musicbutton


 

 

POLITICS

 
 
 
Rationalism, pragmatism, humanism. What is their relationship, what is the method to arrive at a government that is stable at the one hand and still in respect for the dynamics of our personal evolution? Who should represent us, what is the future of political parties and how should the falsehood of any system be fought in the first place? What has God to do with it and how should we incorporate each in our societal order? All these questions are answered in this speech about what our concerns should be to the regular incidence of democratic elections.

 

Contents:

Introduction

Preliminaries

A Methodic Approach

Doubt

Division

Fighting the falsehood

Incorporating each

A legal implication

 

 


 

by R.M.

 Dit artikel in het Nederlands         

 

Introduction

Dear fellow believers, members of the royal family and ministers of the government; dear officials of discussion and maintenance, dear maintainers of the public order; please accept my regards and respects for all in service of God and the State.

I received an official request (April 2002, for the local government) to express my opinion on the order of the state. Whom would I want as my official representative, what political party would be my allegiance? This one asked in the context of democratic elections. I as a citizen would have the duty, would be obliged to express my motive of political preference. I have to contribute to the order of the state. Since the state maintains and protects me as a citizen, I owe a confession, I have to choose, determine my position, make up my mind, express my belief, propose my science, defend my paradigm, preach my concept of order. Acknowledging this argument I will state my case, and do so not for the first time. I will even repeat this as many times as needed.

 

Preliminaries

Democratic elections is the issue. So, as a responsible scientist, a behavioral scientist in my case, I will do my duty. First of all to clarify my philosophical point of view, I have to say that, scientifically, I am a confessed rationalist in the first place. I believe that reason is the way to awaken the original person of God in man. Rationalism is in this with me only meaningful embracing the concept of God. Ratio, the weighing of the relative magnitude of two quantities, plus God, the Supreme Being, is reason whereas ratio minus God is a mental disease. Reason is the opposite of mental disease; we say that we have gone mad giving up the interactive of reason. Humanism I decry for not being comprehensive, it is an all too vague concept of tolerance that just as well leads to the good of man as to the institution of human foolishness and ignorance. Ratio relates to reason as the human would to the divine. Reason and not the human is the way to arrive at the original purpose of the authentic person of God, which I hold as axiomatic to my defense. The human is of the category of ratio, the weighing of opposites, reason is of the category of the divine: an outcome of wisdom or the sum of our experience. Thus I afford to reduce the concept of humanism to the concept of ratio; the humanist might speculate on his ultimate divinity, but I rely on the outcome of reason. In fact is reason the proof of the divinity taking human nature for granted. The fear I am talking about is the false notion that divinity would be of any dependency to the world. God is happy in His heaven and is not obliged to the earth. We may or may not approach, that is the reality. What I want is the proof of God and reason is of all miracles and magic of the divine my final aspiration. Thus I defend myself as a rationalist in respect with the concept of God striving for the evident proof of reason, not the evident (human) proof of divinity as the material proof of heaven is always false or illusory. The only reliable proof of divinity is reason and nothing else. From reason we have goodness, respect, peace and propriety. From falsifications we have darkness, disbelief, oppression, revolt, war and poverty. If one says that the purpose of humanism would be reason, then in what would it differ from rationalism? With the right purpose in view is the problem of dualism thus solved and all rationalism and humanism with another purpose false, nay even a neurotic defense leading to unstable compensations, that are also called abuse of goodness and belief.

The second paradigmatic issue of relevance to state my point of view about modern democratic elections is that of pragmatism: that practical consequences are the criteria of knowledge, meaning and value. Something, some reasoning, some strategy should have practical value. If it doesn't work it is not true but must be condemned as escapism or irresponsibility. I am in so far a pragmatist that I belief in the practical consequence of reason, the abuse of this argument for the practical outcome of material profits I reject the same way as I reject the practical outcome of divinity in humanism without reason. Reason is the science of balancing the interest of heaven and earth with rationalism as its servant and as such I consider pragmatism the counterweight of humanism. Each of them is, albeit an inescapable reality in its self, an unbalance of one-sidedness on its own estranged from the purpose of reason; from that one-sidedness we have found false preaching in religion and false capital without societal responsibility. Rationalism is the way to deal with the duality of the material abuse of the pragmatical argument and the falsification of the concept of divinity in humanism. Thus far the preliminaries to my argument.

 

A Methodic Approach

In defense of reason as a goal in itself, as the ultimate purpose in defense of the original person, as the veritable proof of divinity and the only proper practical outcome to assure peace, prosperity and equality, I will thus set up an absolute of reasoning, knowing the reasoning aiming at the soul about the phenomenon of democratic elections, following the method of rationalism. For this I have to confess myself to my most important predecessor in this, namely the french philosopher René Descartes. Following the argument above is he in my opinion the father of the modern scientific method and its outcome of soulfulness and selfrealization in the human at the one hand and of scientific power and control by pragmatical endeavor and defense at the other. Descartes formulated the method as follows: first there is uncertainty with a methodic doubt, then there is division, then there is the assigning of a definite order to deal with the complexity so that finally the complete of the reality is incorporated [see also the charter of order]. This would from a rationalist perspective be about the way to arrive at a proper government which seems to be the issue with the demand for a popular vote.

 

Doubt

So first of all doubt. Uncertainty is not nice, can be a mental disease and stuck in it it can lead to serious disarray. But this exercise is for the devoted, not for the non-devoted who are factually only out for abuse and their personal profit. For the ones of God it is always good to ask oneself for the proper relative and the right reference not to fall into false absolutes; for them could uncertainty be the royal road to freedom and liberation in selfrealization. For the ones without devotion are false absolutes for sure the goal and interest and is thus doubt a tormenting part of their inescapable psychological reality of repression and denial. Thus piously taken is fighting the necessary doubt an enemy of our freedom. We for the sake of God and our modesty have to exercise doubt, praying that we find our liberation in truth by it. In service of the truth I for this primer of doubt have to question thus the concept of free elections.

First of all, pragmatically, why should we elect a government if we have one already? A simple question, but very true, proving that we apparently cannot afford to be certain about whatever government we would have. It would be heresy to this reason to state that we wouldn't need elections. But there is more to it. This argument is only valid for a government that is of God, that is not separated from the religion or the conscious exercise of respect for the inherited wisdom laid down in the scriptures. A state separated from the confession to a concept of God ruins this argument; a state thus conceived would then only exercise false authority in denial of the traditions with and persons of the classical wisdom. For without a concept of God there cannot be an obligation to make choices; one would force people into the doubtful. No 'noblesse', no 'oblige'. Free elections with a 'valuefree' government can only make for a hypocritical effort to find the confirmation of the dissatisfied, in a schizoid state of hating the ones one tries to welcome, which is philosophically as well as behaviorally an unacceptable practice. Practically that practice will reduce the interest of the people in free elections so that in reality with less than fifty percent voters of the electorate the election must be declared invalid in favor of the sitting government. It is only democratic if the will of the majority is respected. If one votes for satisfaction by not participating in the elections would one - would it be the government or the people - be in offense taking the majority of the voters for the popular majority. Thus seen does the present system always , even with a majority vote, arrive at a bad government of dissatisfied paranoid disbelievers, as one on that case does not know anymore whether the eventual majority logically was enforced niet meer of de eventuele meerderheid logisch is afgedwongen. Forced confessions don't hold the case. So one can see how democracy without a conscious effort to respect the classical wisdom does lead to a dictature of possibly a minority that by definition can only rule with terror and repression. Godlessness is a disaster, irreligion is maturity; the two concepts should not be confused. Since as yet we are not having this dictature (...), must be concluded that we are not godless in our governing at all so that the separation of church and state is an illusory one. Aren't all god-conscious people of a religious background? Didn't we see the Prince of Orange marry in church with all heads of state present? Where is that separation then? Who invented that confession we do not practice? Or is that just a remnant of an ignorant past we rather see disappear so that the real drama of the fall-down into dictature can take place? Thus enough doubt is cast on the practice of free elections that keep up a pretense of being valuefree, which practically must immediately be abandoned as soon as the falldown really sets in; or have we already? One can slide down without being capable of restoring if one is simply lazy and too easy in guarding the soul's interest. If we would be really god-conscious we wouldn't pretend to be separate from our schools of moral learning. It is a psychologically speaking a neurotic exercise in a immature conflict over the power of rule. Would it be humanistic shame, or pragmatical deceit or some other philosophical fallacy of half truths we cannot part from? Are we maybe attached to our bookcases in stead of being aware of the authority thereover? Have we ever finished our studies dear politicians? And could that make a reasonable rule if we fall short in our command of knowledge? Enough again, now we are uncertain enough about elections or whether we are really value-free or capable at all this way. From the first part of the method we thus learn this: separating church, synagogue, mosk and temple from the state is a schizoid exercise that rationally cannot be defended without falling in unreason, disbelief, decay, disrespect and dictature. We thus doubt the valuefree approach. The roots cannot be denied, otherwise the tree is uprooted. It can quietly from the command of reason be concluded that for any responsible government some kind of religiously founded confession to a concept of God is an absolute prerequisite. So far the truth uncovered.

 

Division

Next part of the method is that of division: we have to cut the problem of representation up into different parts to arrive at a proper command over the problem. Analytically is the practice of binding people with political parties easily a double bind: if one does not vote does one does not take responsibility, and if one votes does one possibly contribute to the general dissent which is also reprehensible. The desire of the dissatisfied compulsive hankering for another government leads to madness. What should the populace do: be satisfied with the wealth achieved and be called irresponsible or should they participate in the conscious effort to disagree with one another, with always the majority being in favor of the wrong parties in opposition? Thus one can imagine that behaviorally a lot of angry and crazy people can be expected. With the moral schizoid we were driven into the neurosis of an uncertain hypocritical conception of God already. And now this. The schizophrenic of collective and individual selfdestruction is as good as certain this way. Sure any way is that never any political fraction will rule the world. Mature politics consist by coalitions. But then again the same argument as with the moral one is found: making coalitions the very reality and necessity of political parties becomes an exercise in hypocrisy again. Isn't it so that politicians represent also the interests of politicians? Isn't it so that politicians in political parties simply obscure the representation of their own interest? Aren't it the students, the workers, the clergy, the intellectuals, the withdrawn middle-aged, the detached elders and even the military that always feel oppressed this way? Don't the politicians dress up like business people with free enterprise and tax-reduction as the major issues of their campaigns? With these doubts it is not difficult to acknowledge that apparently we have difficulty of arriving at a balanced representation of the public interest. Nor to the age, nor to the profession is one systematically represented. In stead is the complication of this reduced to the vague philosophical ground of a political populist option. One tries to amend on the system of election, but one does not put the political parties themselves second to the popular reality of all agegroups and professions. Political ego represses thus the justice that of the soul should be done to each.

So are also the unemployment-figures and the sick-leave numbers a source of great concern. And naturally is something that does not exist a great problem. With the first part of our method we saw namely that politically the god-conscious person in principle is not covered by the management of the state. Thus is to them all devotional activity - read: the work of voluteers - workunemployment. Well devotion, has always been a problem for the atheist: it is a threat to the false of power not to be the Supreme Lord that employs all as one cannot get His control. Unemployment does not exist if one redefines the concept of labor. It scripturally speaking never has existed, since the very term does not occur in the scriptures - that is why they are called holy. Involving all kinds of volunteered devotional activity in the concept of labor does a basic income for each worldcitizen become an inescapable reality. In the welfaring countries with millions living on social security and healthcare funds it is only a matter of respect for those devoted people not calling them lazy or cowardly, to see that this basic income is the reality already. One only has to give up the envy with, the false demand of proof of being fit and healthy for another employer than God. The argument not to be envious with the fact that one couldn't work for someone else but for God is waved away as being impractical as one, factually, should give only funds to people who deserve it, so say the scriptures. But who else but the person and his precious honor of ego is the judge of that? One may arrest overt crime, that is all one can. Always has half the population worked as a volunteer, however one looks at the statistics according ones political purpose, even more, everyone should and really does too at least half the time of his day live so just to stay healthy.

It is quite evident that fighting the literal disease, one creates the disease in this. Thus is our stress defined by our materialism and is it inevitable that the ego of political parties belonging to it in time will disappear into the background of having free unions of whatever kind. To justice these parties may thus not thrive at the cost of the younger, the married young adults, the withdrawn middle-aged and the detached elders. Nor may they, non-discriminatory speaking, flourish at the cost of workers, enterprisers, the rule, the military and the police itself and the intellect, priesthood, the spiritual and wise. Political parties must acknowledge that the ego is send out to defend the interest of the soul once one is cured from the moral schizoid mentioned before. Thus can the natural reappearing of the classical division be recognized of the former class-society and the stratification according age. Seeking for proper division in governmental representation one cannot escape this classical problem of division. Constantly denying it is useless. There should, rationally speaking, with the inescapable of this reasoning be eight formal parties of discussion, or better said reference points of discussion: the party of youth, of the young adults, of the middle aged, of the elderly, of labor, of enterprise, of intellect and of the noble rule. These two times four is eight formal divisions of discussion which according the two dimensions of status en vocational interest together result in sixteen identification groups, should, with their people recruited from all kinds of unions, debating clubs, parties and institutions, discuss their interests in parliament and thus be effective in not losing any energy, nor money in futile conflicts about the political ego. Thus one will never suffer the illusion again that any party will will ever be the ruling one having a majority. That would be forbidden by law then.

 

Fighting the falsehood.

Next problem is that of order. The complexity of the diverse formal parties and their material and spiritual interests necessitates also a system of election, an exam for participation, an application-routine or line of succession of some sort that has to evolve from the present system of free election. If by law has been fixed what kind of representation can be voted for is undoubtedly a greater stability of rule achieved. That stability itself could then even become a problem of caste-identity in which people exclude one another in privileges and inequity because of belonging to another group. Inequality and discrimination are things rightly fought, but the perspective of personal emancipation and transcendence must not be missed with that. In order to keep the falsehood out of this status-orientation system there must be a notion of the complexity of people ascending and descending in their material interest. One is either more involved with the higher functions of helping, discussing, developing insight and controlling the mind or with the lower functions of regulating the lust, the body, the material business and the socializing. From the lower to the higher will one in degrees have another philosophy of life and another consciousness of order on the different rungs of the ladder of selfrealization. Ultimately does free election mean that one has to choose for ones own selfrealization, peer-group and one's own mission in life, finding one's own duty with the status-oriëntation group one grows into and out of again. That is the true meaning of democratic elections. The groups are in fact fixed by nature, but not so the people. That is is the original meaning of having a career or a new government: there should be confidence in a natural evolution through age-groups, levels of transcendence, degrees of experience and professions. That natural truth of age, type of service and level and degree of involvement is absolute and fixed, but life itself is the dynamic experience of it in social mobility. This emancipatory idea would be the perfection of humanism and the final logic of all pragmatics.

The rationalist option is there only to secure the sober realistic reason about balancing the interests and keeping oneself free from illusions of control. If the control lies not by the ego, but in the scientific, properly divided, interest of the soul in the complete of the spiritual and material reality of the original person that, yes, so must be of God with the rules of the game, is such a final concept of order to be appreciated as a solution to respect the dynamics of a personal life in stead of being feared for its fixation, falsification and illusion of stability. That is the justice that needs to be done. Psychologically it would mean the end of existential anxiety, identity confusion, and hopelessness in relations of attachment. With a predominance of political parties one always fears of the ego, while with formal representation groups one is freed in a dynamic life that is truly democratic in its permission for all to equally participate.

 

Incorporating each

Thus far we saw at step one the necessity of a God-conscious approach, next we saw the natural reality of all people as participants in one of the sixteen formal status-orientation groups. Thirdly we realized the safeguard necessary to prevent the falsification of identifying with that statusorientation, introducing the concept of time in a personal evolution through those groups. At last we have to discuss the problem of covering the complete of our society, nay the whole whole world with it. A new world order is emerging from the digital revolution of information exchange and the multinational of enterprising. Communications vastly improve our knowledge of one another, but the problem of modern time, estrangement, is not solved directly. We cast with our 'tolerant' materialism, a shadow of terrorism since the sixties of the twentiest century, not mentioning the false rebellion of a warmongering Napoleon against the traditions of a rusty nobility, the godless and blood-red repression of Marx and the destruction of a zonetime-freakout Hitler abreacting national frustrations and european colonial mischief. Such is the nature of modern time in which the problem of modern time is simply modern time itself as an oedipal abreaction in adolescent rebellion against the inescapable conditioning father of natural cyclic time.

Returning to a sober vision of our natural personal and cultural reality along the lines laid out above and before, must we, in order to incorporate as many people as possible, as we already saw, accept that redefining the concept of labor is the solution for the problems of sick-leave and unemployment. The psychology of modern time is quite easily pushed back to the individual responsibility of the citizen by denying the government a legal settlement of time with the argument that that belongs to the domain of selfrealization in which a legal prescription of time is off limits. The redefining comprises a cultural respect for each his individual way of life, unprecedented in the world's history. The real purpose of post modern deconstruction is to achieve that reality in giving up all false politically inspired pragmatic or humanistic, and even rationalistic, imposition at the one hand being vigilant to a more natural division and order of state at the other hand. Such a reform is is feasible, natural and realistic. One only needs to pay attention and one sees it spontaneously happening provided that each does his duty. Each can, as we saw, operate and find representation at his own level of transcendence and control whatever his age or profession.

 

A legal implication

The condition for incorporating everyone necessitates a moral norm, a general set of rules that makes democracy and free elections not a question of political concern, but a natural reality. One is that fundamentally and cannot be forced into such a system, one can only awaken to the present reality of it working oneself more consciously in favor of it. The morality required, the rules of the game, are fundamentally the common denominator of the interest of non-illusion, love, reward and social quality found in all religious, political and philosophical exercises about the definition of human values (see the Filognostic Manifesto part I of the Order of Time). Only with a morality which assures us of the qualities of the human being in tolerance with his weaknesses can the revolutions of the intergation of mankind (its holism!?), the concept of soul, the digital communication, the local principle and of the freedom of personal time management (see the Filognostic Manifesto part II of the Order of Time) take place, nay be recognized and promoted. The vision is founded on an unequivocal respect of time with the cyclic of the universe: by the natural order of father time we find our natural self no longer estranged, nor in culture, nor in relating to our grand material nature with its confounding modes, our original mother. Since this classical traditional and even primeval respect of time is typically different in structure for the different religions and cultures, is the abolishing of legal settlements of time mandatoryif one wnats to arrivce at a natural method tpo form a government. A legal settlement of time makes of the political culture a religion of standardtime imposed by law which is contradictory to the freedom - and purity - of religion as laid down in the constitution, in the Koran in defense of a 'pure', that is to say a natural moon and sun in the respect of time, in the Bhagavad Gîtâ equating the person of god with the time of the sun and the moon, and the christian Bible which forbids the manipulation of time (see Daniël 7.25. and the Lord's prayer in defense of the 'as above so below' morality). Respecting this truth and solving that problem, we can become thus again be the children of God we were intended to be instead of the children of the falsifying state and thus cure from all our political trauma's and compulsions.

The final conclusion must be always: democracy involves all and the wanted freedom is found with the human loyalty, the conscious choice for the divine but sober vision and acceptance of the natural reality of our biological and cultural diversity. That is the true of our lives, that we, having it politically represented at the one hand, at the other hand as citizens time and again critically must reconsider in going to the ballot-box; as it has always been, and will always be.

  

(last revised 26-6-2006), R. M.