this branch accordingly determine the relations of all other branches, as well. It is as though light of a particular hue were cast upon everything, tinging all other colors and modifying their special features; or as if a special ether determined the specific gravity of everything found in it.' This he writes in his 'Introduction to a contribution to a critique of political economy'. But with probably deeming himself, and the adherents of his historic-materialistic theory, the impersonation of that ether, is, with the atheistic cry of nonsense, which classically after Epicurus factually was pronounced over the (dis-)believer and not so much over God and His gods, nevertheless at the onset of the twenty-first century shamelessly worldwide the materialistic doctrine put in practice of the, now also socialistically excercised, sex and money belief, with the worship of the idols called Mammon and Viagra. In that disbelief then furthermore everyone is written off who dares to voice a not-to-realize ideal, contrary to the misanthropic, but factually perverse, relativistic/cynical paradigm.     The postmodern philosopher Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) spoke of deconstruction when it is about the appreciation of interpretation sensitive human forms of existence, or 'texts', as he calls it: each may see in them whatever he likes, and so it would be impossible to arrive at a complete and coherent concept and ditto society. He is correct in saying that books alone do not suffice and that, mutually exercising respect, texts never deliver one an all-embracing or coherent image of reality. And it is also certain that, in a depression, without having a clear picture in one's mind, there indeed may be spoken of a literal deconstruction of the image of time of the observer. Man depressed is disturbed to the triple nature of time: the past is black, the future is invisible and the present is unpleasant. As a cultural institute he breeds a no-future generation of people suffering under what psychologists like Martin Seligman call 'learned helplessness', a mental affliction of the self-doubting kind, in which no solace is found of an absolute reference we could address with the name of God, and by which we could pull ourselves out of our pool of misery. We saw that also relativism, as a faulty combination of scientific power and philosopical knowledge, traditionally decried by the Pope and exposed as a compensation, came to a fall with the refutation of Einstein building on a non-existent limit of light speed, the man who appeared to be the God and Prophet of it, but who, according to the different empirical results of scientific experiments about the speed of light at the onset of this century, turned out not to be irrefutable in it. Even though it is indeed difficult to prove materially, because of paradigmatically being bound, it must be said that the ether simply exists, once we know why we in that context have to speak of the forcefield of the Milky Way existing as a fixed frame of reference. Time did not turn out to be absolute in the velocity of changing with the light, but time was absolute in the quality of the changing itself. As Herakleitos (535-447 B.C.) said: everything is in flux, panta rhei. The relativistic depression, which after Nietzsche was rampant in the political era to the inability to supersede Marx' atheistic, social idealism, is thus unmasked as a form of attachment in defiance of that change, contrary to the absolute authority of our dynamical Father of Time and His sacred ether, the factual godhead of the classics who by Nietzsche was declared to be as dead as the mean, mechanical time of the, from this view seen, hopelessly outdated clock. Even a schoolboy these days is capable of lecturing the physicists of the fallen and, all too linear conceived, standard time paradigm. So succeeded the talented young man Peter Lynds (born 1975) in 2003 by, (even before Consoli's interpretation of Düsseldorf already), stating that there are no separate moments of time therein, and that only a continuous change exists which one could consider absolute. Furthermore the cynicism, the canine variety of the biting sarcasm, never turned out to be a successful rule of state, apart from the isolationism and the paranoia of autarkies like Hitler's Germany and the Cambodja of Pol Pot, but rather constitutes a mental aberration of possibly sociopathically abreacting, like a cactus as thorny, depressed people mainly of interest for practicing psychologists and psychiatrists. Being intellectually perverted in the negativism of a mutually confirmed cultural pessimism, one, like a cult leader e.g., loves to keep up, and also be dutiful with, the appearance of authority, progress and civilization. But one went, disturbed being postmodern, in fact personally, intellectually and socially bankrupt, uncertain about one's identity therewith philosophically being lost, like we noted with the declaration of order already. That is the conclusion we from now have to work with in this last part of the filognosy of our comprehension. It is, nearing the end of our argument, perfectly clear by now that, without a sober methodical approach, a proper knowledge of facts, an effective and art loving analysis, a fine disciplined sense for spiritual unification according to the principle, and a well organized respect for the classical, meekly and brotherly coexisting, and each other succeeding, spiritual schools of learning, there can be no mention of a meaningful political approach of respect for, and from, the civilized person in all his historical, social and scientific glory. It is evident that, with but a color sensitive ego desire, with but an economic/judicial argument, with but a conservative attitude of private considerations of decency and virtue, and with but a single socialist ideal of sharing honestly, in a humanistic understanding for the weaknesses, we will not be able to cope politically. None of the dictatorships derived from a narrowed politicized consciousness will last, because of the inequity they represent with their one-sided dictates. The Tocqueville says thereto: 'The consequence of this has been that the democratic revolution has been effected only in the material parts of society, without that concomitant change in laws, ideas, customs, and manners which was necessary to render such a revolution beneficial.' If democracy really wants to be a blessing, we will have to acknowledge that, for the sake of her quality, a certain change of mind, a change in the consciousness of the people, is required. And so we thus arrived at the filognosy which, understood from the causality of the person or the factual substance of our investigation, more or less as a precondition demands the scientific sobriety and principled spirituality, or else presents these as the indispensable elements needed to enjoy the fruit of a beneficial political disposition of emancipated people taking responsibility. With religion as the study we never graduate from, and politics as the right-minded practice to it which time and again has to recapitulate and adapt, confer and revise, we have arrived at the necessity of a reliable, thorough vision for the future. Without a clearly outlined ideal, without a purpose in mind, as said, postmodern mankind is not capable of emerging, from it's narcomaniac, anxiety-neurotic, obsessive depression and cynicism, as being cured and thus being capable of finding a rational/democratic equilibrium between the charitable enlightened humanistic, and the materially motivated, traditional moralistic/pragmatic argument. What should we do when we, whether depressed with Nietzsche or not, have to accept our responsibility, not being able any longer to play hide and seek behind the back of the traditional authorities of in fact the parson and the reverend? Who can tell us, grown-ups of intellectual independence, what we would have learned and would have to engage in next? Would that be science, so divided in itself? That is, despite of the behavioral side of science and theology, not personal enough. With the answer found in the commentaries of oppositional, dialectical and democratic politics, and therewith theologically following in the footsteps of Desiderius Erasmus (1466 or 1469-1536) who stated that: 'It is wrong like children to hold on to the letter and not mature to the freedom of the spirit', we see the greek word of polis emerging as the etymological root of the concept of politics, meaning a city or community determined by a certain exercise of authority or form of administration. It is evident that we, from the scientific via the spiritual and the religiosity of personal confessions and conversions, having arrived at the political perspective, the 'talent to rule' the polis, we inevitably have to ponder over the authority and the powers that be in holding together our society(-ies) on this planet. Man wrestling with the moral authority and the exercise of power is, with the duty assume of adulthood, rather eager to  God's position. But we are in trouble assuming that power, with problems one inevitably has to face in politics. In the cinema there was of the director Tom Shadyac, 2003, a nice story about it called 'Bruce Almighty'. It describes how a frustrated reporter, who sees everything working against him in life, thereupon challenges God to prove that not He Himself is the lazy, unemployed ass not doing his duty. God then proves Himself by handing His powers over to him, but not without the message that he has to abide by two rules: he cannot say he is God, and he must respect the free will of the people. And thus being engaged,  our hero, hilariously drawn by Jim Carrey, ends up finally turning in his absolute power, realizing that the love for the goodness of reality as it is, is ruling the world, and not so much the special abilities with which one cannot subdue the free, human will anyway. The combination of the concepts of freedom and authority constitutes a philosophical problem. In his book Leviathan the philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), in 1651, clarifies that to accept a certain form of authority, whether of God or not, is something inevitable if we do not want to end up in a chaos of 'everyone against everyone'. So stated, next to that, on a later date the australian archeologist V. G. Childe, (1892-1957), in following after the about the - in the personal and collective history alternating - thought systems dialectically reasoning philosopher G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831), that each rule of state, implies a dominance of hierarchy, a pecking order, a stratification in societal classes, which he observed as emerging from the free, gathering and hunting man of nature who managed to organize himself in a 'revolutionary' way from being agricultural into having cities and thus arriving at a division of labor. As seen from his marxist vision, therein an evolution of the forms of state took place, in a 'struggle about the means', means like stone, bronze and iron, with the thereto belonging eras, which still generally accepted carry those names. From T. Kuhn (1922-1996) we now know that that 'struggle' must be considered paradigmatical, and not directly social. It is more the stir in the upper regions than in the lower ones what is going on, even though matters misapprehended, may sometimes work maliciously out in a downward direction. Plato, as early as in the Republic, already from his side spoke, more refined as Hobbes, of a hierarchy of rules of state offering the perspective of an aristocracy of nobles, which by a timocracy directed at (military) honor and a 'happy-few'-oligarchy of higher officials, slides down in the direction of a tardy bureaucratic democracy, of politically belligerent representatives, of a doubtful heritage, which,, desperate in a general call for authority, eventually corrupts into a dictatorship of 'I am God'. Also the Vedic option offers the vision of such a state of affairs with the sliding down of the noble rule in the chaotic chronic quarrel of kali-yuga, even though they see it as something cyclic in ages, covering many thousands of eras. The sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) used a division in three, in discussing the legal authorities, and this division can be recognized as a further insight into this process of historically sliding down, or eroding, into the immoral chaotic and impersonal uncertainty of authority.    Departing from the traditional authority of the Church and the nobles, with respect for the person of God, according Weber the charismatic authority of dictators evolved. like that of Hitler, Napoleon, Stalin and Mao in defiance of the holiness, which, once turned over, results in the authority of the legal-rational authority of an institutionalized government, of which the power of rule controls itself, rather than the individual person at it's service. And thus we, with the historical sense for the order of time, sociologically arrive from personalism at formalism, the reality of a culture of settled state officials, which so nicely was decried in e.g. the book and the motion-picture 'A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy' of Douglas Adams 1979/2005. Fallen in ignorance about the impurely lived (religious) remedies and being fixed on the problematic only, we are again ripe for the psychologist, just to notice that we, this way, still, with all kinds of schizoidisms, are entangled in a certain ego-determined form of being split within. Fro the angle of  social psychology one may discern five forms of exercising power in this: the power of rewarding, the power of punishing, the power to delegate, the power of merit and the power of expertise. The postmodern dissension and fallenness is then characterized by the eroded state, which, by delegation to local authorities, rewards the ones adapted and punishes the transgressors, while, it being impersonal, in its administration is faced with a popular compensation of charismatic celebrities of a doubtful breed, who only then are really a threat to the establishment of the legal order, when they have acquired a certain expertise in relating to the popular vote upon which, democratically, the state itself thus also is building. With all scientific analysis of the problem we thus have not yet gotten out of the postmodern depression of the modern intellect. We may, being of denial about the depression or not, see the matter as inevitably inherent to the spoilt nature of the, by Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) already described, man of a dubious moral fiber lusting for power, without realizing that the ideal of an utopian state was never lost, despite the reprehensible formulations of utopists like Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) ('promiscuity is your duty' in Brave New World) and B. F. Skinner (1904-1990) ('no individual parenting' in Walden Two), who were not as effective in reasoning out the matter as did the original and canonized utopist Thomas More (1478-1535) in his Utopia ('Neverland') of 1516. The ideal of a god-conscious world without tyranny, superfluous wealth, land owners, however difficult to attain, cannot really perish, because it serves a basic psychological need and thus, like we saw with discussing the self-ideal in section III-a, it constitutes a reality integrally part of our existence, which, also postmodern, surfaces in S.F. t.v.-series like Startrek e.g. Man without his dreams is as good as dead. However unrealistic the utopia of the God Mythra of More may seem to be, still it constitutes, with the Vedic god of time Kâla, and the thereto belonging avatâras of Vyâsa, the indispensable aim and cultural root where all political movements with their programs, more or less consciously, depart from and strive for. Each has, as taken from the passion, or else from the goodness, in politics an ideal of order and authority in mind on the one hand, and an ideal of freedom and happiness on the other hand, which is not strange to the person but rather of justice to him. But with the relativistic splitting up of time and place in modern time, as done by the standard time politics of using pragmatic/economic arguments,  no justice done is to the person in his control with the ether and in his natural functioning with brain halves, 'hemispheres', that, on the contrary, are fully occupied with linking space to time. The, with all goodwill therewith conflicting, indeed wishing to doing justice to When, motivated for the good, one in opposition therewith wants to do justice to that natural order of the person, that does not imply that one immediately agrees about what that order exactly would be and in which way it should be respected, about how those two elements of freedom and bondage would have to be combined in a coherent policy acceptable to both (natural) science and spiritualilty (the reality according to its principles). Even though Jesus said that for God the Father things on earth had to happen as they are in heaven, still is one not immediately of acceptance for, or familiar with, the verse of Vyâsa in which the respect for specifically the place and the time is combined with the respect for the person (S.B. 4.8: 54): 'Om namo bhagavate vâsudevâya [my respects for Vâsudeva, the Supreme Lord]; with this mantra [called the dvâdas'âksara-mantra] the learned one should exercise respect for the physical nature of the Lord, the way it should be done, with the diverse paraphernalia, and as someone conversant with the differences to place and time [des'a-kâla-vibhâgavit].' As we saw with the discussion about the fields of action in section I-B, there is, to begin with, no immediate agreement about how the political field should be described. The left-right spectrum is described by e.g. the Eysenk model, the Nolan-distribution, the Political Compass, de Pournelle-chart, the Inglehart-values and the Frisian Institute (see Wikipedia: Political Spectrum); they are rather structuralistic. All these models have in common that they fail in a certain philosophical lead of unequivocality and clarity. That clarity though does exist ever since Aristotle, who in About the cosmos stated: '... that this is the most admirable of political solidarity: namely that she from the diversity brings about a oneness and from inequality an equality, capable of withstanding each natural or coincidental occurrence. .....In matters great like these nature teaches us that equality is the guardian of solidarity and that solidarity is the guardian of the cosmos, which is the progenitor of each and all and of beauty to the highest degree.' As early as in A Small Philosophy of Association we concluded accordingly, that we axiomatically - Vedically thus and not just european with theoreticians of democracy like Aristotle en Alexis de Tocqeville - deriving from the dictum 'unity in diversity', were dealing with a quantitative ànd qualitative dimension, on the basis of which we have the two dualities of the quantitative - individual as opposed to the social, and the qualitative - concrete of matter as opposed to the abstract of having ideals, as if it concerned two intertwined yin-yang-symbols (see the fields-table). Also incorporating the Chinese philosophy of the balance in nature of Lao Tzu (6th century B.C.) and the balance in the reflection thereof in the culture of rule of Confucius (551 - 479 v. Chr.), as also the japanese Shinto philosopher Kanetomo (1435-1511), who said that equilibrium is divinity, with this original clarity now, filognostically correct of reference, and thus being certain of our matter, the confusion of the thought models concerning the political order and the exercise of authority of the modern state must come to a close. It may be clear that, reasoning from the Vedic root, with the false ego - the identification of oneself with the material self-interest - a political struggle has ensued of interestgroups that no longer are fully in touch with their status orientation, nor integer with the fields of action, the way it, more or less, with ease can be recognized in the rational/legal authority of state departments. The political, the official and the lawful powers happen to be different options of rule - like Charles Montesquieu (1689-1755) recognized it in his trias politica of the legislative, executive and judicial powers 0f state -, even though all three of them receive an income from the same state. We simply have officials of discussion, who with laws engaged have to play their roles in the chambers of discussion, and there are officials of order, who simply for a state department execute the matters of state, whatever their personal, political preference, ànd we have judges, who have to guard the human rights in this, to preclude a dictatorship of officials or civil initiatives. The ideal consists of a healthy common sense in relating to this (political) reality, and the problem in going for it consists of the illusions (the mâyâ and moha) of people caught in the notions of the false ego (ahankâra), in -isms, in which one is not able to find the balance between the end of a vision served and the means of the opulence fundamental to it. between the vision cherished and the quality or opulence aimed, at cannot find the balance or the proper entry. That is what appears to be the only clear logical/filognostical answer to the matter. And if we face reality as being the holy purpose, the holy grail of democracy, in such a scientific way that there is also understanding for all the escapades of the modernist ego, we neither have to be afraid of what the psychologist/philosopher Karl Popper (1902-1994) warned against with his plea for the 'open society' of a liberal democracy.    He stated that the reality of evolving forms of state as being a lawful one, like e.g. is envisioned by the evolutionary model of Marx and Hegel, does not imply that one thus can design oneself a future. According to Popper the utopia is potentially a dangerous and totalitarian vision of reality, for it implies that repeatedly the freedom of the individual must be sacrificed for the sake of the higher purpose, because if one leaves man the choice in his lusty nature, nothing will come of the envisioned state. From the Vedic axiom seen that must be confirmed. It is not so much about creating another world and pushing oneself off against the rule of a doubtful form of freedom by means of overturning the regime with a violent revolution. What is of interest is to cast off individually, and thereafter also subculturally or even collectively, in the end the shackles of the illusions upheld from the profit mind, and face the original reality, thus finding the happiness, even though that would not directly be the happiness of each, and ultimately indeed possibly might be another time or world. One cannot better the world turning oneself away from it, neither socialist nor individualist, or push oneself off against it; one has to see it as it is, and then, with bettering one's own life, also as an example and support for others being of service with it, be happier with that, in the sense of finding a life better in agreement with one's own nature. And so it is, not just  as Vyâsa put it with his concepts of svadharma and svarûpa (one's own nature and form), but is it also like the philosopher Seneca in his selfrealization stated it in 'A Happy Life' III.3, later on in history talking about that better life. Like Popper indicated it with his idea of the 'piecemeal engineering' of a gradual realization of politically set targets, also with Vyâsa already that idea is found in his per paramparâ, or disciplic succession, handing down of spiritual authority, which thus allows for but a step by step (B.G. 6: 25) cultural evolution, in which the individual first of all is faced with a 'bitter' hangover from the lesson learnt, and only later on may harvest the 'sweet' of a better practice (B.G. 18: 36-38) - a practice of a filognostical, personally conveyed, virtuous way and proper life habit of gratitude and servitude, equal to the moksha of individual liberation or else the individual/subcultural attaining on this planet of vaikunthha, the Vedic heaven of that order of life, in which there is no (vai-) dullness and sloth (-kunthha) any more, and one therefore has nothing to fear.   The fake democracy must, as we before saw in the Small Philosophy of Association, be remedied with a self-certain sense of order, with a certain settled, representative democracy in which the concept of freedom is no longer bound to chaos as it is to order; as it was also confirmed e.g. in 2003 by the muslim-writer and journalist Fareed Zakaria in his book the Future of Freedom. Filognostically that gradual 'soft' revolution, that conversion of societal opinion and develoment of democracy, does not look very different from what e.g. Seneca likewise already concluded in e.g. his dialogues (III.3) out of love for the ethereal integrity: 'wisdom is: not to stray away from her (viz. nature) and conform oneself to her law and the example she offers'. Thus it was so at the violent onset of the French Revolution, in which a clockmaker led the storming of the Bastille in 1789 when, be it unsuccessful, a decimal system was introduced with the revolutionary clock and calendar, with the purpose to restore the authority of nature over man. And thus it will also always be, like Seneca said it, in the renewed, less violent efforts to make that revolution of time yet a success. It is, with the soft revolution of gradualness, more the observance of inevitable facts and trends, and the prominence of natural and social realities that cannot be denied or compensated away, what determines the future. Even so it first of all concerns the highly personal, selfrealized future of an individual, emancipating person who gradually, also being a beacon for others, thus learns to live closer to the happiness of the natural God. Therewith in the political era - which Vedically rules ever since the battle of the great war of the Mahâbhârata and as said is called kali-yuga - there wil be an ongoing discussion between the doubters and skeptics who, on the basis of their own betrayal of the regulative principles of the game of order, have to face the karma thereof. For without the philosophy they miss what Seneca, in The Way to Wisdom, called her most important achievement: gratitude and the correct way to express it.   The duty of loving one's fellow man consists of keeping the door open to that Vaikunthha, to that utopia and to clear the path leading there, and not so much to impose that by means of law. To speak with Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1529) and his book The Prince, it is not proper or of political leadership to have in mind anything else but the practical use - eventually even in defiance of the ethical code - of the maintenance of the, till then evolved, status quo, to which one consequently must not try to improve the citizen or tempt him into further corruption. The moral finger is reserved for the intellect and not so much for the ruler taking advise from him. The utilitarian, at practical use directed, notion of the power of state consists of making the best of the state with the way people happen to be, and not so much in the effort to teach them enlightenment and educate them for the sake of another world, even though one, on the other hand, cannot object to it as a manifestation of 'free enterprise' and 'free organization'. Each has to follow his own dictate, for only then we will be free from dictatorship. Only then there is understanding for the fact that the jailhouse of standard time which keeps all, politically opposing, materialists imprisoned in a relativistic denial of the ether, cannot be broken down just like that, the way one neither would with any other jailhouse. Only then are we can understand F. Nietzsche as being of goodness with his plea for the self-realization of the individual. With the game of order, as we explained it in the previous section, is not so much the human being educated, as, rather, respected in both his fallen state and in his elevated state, by relativizing the concepts of being higher and lower, abstract and concrete, and the being directed upward and downward, so as to have them as free and equal options open to a personal evolution. The blessing of God is there with the faculty of right discrimination. Only with such a respect for the fullness of life of as well the common man, who living a concrete and material life can be saintly, as for the man of education, who very abstract and high of commitment, with or without much experience, can be just as saintly in his selfrespect and respect for the (filognostic) person of God, one may speak of a truly successful policy. It is, being unafraid about utopian thoughts of the future, as Seneca also said it in A Happy Life (V): 'Thus one force will come about, one harmonious potency, and thus a reason that is dependable will find it's existence which is not divided in itself and is not caught in ideas, concepts or a conviction. And when this has spread itself throughout the complete and is connected with her parts, and, if I may use the figure of speech, when everything sings the same song, she has attained the highest good. For nothing low awaits her anymore, no lubricity, nothing from which she would reel or slip.' And Vedically again we have to add to it that the utopia is there always for those individuals successful in living up to that filognostic notion of order, the order of the views relating to the order of nature, but is never there realistically - and possibly even constitutes a threat - for the ones who. not so conversant with it, do not cherish such a lucid mind about the ultimate filognostic reality, the way it, as is proven by the oldest Vedic scriptures and also by the later Greek and Roman scriptures, as such existed always, is there now and will there also be a bright and radiant future. With the filognostic revolutions - at present taking place on a basis of love for knowledge in the different societal realms as discussed here -, the saying goes, politically: stand up for your rights, and stop fighting each other; do not fight each other with illusions, but rather fight illusions with each other. For the name is Homo sapiens, knowing man. Originally time, from a societal perspective, was a religious concept and politicians differed little from priests in e.g. ancient Rome. Plato and Socrates had said that the ultimate settlement of the order of things was to the god Apollo, with which they indicated that time and the ether, and the concept of societal order associated with it, essentially is a matter of religiosity, as something which in science nowadays is known as the apollonian principle - with which it also factually, with them as the philosophical founding fathers of that idea, consciously commits itself to the divine. Plato in 'The Republic' put forward with it the political values of wisdom, courage, moderation and justice, but what did we have as a precursor of values before them and what evolved therefrom? The Filognostic Manifesto this section opens with, begins with, an historical overview of the human values, which clarifies the (r)evolution of the knowledge in and about time. Ultimately we will, if we thus with our filognosy in the thereafter following pages take a sober look into the future, have a world order that, having arrived at a galactocentric consciousness, is based on a systematic and programmed respect for human rights and one's civil identity. We will have an order in which the cultures of the solar and lunar calendars both will be reflected, an order in which the year count is no longer linked exclusively to this or that religious preference, an order in which, in a non-repressive dualism of governance, there will not be a single ruling and commanding time system, but rather an attitude more naturally conscious of social relativizing and multicultural solidarity based on freedom of choice, an order in which political parties no longer will struggle for being elected but rather an order in which the people, all together more structurally aware of each others -isms, in stead of defying each other, together will fight to overcome the illusions of false unification and unemployment that they have in denial of the diversity. The (post-)modern disease of estranged materialistic cynicism and anarchistic relativism will be overcome to the benefit of the splendor and the ethereal quality of a more realistic, rational, identity conscious and personally bound, representative world democracy, a system of state management which, with the option of a better balanced, good and natural order of time, will be of recollection, of a respectful remembrance, with her (also digital) citizens. It therewith will offer everybody, in the harmony of a filognostic self control with the force field of the primal ether -  nowadays called the Higgs field -, a life free from fear and confusion.   Footnote: *: Entropy: based on the natural propensity for disorder of all material systems. Pictures: - The first untitled painting of an unfinished structure is of Keith Haring (site), 1989, acryl on canvas, 39 1/2 x 39 1/2, and is © of the Keith Haring estate. - The picture of a seashell represents a conch or conchshell. It is used as a signal horn in vedic sacrifices and represents one of the standard attributes of Lord Vishnu by means of which He summons for the fight. - The nineteenth century young man is a picture of Alexis de Tocqueville, it is a photograph of an etching of the 1899 edition of "Democracy In America". - The man with the mustache is Friedrich Nietzsche (painter unknown), the way he is also seen on many a photograph. - The picture of the man with the folded hands is of Johannes Moreelse (1602-1634) and titled: Herakleitos. - Redon, Odilon: the Cactus Man 1881, charcoal, 49 x 32.5 cm, The Woodner Family Collection, New York. - Holbein d. J., Hans 1497/98 1543: Portrait of Desiderius Erasmus. - The picture of 'the king of the world' is an etching from the book Leviathan of Thomas More. - The picture of the serious man is a photograph of Max Weber (1864-1920). - The Island of Utopia, 1518, woodcut, 17,8 x 11,8 cm. Öffentliche Kunstsammlung, Basel. - The friendly looking man following after the yin-yang-symbol is a picture of the philosopher/psychologist Sir Karl Popper. - The painting with the castle is of Jean-Pierre Louis Laurent Houel (1735-1813), and is titled 'Storming of the Bastille'. At home in the Bibliothèque Nationale Française. Catalogue number 07743702; water colors; 37,8 x 50,5 cm. Published 1789. In the middle one can see how Bernard René Jourdan, marquis de Launay is arrested (1740-1789). - Ridolfo del Ghirlandaio (Ridolfo Bigordi detto, Firenze, 1483 - 1561) Portrait of Niccolò Macchiavelli, Oil on panel, cm. 85 x 67. London, private collection.     The site linear as a perfection of the causal illusion: