The point of no Return
Content: Surprise!
The point of no Return, that is in this paper "the moment when we (Mankind) decide to change things", wherefore this paper is about change - then also about consequence.
Consequence is the magic keyword here. When things change, there are consequences. When we worry change, we worry consequence. Now to put that into context: I actually meant to write, philosophically, about secrecy. I didn't because it is a bit of a double-edged sword. But, as with every double-edged sword, its double-edgedness doesn't turn it inaplicable as a weapon.
Well, you notice that this is sorted into the 'Zion' section - which is all about "my Utopia" (which is however more basically just the consequence of Enlightenment and ... wishful thinking). Here I try to gather all things that will help this vision grow; If I feel that the time is ripe. Whats at first important, although I didn't really dedicate anything to it thus far, is that change isn't a matter of indoctrinization - its a matter of philosophical growth. I got a hunch that the supplemental nature thereof will be known for a lot of things; Though right now this might seem a bit cryptic. Growth though, its a topic that will build the basic ... uhm ... Spin here.
First of all: Forget politics. I mean, thats the intellectual premise to wrapping the own brains around this whole idea of "Utopia" (lets call it Zion). What once used to be Politics is therein replaced by Philosophy. How, what and why - that isn't the topic here. A few aspects do however matter nontheless. But well, lets start philosophically:
A government that tries to keep projects hidden from its population doesn't have the peoples concensus on working on them, simple! Lets think thereto about the mystery of Governments working on biological weaponry. Easy to know why we, the people, wouldn't want that! Also kindof comprehensive why the governments might, nontheless. Then lets imagine: A government works on a weapon, through some political bullshit its getting used, more political tensions are the result and we, well, we are the people that get fucked! I wouldn't wish Antrax on anyone; And we can kindof say the same thing about Nukes - although - it is at this point a matter of asking: What is it good for? And not being ignorant we can see that blowing ourselves up may not be the only thing they can do, but, We should agree though: We don't really like Nukes either!
But does that now require us to believe that everything that is being done in secret is bad for us? Well, thats the second edge.
Public oppinion, lets - just for the sake of argument - say that this topic were the only one in existence, is much like a wrestling of two figures holding one double-edged sword. This closes the line of argument to the initial thoughts: The point of no return is the moment where the majority backs one of the two sides.
This now turns into the topic of Growth. And Philosophy for that matter. Philosophy has the ability to turn a double-edged sword into a single-edged one. This ability might be considered the keen-ness of a warrior that swings a double-edged blade. Its the will to accomplish a certain thing. In (modern/endlightened/"mormon") Gnosis Thought and Wanting are two facettes of one and the same thing: Life. Life, Will and Thought are one; Therefore Life is Will and Thought as Thought is Life and Will.
As we're approaching the discovery of the 9th Seal, we also have to consider that the 8th Seal is of major importance. Its the docks, where the 9th Seal is accross the water. The 8th Seal surmises all things related to "Thoughts". Thoughts in this sense aren't simply the vocal capabilities of your imagination, thoughts happen to be as complex as the cosmos itself. In many ways does the Cosmos happen to resemble the ways of mind. I wonder. I would encourage you, dear reader, to understand the concept of 'Muscle Memory' as used within 'Competitive E-Sports' (Starcraft, Street Fighter (I got no experience with MOBAs, sorry)). Physical sports might be similar, Martial Arts especially, but E-Sports is closer to the world of thoughts. In essence we're thinking of something as simple as a double-click. Do you recall your first attempts to double-click? In some ways: Double-clicking is like walking, we first have to learn it, integrating it into our muscle-memory. As any motion or complex activity, it originates within our mind. To say that our brain sends a signal to our muscles is sortof out-dated in this situation and my oppinion. Therefore I basically ignore the nervous system entirely. Instead I think of will, in first place, and yet the wanting alone doesn't make us good double-clickers at first. Neither is it thoughts. But thoughts 'are' that wherein the 'executive memory' is being stored. If I 'want' to double-click I recall the 'double-click thoguht' wherein all the muscle memory resides.
What happens is that it grows. Now thinking of Martial Arts: Martial Arts is a System of many many moves - and how an individual fighter applies this system isn't simply and just a matter of learning them. In E-Sports there is a term called 'Over-commitment'. Over-commitment is a rudimentary flaw of every beginner. A beginner doesn't know a lot of strategies and due to its low experience also lacks in recognizing potential threats. Therefore he is confined to what he knows - which isn't much - and therefore he relies more on those strategies he knows. Over commitment in Starcraft 2 can be explained by a player trying to take a second base while the opponent applies preassure. While the better solution would be to abandon the base to some extent as to ensure that the own forces are better equipped to deal with incomming threats, the un-experienced player might 'over-commit' into building that base.
Once growing more experienced, over-commitment is a flaw of not harnessing that extended experience well enough. The more experienced player so has a more sophisticated personal strategy, but this is also relatively one-sided. In context to this we may review the vastness of possible strategies - and acquiring them is a matter of practice. Each Strategy, in the cosmos of thoughts, is like a gravity source. The entire gameplan begins with dust - and getting acquainted with the game shapes that dust to a star. That star is surrounded by a disk of dust of which slowly planets emerge. These planets are the different routines that surround the own personal strategy. If we learn a second strategy, that is like an entirely new Starsystem; Where our mind will usually tend to adapt the one with the largest gravity. Instead of thinking of a complex network of stars, its more appropriate or 'simple' to just narrow it down to the stars themself. Stars may fuse, they in turn might grow to black holes and an astronomer might argue that everything begins with them - in some sense - speaking of a galaxy as the base rather than a starsystem. However so the comparison between mind and the cosmos. What of course prevents us from 'over-committing', what enables us to learn, grow and refine, is our will. Our will is like gravity itself that we may control to our own liking.
Growth is however not only a matter of wanting. If you're new to this topic you may realize just how little you can actually benefit from knowing these things - as beginning with the question whether it is knowledge in first place. The same truth is essential to what is known as 'the Flaw of Utopia'. We might approach the idea of Utopia as the design of a perfect infrastructure - yet we have to consider that this infrastructure will require the compliance of Utopias citizens. Thus this approach imposes an expectation to the individual to adapt; And that drastically. It is the demand to the individual to fit in, to work as expected; And technically that might work or would even be required - but on this line the failure of Utopia that comes along with the individuals "incompatibility" destroys the likeliness of Utopia to happen and furthermore feeds the philosophy of us being a flawed kindred.
This adds up to what was previously mentioned as the first important thing. Wanting isn't everything. We also need time to build our muscle memory - and when it gets to our social frame we have to understand that first of all we are supposed to live. I mean to say that if we adapt to something new, we do so from what is common to us. If life sucks, bluntly speaking, radical ways as those of Gandhi don't really make it worse, provide hope, express a good spirit, etc.. Otherwise life can suck in other ways, thus giving weight to words as those of Martin Luther King. Prior to King racial discrimination may have been a lesser concern to the civilization of that time. Things were about to settle, a more modern civilization emerged and then dealing with racism became important; People were ready for it; And many were starving for it.
I guess we're all looking for a better tomorrow, but if the recent decades really pronounced one major flaw, then that of trustworthiness of our souvereign individuals. We can't really trust anything new because chances are that its just going to be more or less the same. On the other side I am a strong advocate for communistic/anti-capitalistic ideals - which I mention to just show how wide the gap. What I mean is that I believe that captialism/the free market is a major burdain of our civilization - but basically the trend of our time is one of capitalization; I guess the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition would rather be the Bible of this time than anything else. With a little bit of sarcasm we may even find Christian ideals therein! OK, sorry!
So the question, to be clear, is after all not how to make people accept anti-capitalism, but how capitalism does evolve into it; Whereby note: Capitalism taught "us" a lot about resources, management of values, where the next step is to just learn how to be less dependent on exploiting the poor; To basically learn how to use that to the benefit of everybody as to the grand goal of supplementing a global standard of wealth.
Contra: progress. So, would we rather opt against Zion in favour of this proposed progress? Or do we opt for Zion in favour of that progress? Whatever we choose, there will be consequences. Star Trek or Tank Girl? Mad Max or Judge Dredd?
OK, sorry for the manipilative context! ...
So, because Zion is all about Gnostic revolution, God, Jesus Christ - as it fundamentally builds upon the New Covenant - there is already something like an intellectual demand as in the likes of an obstacle. Yet, as the philosophy thus far is to provide, that isn't really a negative. Its like a marker that sits between progress through thought and progress through wanting that we will "have to" grow to be ready to accept. Along with it comes trust in God, awareness of God and alongside a new ability to trust in our fellow individuals. The emphasis of Enlightenment is a measurement of keeping the system clean. Though the ideal is that everyone gets Enlightened and thus nobody would have to worry, the reality is that this is considerably tied to a transitional phase - which is yet another obstacle.
The call to Enlightenment, the implication of demands that cannot be met without the individual freedom to grow; The hard shift away from depending on another human individual but to seek God; All that provides a huge step away from what we've known so far. That just putting God upon everything by word or idea doesn't do the trick should also be rather obvious. God, for this point and idea, isn't much different to any other dictator ever. But as with any other dictator ever, the problem is the human leadership. And this is pretty much the bottom of all problems within our current society. Atheism is kindof the modern Racism. Atheism IS racism, strictly excluding God from having a part in our society; And so is fake religion, by the way. What human leaders such as the Pontiff do is that they exclude God. As the Pontiff calls or lets himself be called Father or even Holy Father, he even 'takes' the position of God - the Father - as written in Matthew 23:9 in context to 2 Thess 2:4. That is also Philosophically transparent in the idea that when people, un-educated Christians and non-Christians, think of Christianity they think of Rome, the Pontiff, inquisition, the cruisades, Catholic crimes in America during colonization - and well - in the latter case we got a thing where 'pointing on them others' that weren't really saints either is just saying how illegitimate that reign was and is!
In essence we blame human beings, not God! We only do blame God indirectly for not sending a Lightning to vaporize those that we "think" we can't recognize otherwise. But its all written and the scriptures are rather clear about it! We thereby know philosophies such as 'the Guilt of the bystander'; But - we also know philosophies such as 'the Sacrifice of the poor'. That is: One who has little and gives that little he has does give more than one who has plenty and gives little of what he has. In other words that is 'the courage of the weak'. I mean: Whom does God have to fear? And what did we accomplish by becomming brave although God might have done it for us? We gain more than by blaming it all on the Creator! That much for certain!
So, what does God gain from taking action?
The 'guilt of the bystander' is therefore in my eyes just a virus, like a cold or the flu. Its a common thing; And, well, although it is a real issue however; There is no need to stand alone! Neither is there a need to become all equal! I mean, don't you like it in movies when two opposed factions team up in a good spirit to fight the baddies? Well, I however do!
So again, this ill grown struggle of Atheism is the bottom ground of our current problems - I say - while in higher areas there are people that do truely believe and are starving for Enlightenment to return to being good. If people believe that there is no God, well, there isn't really any use in arguing ... with them. The common sense should be that it is our duty, as human beings, to grow more responsible about ourselves, our neighbours and our offspring. So again I must emphasize the step towards God as a step away from human leadership!
The premise is simply that the only other true revolution that we may expect is that of technology; And, I guess I just don't know where else to put it so: If we're afraid of machines taking over, why build them? :P ... Aside of that everything is pretty much going to be the same. So, if we therefore let things be as they are - and that does pretty much imply technological progress - we don't really loose out on anything; But if we don't search for God we do! If we found Him, or rather so: When, we will need to see what flourishes from the concept of a social manifestation thereof. Its like actually figuring out who the good guys are. Its inevitable that there are going to be 'huge' (famously huge) individuals on both sides - which is simply a matter of social accumulation. The more philosophically advanced we are, the less we can rely on judging in behalf of categories such as sexual orientation. Of course first there is good that is good - but all that which is good does also imply power and thus its actually hard to tell! Even ethnically. I can be a racist - a good one - but this ambiguity does certainly not extend all the way down into ways that are just and simply bad! We simply take racistic ideals and take of them that which is good. Thats a simple philosophical effort. In reality that is a matter of how individuals are being wired. Some simply tend to think more and others less within those terms. So can 'good' racism be 'against' migration, that for reasons we may still continue to discover, but naturally just shoving all foreigners away into their "homelands" doesn't cut it either! This co-incides with the ambition to go for a global standard of wealth and technology. Although nothing implicitly suggests that each 'race' has to take care of their own place of origin; It does implicitly conclude into making un-attractive countries less un-attractive. ("Must See": Southpark: The last of the Meheecans!). If ones 'racism' were just a matter of personal preference we don't even need to talk about it.
So, obviously the statement of not judging in behalf of categories concludes; Therefore we can strictly ignore them and basically should in consequence still aim to support one wholesome international identity because all individuality aside; Its still true that unity comes through unification!
Most important will hereto be the second Orb, the Blue Orb, so called: 'Hope'. Hope primarily compares to the common attempt to strive for that which is best; Effectively thinking against odds through split oppinions. So: Turning a double-edged blade into a single-edged strike nontheless. Where people disagree there is the danger for tension to emerge and unity to fall apart. That is a symptom of hopelessness - and hope is the fuel that feeds the engine of looking for compromises.
Hope is transparent, it is something we can trust in. It is, effectively speaking, a most universal language. One problem with communicating a political agenda for instance emerges through complexity. Its like a language not everybody does understand. In the end we wonder: Is it good for us or bad for us? Hope basically demands that 'good for us' is the only legitimate outcome!
The yellow Orb, Righteousness, demands that 'we' are 'everybody', and if that doesn't work, obviously and naturally and inevitable those of us that stick together. But that is self-understood; As pretty much everything.
Just like the following: If it turns out that based on our current political infrastructure nothing can really be achieved it has the be 'thought away'. This is a very basic concept of how I approach the issues concerning Zion. There is a great idea and there are odds; But finally the vision, the good outcome, is more important than anything else. So basically anything that matters can be evaluated around the concepts of good and bad. If politics is too slow because too much bla and nothing happening and intransparency and the potential threat that we're kept waiting - then politics is naturally bad but that for given reasons so that given reasons accumulate into a negative that has to be logically countered. On the other hand side there is a positive that is supposed to hard-counter everything negative. Logically.
However, all that I have provided for the positive on this section of Zion so far is the military leadership around 'the One'.
I take it that I'm the one; Everyone that disagrees can challenge me to a showdown; Which puts me into the position of showing you how that can be positive. Thinking of social accumulation; I make a good start because I make a start to begin with. More important than that however is the basis from which I do so. Is God on my Side or is He not? The big deal about 'the One' is that God has chosen him, so, like a Prophet but just less confined to any paradigms. Therefore 'evidence' of being the one is 'evidence' for God being on that individuals side. This was something I couldn't write about until the whole thing about the Seal of the One happened; Yet if its still an ambigous thing; Well, let it be the more simple issue: Let God tell you.
Its a simple yes or no; Certainly linked to demands as in 'obstacles'; But then still a primary social 'accumulator' that is furthermore as official as it gets. This gives 'the One' the ability to do whatever he wants, or more to the point: Whatever is necessary; Relative to the given support. The idea is that if I were to set things straight; A million years down the line things might again require something to be done - something like a major Update while the present system doesn't really provide any ground for doing so. However or whatever, someone Chosen will have to emerge.
'The One' is in other words the one thing that makes it possible to have a System that doesn't know one specific human leader; Or government for that case. What we need of a Government can be managed otherwise; And much better once dedicating an institution to those specific tasks. 'Ruling' as in making Laws and making use of Law-Enforcement - that is not actually required. But so, what's been there first: The chicken or the egg? Or, how did the Big Bang happen if nothing existed to begin with? So, how do we get to that 'magical Kingdom of Unicorns and Fairies' - I mean - how to create institutions when there is no government to do so? Simply speaking.
The Military foundation is in first place a matter of beginning with the 'selecting the right people'; Which is the primary big issue of throwing a crippling blow against corruption. On the other side is 'the Military' the first manifestation of a civilzation to really become a 'solid state' thing. The Military is in that the Outer Hull, the Muscle, and is in that sense one of 7 'arch' institutions that I would create. For how the Military organizes itself I would no longer be required as those things would happen as its supposed to happen anyway - because whatever the case, the whole thing is to be flexible; For if it weren't it wouldn't last very long, would it? This does however exclude 'structural' demands - such as the required interactions between these 7 parenting groups. These demands are primarily founded on the premise that these 7 arch-instutions aren't ultimately adequate or appropriate; Therefore inherantly flawed, as because their existence already takes away from flexibility. Take 'Medicine' or 'Medical Aid' for instance. Although it appears to be essential, it is nowhere amongst the Arch-7. In that it is a primary example for how the Arch-7 are parental institutions; As for how society can integrate things into its system without actually changing it. In that sense: Medicine is at first a matter of 'Research and Development'. Needless to say does it sooner rather than later grow to something individual. It will nontheless tie into it, but now it is foremost a social demand that hospitals are to be built, stuff integrated into education; In which sense its "comming from" 'Logistics and Expansion' - as the practical bulk of society (see: Any craftsmanship is dependent on resources, resources further tie into production chains, that is a matter of logistics - therefore a Butcher is a part of an institution of Logistics and Expansion - basically speaking of 'the Guild System' as that which is primarily dedicated to Resources). In that it is somewhat evident that Logistics and Expansion (LogEx) and RnD go Hand in Hand as good as always - where RnD is basically always the parent; But now however the 'beurocracy' - LogEx simply is to follow the need of integrating Medical Aid into the infrastructure. The flaw of the Arch-7 becomes really apparent here because RnD, but any other Arch-Institution as well, also have a part to it. Art and Culture may provide better input as to how than RnD, the Military might from the get go impose the demand of a fundamental centralization - kindof turning Medical Aid into a Military Grade thing. In greater simplicity however do we simply speak of Male and Female concepts. The Arch-7 are Male. They are solid, imperative, but consequentially and therefore furthermore intentionally inflexible; They are like Tents or Houses wherein society dwells - and therein the Female emerges. Its like the Blood that runs through the Body. Here I mention 'the 3 Rings of Esoteric Harmony'. They are by design just blanks; And from place to place each Ring can correspond to something entirely different. Although - and it is a little bit complicated - there is a 'highest' organization; The 3 Esoteric Rings of Harmony. Well, details aside - (they aren't really settled yet) - they are essentially what Children grow up being comfortable with because Family, Church Activity, Social connectivity - basically everything - does in some way tie into them. One of the 3 Esoteric Rings is dedicated to Cultural preservation - Museums sotospeak belong to that. Its not a matter of Art and Culture because it isn't a matter of an Institution. Where it is, it is, but here the point is to not isolate it into an instution. It is however not 'said' yet either. More 'Esoteric Sciences' will have to go on before that happens. Anyway the premise is just that: To break walls down. We may think of a Civilization as a system of structures; The entire Esoteric Rings thing is like carving them all hollow and building one huge cave underneath - so - where everything becomes one. The core of the 'female' idea is that a couple of two individuals can't fit into 'one system'. Although the two may have mutual interests, the man can't decide which friends the woman has and way around; Therefore the couple as one does yet tie into two individual streams. So is the Guild System for instance 'the Basis' to 'Junior Activity' - but the Esoteric Circle connects them in a way that also grows beyond the Guild System - as for instance including Homeland Security into Pathfinding; Naturally alongside Guilds of Forrestry and such.
As such is the fundamental nature of what I'd be trying to get along on the way; The 'positive demand' is rather sophisticated and political problems easily draw the shorter straw. What I'm doing now is however that I rephrase things I've written (yet unpublished) that basically lay the whole thing out in greater detail, following the actual intent of presenting the whole and I would say that its pretty much done. There is however still something missing - and that is less a matter of content as it is a matter of understanding. Its like so: Once I present the full thing to you (without being as "stupid" as by not doing so like here) you are encouraged to see that as the base of argumentation. Therefore the struggle of oppinion would shift into the thereby proposed systems and "won't work"s will spread like cancer. Not so much endangering the product as a whole but corrupting the public reception and its position and weight in common sense. In other words, or more generally put, the actual base of argumentation is provided herein. So, while the design is missing you can't really argue about it either. You can however argue about the concepts shown thus far - while I here do have the opportunity to explain those concepts 'externally' - which is arguably and technically a justification to say that I'm actually not quite done yet.
It don't take a Prophet to suppose that the next "problem of me" will be that my designs will be required to actually evaluate the value of what I'm getting at here, but actually those designs are moreover the consequence of what I'm getting at here. If you're getting to that same conclusive consequence, then we can talk - sotospeak - as in: You then understand what I'm getting at here!
Of course you'll need to know at some point - but first of all I have to be clear that you understand that where I use the term 'Esoteric' I do strictly exclude an Atheistic understanding. At the fundament. That doesn't mean that its got to be pregnant of Theism, but exactly that is why it can easily be abused by Atheism - as a foundation to pry in through. That is also why the Military comes first - to basically create the Esoteric Space. Yes, as saying: "This is Sparta!".
So the point of no Return is about the Consequences we are going to deal with. What I'm proposing is one way of moving towards Consequences of productivity, cooperation, liberty and communism, theism and science - but most certainly: Theism. I am a believer, for sure, and maybe that is the sole reason why I emphasize it - but I nontheless tried to keep it as neutral as possible; Time and time again even try to ignore Theistic concepts to not blurr the vision on the scientific matter and stuff - but nontheless: In my oppinion it won't really work the way we want it to if we don't have a clear Theistic foundation. As in the saying: One can't serve two Lords! If we're one about who our God is - everything else is smooth sailing. If we aren't, we'll remain to be split inside. Tolerance unto unbelievers is implied - technically that tolerance is one fundamental ideal of the entire construct; Therefore pushing religious dedication into the marginal - and so basically proposing believers to embrace the unbeliever inside as an unbeliever; As in letting the believers build (here the Tolerance of the Unbeliever has to be returned) a System for both (because true believers are the better people!) - and that is obviously what I have on mind for the Transitional phase. Atheists might want to argue that the spoil can be flushed out in progress, but it is my judgement that this attempt to bypass the security embedded within Enlightenment is to circumvent the one thing that provides security inside to begin with; Wherefore I can marginally tolerate it at best; But actually I can't and won't. I mean, I will - but only if it can't be avoided. I don't want to discuss religious matters with people that lack the correspondent understanding; Which at some point only Enlightened individuals have. What I get from this is already something like a hope - a hope that there might be a way to corrupt this thing - which is something I really don't like! But so is the demand, the obstacle, that I won't get anything going without Enlightenment. Anything prior to that is just vain effort! I can accept gifts, but I can't have any of the "But didn't I give you this and that?" nonsense! And then it may also just be the Diva in me, but is after all simply a sober case nontheless, that I've got to have things my way. The Truth doesn't bow to anyone - it lends itself at best!