Contents section III-b: politics   'Be the master and maker of yourself'                                                            F. Nietzsche          Ordering, democracy and utopia Section III-A discussed the practice of the personal in terms of meaning and ritual. The idea was that in order to be respected, one must also respect others — nothing but a fair deal. A religion that involves regularly associating for the sake of a holy person, who is worthy of full respect along with a holy scripture, constitutes a school of learning. Throughout history, these schools have come and gone. From the succession of schools, one can derive how they fell short individually and how the science of the person needed to be upgraded and adapted to time and circumstance. This upgrading never ends; one must constantly adapt to the times. The dynamic nature of culture requires constant reorientation and readjustment, which, as we saw with the method, entails non-repressive progress. In his Theological-Political Treatise, Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) said that God's providence is to be understood as the order of nature itself. Likewise, Vyâsa described it in the Bhâgavatam, calling nature the virâth rûpa, or the gigantic form of God. The need for constant adaptation to a personally understood God recognizes the dynamic element of living nature as the universal object of worship. The idea of God as a dynamic natural reality subject to personal choice is also mentioned by modern physicists like David Bohm (1917-1992) in Wholeness and the Implicate Order and Fritjof Capra (1939) in The Turning Point (1982), for example. Thus, even if we err in our understanding of the constancy of light speed, new physics offers a helping hand, particularly through contributions that do not deny the possibility of a connecting element, such as the ether. This is politically important because the concept of natural science forms the basis for other sciences, just as the creation story forms the basis for the Bible and the Purāṇa, an Indian book of holy stories. The idea of how the world originated and functions is indicative of the rest of the cultural superstructure. Drawing from quantum mechanics and rejecting a mechanical, fixed, Cartesian dimensionality outside the dimension of spacetime in the new physics, Capra, much like the New Age guru Osho, poetically arrives at sayings such as: "There is motion, but ultimately, there are no moving objects. There is activity, but ultimately, there are no actors. There are no dancers; there is only the dance." New-age authors like Marilyn Ferguson also discuss the consequences of the dynamical indeterminacy of the true energetic self of the universe. According to Ferguson, we are all connected by this premise of self-realization in what she calls the "Aquarian Conspiracy" in 1982. Regarding the resistance to it, she states: "It's not that we're afraid of change or in love with the old ways. It's the place in between that we fear. It's like being between trapezes. It's like Linus when his blanket is in the dryer. There's nothing to hold on to." The old shoes are worn out, and the new ones are not yet comfortable. However, it is a different type of consciousness and a different way of seeing that we must give shape to, following the principle, in order to make the transition with the order of time possible, whether materially, politically, technically, legally, or individually, therapeutically. Ferguson is right in her choice of connectedness, operating from the inside with a "Trojan heart," as she said in a 1995 interview. The same old science must be reformulated and adapted to the dynamic and personal nature. Similarly, we have a new constellation of the same old planets time and again. Without reevaluation and adaptation to place, culture, person, and time, one becomes fixed, lost, or bewildered by attachment, as Vyâsa puts it (S.B. 4.8: 54). It is always an unfinished structure, varying from the classical themes of wisdom. Historically, we first had the Vedic culture, which was defeated by time and fell on the basis of the aristocracy's familial attachments. Having become a burden to Mother Earth, the aristocracy wiped itself off the planet in the great war of the Mahabharata. In a similar way, Greek philosophy came to an end when the philosopher Socrates was condemned to drink poison. This proved that the state's authority was undermined by the lesser wisdom of the pretentious formalism of the ruling class. The moral of the story is stated in the Gîtâ (3: 39): "One must not upset the people with one's wisdom." Buddhism came to a fall with the Buddha's death from food poisoning, which led to a decline in human tolerance for impurities and the denial of the world as an illusion. Like Arjuna blowing the conch shell, one must hold one's ground. Judaism fell because of its impersonal, institutional denial of the living, personal God and the inevitable Messiah or avatâra.  Christianity has a poor concept of time and an insufficiently expressed Lord Jesus. In this, he could not be more specific than to state that, with the abolishing of the lunar calendar by Julius Caesar in 45 BCE (709 A.U.C.), it had to happen on earth as it does in heaven. The Lord, the Father, happens to be kâla, Time. Islam, which obeys the sun  -  recognized as the will of God, Allah  -  by following the times of prayer, falls short due to its fundamentalist, jihadist lust for power and disrespect for other forms of belief. He who always wants to win will, by the golden rule, have to lose sooner or later. There are irrevocably different avatIaras and devotional cultures, each with their own historical purpose. The Reformation, with its emphasis on compassion and social integration, must expand beyond Christian theological opposition and one-sidedness into a more multicultural, rationalistic, and empirical enlightenment of expanding consciousness. The reformer S'rî Caitanya (1486-1543) concluded that there is an "inscrutable oneness in diversity." Next, the Enlightenment culture, entirely predictable from natural entropy*, falls due to a lack of consistency and philosophical unequivocality. The French Revolution faults all elitist and false subjective/empirical individualism. As we already knew,the philosopher must sing. In a social/revolutionary sense, democracy was finally defended with the French Revolution. Liberal and conservative forces found themselves in opposition to the dictatorships of communism, militaristic fascism, and fundamentalism because the cards of human identity have been shuffled, as is also confirmed in the Vedas. At the onset of the twenty-first century, we are awaiting the definitive fall of the capitalist dictate, which is lustful and particularly unjust internationally. It sanctifies commercial strife, and the limit of possible corruption in human fields of action will have been reached in nepotistic democracy, which is founded on friends and family and constantly runs into dictatorship, as discussed in section Ib. In the end, the Hindu goddess of money, S'rî Lakshmî, is merely a servant of Lord Vishnu, the god of goodness and maintenance. Friendship politics, the combination of wealth and connections, and democracy do not mix well, as the philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) showed in his Leviathan. He knew only three forms of state: monarchy, democracy, and aristocracy—the people represented by one man, an assembly of all willing participants, and a part of that assembly. Nepotism transforms democracy into an aristocracy in disguise. In the event of dissension with the populace  - not so surprising when the "nobles" are chosen and aim for more lucrative positions in industrial circles  -  Hobbes calls this an oligarchy. It is a culture of regents far removed from the people, and the monarchy was introduced in the Netherlands, for example, to counter it. However, a monarchy that uses many illusory smoke curtains of fake democratic left-right changes to prove itself to be a culture of regents for which the populace has only dissent is, according to Hobbes's logic, a tyranny. In our case, it is a capitalist dictatorship, a confluence of a flawed combination of capital and philosophy, and a misperception of political power. Only the complacency of the anxious, capital-motivated majority represses and violates minorities. This majority thinks less of the volunteer in service of God, calling him "unemployed" and declaring him subservient to Mammon. This unjust treatment neglects the rest of the world and makes one think one is a democrat. False and ignorant contentment with factual injustice does not create a stable state. Thus, one could say that the majority of voters bears no justice and has a false idea of democracy.Republican democracy, or monarchy, is only real when justice is served for everyone, not just a majority of 60% or 80%. Thus, we need a general consensus about installing election groups (see also synopsis) in an order that does not allow mutual repression by a majority vote. The majority must manage to protect itself against itself based on a consensus about this self-knowledge. In "The Social Contract" II.3, Rousseau (see also "Charter of Order") wrote about this: "In order to truly obtain the general will, it is important that no group is split off from the state and that each citizen is only opinionated from his own stance." Such was the case with the eminent state order of the great Lycurgus. If there are any groups split off, their number must be increased, and they must be made equally large, as Solon, Numa, and Servius did. These precautionary measures are the only right ones to ensure that the general will (as opposed to the specific will) clearly and constantly surfaces, and that the people are not misled." Power is divided among proportionately represented, fixed election groups, so that it belongs to no one but God (see further "A Small Philosophy of Association"). It is the "easygoing" fake democracy of nepotism that is wasting her talents due to a lack of societal structure. There is no system of fixed election groups that represent all vocational and professional groups, which would balance each other at the governmental level. This discourages those qualities. Consequently, one sees the political character decline. It is therefore paramount to educate democracy anew. As Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) stated right away in the preface to his study on democracy in America: "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 emphasize the notions of time and place because they are the essence of our plea for the ether and the associated order of time. According to Plato's "The Republic" and "Seventh Letter," this re-education is the responsibility of the philosopher, who is the boss, the philosopher-king. Otherwise, it is the duty of the king or ruler, who must be a philosopher. In Vaishnava culture, one speaks of the spiritual master, or the ācārya, who is the mahārāja, or the "great king," even though he stands more for liberation through devotional service than for enlightenment through self-realization, a concept more closely associated with the independent esoteric guru. In the Christian culture, which was not yet as aware of the different types of teachers as explained in section III-a of the synopsis, this would account for the difference between a theologian who preaches liberation through service in the religious community and a psychologist/psychotherapist who wants to educate people about enlightenment and a philosophically responsible way of self-realization, rather than stressing outside authorities. With guidance poised between these two forces of progress, it's clear that without a philosophically founded reform or reeducation of democracy, without constant upgrades to the democratic order, and without the filognosy thereof - centered on the gnosis, dependent on the enlightenment of science and liberation in service to God - we will inevitably fall back into the darkness of dictatorship and moralism, the shadow side of ignorantly understood freedom. The competition between teachers of initiation and teachers of instruction, along the dimensions of the impersonal, local, and personal, must come to a stop, with the filognosy and  respect therewhith for the enlightenment of teachers operating from within. In terms of our filognosy, each must know his place. As the Japanese Confucian philosopher Ogyu Sorai (1666-1728) said 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, aims to give shape to the desired revitalization of democracy through the medium of filognosy. In the postmodern era, we are now experiencing the exhaustion of synergy. Living under a regime of artificiality and fragmentation, we understand faith only as, the way the philosopher Jean-François Lyotard (1924-1998) put it, a negative and cynical realization of lost modernist ideals. Society has fallen apart as if it were meat in a butcher's display case, and hope for an all-encompassing solution has been abandoned. One could describe the postmodern situation as the lamentation of the somewhat too negativistic and power-minded philosopher  F. Nietzsche (1844-1900), who wrote about an intellectual depression that literally caused him, with a brain feverish of venereal disease, to fall to his knees in tears when he saw a whipped horse in the street. Based on philosophers who are no longer considered acceptable today, along with social activists like Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) and the equally anti-religious Karl Marx (1818-1883), postmodern man knows only one belief and mantra: "That's nonsense!" Disappointed by the enduring abuse of human beings, religion is seen as nothing but hypocritical nonsense. But wasn't it the ancient philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BCE) who, in his "Letter to Menoeceus," 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.' He writes this in his "'Introduction to a contribution to a critique of political economy" However, he probably deems himself and the adherents of his historical-materialist theory as the embodiment of that ether. With the atheistic cry of nonsense, which was classically pronounced over the disbeliever after Epicurus, not so much over God and his gods, the materialistic doctrine was nevertheless put into practice worldwide at the onset of the twenty-first century. This doctrine is based on the belief in sex and money, and worships the idols called Mammon and Viagra. In this disbelief, everyone who dares to voice an unrealizable ideal is dismissed, contrary to the misanthropic, yet perverse, relativistic/cynical paradigm.     Postmodern philosopher Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) spoke of deconstruction in reference to appreciating interpretive, human forms of existence, or "texts," as he called them. Each person can interpret them as they wish, so it would be impossible to arrive at a complete, coherent concept, or society. He is correct in saying that books alone are insufficient and that, mutual exercising respect,  texts, never deliver an all-encompassing or coherent image of reality.It is also certain that, during a depression, when one lacks clarity of thought, one may indeed experience a literal deconstruction of one's perception of time. A depressed person is disturbed by the triple nature of time: the past is black, the future is invisible, and the present is unpleasant. Culturally, he breeds a generation of people with no future who suffer from what psychologists like Martin Seligman call "learned helplessness," a mental affliction of self-doubt, in which no solace can be found in an absolute reference that we could call God and by which we could pull ourselves out of our misery. We also saw that relativism, a combination of scientific power and philosophical knowledge traditionally decried by the Pope and a exposed as a compensation, came to a fall with the refutation of Einstein building on a non-existent limit of light speed. Einstein appeared to be the god and prophet of relativity, but according to different empirical results of scientific experiments about the speed of light at the beginning of this century, he was not irrefutable. Although it is difficult to prove materially because it is bound by paradigms, it must be said that the ether simply exists. In that context, we must speak of the Milky Way's force field as a fixed frame of reference. Time did not turn out to be absolute in its velocity, but it was absolute in the quality of its change. As Herakleitos (535–447 BCE) said, everything is in flux; 'panta rhei." The relativistic depression, rampant in the political era after Nietzsche due to the inability to supersede Marx's atheistic social idealism, is thus unmasked as a form of attachment in defiance of change. This is contrary to the absolute authority of our dynamical Father of Time and His sacred ether - the factual godhead of the classics, which Nietzsche declared to be as dead as the mean, mechanical time of the hopelessly outdated clock. Even a schoolboy these days can lecture physicists on the outdated standard time paradigm, which is too linear. In 2003, the talented young man Peter Lynds (born 1975) succeeded in stating (even before Consoli's interpretation of Düsseldorf) that there are no separate moments of time and that only continuous change exists, which one could consider absolute. Furthermore, cynicism—the canine variety of biting sarcasm - never turned out to be a successful rule of state apart from the isolationism and paranoia of autarkies like Hitler's Germany and Pol Pot's Cambodia. Rather, it constitutes a mental aberration, possibly involving sociopathic abreaction, of interest mainly to practicing psychologists and psychiatrists. Intellectually perverted by the negativism of a mutually reinforced cultural pessimism - much like a cult leader, for example - one gladly and dutifully maintains the appearance of authority, progress, and civilization, but, deranged by postmodernism, one has in fact gone bankrupt personally, intellectually, and socially, and, plagued by identity insecurity, has thereby lost one’s philosophical bearings, However, one is, in fact, personally, intellectually, and socially bankrupt. One is disturbed, postmodern, and uncertain about one's identity, thereby being lost philosophically, as we noted with  the declaration of order. This is the conclusion with which we must work in the final part of our comprehension of filognosy. As we near the end of our argument, it is clear that without a sober, methodical approach; proper knowledge of facts; effective, artistic analysis; a fine, disciplined sense of spiritual unification according to principle; and well-organized respect for classical, meek, and brotherly coexistence and succession of spiritual schools of learning, there can be no meaningful political approach of respect for - and from - the civilized person in all his historical, social, and scientific glory. Evidently, with only a color-sensitive ego, an economic/judicial argument, a conservative attitude toward private decency and virtue, and a single socialist ideal of honest sharing, we will not be able to cope politically. Dictatorships derived from a politicized consciousness will not last because of the inequity they represent through 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.' For democracy to truly be a blessing, we must acknowledge that a change in consciousness is required to improve its quality. Thus, we arrived at filognosy, which, when understood from the causality of the person or the factual substance of our investigation, demands scientific sobriety and principled spirituality as preconditions, or else presents these as indispensable elements needed to enjoy the fruits 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. People, as they grapple with moral authority and the exercise of power, are quite eager - out of a sense of adult responsibility - to step into God’s shoes. But appropriating that power creates problems - problems that one inevitably encounters in politics. In the 2003 film Bruce Almighty, directed by Tom Shadyac, there is a nice story about it. It is about the story of a frustrated reporter who sees everything working against him in life. He challenges God to prove that He is not lazy and not doing His duty. God proves himself by handing his powers over to the reporter, but not without stipulating two rules: he cannot claim to be God and must respect the free will of others. Our hero, hilariously portrayed by Jim Carrey, ultimately relinquishes his absolute power and realizes that love and goodness rule the world, not special abilities, which cannot subdue free will anyway. The combination of freedom and authority is a philosophical problem. In his 1651 book Leviathan, philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) clarifies that accepting a certain form of authority, whether from God or not, is inevitable if we do not want to end up in a chaos of "everyone against everyone." V. G. Childe, (1892-1957), an Australian archaeologist, following the dialectical reasoning of the philosopher G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831) stated that each state rule implies a dominance of hierarchy, a pecking order, and a stratification of societal classes. Childe observed this emerging from the free gathering and hunting man of nature who managed to organize himself in a "revolutionary" way, transitioning from agriculture to city life and thus arriving at a division of labor. From his Marxist perspective, he saw an evolution of state forms in a "struggle about the means," such as stone, bronze, and iron, with the thereto belonging eras that still bear those names.Thanks to  T. Kuhn (1922-1996), we now know that the "struggle" must be considered paradigmatic and not directly social. Even though matters may sometimes work maliciously out in a downward direction, it is more what is going on in the upper regions than in the lower ones. As early as in The Republic, Plato spoke of a hierarchy of state rules offering the perspective of an aristocracy of nobles. This hierarchy slides down in the direction of a tardy bureaucratic democracy of politically belligerent representatives of a doubtful heritage. Desperate for authority, this hierarchy eventually corrupts into a dictatorship of "I am God." The Vedic tradition also offers a vision of such a state of affairs, depicting the decline of noble rule into the chaotic, chronic quarrels of the age of Kali Yuga. However, they view this as a cyclical process spanning many thousands of eras. Sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) divided legal authorities into three categories, which can be seen as further insight into the historical process of sliding down or eroding into the immoral, chaotic, and impersonal uncertainty of authority.    According to Weber, the charismatic authority of dictators evolved from the traditional authority of the Church and the nobles with respect for the person of God. This is exemplified by the authority of dictators like Hitler, Napoleon, Stalin, and Mao, who defied the holiness. Once this authority is overturned, it results in the legal-rational authority of an institutionalized government. This type of government controls itself rather than the individual person at its service. Thus, with a historical sense of the order of time, we arrive at formalism from personalism, the reality of a culture of settled state officials, which was decried in Douglas Adams's 1979/2005 book and motion picture "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy". Ignorant of the impurely lived religious remedies and fixated on problems, we are ripe for the psychologist, which reveals that we are still entangled in a certain ego-determined form of internal division. From a social psychological perspective, one can discern five forms of exercising power: the power to reward, the power to punish, the power to delegate, the power of merit, and the power of expertise. Postmodern dissension and fallenness are characterized by an eroded state that delegates to local authorities. This state rewards those who adapt and punishes transgressors. However, it is impersonal in its administration and faces popular compensation of dubious charismatic celebrities. These celebrities only pose a threat to the legal order when they acquire expertise in relating to the popular vote, upon which the state itself is also based. Despite all the scientific analysis of the problem, we have not yet escaped the postmodern depression of the modern intellect. Whether we are in denial about the depression or not, we may see the matter as inevitably inherent in the spoiled nature of man, as described by Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527), of lusting for power without realizing that the ideal of a utopian state was never lost. This ideal was expressed by utopists such as Aldous Huxley (1894-1963), who wrote in  Brave New World that "promiscuity is your duty," and B. F. Skinner (1904-1990), who wrote in Walden Two that "no individual parenting" is necessary. These utopists were not as effective in reasoning out the matter as the original utopian Thomas More (1478-1535) in his 1516 work Utopia ("Neverland"). The ideal of a god-conscious world without tyranny, superfluous wealth, or landowners is difficult to attain but cannot perish because it serves a basic psychological need. As we saw when discussing the self-ideal in Section III-A, this ideal is an integral part of our existence and surfaces in postmodern science fiction television series such as  Star Trek . Without dreams, a person is as good as dead. However unrealistic More's utopia of the god Mythra may seem, it still constitutes an indispensable aim and cultural root all political movements, more or less consciously, depart from and strive for. In politics, each person has an ideal of order and authority, as well as an ideal of freedom and happiness, in mind. This is not strange to the person, but rather just. However, in modern times, the relativistic division of time and place, as exemplified by the standard political use of pragmatic and economic arguments, does not serve justice to the individual in his control with the ether and in his natural functioning with brain hemispheres that are fully occupied with linking space to time. With all goodwill, one wishes to do justice to the person, motivated by the good. However, this does not imply immediate agreement on what that order would be and how it should be respected. It also does not imply agreement on how to combine the elements of freedom and bondage in a coherent policy that is acceptable to both natural science and spirituality (reality according to its principles). Even though Jesus said that God the Father's will must be done on earth as it is in heaven, one is not immediately familiar with the verse by Vyâsa, which combines respect for place and time with respect for the person (S.B. 4.8: 54): "Om namo bhagavate vâsudevâya" (my respects to Vâsudeva, the Supreme Lord). With this mantra, called the dvâdas'âksara-mantra, the learned person should show respect for the Lord's physical nature, the way it should be done with diverse paraphernalia, and how to adapt to differences in place and time (des'a-kâla-vibhâgavit)." As we saw in the discussion about the fields of action in Section I-B, there is no immediate agreement on how to describe the political field. The left-right spectrum is described by the Eysenk model, the Nolan distribution, the Political Compass, the De Pournelle chart, the Inglehart values, and the Frisian Institute, among others (see Wikipedia: Political Spectrum). These models are rather structuralist. All of these models have in common that they lack a certain philosophical clarity and unequivocality. However, this clarity has existed since Aristotle, who stated in "About the Cosmos": "...that the most admirable political solidarity is that which brings about a unity from diversity and an equality from inequality, capable of withstanding each natural or coincidental occurrence ." ,and: "In matters as great as these, nature teaches us that equality is the guardian of solidarity, and that solidarity is the guardian of the cosmos - the progenitor of all things and of beauty to the highest degree." As we concluded in A Small Philosophy of Association, we axiomatically derive from the dictum "unity in diversity," not just from European theorists of democracy like Aristotle and Alexis de Tocqueville, but also from the Vedas. On this basis, we have two dualities: quantitative - individual as opposed to social - and qualitative - concrete matter as opposed to abstract ideals. It's as if two intertwined yin-yang symbols are at play (see the fields-table). Incorporating the Chinese philosophy of balance in nature from Lao Tzu (6th century BCE) and the reflection of this balance in Confucius's (551-479 BCE) cultural teachings, as also  the Japanese Shinto philosopher Kanetomo (1435-1511), who said that equilibrium is divinity, we can now clearly and correctly refer to this matter. Thus, the confusion of thought models concerning the political order and the exercise of authority in the modern state must come to a close. Reasoning from the Vedic root, it is clear that a political struggle has ensued among interest groups that are no longer fully in touch with their  status orientation or integer with the fields of action. This can be more or less easily recognized in the rational/legal authority of state departments. Political, official, and lawful powers are different forms of governance, as Charles Montesquieu (1689-1755) recognized in his trias politica of legislative, executive, and judicial state powers, even though they all receive income from the same state.We have officials who engage with laws and play their roles in discussion chambers. There are also officials who execute matters of state for a state department, regardless of their personal or political preferences. Finally, we have judges who guard human rights to prevent a dictatorship of officials or civil initiatives. The ideal is to have a healthy common sense when relating to this political reality. The problem with achieving this ideal is the illusions (mâyâ and moha) of people caught in the false ego (ahankâra) and its ideologies (”-isms”). One cannot find the balance between the end of a cherished vision and the fundamental means of its opulence. This appears to be the only logical and filognostical answer to the matter. If we face reality as the holy purpose and holy grail of democracy in a scientific way, understanding all the escapades of the modernist ego, then we needn't fear what psychologist and philosopher Karl Popper (1902-1994) warned against in his plea for an "open society" of liberal democracy.      He stated that the reality of evolving forms of the state being lawful, as envisioned by the evolutionary models of Marx and Hegel, does not imply that one can design a future for oneself. According to Popper, utopia is a potentially dangerous and totalitarian vision of reality because it implies that the freedom of the individual must repeatedly be sacrificed for the sake of a higher purpose. If one leaves man to his lustful nature, nothing will come of the envisioned state. This must be confirmed from the Vedic axiom. The focus is not on creating another world and rejecting a questionable form of freedom by overturning the regime with a violent revolution. The interest lies in casting off, individually and subculturally or collectively, the shackles of illusions upheld by the profit-driven mindset. This allows one to face the original reality and find happiness, even if it is not the happiness of each individual. Ultimately, it may lead to a different time or world. One cannot improve the world by turning away from it - neither as a socialist nor an individualist - nor by pushing against it. One must see the world as it is and improve one's own life. In doing so, one can serve as an example and support for others, and find happiness in living a life that is more in line 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 also as the philosopher Seneca stated in A Happy Life III.3 when talking about that better life later on in history. As Popper indicated with his idea of "piecemeal engineering," the gradual realization of politically set targets is also found in Vyâsa's paramparâ (disciplic succession) and the handing down of spiritual authority. This allows for a step-by-step cultural evolution (B.G.  6: 25), in which the individual is first faced with a "bitter" hangover from the lesson learned and may only later harvest the "sweet" fruits of better practice (B.G. 18:36-38). This practice is filognosic, personally conveyed, and virtuous, and it involves gratitude and servitude. It is equal to the moksha of individual liberation, or the individual/subcultural attainment of Vaikuntha, the Vedic heaven of that order of life. In this order, there is no (vai-) dullness and sloth (-kuntha), and therefore, one has nothing to fear.    As we saw in the Small Philosophy of Association, the fake democracy must be remedied with a self-certain sense of order and a settled, representative democracy. In this democracy, the concept of freedom is bound to order, not chaos. This idea was also confirmed in 2003 by Muslim writer and journalist Fareed Zakaria in his book The Future of Freedom. From a filognostic perspective, this gradual "soft" revolution, this conversion of societal opinion and development of democracy, does not differ much from what Seneca likewise concluded in his dialogues (III.3) out of love for ethereal integrity: "Wisdom means not straying from nature and conforming to her law and example." Thus it was at the violent onset of the French Revolution, when a clockmaker led the storming of the Bastille in 1789. Although unsuccessful, a decimal system was introduced with the revolutionary clock and calendar to restore the authority of nature over man. As Seneca said, it will always be so in the renewed, less violent efforts to make that revolution of time a success. The future is determined by the soft revolution of gradualness, the observation of inevitable facts and trends, and the prominence of natural and social realities that cannot be denied or compensated away. First and foremost, this concerns the highly personal future of a self-realized individual who, by gradually becoming a beacon for others, learns to live closer to the happiness of the natural God. In the political era — which, from a Vedic perspective, has ruled since the Battle of the Great War of the Mahabharata and is called kali-yuga — there will be an ongoing discussion between doubters and skeptics. Both have betrayed the game's regulatory principles and must face the karma thereof. Without philosophy, they miss what Seneca called her most important achievement in "The Way to Wisdom": gratitude and the correct way to express it.    The duty of loving one's fellow man is to keep the door open to Vaikunthha, a utopia, and clear the path to it. It is not to impose it by means of law. As Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1529) wrote in The Prince, political leaders should not consider anything other than the practical use of maintaining the status quo, even if it means defying the ethical code. Consequently, leaders should not try to improve citizens or tempt them into further corruption. The moral judgment is reserved for the intellect, not the ruler who takes advice from it. The utilitarian notion of state power, directed towards practical use, consists of making the best of the state with the way people happen to be, rather than trying to teach them enlightenment and educate them for the sake of another world. However, one cannot object to it as a manifestation of "free enterprise" and "free organization." Everyone must follow their own dictates because only then will we be free from dictatorship. Only then will we understand that the jailhouse of standard time, which imprisons all politically opposing materialists in a relativistic denial of the ether, cannot be broken down easily, as one would not with any other jailhouse. Only then can we understand F. Nietzsche's plea for self-realization as an act of goodness. As we explained in the previous section, the game of order is not so much about educating the human being as it is about respecting him in both his fallen and elevated states. This is done by relativizing the concepts of higher and lower, abstract and concrete, and upward and downward. These concepts are seen as free and equal options open to personal evolution. God's blessing is present through the faculty of right discrimination. Only with such respect for the fullness of life of the common man, who can be saintly while living a concrete and material life, and the educated man, who can be saintly with or without much experience while being highly committed and having a high level of self-respect and respect for the (filognostic) person of God, can we speak of a truly successful policy. As Seneca said in A Happy Life (V),  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.' From the Vedic perspective, we must add that utopia exists for individuals who live up to the filognostic notion of order - the order of views relating to the order of nature - but it is never realistic for those who are not conversant with it and do not cherish such a lucid mind about the ultimate filognostic reality. As proven by the oldest Vedic and later Greek and Roman scriptures, this reality has always existed, exists now, and will exist as a bright and radiant future. With the filognostic revolutions currently taking place in different societal realms, as discussed here, the political saying goes: Stand up for your rights and stop fighting each other. Do not fight each other with illusions; rather, fight illusions together. After all, we are Homo sapiens, knowing man. Originally, time was a religious concept from a societal perspective, and politicians differed little from priests in ancient Rome, for example. Plato and Socrates said that the ultimate order of things was under the jurisdiction of the god Apollo. This indicates that time, the ether, and the associated concept of societal order are essentially matters of religiosity. In modern science, this is known as the Apollonian principle, which, with these philosophical founding fathers of that idea, consciously commits itself to the divine . In The Republic, Plato put forward the political values of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice. But what were the precursor values before them, and how did they evolve? The The Filognostic Manifesto this section opens begins with a historical overview of human values that clarifies the evolution of knowledge about time. Ultimately, if we take a sober look into the future with our filognosy in the following pages, we will have a world order that, having arrived at a galactocentric consciousness, is based on a systematic and programmed respect for human rights and civil identity. We will establish an order in which the cultures of the solar and lunar calendars are reflected. In this order the year count will no longer be linked exclusively to a particular religious preference. In this non-repressive dualistic governance, there will not be a single time system that rules and commands. Rather, there will be an attitude that is more naturally conscious of social relativism and multicultural solidarity based on freedom of choice. Political parties will no longer struggle to be elected. Instead, the people will be more structurally aware of each other's ideologies. Together, they will fight to overcome the illusions of false unification and unemployment that deny diversity. The postmodern diseases of estranged materialistic cynicism and anarchistic relativism will be overcome for the benefit of the splendor of  a more realistic, rational, identity-conscious, and personally bound representative world democracy. This system of state management will offer a better-balanced, good, and natural order of time and will serve as a recollection and respectful remembrance for its (also digital) citizens. It will offer everyone a life free from fear and confusion in harmony with filognostic self-control and the primal ether force field, now called the Higgs field.   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: