What Rules, What Falls and What Becomes
In society we have political parties that with their philosophies tend to politicize all spheres of life. But the political identity is not a stable one. Being derived from civil virtues the philosopies tend to pervert because of material motives. Thus the interest of the person, His order and integrity, is forgotten, so that we become people with a cultural neurosis consisting of a constant inner conflict with feelings of dissatisfaction about the societal affair of us the, not anymore so very modern, people of Democracy 1.0. The political spectrum built on the civil virtues consists of liberalism to take care of the individual concrete interest of acquiring wealth and of conservatism to take care of the individual ideals of a personal religious - or else intellectual - conviction. Then there is in the spectrum the department of socialism eager for the sake of a certain liberation in the social ideal of sharing and caring. That ideal is then complemented with the social ego of regulating lust in a concrete sense, in particular the lust of one's national, cultural or ethnic identity, the intense desire of standing apart from others by one's culture. Filognosy offers a balance of actively covering these different fields with a good sense of timing. But looking for results in the outside world, the interests oppose and fight for dominance. They because of that desire then pervert and lead to the misery and extremism of capitalism, fundamentalism, communism and fascism. Democracy for the sake of democracy and ecological 'green' policies for the sake of the planet are subsidiary, assisting options to this fourfold basic spectrum wherein parties, innerly divided or not, will always have to rule by unstable coalitions. The schisms involved divide mankind and tend to lead to our collective self-destruction. Turning inward, ending the corruption by retrieving the original purpose of the Person of All Societal Integrity, we see a different order of state appear called Democracy 2.0. That order is based on the four classical basic types of vocations and four basic age groups. One naturally moves through these sixteen basic societal positions or election groups of human natural identity, so that no class fixation and caste discrimination has to be feared. They cannot repress each other once the interest of this direct representative Democracy 2.0, of more horizontal decision making without a dominating political elite, is fixed in the constitution. In that case there are no winners and losers anymore after elections because all selection will occur inside the election groups and not between them. Thus meditating the personal matters of the outside world, we may attain by actualizing this vision of a stable order of state in the filognostic realization of respect for the Person of All Political Integrity.
Modern society has an ideal of rule: democracy. The people are in this system ruled by themselves. They elect representatives from political parties that cover a diversity of human needs, creeds and interests. These political parties are usually based on some sort of political philosophy that entails a certain critical mind about what would be just, beneficial and righteous. Such a philosophy is called political because its ideals are defended by the proponents while in reality they are watered down constantly in compromises that constitute the actual outcome of rule. Therefore many say that all politicians are liars. That bad reputation of politicians in general undermines the democratic project but it is difficult to curb. Politicians must be political and compromise, for where talking and negotiating stops, the war begins. In fact the practical uncertainty of the outcome of political philosophy is a behavioral problem we already recognized as a cultural neurosis in inspiration 7, where also was stated that it concerns a problem of consciousness for which there is no political solution. Politicians caught in conflicting opinions cannot solve themselves as being the problem of defending their conflicting opinion. Problems cannot be solved at the level where they are raised. In denial of this truth political themes and objectives are different and stay different, depending the type of criticism one exercises. The difference of opinion only reinforces the opposing opinion instead of convincing him otherwise. Thus we historically have created party philosophies interested in free enterprise, philosophies derived from religious standards and values, from social interests of labor and unions of laborers, from national interests of cultural or subcultural ego and identity, from ecological interests, from interests of democratic reform and all kinds of local parties to the interest of the local order of rule. These different interest groups of philosophy entertain political, amenable, opinions about how the law, the economy, education, the power of state, the foreign policy, the military, finances, trade, domestic and transport affairs, cultural and health affairs and so on, should be settled to please all citizens and secure welfare, freedom and equal justice for all.
There is no agreement in this system about the so-called political spectrum. This notion pertains to the question whether there is any order possible, concerning all the different interest groups participating in the democratic game. In reality political parties come and go, change names and strategies depending their leaders, they merge or split up and go for coalitions to associate for the sake of the government or to engage in opposition to the sitting rule. They do not follow any logical guidelines. There are endless discussions in chambers of the parliament and/or the senate depending the democratic structure chosen. One has an elected president in a republic, or an elected prime minister in service of a usually ceremonially functioning king or queen appointed by tradition in a monarchy. But the question is by what exactly are the people ruled now? By a difference in opinion? By a philosophical or would-be philosophical stance? By money? By Labor? By religion? By law? By science? By neurosis? Nobody really knows, for there is by definition no agreement in a democracy old style, also called 1.0, not even agreement about the constitution, for all parties want to dominate and change the law. A democracy can only know by consensus. So, democracy as a form of ignorance, of not knowing, is always a bit crazy because the people, old style, regularly fall into passion and its shadow of madness and anger because of not seeing any solution. Political agreement in the old system in fact means the end of democracy and the beginning of a more or less absolute rule the majority is supposed to subscribe to. With everybody familiar with this danger, strangely enough practically every political party has the ambition to assume such a position of absolute rule, in service of which a diversity of policies have been employed by them to attain this. With the absolutist purpose of power being at odds with the democratic principle - we called it a perversion in Inspiration 10 - all these parties factually are wolves in sheep clothes. They speak very politically in favor of the democracy they use to be elected, but once they are in power the game is over and the party program is applied as rigorously as is possible.
In response to this constant threat to the democracy that seems to constitute a royal road to dictatorship, more and more parties are founded to ward off the danger. On top of that there is usually an agreement laid down in the constitution, to have new elections every four years, or sooner in case of a crisis. Many parties divide the people to such a degree that no majority rule can come about without forming coalitions. The effect is an unstable rule of state in which one needs to negotiate endlessly for any decision. Some states try to minimize the number of parties therefore by strict regulation according to a certain set of rules. Some even have only one party to choose one's representatives from. The diversity as a result of political evolution thus continues within the parties, which destabilizes them again. So in a one or two-party system with regular elections to preclude a rule of state that would defy the majority, no stability of rule is achieved either. The essence of such an indirect representative democracy seems to be the instability of its rule. Nevertheless one is discontented about this because the democratic uncertainty raises fear to be ruled by a hostile party. It is a constant struggle for self control of a neurotic society that does not really know, or otherwise confides in, the authority it craves. Despite all the efforts, the rule fails time and again, in a more or less destructive way. People not trusting any offense against the adult option, simply tend to elect against any sitting government, because the power of state with its monopoly of violence and economic control would corrupt anyway. Critics of this system are called anarchists who state that the democratic top-down management in decision making always means an elite dominating and dictating and that as such a democracy would not be real but just a form of hypocrisy. The by them propagated horizontal decision making of a so-called direct democracy in which the people decide for themselves by proposing laws and referendums even though, suffers the same problem of instability. Having no trusted elite of sages or else fools or criminals ruling, having no rulers whatsoever, does not work either. A lead is needed evidently. One cannot maintain without. So what to do if we collectively (thus not just individually) want to attain stability of rule, while living in a state that has to be able to maintain itself in peace and prosperity? The political version of this problem is in fact the same as the psychological version of this problem.
Democracy as we know it, version 1.0 as described above, can be compared to an old decrepit king who has to die. He is even blind, for he does not consider himself the problem not seeing his faults, nor does he see any successor, for all his four mighty sons (in fact a hundred) fell in s disgrace. So, how did his sons fall down and how would his successor called Democracy 2.0 look like? The family members of democracy, the mainstreams of political thought, these sons of the king, one by one have proven themselves as being corrupt throughout history, from the earliest days of our 'enlightenment' to the present day of our postmodern confusion of identity and values. Because of their repeated fall in civil and international wars there is factually a worldwide silent despair about our future as a world community and the viability of life in general on this planet. Political opinion divides us deeply and renders our societies unmanageable. The collective cultural neurosis of this authority conflict, this endless quarrel born from desire and estrangement from nature and each other, perverts and exhausts our intelligence completely. Modern men increasingly have poor memories and are doomed to repeat the same errors not learning from their own history anymore. Because of this problem of opinion and poor traditional retention, we are politically lamed being overwhelmed by the modern complexity and possibly will not survive ourselves going extinct, together with the majority of the species on this globe. We seem to be impossible to rule with all our enlightened independence and individualism, while we still dream of solutions and long to agree about a common lead. It is dramatic, but the more one tries, the more conflict it seems to give rise to. The path to hell paved with good intentions.... In order to properly discuss the death of this blind king of a worn out system of democracy that seems to have lost all its synergy in a labyrinth of legal and philosophical alternatives, to explain about this king whose sons have fallen out of grace because of warfare and internal power struggles out of bad character, we need to create order in this chaos of opinion first. Filognosy as adhered to in these pages offers a vision on the political spectrum that is based upon the civil virtues as discussed in Inspiration 5, completed with a statement of the problem of their decay in attachment as already indicated in Inspiration 10.
Simply put the major political parties as we know them now seem to follow the division of the virtues of regulating the economy, the religion, liberation and lust. Thus we know them as respectively as liberals, conservatives, socialists and nationalists. As such each party serves its purpose of promoting a basic civil virtue, be it that they oppose with them in ego instead of cooperating for their integrity in the true enlightenment of the light of the soul and the Person. The citizen is thus quartered so to say. The light of the ego, now often called the information culture, burns and blinds, while the light of the soul, the culture of wisdom, illumines and clarifies. With the help of computerized gadgets, information is transferred there and then over a distance by a so-called 'social medium' preferably, while wisdom as of old is realized here and now by normal life experience. Following the light of the ego the political parties split the mind of the population - or better stated, the population itself, in going for pragmatical rather than moral choices, has developed a politicized split mind of ego in which it basically has turned away from nature and naturalness, from each other and actually being present. One easily blames the ruling political parties for the corruption of human motivation and next to that the resulting governments for the resulting wars, but one has chosen for this Humpty Dumpty of wisdom oneself on pragmatical grounds (see also Inspiration 7). Political parties constituting the modern fragmentation of ego, do neither represent traditional nor modern wisdom, but rather oppose in representing the desire, the weakness, the common man shares. And so they waste their good efforts in political debates to prevent war more than investing their efforts in cooperating for a certain respect for the directions of the good sense of the experienced intellect of sages, intellectuals, mystics, spiritual teachers and other defenders of the morality of self realization and human physical, spiritual and psychological health. They cannot arrive at a definitive choice between all these thinkers. Following this or that virtue thus might not be the proper notion to describe the positions of the parties, for it seems to be more the corruption of these values as discussed previously that brings about the political party than their regulation. From the decent virtue of regulation one ends up in -isms of egos in social disarray that are also schisms.
We have a collectively split mind about almost everything. Liberal minded one, getting lost in a fixed opinion straying away from the filognostic harmony model, becomes a capitalist. Conservative minded one the same way becomes lost as a fundamentalist, social minded one likewise perverting turns into a left extremist and national minded one by the same mechanism falling down becomes a right wing extremist (if not a fascist). Political parties are thus breeding grounds for madness in fact and hence constitute, paradoxically, the greatest threat of the democracy project themselves. Normally - being inspired by the light of the soul - these virtues are all equally of importance to any individual, without that individual getting internally and socially divided in the conflicting interests of political parties. The soul after all, is the self conscientious with the Person of Conscience and Coherence. But following the light of ego in identification with material interests - which is something not that enlightening at all - people walk around in a semi-state of commitment, predominantly ruled by resentment and anger about the political discussions they with their average intelligence of a 100 IQ points cannot get out of their heads. Again, the political problem is indistinguishable from the psychological problem. Thus we, in following the method of reason to define our conceptual framework of filognosy, need to structure, to create a type of order, so that we can find a way out of this labyrinth of modern bewilderment. The question is then how the corruption of the political spectrum of democracy 1.0 looks like, from a filognostic point of view, for the neat schematic as offered above assumes all kinds of colors in overlapping fields of moral confusion. Corrupting the political opinions about the basic civil virtues results in a complex collection of human weaknesses assuming the form of different philosophical schisms.
Departing from the peaceful core of filognosy as the harmony and balance in the midst of all virtue, opinion and perversion, first of all the corruption of the regulation of the economy leads, as said, to capitalism, the disproportionate stressing of the importance of property and capital. This stress, propagated by the interests of the national and liberal opinion, conceals the mistake of taking the means for an end. This is what we call corruption. The filognostic end of attaining the integrity of the Person Above All Politics is therewith not known. In fact one is ruled by desire for power and riches to which one liberally - with the so-called zero-sum fallacy of simplistic economic thinking (that there would be only a limited absolute amount of money) - wants to get rid of the ceiling of a maximum income as also be free from the legal bottom of human rights by denying a basic income free from obligations of labor (apart from a basic social duty to adapt). Completed by a strong conviction that paying taxes means to comply with a criminal act, the actual meaning of money as a reinforcer of human behavior is completely lost in capitalism. The dole then becomes a concept of inequality, a double standard creating a second rank citizen based on the misconception that there could be salaried labor for all. But in fact the government is the one to engage all in meaningful labor of any type, with equal rights for all. So by all standards of logic the liberal opinion, being capitalistically degenerated, runs into a totally illogical situation of undermining the value of the very incentive one desires, the money. Freedom of enterprise is the motto of the liberals but ignoring voluntary labor as a category of mature societal involvement, not taking responsibility for the order of state, they are in denial of their own creed of freedom. Evidently this 'philosophy' has no consistency, it is just an opinion. It is, stronger put, filognostically seen more a rationalistic façade of human weaknesses. This son of King 1.0 in fact fell down with the destruction of the planet he is responsible for these days. Freedom of enterprise and capital acquisition, without doing justice in the sense of equal rights and rewards for common societal adaptation in the form of a basic income, is a totally illogical pipe dream, a fantasy, not better than any common man's superficial opinion.
The desire to be - or have the freedom to be -, individually, more powerful than a small government, and to rule and possess half of the capital of the population as the so-called 1% elite - has undermined any collective effort to assure general human well-being and to attain a proper conscientious organization of states worldwide to preserve the planet. Seeing the liberal virtue of regulating the economy - by ego anxiety - pervert, into the capitalism of a 1% delusional state of imagined control in the name of freedom, we may almost speak of a Mammonite religion wherein the coin - or gold for that matter - is to be worshiped before everything else, which especially goes at the cost of the total filognostic integrity of our Great Person of Excellence. Because of irresponsible free enterprising, not only our collective personal health and well-being are undermined, but also our seas are dying, our soil is polluted, our water is poisoned, our food is hardly edible - being genetically manipulated, carcinogenic, with too much sugar and salt, and toxic or otherwise pathogenic - and our atmosphere is endangered with CO2? and other exhaust gasses resulting not only in a greenhouse effect but even worse in the death of our phytoplankton - our most important oxygen supplier. Next to that also the ether got polluted with all kinds of expensively sold radio frequent radiation for the sake of wireless connections. Some health experts consider electrosmog the asbestos of the 20th century - the price of which we still need to learn about, but more than half of all research about it is alarming (in 2016, and that is a scientific democratic majority). In one word, acknowledging the capitalist wolf in liberal sheep's clothing, this corrupted manipulator in politics who at the cost of others and nature at large goes for the sake of personal gain only, it is evident that this prince cannot be the successor of old king Democracy 1.0. One son in disgrace, three sons remain.
Then we secondly have the corruption of the regulation of religion - or what in India is called dharma - running into fundamentalist practices. The religious virtue of stressing traditional values and likewise exercises of respect, propagated by the interests of predominately liberal and conservative opinions, has its place in society, but this son of the king in his perverted appearance has acquired a very bad reputation. Always trying to impose his religious values and practices as being the one and only way, he has lost al credibility. Evidently the great diversity of religious fanatics with their chronic lack of philosophy, as if it concerns a kind of vitamin deficiency, indicates that their claim of exclusivity must be false. It is the product of the same cultural ego mechanism. The authenticity of the Original Person of Any Religion who in reality aways appears in another form and with another name, is in the hands of the fanatic too much of a material concept and policy of proselytizing in total neglect of the [gnostic] truth that the way one personally relates to Him can never be imposed and is always a most confidential matter. An imposed belief in denial of the free will of a convert and follower, is a total insult of the human faculty of intelligence and constitutes a total heresy in the eyes of any sincere defender of any true religion. Assuming the authority of the Supreme Person and to Impose oneself that way is a fundamental fallacy, the fundamentalist fallacy, for adults learn by precept and example and not by imposition and force. As a fundamentalist derailing in terrorism he is the enemy of common sanity, a type of madman whose greatest sin is to spoil the call of his own belief system. He who dishonors his own religion as a fanatic creating horror and disgust anywhere, has to fear the reprisal of his own kind the most, for such a corrupt troll of belief who in fact puts all religion to shame and disgrace, is the true corrupter of all belief and human virtue. He as a champion of illusion thus factually positions himself as the greatest enemy of the Supreme Person Worshiped by All Sages in all Times and Cultures, who indeed is the only One who as the Redeemer can grant this super-egoist of religious conceit his liberation. Ever since this conservative, liberally unbound fanatic made his corrupt presence in the world, the religions in this world can no longer be anything but a modest prayer clubs, equal in stature to any sports club or whatever club to the benefit of all. They, in denial of the private freedom of belief and of true religiousness and self-realization, have spoilt their claim in the private sphere, and are therefore restricted to just a small part of one field of action called club life, a life sphere that at best covers one quarter of society. So there goes son number two, he cannot succeed for being just another deviant in denial of all mature adult and self responsible humanity. With this fanatic spoiling the chances for the acceptance of his religion, with this possible successor having fallen just like the capitalist fell in abuse of the economic responsibility, only two sons of the king remain.
The third son has a great social heart. He is fighter in defense of the virtue of regulating the liberation and emancipation of the poor and downtrodden common man in being turned against all human exploit, humiliation, oppression, repression and inequality. He is a trained opponent of the economic and religious weaknesses of creed that both seem to be false dogs of individualism in his eyes. The virtue of liberation in laborer solidarity, as propagated by the interests of predominately socialist and conservative moral opinions of sharing and austerity, makes him a warmblooded prince to king Democracy 1.0, but the fanatical communistic underpinnings of the social approach also spoil this good social heart. Caught in the duality of fighting fanatical fundamentalist religiosity and greedy manipulative economic motives, the communist cannot escape from his own materialist fire of resistance. Not refuting materialism simply being a proponent of materialism with the tendency to call all religious involvement a betrayal of the enlightened cause, he cannot really fight or escape the material concepts and corruption of his political opponents. He, in denial of the motive of the person as an individualistic lie with his conservative copying of religious austerities as a core value of sharing, in the end becomes a fundamentalist and capitalist himself. After all the say of (the representative of) another individual person besides the party leader - and certainly not the Person of All Individuality and Society - cannot be tolerated by the communist party. The socialist cannot transcend the ego and thus corrupts to the superego of the communist party. He must be a proponent of ego and thus becomes an heretic to his own creed. The interest of the individual person is not the problem, it is the egoism both individual and social that is the problem. This is the communist fallacy. A collective ego is not better, or even worse, than an individual one. And thus the communist corruption of the socialist opinion is of the same kind as that of his opponents, of the same neurotic conflict of authority. Communist dictatorships have been tried, eradicating all party enemies, and one by one they fell down from their revolutionary pedestals, going crazy in paranoia and criminal activities in the name of the state, while drowning in the pool of their materialism being indistinguishable from other types of materialist opinions of political ego. Togetherness and solidarity is what we need but to unite in matter for that purpose means a conflagration, a conflict, a war. One cannot unite on a material basis but in a sexual union to make a baby (of oneself), and no sexual perversion will ever save the socialist party, of whatever kind, that way.
We are social beings with the duty to share and care in equality and mutual respect and obedience to the state. But there must be an agreement of moral correctitude that cannot be fixed in the law because the permission to err must be maintained in respect of our adultp free will. This cannot be altered lest we all go crazy. We are commanded by our own humanity and have to confide in our human faith in the Ideal person of All who constitutes a psychological necessity. The materialist fanatic in the virtuous corner of socialism trying to defend his creed as the one and only liberation possible, is nothing but a false prophet, for his material concept of liberation is nothing but a form of attachment that only leads further into the conflagration of material bondage. Liberation is a spiritual concept for uniting in the transcendental position above the material world of dualities. That is the only way to be free from material misery, for being embodied entails the misery of birth, disease, old age and death for all.
One can unite in consciousness, but any material conception thereof will fall. The way to unite is the way inward and meditation is the process. For the peaceful sake of knowledge, happiness and stability, there is no other way to be in control of oneself. Only when everybody is of a reasonable degree of self-control or civilization, there can be a society of self-control and civilization. Defending the virtue of liberation in labor - as defended not only by the socialist but also the conservative, liberal and nationalist opinion of virtue -, only works if the purpose is non-material, or spiritual. Labor is then called voluntary or service in devotion. Dividing the world in bad conservative theists and greedy liberal atheists is neither covering fully the truth nor the solution. Fighting individualism this way the social minded parties are still burning in the fire of social oppositions, and no war for that purpose will ever put an end to that. In history the civil and international wars in the mind of this materialist misconception, the false notion that one would be nothing but electrified matter plus some additives, have been that gruesome and destructive in the denial of religion, love and righteous wealth, that - because of the politicization of this civil virtue of the regulation of liberation by service - that option has almost become impossible.
The corruption of liberation of the left communist fanatical intellectual intolerance for any exercise of respect for the Person of the Greatest Social Heart, in a spectrum ranging from mild benevolent socialism to left extremism and terrorism, has definitely undermined all faith in any decent socialist succession for the throne of old king Democracy 1.0. And that has been - and still is, one of the greatest human disillusions, about which many still do not want to hear a word. The ego of socialism offers no hope of stability and balance. Socialists may be very intelligent, warm hearted, progressive and nice people, but falling for that attraction one soon discovers that assuming authority that way does not mean that the authority conflict of the underlying cultural neurosis is solved. It is not incorporated in the socialist ideology to tackle this behavioral problem and therefore the corruption of materialistic socialism into communism is inevitable. Not even with a leftish mind freaking out as anarchists in denial of and protest against all sitting authority by occupying town squares, will offer any longterm solution. If any Occupy protest movement would be successful that probably would result in a civil war to decide about the state authority that is always needed. The lead we still need as was said before. So, this prince of social darkness cannot succeed successfully, and thus one prince of the four remains.
The fourth basic value of regulating the lust delivers the prince of the nation, the big strong leader, Mr Ego in person, who carries a strong dictate of national identity. Now we have socialism with a defined concept of identity. This person rising from a total bewilderment about the behavioral problem of human identity, is the party in one, the nationalist ànd socialist who tends to consider any foreigner his enemy while living himself outside most of the countries. He is thus predominately a foreigner himself in the world community and thus enemy number one of himself. And that is the nationalistic fallacy, he who fights other egos has to face the demise of his own ego. On the basis of his own declaration he is someone who in fact, once having grown into a mature militarist and fascist dictator, is in for the common human suicide of a mutually assured collective self-destruction, war. The virtue of regulating lust is supposed to result in love for the Person of Love as discussed in the previous Inspiration, but fixed in a political ego there is the threat of corrupting with the social ego into military adventures and militarism based upon national and social, if not national-socialist opinions. This is the type of right extremism that rather destroys the entire world than accept the inability to achieve a stable rule. This concretist identity socialist is the arch enemy of the idealist socialist discussed in the previous paragraph. The Great Leader who is not the Great Transcendental Leader is known for his purely destructive downfall. His disillusion about his failure to meet the requirements of the virtue of regulation all human lust is notorious. A social heart is no guarantee of peace and justice. Failing to righteously regulate the need for an identity by political means, a complete society, with turning down the other sons, burns down like a forest ablaze. Just like any other leader in the perverted political practices of corrupted ego opinions for regulating the civil virtues, he has to keep talking to keep an unstable peace - there can be no state at peace with other states without diplomatic relations we very well know. To keep talking is the only cure for politicians after all.
So with the last prince of the king failing to succeed because of an identity problem, so to say, we have a clear view of the limitations of the political spectrum of democracy 1.0 as known by the concrete/ideal duality of quality and the single/plural duality of quantity. So how to succeed the king? Of course, there are also some nephews and grandchildren of King Democracy 1.0 the Great. Maybe they can free us from our cultural neurosis.... They , eternally in political opposition, will have less difficulty with this denigrating term. Let us see, there are in-laws of the king who are good people in enterprise going for a purpose economy directed at the wellbeing of the person and of nature at large in trust, humanity and in eco-consciousness. These people are real heroes, doing a lot of good, but they do not make for a comprehensive concept of rule. They are no princes. Another member of the family, a famous noble nephew of the king, is a bit of a joker because he is a transformer adopting to any ally willing to cooperate with his schemes of reforming democracy 1.0, without ever attaining 2.0 though, because of a lack of wisdom, vision and self-realization. He is a prince alright, but he misses a face and a insight, the Person of the Face of Insight, to be precise. The reformist democrat with his democratic party might be joker, but he is not that corrupt and foolish. He has some sense of balance and is reasonable, even tending to real science and education, even though he also likes to be a materialist running after the money with a false sense of justice. But that can be purified for he has no real firm philosophy of his own. Apart from some exponents of Greek philosophy we get no clear image here. Still being politicized he cannot find any inner peace and is therefore also not capable of organizing a peaceful society. That is why he is a joker after all, he by definition has an identity problem, a problem of authenticity by self-realization. In conclusion, a nice partner and supporter, but not really a convinced and inspired leader. Another famous niece of King 1.0 is the green party, founded and fed by the ecological action personality, preferably a woman in defense of mother nature, who defends her interest of naturalness and nature first and above all. Apart from being foolish in missing the different perspectives of filognosy in service of any traditional respect for the Greater Person, he/she is really a hero and one of the most promising alternative successors to the decrepit blind King 1.0. Respect after all can be learned. But there is a steep learning curve for this greenhorn in politics. He, or indeed she, has to be very thoughtful about what it will become, how democracy 2.0 will look like, for a show of green reformist ego it will certainly not be.
￼The painful descriptions of human corruption found in the discussions above, in the political perversion of opinions in the spectrum as described, are indicative of the pain of our societal evolution. We really cannot help it, for we are all part of a culture, a system of perverted time respect and moral derailment, that is not easily discarded. If we survive this total destruction of all human decency and honor, reason and wisdom, we can attain indeed a better world were there are no political parties anymore apart from some intellectual debating clubs of ancient political philosophy. Instead of the old order we inevitably will have to be faithful to the rule of our inescapable natural identities, the inevitable division of our societal duties according to our vocations and age groups. With four basic vocations and four basic age or status groups we then have sixteen political election groups that each deliver, let us say, ten seats in a parliament. No party can ever defeat another one because their percentage of representatives is fixed in the constitution. This we have not tried yet, out of fear of falling back into a caste or class society, for the system is in principle known by tradition. The fear is unjustified, for age and vocation changes by respectively time and volition and thus can never lead to class and status fixations. A fixed identity system, which is inevitable, does not mean a fixed identity of the person. The person is a dynamic agent of time, of Time, of the Person of Time.
Thereto remembering the need of a time reform to assure a natural harmony of the psyche and a natural human sense of authority, as discussed in previous Inspirations, that dynamic person can be respected and granted his necessary freedom. In the following Inspirations, we will often reiterate this subject of discussion in all its facets, so as to obtain a clear view of the viability of this new king Democracy 2.0 as defined by his sixteen fixed election groups of people's representatives. If we manage to get the numbers of our impersonal time system right and thus also the numerous personal commitments in political opinion, we will not corrupt again in this 'purpose politics' directed at the well-being of the person, so to say. Thus we have a chance to attain a harmony or rule capable of satisfying every person on earth, including the animals the plants, Father Time and Mother Nature. For in the end we are nothing but their children.
Source for this Inspiration:
S.B. Canto 1, Chapter 13