'Be the master and maker of
yourself' 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
Vyāsa, one therefore speaks of the
spiritual master, or the ācārya,
who is the Mahārāja 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-Franēois
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. 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. 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. 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 ąnd
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, ąnd
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 māyā and moha)
of people caught
in the notions of the false ego (ahankāra),
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. 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 Mahābhārata 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. *:
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 Bibliothčque Nationale
Franēaise. 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 Niccolņ Macchiavelli,
Oil on panel, cm. 85 x 67. London,
private collection.
|
Filognostic Manifesto| Time & World
Order| The Year Count| A New Dualism| Democratic Elections| The Splendor | Internet Cemetery|