This filognostic manifesto, a manifest on the love for knowledge or filognosy, elaborates on the themes of The Order 0f Time with the subject of work and unemployment as its lead to answer the fundamental questions of war and peace. The purpose is to arrive at a clear lead for the politics of state in relation to the cultural and natural order of time and timemanagement.

In the first chapter we see how through a recapitulation of history we realize that we are in an evolution of the practice of the values of liberation.

Next in the second chapter we see that about the right to speak we have to conclude that there is no political solution to begin with, but that about reference, form and authority we should hold on to change, time and selfrealization in stead of fixations, lordships and political power.

In the third chapter we come to realize the fallacies of the vedic root, political dialectics and religious/scientific concepts of attachment to conclude that a concept of reform and progress is needed that doesn't make another world but unifies the two worlds projected by any system of material identification.

In the fourth chapter we realize that there is a system of holistic healthcare possible to account for this abridging of the gaps of duality.

In the next fifth chapter the question of authority is answered clarifying that the show is factually run on properly balancing divisions of time that factually employ everyone and that a holistic answer to the dualistic fallacies must be founded on a realistic system of status-orientation and commitment that is reflecting the principles of the soul.

In the sixth chapter answering the question who these people of liberation are there is concluded that 1) such a system of liberation is maintained by a multifaith spiritual discipline figuring as the standard to work for offering the relative of all individual and social ego, and that 2) the state and money should be the servant with becoming someone instead of somebody in sacrificing for an informationculture of filognosy (loving the knowledge).

In the seventh chapter the practical problem of implementation is discussed concluding that to the problem of representation, authority, economy, transport and social control we need five revolutions called the revolution of respectively holism, soul, the digital, locality, and time.

In the last eight chapter it is concluded that the problem of war can only be solved by giving up the illusion of unemployment and that for the defense of peace one has to fight for 1) the rights of all living creatures for housing in the broadest sense and 2) the sanity of respect for the culture, progress and filognosy (love for knowledge) of the soul by helping the dropouts and sick to regain their trust and commitment.


 Study also 'A small Philosophy of Association' for a detailed description of the order of rule envisioned with the concept of filognosy.






BY: R.M.



Bhagavad Gita 4:18




In the spring of 1999 there is a war going on in Yugoslavia. War means a disagreement about the management of the state. The opposing parties consider one other enemies as one order would threaten the other. The Serbs with their violent policy against UCK terrorism are accused of genocide. The NATO is accused of violating international law in transgressing the right of independent states to have their own policies. The NATO calls the sake they are fighting for worldorder, and the Serbs have the same argument. The conclusion is that there is no international agreement about how or what this worldorder should be. In reality this worldorder is a theory, the practice is an armed conflict.

Reasoning for himself and the rest of the community of the likewise sacrifice, this writer is engaged in this very same war, taking up the arms of the intellect: the computer, the pen, the book, the logic, the argument etc. 'How should one win a war by arguing?', he may ask. One may answer that finding complement in stead of opposition in logic would be the end of the war as far as it concerns him as a warrior for the truth. One may argue that only the dialectics of the spoken word are truth and that the rest would be mere escapism, cowardice and lies. One may also say that to think, and write it down and study it before one speaks, might be the only way to the practical solution of peace as apparently the spoken word has failed and attained to armed opposition instead of political complement. Seen this way theory becomes the only practice while the factual practice of armed conflict is in fact a theory. Those who fight, do not really act, but show the real face of the theory at hand: the theory of worldorder was a pretense for governmental imposition not acceptable to - in this case - the Serbian/NATO mature claim of sovereign power that would represent the democratic will of individual and sovereign citizens.. This fallen theory of worldorder proves itself as a proposal which cannot be refused, offers no freedom of choice and acts as a commandment to which there is no opposition allowed. It fights in fact its own (religious) self. In other words: it is a dictate imposed and not a form of (religious) understanding accepted by all parties. At the other hand the theoretician, the intellectual, just thinking and writing for himself is the one who really practices: from him we realize the practice of peace, welfare and progress and from him the order of the state can be learned.

So at first hand in this case of war we have the realization of what is factually theory and practice. When the goal is peace, the intellectual is recognized as the practician, while the talking politicians apparently did not theorize sufficiently to arrive at the proper relative of complementing in peace, thus being stuck in a mere theory of peace. Another way of stating this is to say that to speak is easier than to listen; to write is more easy than to read. Or a wise man could say: those who speak of peace and truth do not practice it. If this is the essence of the conflict we may arrive at the proposal to read and listen before we write and speak. Only then we can conclude whether our philosophy would be insufficient for settling a worldorder in the parliament of political complement.

From these primal realizations about war and peace we have to consider some questions concerning the history, reference, action and political management of work and unemployment to begin with. They are:



Section 1

Chapter 1 Who has the right to speak?
1.1 A small history of the values of liberation
1.1.1 world cultures.

1.1.2 non-illusion.

1.1.3 love.

1.1.4 reward.

1.1.5 social quality.

1.1.6 effect.

1.2 Conclusion

Chapter 2 What literature should be read?

2.1 The Problem of reference.

2.2 The Problem of form of God.

2.3 The Problem of authority.

Chapter 3 What action is the action of peace?

3.1 The vedic philosophy.

3.2 Political dialectics.

3.3 The concept of religion, liberation and enlightenment.

Chapter 4 What political complement should be the practice of political management?

4.1 The nature of the holism.

4.2 Mental health care.

4.3 Can there be any formal system of liberation?


Following this section in the second part there will be discussed the remaining questions of leadership, obligation, practice and protection.


Section 2:


Chapter 5 Who is the master of the game, the employer?

5.1 The divisions and content of a balanced life.

5.2 The interests of the soul.

Chapter 6 Who are the people of liberation.?

6.1 How must any system of liberation be served and maintained?

6.2 What makes the difference of enlightenment?

6.2.1 The state should be the servant.

6.2.2 It is more important to be someone than to be somebody.

Chapter 7 How should this practice of worldorder really look like?

7.1) First we have the problem of representation.

7.2) Next we have the problem of authority.

7.3) Thirdly there is the problem of economy

7.4) Forth there is the problem of traffic and transport.

7.5) The fifth problem is that of social control

Chapter 8 How should we fight to protect and defend this worldorder and peace?

8.1) Housing.

8.2) Sanity and health.




Who has the right to speak?

To the practice of speaking one may say that it is a vocation, a job to which one needs an employer, someone who is spoken for. In this modern society leadership is in a schizoid position. Since the french revolution we have concluded that only reasonable democracy would be the proper approach. One may speak if one represents a group of people and then only if one accepts others to do the same. Thus one would have a parliament of reasonable representatives working for reasonable compromises to please at least the majority of the people. But the reality of worldorder as it is at the end of the twentiest century tells us something different: just as well we derive our policies of governmental action from a single authority, Lordship, hero or genius in religion or (political/economic) philosophy, and bluntly impose this wisdom upon the ignorant masses that simply have to obey or perish.

If we ask a greek philosopher what wisdom would be, he would answer stating that to see the things as they are is wisdom. Are people electing representative for the ones who don't? Is the government thus representative? The answer is no. Thus we have a need of this other authority of wisdom to see the social reality as it is; Lordships, philosophers and other hero's hailed by the masses for their acts of liberation. In fact following the psychological dictate of sanity we cannot afford to repress the one with the other: The government has to keep balance between what the people want and what would be possible with the authority for which one also has to speak. The fact is that these other authorities of Lordship, genius and heroism, always present themselves as moral authorities: they are representing the wisdom of social reality according to a certain set of values. Value-free science may be the ideal of the representing government, but it makes only sense if the community one represents is holy. To the concept of worldorder therefore we have all kinds of Lordship in all kinds of culture preaching the values of liberation. In fact there is an evolution of these values of liberation. The form they take in each epoch or culture is changing with the time and place. In order to arrive at a conclusion to what authority we should answer next to the democratic demands of the common people, we should ask ourselves what the common theme in the history of this set of moral values would be.

1.1 Let us have a rough sketch of this history of the values of liberation (they would liberate us from serving ignorance, making us employees of the eternal soul).

fig 1








3000 BC
500 BC
500 BC





social security.

social control

Of course any historian and subculture can dispute this sketch of our moral evolution, the writer is open for further discussion and arguing. But anyhow here is a beginning of understanding of what we have been building up concerning the right to speak. The moral authority telling politicians how to counter the ignorance of the masses has developed through the ages these themes of heartening the interest of non-illusion, love, reward and social quality with a different effect. To begin with: from the evolutionary point of view it is important to have this time-line (however debatable). From the development in the past one can predict the future and thus arrive at a descriptive lead (although subject to a paradigm of cultural management always), that could answer our first question. This descriptive lead has been projected at the virtues of The Order of Time, the internet participation platform that proposes a paradigm of alternative time-managment as a complement to the existing management of standard-time. Their set of values describes the above history in short as a coming down to earth of divine values (the vedic) via disciplinary principles (the turmoil of history), compromising with the social reality (the democratic set of values), ultimately offering the practical outcome of human virtues (filognosy or love for knowledge) for which it all was conceived.

Without extensive arguing about the here and there forced division in four categories of systems that would at least claim ten of them (like the christian ten commandments) important insights can be derived from this scheme.

1.1.1 From this time-line concerning the world-cultures one can perceive a gradual process of arriving at a worldorder: first it is restricted to India, then spreading to China, coming to the Middle East and Greece, arriving at larger Europe, then the western Hemisphere as a whole and finally it covers the whole world in an economically just, democratically freed and interfaith tolerant culture of loving the knowledge (information-culture). This latter concept of filognosy is in the process of becoming in the heart of the information-culture with the so called digital revolution of the new medium of Internet, because of which this description is tentative and self affirming. But it answers to the demand of prediction and description formulated.

1.1.2 The theme of non-illusion common to all value-systems as the first purpose seems to have a fuzzy history: at any epoch truth is the common value in fighting the disasters of delusion and bewilderment that would punish mankind for its culture of illusion, lies and hypocrisy with war and pestilence. To ward of this danger illusion must be countered with truth: but how to define and guarantee it? It would be done with at first rituals (to take away the delusions of power). This can be observed from the earliest cultures until today but was after Asia cultivated it never the complete conviction. More than mere ritual was needed to arrive at the truth of peace. The greek philosophers preached the sober sense of reality that later culminated in the sciences of the western hemisphere proving their truth by the practice of instrumental implementation, thus becoming dominant (not in the least by war-technologies). Cartesian philosophy called for the principle of doubt in service of the truth and soul that is now practiced in the new physics in respect of The General Theory of Relativity. This would ultimately secure the democratic sobering moderation in respect of each his interest by economically realistic cuts and even debts of the state itself in spending for the sake of righteous and sensible divisions. The modern concept of honesty which can be observed in the almost unlimited freedom of the media (especially television) as a non repressive approach to the human weakness was after the christian love for the truth and the mohammedan pressure for confession the essence of realizing a new sense of truth of being reborn in service of a worldorder. Illusion is gradually overcome by means of a collective confession in the culture of the media who took it over from the confinement of religion. Honesty would be the natural virtue resulting from this growth of the respect for the sober truth whether it is wanted or not.

1.1.3 The second theme of liberation is that of love. Only love would keep the devil of destruction away, but how should that be understood, preached and practiced? From the earliest times love has been given other names. In the Veda this love would be loyalty and purity of body and spirit to be attained by religious practice. Forgetting the purity the time line betrays the gradual descending down to earth of love. Maybe not so pure loyalty to the (asian) concept of state, the marriage and family is today still the dominant theme of love. With the greek it was called courage (fortitude in Rome), the courage to take a stand for the truth, be consequent in its practice and thus attain to the Goddess her grace or love.. Christianity also stressing loyalty had to face the mohammedan who made love also a system of donating gifts for the sake of God. Although later on after the middle ages it was understood as a function of proper division (cartesian/scientific) and democratic preservation of the for economic justice necessary moderations, love ultimately turned hard-core out to be nothing more and less than a system of taxes that would formalize the love of the state for the individual (person, foundation, culture, enterprise) in need. Impoverished countries would have more problems to defend societal and personal love missing the economic value of it. Later on in the second half of the twentiest century this love was recognized as maybe too materialistic and subdued to the revolutions of politics (the cultural revolution), science (kuhnian paradigmatic revolution) and natural living (the sexual/psychedelic revolution). Love since then was called by its name and only needed loyalty (interfaith) to ones own true nature (filognosy...'ones own interactive website') to be real. Nowadays the liberating of love can be found in the capacity, opportunity, and will to sacrifice ones individual material interest at the apollonian altar, the computer, for the sake of the interactive world-order (the Internet): each may have his own love & revolution, sexual or not, willfully supported by the individual state, religion or subculture or not.

1.1.4 The third purpose found with the cultures of liberation lies in the attaining to a system or conception that would be rewarding enough to have a feasible idea of practice or society. There is a wide range of practiced values in the diverse systems, and it is without further systematization impossible to find your way out of this cultural confusion about what the proper reinforcement of a world culture would be. From the behavioral sciences we may state that there is the positive and negative sanction not to be confused with punishment and reward. Both reward and punishment are positive sanctions and all cultural discourse about it flourishes on the first distinction of sanctioning: should we ignore 'the ignorant' or not, to begin with. Ignoring would imply that the culture runs the risk of being ignorant itself: ignorance is a lack of control and cannot be the objective of the culture. Thus there is always proselytizing religiously, warfare politically and discord or paradigmatic struggle scientifically. Let us now consider the history of this preaching warfare and knowledgeable fugue (in the dictionary described as a disturbed mental state). At first it seems that sobriety is the purpose of the practices of love for the sake of non-illusion. To be sober once was a reward: one attains to the serious and solemn state of mind, finds control in it and enjoys the happiness of the righteous. This is the original point of vedic departure. According to that culture we did nothing but lose it ever since. To the buddhist of Asia and assorted philosophies, the reward is found in the insight: the contemplation or even better the enlightened ability to contemplate is the purpose of the ritual loyalty of the meditator. It didn't have to be anything serious anymore, a laughing Buddha is also okay. Next to that fun of contemplation as a reward did the greek philosopher realize that temperance was the ultimate practice of reward. A lack of control would always end up in punishment, thus reward is identified with temperance. Later on with the arabic approach one found this even in fasting: one can only enjoy food - the ultimate reward- if one breaks fast with it. And right they are, modern medicine even says one lives longer that way. Christianity though before that settled the purpose of loving non-illusory as fairness in reason and maybe also in legislation to give each his charitable share of the common wealth. Later on science realized from the cartesian point of view that to settle for some decent order would be the inevitable consequence of having proper divisions to the problem of truth. Thus from christian fairness we arrived at the paradigm of state known as the righteous regulation of wages step by step settled by democracy, economic theory and multicultural human righteousness. The question is whether we really have attained to sharing with these practices. Each paradigm would formulate a system of reward and ignore, repress, (socially) starve and humiliate anyone unemployed by the system (originally christian-wise burnt at the stake for heresy and witchcraft). Therefore is the mission of filognosy found in the realization that to be honest and loyal to each member of society and thus to the society as a whole means that one shares, not only the duty of sacrifice and the legal rights, but also in mutual cultural and economic respect. Why would any unemployed voluntary worker for his own culture in his private enterprising non-commercial sacrifices deserve less respect than each employed obliged worker in his dependent commercial competition and carreer ambitions? Who are we to judge about each his own commitments to society and say that this action deserves all reward and respect and that action none whatsoever. It is exactly this opposition of the monetary employment-reward philosophy of power and control that meets its own ignorance at the battlefields of senseless wars. If the UCK/Kosovo rule could have effectively applied for Serbian state support and gotten it, the necessity of terrorist action and the resulting war would never have been. With the money wasted in this war after one month all of Kosovo would have had perfect economic support for at least ten years. Thus seen the philosophy of reward is central to the maintenance of peace and welfare. If the practice of sharing in mutual (economic /cultural) respect would have been, the war could not exist. The fundamental error of thought and philosophy is found in this reward-philosophy: as soon as peace does not realize that it is founded on the simple reward for adaptation in righteousness ('from the offering at the feet of the Godhead') the system falls down from its delusions of power and control unacceptable to the other culture. One should so to say be legally obliged to give a medal or something for not being a criminal or not claiming to be sick otherwise.

1.1.5 The small history of the values of liberation finds its completion in the struggle for social quality. What exactly are the values that give us the society we can be proud of instead of having to be ashamed of warfare in failing systems of rewarding the love for non-illusion. This social quality is the absolutely necessary outcome needed. The outcome originally would be compassion. This was so already in the vedic culture with its command of dana, charity and ahimsa, nonviolence. It meant and still means respect for all living beings: it would give the (asian) harmony and (platonian) justice of an (christian) empathic fellow man. This was so conceived in the old days and is still valid today. Only this result of living up to the rules would be worth the sacrifices. In the Middle East one realized that this could only be achieved by means of pilgrimage: the conscious practical journey towards ones original purity and innocence. The grace of God had to be sought actively, without it sin wouldn't be dominated enough to become of second interest. This theme is these days found in the spiritual seeker traveling, zapping and surfing the world probing the cultures for alternatives of selfrealization. Scientifically it was realized from the cartesian method that the ultimate practice of 'grace' would be to incorporate as many elements possible within the order of one's truth. Such a holism was not a simple religious catholic (kath-holos, concerning the whole) invention but also an action in the profane domain with all its hidden divinity and 'order of God'. Democracy realized that all had to be compensated for the repressions of the system that went against them: we are morally obliged to help minorities, protect trees, refugees, drop-outs, stranded whales, guru's and sick seals. Ultimately the economic social genius realized this as a social security-check or basic income security and adaptation award for helping all the pitiable creatures in need of christian compassion. As a child of the sixties the maturity of the nineties realizes the hidden theme of these proselytizing victims: do me no harm, do good. Be non-violent, protect the animals, become a vegetarian, protect the seas, forests and american Indians and fight pollution (whatever kind), nuclear waste and everything bad for the with life teeming environment. Non-violence is the mission of the interfaith tolerance and action. The basic idea in this is in the end: are we willing to give each and everyone the help wanted? Because of our paradigmatic, humanly egoistic and animal weaknesses and limitations it is difficult to help but a few according to our philosophies of reward. The challenge is to arrive at an order and filognosy that would settle for a complete worldorder in respect of the needs of every living being. And what paradigm would that be? Assuredly from this latter value of social quality must be concluded that it must be some or another holistic option of culture in respect of each and every ones freedom of choice further to be explored hereafter.

1.1.6 After realizing the social qualities attained with our cultures of liberation the question is: 'what was their effect?'. Attaining to a certain quality can even have an opposite effect. German fascism fighting for 'aryan' civilization attained to total selfdestruction not realizing the simple rule not to do to others what one doesn't want to be done to oneself. Thus this is the proof of the pudding: did our theory, our culture of values really work? Did the vedic realize world-dominance as it seems to have tried for thousands of years? The answer is no. They accomplished selfdiscipline to such a degree that nowadays in India it seems to be more important to leave one other alone (worshiping the Godhead) than to help. Although a mess and starving at times at least the priority of peace is preserved. Mother India with its vedic philosophy is the original spiritual teacher (remember that even the Bible mentions in Genesis the arrival of "the sons of God" from over the mountains), but the practice of a worldorder must come from the diverse national duties. If the disciple doesn't serve the teacher the teaching has failed. So what did we achieve thus far in respect of the ultimate discipline? In short: asian harmony built an uncorruptable sense of community mainly politically explicit maintained by China although at the cost of the freedom of opinion. And this was so already before Christians preached their greek philosophical political ideas of proper sacrifice in accord with the reformed roman emperor, the Pope. This good of societal will culminated in the worldwide culture of peace known as Islam, that could miss the proper concept of Jihad so now and then but still maintained the intelligence of the christian lamb of sacrifice (as long as the Christians support it). That this peace wouldn't be enough on itself as a result was already acknowledged in the 17th century where (also vedic) reform lead to the enlightenment of the western mind with all its scientific and artistic fruits of penance and commitment. The Pope feared the worst with it, fought it, reforming himself, violently and turned out to be justly worried facing the reality of revolutions that created great havoc in the world: we lost control and found ourselves in selfdestruction with the after all not so enlightening achievement of modern science. Holy miracles of science like gunpowder, clocks and more evolved appliances were not easy to control by people who didn't really realize what kind of discipline would be needed for the maintenance and attainment of civilization with it. It had something to do with the vedic aryan and swastika, but some racial ego wasn't overcome with it. First some colonial karma of false dominance had to turn against ourselves. Somehow the world survived this bitter beginning of enlightenment and self-realization that later on would become sweet according to a verse in the Bhagavad Gita (18:37). Liberation should sooner or later be found in a common order, nowadays known as the international agreement of justice, human rights and economic intelligence probing for a proper worldorder (with its sanctioning and state-wise 'mental health care'). This (interfaith) 'unity' would not create opposition between East and West; communal and capital interest and complements of wisdom alike. Still the complaint is of decline: more crime, more drugs, more political discord or whatever the news likes to present us for further consideration. The effect missing yet is the restoration of social control, the concept most polluted by all immature cultural attempts for individual dominance. Still social control, maintained by the asian option in fact within families, (Islam) state-monopolies and (also christian) religious orders is the cohesion we are living upon. Whatever the order the world may come to, social control in respect with the other effects of the previous cultures, must be its ultimate effect, as without a social definition no paradigm of (world-) culture can exist.


1.2) Conclusion.

As for the right to speak this paragraph may have proven that all cultures have their own contribution and according right of speaking on behalf of an emerging world-order. This latter matter is something one must believe in to perceive it. (like with the gaia-brain of mankind: internet). Overlooking this small history of the values of liberation, that is not value-fee but fed by an ideal of practical order, one might easily declare the religious God and culture dead and our becoming meaningless destined toward a chaos of natural (information-)entropy. The rest of this article will be dedicated to seeking the answers to the elementary questions left over from this 'self'-constructed logical conviction of values in evolution as stated above in 1.1.



2 What literature should be read?

At the introduction we saw that when the goal is peace, the intellectual is recognized as the practician, while the talking politicians apparently did not theorize sufficiently to arrive at the proper relative of complementing in peace in case of a war. From that argument we arrived at the realization that to talk might be less important than to listen and that to read might be more important that to write. Writing this piece e.g. is less important than the books that were and are read meanwhile. The books are the treaties of peace from which we derive the authority to speak and settle the law. If we lose the peace we have to go back to the readingroom and write another conclusion after further study. Thus what books should be respected in the first place? Apparently the book of law we work with ultimately is more a consequence of study than the root of study.

To the root of study we saw in our historical sketch that we have vedic culture as the epistemological basis of modern culture. In that culture we should find the wisest; wisdom pertains to the greatest experience with the different practices of truth (the vision of reality): It defines the concept of knowledge as the understanding gained by experience. True knowledge the philosopher maintains is the knowledge surviving the test of time. If the form changes and the knowledge stays the same, then the wise conclude that it must be true knowledge. So from which book are we quoting this? Vedically this question is nonsensical as the original Veda (Sanskrit for true knowledge) is no book at all but the knowledge handed down in disciplic succession by means of the oral tradition (sruti & smrti). Therefore the question 'who is your spiritual teacher' would be more relevant. But times have changed and teachers and schools quarrel and disagree to such an extend that no sensible person these days would dare to proclaim one before the other. Indeed teachers are there and are of importance, but they may not speak anymore without reference to basic literature. In this article the Bhagavad Gita has been quoted. Does that make this book the fundamental reference when it comes to vedic scripture? The answer is no. Vedic culture can in fact not be pinned down to this or that book since it relies still on this catch 22 system of disciplic succession: escape referring to a book is refuting the teacher and escape referring to the teacher refutes the book. Each teacher preaches in fact his own concoction of the different vedic sources and the pupil is kindly requested to arrive at his own conclusion (vedanta) adapted to his own nature, time and circumstances. The factual lie is to go against that. One should speak from selfrealization and maturity, not from being a parrot of learning or an hypocrisy of favorable reference.

Being a selfrealizer referring to ones own experience, there are still a few problems in need of further attention:

1) it is the problem of reference: from what do we derive our certainty and freedom?

2) it is the problem of the form of God: is He to be considered personal or impersonal?

3) it is the problem of authority to the mature person, how can selfrealization go hand in hand with the acceptance of the necessary outside authority?


2.1 The problem of reference.Since the loss of the single authority of teachers, books and the fellow men (parents, colleagues, friends etc.) on them selves we have to deal with all of them as a trias-politica source of reference. This is the modern situation: fixes of tradition, christian or vedic or islamic were denounced and overthrown by the 'enlightenment' of modernity: the argument of individuation gained ground before that of the community with its false authority. In fact it became a political opposition in the management of the planet since repression of the individual against the collective and its reverse wouldn't be possible in reality. To have worldpeace and order, a worldcoin of economy and an international book of law, we have to consider this problem of fixation in political trias politica-like opposites so nicely dealt with in the psychoanalytic studies. Individuation as a fix on the person, either on oneself or on a 'leader' is called of as egoism and immaturity and denounced since the sixties of this century. Communal dominance is considered a threat of freedom and destructive to progress in general. Predominance of the intellect with all its literary fixes was put aside as false dry speculative book knowledge estranged from the real of life. Then from what would we derive our certainty? We have, fearing false authority, split up the society, denounced all reasonable reference and are suspect to be a neurotic and schizoid collective of madmen in danger of losing control any moment as a victim of war and destruction.

Philosophically we derive our certainty from true knowledge: that of which we are absolutely certain about as being true. It is the first thing in the cartesian method of science; what is the problem to begin with? Should we doubt all claims of the truth as possible hysteria and false complaining in favor of a beforehand conceived conclusion? Isn't any fix of the problem the problem itself? Can any certainty be found in the material world? Isn't all metaphysics a lie when it comes to realize what the nature of the problem is we should work at? If we withdraw from the material world because it is misery, can we find anything but the preaching of death when there is not allowed to be a world, heaven or planet after this one with angels, gods and wisdom that is in some kind of form subject to change too? Some vedic literature states that in the higher planets the same problem is found as in the lower ones: never the ambition dies to outdo the other one, never one will be free of jealousy and other weaknesses. The higher one rises, the deeper one falls. So what is the conclusion to all this escapism of theory? Sure is that we are seeking for certainty. Sure is that any fix will be subject to change however holy or high in heaven. Also the Lord has to come down to earth in another form to make sense of goodness. Since even the holiest of forms is subject to change, there is nothing left but the holiness and absolute of change itself. As long as everything changes we can rest assured and be certain that we are still alive. This makes the material world even more real than the more stable eternal world of the true self. The latter wouldn't change that much and would therefore be more of death than the real world of matter alive. Whatever the quality of life thus, high and stable or low and conflictuous, change is the essence of life. That is the first conclusion we have to accept probing for the proper reference of certainty.

2.2 The form of God. There is general agreement about the fact that the concept of God only makes sense when it is realized as some manifestation of the nature of goodness. It can be a goodness of heart, mind, body, nature or culture. Whatever the form, the goodness is the quality of God. This should be the form that is no form and should not really change. But this thesis cannot be maintained. Goodness must be as good as to fight the devil for us. Good is only good if it does evil to evil. At least some theory of good and bad is required to tell us who will be rewarded and who should be punished for being of the devil. As we saw in the previous section we have a history of evolving values of liberation.. There is no real fix in history of what goodness would defend: its quality we experience in its being alive. As long as goodness has the goodness to adapt to our changing beliefs we are willing to put it to the test of war to find out at who's side God really is. It is a bit of a primitive strategy to test goodness for its quality of dominance over the bad. God should also not be put to a test. So we are not really finished with the problem of form stating that (attachment to) goodness is the ultimate form. It might be the wanted experience and likely outcome, but the way and christian cross towards it might not feel that good at all. Not only beauty has to suffer to attain.

The next candidate of transcendental forms is the practice of detachment. Detachment is free from material passion and anger and thus the form of God we should practice and worship. The Pope should rise to the throne and all should worship him for his indifference and detachment about it. Finally the roman empire has his emperor of God Good and Virtue: the Pope. Now the problem is solved and the form of God, our Holy Father in Rome will do the rest. But what happens? Should we all be celibate? Should all married people be banned from the government as attachment to wife and kids, or the incapacity to get them as with some famous dictators, cannot rule the world.? Can we have leadership of detachment when that does not make a proper example of living and can be considered the way psychoanalysis considered it (as regressive)? Isn't spiritual progress without material progress equal to the sect committing suicide? Of course the answer to this problem is to say that the Pope is not our leader of state, but just the leader of our state of mind (to be called spirit thereafter). Church separated from the state, soul separated from ego would settle order by division as we saw before. It can give a nice political dialectic of worldcultures. And with that we still did not solve the problem of the form of God. Should it be the Lord? The answer is yes, but what would be his name? What would be his form? At least He should be alive. Or not? The Romans and Jews are not so sure about it. He better be indestructible. But what should be his form then? Let us say that we are capable of destroying the whole planet. Thus the Lord cannot be on the planet. Somehow He should be in the sky, still visible, but untouchable by us madmen and testers of God. Should He be the sun or the moon? We have the roman gregorian/julian calender set to the sun. That we have. But is the calendar the form of God or is the sun the form of God? Most likely neither of both as we already saw that change is the first conclusion. Should we change the calender every year or so? Have a contest about it? Or put the political manipulation of standardtime in the New Bible as the holiness of God? It's in the book of law all right, but that we systematically doubt in political debate. That is not the root reference.

The problem of the personal God against the impersonal is solved recognizing the Lord in the impersonal (as far as He would admit to it Himself, which is vedically not the problem). Change we recognize as a product of the reality of time. The problem of reference to time is thus in fact the result of this philosophical exercise. Thus far we have a nice conclusion: anyone respecting a clock or calendar is not just an obedient citizen but a full scale devotee of God, whether he believes in the concept itself or not. As long as the philosophers and politicians know it, they can rest assured that the goodness of God is saved, and lead in trust and faith. Time conquers all, rules all and pacifies all. God took the form of time, He is visible, cannot be touched and is even omnipresent. What more do we want to make a beginning with worldorder?

2.3 The problem of authority.

Now that we know what the form of God should be, that is the form of Time (with an uppercase T), there is one problem left: that of representation. So what is the original nature of time and how should that dynamic of life be represented? If we cannot answer this question, we cannot have a worldorder. No representation, no authority.

Politicians know very well that who determines the time has the power. At least this is what they think. On closer study, first must be said that religiously we are not allowed to manipulate the concept of time (God). Logically it is easy to understand that whatever scale of the clock and calender of year you take, it is always relative of importance. It compares to walking on two legs: each fix of time (a leg) would only stand firm and make life (walking) relative to another equally valid clock and calendar. Politically one might say: 'we have to make a choice, either one system or the other'. From this point of view there would always be repression,loss of consciousness, ignorance and suffering with the fix of time because of not 'walking' on the duality of the for the maintenance of peace necessary consciousness. Thus seen standardtime as we have in the twentiest century is a necessary evil stealing our freedom of choice. But that is just politics. The delusion of seeing this as a problem is in the duality of the formal state against the reality of the free individual. A formalized respect of time may be working like a one-sided paradigm with all its complications, but no one can formally forbid the free individual to settle in his own free time his own calendar and clock. Formalized society cannot tell you which days to watch television, when to go to the cinema, read a book or meet your fellow men in a pub. Nor can any other system ever command how one should celebrate the joy of being liberated from that very system after the job has been done. Formal society is after all just an agreement of what would be employment, miserable maybe, but not more than that. The fact that normally one uses the same state-wise formalized order of time to settle ones private life may not obscure the fact that that must not necessarily be so. This turns the problem of peace ultimately to the behavioral side of psychology. For the problem of peace, freedom and the maintenance of consciousness, there is no political solution: the more the politicians decide for others, the more they are of the devil religiously or degraded, philosophically. Once the individual has mastered the psychology of time-management he is liberated to his own authentic practical and real nature of respect and service to the God that can be seen as the manifest of Time (His will).

Thus the problems of authority end: there is no political solution, nor is there any calendar or clock that would be better than the other one. Only that concept that would respect the 'walking of life', the duality of the consciousness of time, would do. The rest may be a matter of paradigmatic preference, whether one would live to a time-duality of logic versus nature, politics versus religion, or locality against a mondial concept. Why would swiss world-time be better than Greenwich worldtime? or Standardtime be better than true (sundial-) time? In fact one needs a computer to offer service to all these options of personal freedom and cultural selfrealization. The challenge is to manufacture a tempometer reflecting this dualistic time-option that would be valid throughout the whole world (see the design of The Order of Time).



What action is the action of peace?

Thus far the consideration of work and unemployment has been about action in the sense of speaking and dealing with the literature for and about it, to which was concluded that the right to speak came from the authority of a set of values - describing the effect of cultures of love in favor of non-illusion to have social quality with a system of reward - that were best understood in a historical time-line of evolution. The literature was best respected in consideration of proper reference, form and authority concluding to change, time and selfrealization in stead of fixations, lordships and politics. At the introduction was stated that the issue of action was easily understood by realizing that people engaging in warfare do not really act in peace while people not acting for the illusory victory of destruction are the ones who really act on behalf of peace. Further it was clear that somehow the war still has to be fought with the weapons of knowledge: peace would be the product of filognosy (loving the knowledge properly). Thus fighting in a war is ok, as long as one uses the proper weapons. The question next is that of action in peace. Once we attain to peace, what to do? There is no war, there is no enemy, and what is there to do for all the soldiers, officials and politicians fighting the crimes against the system? At least you need criminals to exercise the law or something... Religions, sciences and subcultures tend to create their own problems in making difficulties that maybe no one understands (since they do not really exist as e.g. unemployment). These group-ego's next declare that the ignorant person who has no clue of the program of the party is the problem. If you don't read the holy books, the handbooks or the not so simple instructions for use, you are the problem. Thus the (social) system creates its own enemies: those who 'pretend' not to need those difficulties. It is like schools that seem to have to cultivate ignorance in order to be able to preach against it: must you first beat up your children witless and than teach them how to understand that? This cannot be the reality.

For the reality of peace the idea of progress is essential. One should progress, whatever that would be to a system that is planning its curriculum. Progress, all agree about, is the practice of peace. If you block growth, progress, evolution, you are applying for a disease, revolution, war or other frightening forms of regression. If this simple truth is the reality, then why do we lose control all the time finding us in armed conflicts in the wrong mode of selfconfrontation? Apparently we have some serious misconceptions about evolution and progress in general. And this must be a fundamental misconception deep ingrained into the very fabric of our knowledgesystems. As we just summarized the solution has to be sought in the selfrealization about time and change not to fall into the ditch of fixations, personal imposition (however holy), and political (international) discord. Again we must revert to a consideration of history relating to the evolution of individuals and states. In this consideration we have to ponder over several options:

3.1) The consideration of the root-culture: the vedic philosophy.

3.2) The consideration of our political dialectics: the philosophical root found in Greek wisdom.

3.3) Thirdly there is the concept of religion, liberation and enlightenment that needs further scrutiny to find out where the misconceptions about progress are hiding that lead us astray all the time.


3.1 The consideration of the root-culture: the vedic philosophy.

The philosophy of the Veda is highly integer. It teaches selfrealization as the basis of all peace. Provided one knows how to sacrifice to the divinity, there can be no failure. All concepts neatly defined, great, progress is perfectly safeguarded. No problem thus far. But what happens next? One makes a time-line of history that, along with the descending Godhead makes a nightmare of losing control. First there was the era of Sathya Yuga where all values were perfectly and naturally respected without any false distinctions of class. This was the ideal. But then the confusion sets in: next we have Dvapara Yuga, or no Treta Yuga, sorry, a mistake, where the decline sets in. First the purity is lost, next the capacity to share and last but not least the compassionate good of will falls down in Kali-yuga (this age) and everything apparently was destined to go to hell. Whatever the Godhead was descending for from heaven, He certainly would not succeed in reversing the process of the downfall. According to this concept of decay, with the regular descendence of the Lord, He is more understood as a vacuumcleaner sucking all the divinity out of the world, just leaving all miserable shrunken souls in hell behind, than as the graceful one that would lead us back to the glory of His eternal values and omniscient control over all beings. How must we understand this maya (delusion) of the culture fighting maya? Is this the teaching of the school that preaches ignorance in order to fight it? Is this the corruption of keeping peace leading to more war? Is this what the Lord Himself said, or is this an invention of the religion that tried to prosper on His glory by corrupting the truth? In fact the vedic culture found its own reform in the 16th century debunking the false authority of the priestly upperclass and its caste-system of false ego. Only the true love for the Lord was declared valid independent of ones caste (varna) or ashram (civil -spiritual- status of being student married, withdrawn or hopefully old, detached and wise enough to teach). This lordship (Lord K.C. and His 'sunshine band' - that is Vaishnavism) of reform in fact had to sacrifice his own sanity to forgive his followers the delusions of the perverted vedic philosophy. He could not deny them their love for his person nor could he declare mechanizing Kali-yuga holy although apparently all the monsters and rakshasa's (demoniac characters) of the old days were gone. So this Lordship did not sacrifice His body, but His sanity to forgive us our foolishness and scientific experimentation of philosophy. He was known to disappear inglorious as a madman out of emotional control in the exemplary love for the authentic Personality of Godhead (that He was Himself of course). This drama of the vedic crucifixion of modern sanity is not commonly understood as the true nature of christian reformation, but is still essential for unveiling the predicament we as confused revolutionary modern New Age people are in when it comes to the concept of progress. Thus far it can be said that Kali-yuga is not as bad as it seems to be and that the old days might not be as glorious as we would like in respect for our ancestors. Sure is that we lost a lot of demons and monsters and that the problem of evil should be solved within ourselves rather than by political or otherwise planned impositions from he outside.


3.2 The consideration of our political dialectics: the philosophical root found in Greek wisdom.

First of all dialectics are hailed as the philosophical panacea for all the troubles of ignorance. This would be the perfect model for respecting true knowledge. It is the religion of science to be practiced in parliament and at the universities. The discussion, discourse and paradigmatic confrontation of the talking-cure of mankind is mandatory. Without talks we are immediately lost in hopeless wars that never end until we pick up this psychoanaylic talking cure of rediscovering the true identity of the father of knowledge (whomever that might be). Still the monks in the monastery maintain their poverty and silence praying to God that one day we might understand what the meaning of silence would be. To them it is simple: we flee from selfconfrontation (the 'last judgment' that never ends) in attempts to brainwash one other into the doubtful paradigms of enjoyment and control that we suppose in consonance with our social ego's to be perfect. To them it is very natural that we fail: of course we cannot brainwash one other to subscribe to the theories that we can hardly practice ourselves. How we dare to proclaim our peculiar lifestyles as being holy is the real mystery to them. So the talking cure should take place in silence, it should be 'cogito ergo sum'; from our thinking we realize who, what and that we are. The dialectics should be internalized as a talk with God or if that doesn't work as a talk in favor of God (whom ever that might be, again). That would be the real philosopher: the devotee of God that knows to listen and do his prayer. But who rules the business, who steals the show? However much we pray and think, we cannot escape from organizing a state and planning for the future in paradigms of control and progress. Despite of the dialectic exercises the true nature of progress is an open question. The fact that politically we constantly end up in a nightmare of armed conflict is indicative of a deficient philosophy of progress. Somewhere at a basic level it must also have went wrong with the divinity of philosophy. Like with a fractal the disturbance at the vedic level must also be there at the level of politics and philosophy.

Greek philosophy is a vast and interesting terrain. There are so many greek philosophers that it is difficult to make up at all what that philosophy would be. Best one takes a look at the kernel of its belief: they have individual opinions riping into convictions that make a dialectic understanding fit for scientific exploration and confirmation. They could predict the predominance of chemicals in medicine long before there was any reasonable degree of scientific knowledge about it. They did more predictions. Best thing they did was to talk it over amongst themselves and write it down. Platonian philosophy came up with such a conversation about the state called 'The Republic' where the different philosophers were portrayed as a class of guardians that would save the state from ignorance and downfall. They would protect the young from abuse by the old, educate, defend the individual sciences of mathematics, geometry and astronomy and settle for the proper age for marriage and the specifics of education in gymnastics, music and warfare. All very fine again as with vedic philosophy. They even made a nice parallel with the vedic eternal values which would be fundamental to our modern political discourse. As depicted in the small history of the values of liberation in the previous section they contributed to the liberation of modern man proposing for a proper political and dialectical practice to maintain the state. In fact they are the godfathers of modern politics in stating that wisdom, courage, temperance and justice are the basic values dealing with the love of the common man, fighting their illusions settling for proper reward in a society of quality. This discourse of "the Republic" inspired many of the modern leaders and intellectuals to settle for the proper state. All fine thus far. But somewhere something went wrong. Just as seen with the vedic philosophy they pictured a process of steady decline when it came to the succession of the forms of state. The perfect state would be an aristocracy (reign of the best) then others would evolve naturally like a somewhat lesser society called Spartan described as timocracy (the reign of the honorable). Step by step decline would progress towards lesser forms of state, knowing oligarchy (the rule of the few) and democracy (the rule of the common working people). Last but not least according to this historical prospect we could expect the ultimate glory of the tyranny (rule of the tyrant, the dictator). All of our evolution would sink into the deep sea of absolute terror and hell. Again. All of wisdom, gained experience, all of books and all the tears of mankind would ultimately end up in the tyranny of a single corrupt individual making hell of each his existence. Now it must be said that this we learned to know: we had a couple of nice dictators in modern history, but the reality teaches us to acknowledge that democracy is more a result of that experience than the cause of it. Apparently this blunder of philosophy is in the corruption of the concept of causality: is it the philosopher that is angry, cannot seize the power and curses the community that does not follow the glorious teaching. Is it the school again preaching the ignorance it wants to fight.? Again? History tells us that the man behind the scenes of greek philosophy, the true brain behind this fallacious causality was poisoned condemned by the community to drink a cup of hemlock. He would be the cause of corrupting the innocence of the youth. Nevertheless in 'The Republic' it is held that ultimately the apollonian sacrifice should be: "but to Apollo, the God of Delphi, there remains the ordering of the greatest and noblest and chiefest things of all. ". So whatever their error was in philosophy it was their dependence on the Godhead that failed to protect them against a prosecution for their weaknesses. Either Apollo could not manage to order, or they could not manage to discover His divine ordering. Not judging further it is sure that the failure of their causality can be found in their (social?) dialectics. They are not so superior after all. Apparently some apollonian ordering of - as stated - the concept of time to deal with the changes of selfrealization, was necessary.


3.3 The concept of religion, liberation and enlightenment.

First of all, what exactly is religion? Literally religion means to be realigned, re-ligare, reconnected according to a concept of self described as true, the soul. To the vedic point of view, the atma is the sole reality and all else is in fact a temporary play of forms to be considered illusory and distracting. It is all about overcoming the instabilities of psychology, the human weaknesses or what the christian calls sin. The stable self-aware is what the soul is all about. From the section above one could say that the decline projected could be the weakness of the culture: how can one speak of an effective approach if the world is more and more in decay with it. It doesn't seem to be a concept of worldorder and thus not really of interest to the order of the society of united nations we live in. Still it is not wholly untrue: there is decline and decay. If the Greek are right in saying that democracy is just the forerunner of dictature and that the dictature is the final result, just like the delusional liberties of vedic Kali-yuga, we have to answer out of respect for these spiritual and philosophic authorities what this dictature then would be. Their concept of decline might not be as bad as pictured by the interest of their own improvement, but at the other hand fully denying it stating that these authorities are maya and fallacious themselves either does justice to the truth. The solution of the golden middle is to say that it does not decline toward a collective dictature. Philosophically seen might people and their associations fall down to a dictature. It is not uncommon to divorce when the marriage has ended up in a dictature. This is the reality of everyday life. The greek foresaw the decline of Rome that fell down because of its roman dictatorial material exploit of the conquered territories. And indeed that dictature of material interest was the end of that culture: we were liberated from the complete culture and could start all over with aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and dictature. As such the decline is a recurring process of an individual culture or marriage with the world that has to take rebirth to begin a new life. We can only understand the greek philosopher and his concept of decline if we accept this concept of rebirth: otherwise there would be no hope for us simply going to hell with all human effort. The same way vedic culture and its concept of decline also must be understood from the point of view of liberation and rebirth. One can be reborn to a new world governed by the spiritual standard as opposed to the hell of material dominance. The reality of history proves that all individual cultures do fall down according to the vedic description and greek succession of forms of state, but what also can be seen is that there is continuity: the present day rule is still from Rome like in the old days; the calender is still the same as in the days of roman materialist dominance. To replace an unholy emperor with a holy Pope can also be regarded as a continuation of the old rule (read calendar-division) with another policy (read gregorian correction to the seasons). Just to correct a calender and have a celibate emperor wouldn't really be called a new but only renamed or redefined civilization. It is the psychology of guilt that gives the illusion of historical discontinuity and rebirth. The roman empire never fell down, nor did vedic culture; it just grew wiser and became an institute of penance and remorse. And that is how power works. That is the reality. Politically we did not end up in dictature. The reality is that aristocracy learned to be religious and democratic: that is the endresult of our social evolution. The rest could not really maintain and fell down in war and selfdestruction. Holy aristocracy called clergy is still a palace and a ruler however small the palace and the material effect. Vedic decline of values did not result in a worse society. As said the bad demons and monsters of the old days do not exist anymore. These days we know that good and bad is in each of us, no demons, no monsters. The decline shows its true face in religious and legislative tolerance controlling the weaknesses by means of grace: one may gamble in the casino according to the rules set politically. One may have a red light district as far as the local government permits. One may drink alcohol although a license to sell it is required. One may slaughter animals and eat them although there are laws protecting animals against abuse. The complete of lust is simply tolerated, as such there is decline, but the control over it which is the grace of the culture is the true intelligence. The psychologist tells us that repression of the weakness and becoming a split personality is worse than learning to live with weaknesses by means of social moral control and legislative precepts.

Thus far religion is understood as an institute of liberation and enlightenment: it gives us the grace and control over our weaknesses without becoming the victim of repression. But where then would lie the misconception about progress with the religious systems? Why would religion not be the final concept of worldorder that would keep all warfare out of the world? First: all religions maintain a concept of suffering war and destruction: with the Christians it is losing control in crucifixion: there goes goodness to heaven. In Islam it is the Jihad that wouldn't shun armed confrontation: there goes the tolerance for the sinner, and according to the Hindus the war against illusion and their representatives never ends: one may die in honor for a better birth on a better planet or in a higher caste. With all three options we end up in either another place called heaven, or in a fundamentalist society void of religious tolerance, or on another planet or in another caste being reborn an honorable loser (not liberated from the cycle of rebirth). None of these concepts give us the picture of continuing history as a positive form of progress in worldorder. None of them believe that this world can be and really has become a better place: it must either be heaven, another planet (or better life in a higher caste or sky) or another culture. In Asia one maintains that there is no solution to material suffering but total dissolution in the happy void. Also from that concept of worldorder nothing much can be expected.

The concept of liberation and enlightenment has been welcomed by the scientific option: we would be out of these religious forms of desperation: they would be superstition and magic defying the true complexity of the world. Religion would be all regressive delusion in fact and science would give us sober reality without illusions. That would be the liberation and enlightenment. At the same time it gave us paradigmatic conflict, which is just another definition of warfare. There is no real possibility for peace in the world because never will all sciences agree and live in peace themselves. Never there have been so much battles of the ego and political (destructive) oppositions as with the scientific paradigms in struggle of progress, control and definition of reality. For instance man as evolved from the ape was set opposite to man evolving from the exemplary lordship. But how could the two positions ever exclude one other? Science finally seemed to simply turn all progress into a material concept, calling matter the illusion-free reality and ending in the opposite of the dictature of their own falldown: the conditioned body is the dictator. There would be no other purpose of service than service to the body and its senses. All we need is products for consumption and programs of stimulation.

In fact, filognostically, enlightenment and liberation are relative concepts. Never one is completely free (only empty space is) and in fact all duty of maintenance can be recognized as a desire to live and be attached. Hence absolute enlightenment and liberation in service are themselves the real illusion. Aren't we just quarreling about who would be the boss defining service and maintenance as liberation and enlightenment? He who defines it is the most liberated one and the most enlightened since all others would have to be the servant of that. The only escape from this realization is to say that no personalistic concept or struggle for power will bring real peace. One either becomes a servant of some program of action and find enlightenment in being a maintainer of the system in stead of being an unenlightened maintainer of its opposite, the physical selfish body, or one becomes a lusty profiteer being served by the system until excused of being guilty by ones service and commitment which is the final liberation.

The true problem of enlightenment is in the latter realization. It is not being the master of the system that is the issue here, it is more the question: 'can the Lord of the system be an equal within the system without the ego of in fact being Him Self Superior and of Necessary Worship?'. Then the only right system is, in accord with what we saw at the above considerations of authority, indeed the one of equality, freedom and brotherhood, not that of Lordship, class and enmity. The Lord is only right and at the goal of progress if He is The Common Man of the system. Thus progress would indeed be the decline of the divine miracle towards the state of normality. The only problem left considering a worldorder of progress then is: what is the normality to progress to?



4 What political complement should be the practice of political management?

Having cleared out the obstructions of progress found in the vedic root, the political root of greek philosophy and the religious and also scientific concept of liberation and enlightenment, the quest for the worldorder of peace can be continued. The religion has to become a scientific system that would give the Lord the same place as His followers. Probing for the action of peace defined as filognostic (non-fallacious or realistic) progress ended with the question what the norm or normality of service and freedom would be that makes a worldorder that would give us the right to speak on behalf of a set of values in progress. Thus discussing what the real nature of work and unemployment would be for the future there is to be considered the following:

4.1)what is the nature of the holism that would make a political complement of any practical value?

4.2) What are the consequences of such a concept for mental health care and

4.3) In what sense can there be any formal system of liberation that is nor politically impotent nor of destructive opposition and false authority?


Answering these questions is necessary for without a concept of holism one can never formulate the complemental that is needed for a non-destructive political debate. It takes all to party, not just one party to take all by the nose. This is in accord with the cartesian method that has as its fourth and final conclusion to include as many elements as possible after having explored the problem, divided the problem in subclasses and formulated an order for a solution. Thereto is mental health care the essence of a state-policy when it has to deal with education and deviation. The education would warrant the mental health and adaption to the system and mental health care would reflect the state-policy and norms of the system. In the old USSR the dissident would receive psychiatric treatment and the chinese would prefer to reeducate the practical or mental misfit. The west simply would train all aggression against and dissence with the system with drugs explaining that the misfit has or worse just is a deficient biochemical system. Thirdly the policy of the state must accept formal identification: normally it is done in political parties, one is a member or one is not. One can also prefer a military, police or spiritual uniform denying all differences of vocation and civil status. This necessary formality somehow is in need of liberation: how do we derive service to our individual freedom and identity from formality? At 2.1 we saw about the problem of reference that freedom and certainty should be sought in the concept of change rather than in fixations. But how about settling an order of state? Does freedom still exist after settling for a formal concept of state-order or worldorder at large?


4.1)What is the nature of the holism that would make a political complement of any practical value?

Holism, the very term is a contradictio in terminis. The -ism implies that there is something that is not whole, in this case. That something is the ignorance, according to holism, of only seeing a part in stead of the whole. The sum would be greater than the parts separately, just as with an organic body the sum of the organs makes a reality that can hardly be seen from the single part. It would be more honest to say that holism is only whole if there is no holism anymore. As long as there is a separate part out of the holistic reality, the whole is not complete and thus only a theory, a holism, an option, a challenge for action. If holism incorporates everything on this planet it is still holism, since the cosmos is big enough to leave a zillion worlds not incorporated in the considerations and practice of the whole. Purely linguistically this sets the term as a motive of action, a definition of work. Unemployment as such would be anything that does not link up to the whole. Considering the purpose of peace and worldorder, holism thus represents a revolutionary reformulation of the concept of labor. Labor is not longer some action by which one sells ones freedom in exchange for delivering a service. Nor is it taking responsibility for an important part of society. This can both be considered unemployment as only service to the concept of holism, the actual linking up of the responsibility and service do count as employment. One is in service, employed, by the whole, by the worldorder, by the ultimate concept of peace and liberation, or one is simply of a futile activity, unemployed, egotistical and possibly dangerous as a contra-productive disturbance of the worldorder. But all of this is just linguistics.

Philosophically, concerning the sophistication of our knowledge it looks different. First there is the consideration of the different stages of the evolution of filognosy, love for knowledge, the purpose of the sophistication of philosophy. According to the platonian book " The Republic", there would be an evolution of opinion towards belief. From belief one would derive the necessary understanding to arrive at a properly instituted science, a paradigm of management with its own internal logic, justice and right of existence in the sense of proof, confirmation and control. The question to this evolution of knowledge is whether the psychology is controlled with it. One could say that philosophy in control of the psychology makes the the true of filognosy we are after. Psychology in the negative sense can be understood as a form of internal conflict. Projecting the conflict upon victims, enemies and the poor or whatever minority belongs more to the category of injustice and crime. The proper state doesn't manage a double standard. With it it will be falling into the oppositions of a civil war of some kind (of which simple crime is an example). If I take a loaf of bread not paying for it, it is a crime as we cannot have a double standard of some people who wouldn't have to pay. If I want free bread, then everybody may have that also, otherwise there is unrighteousness and conflict. Therefore apart from the problem of projecting the conflict, the so called false or unrighteous solution of the problem of psychology, we have as the first mission to overcome the inner conflict. If holism is the cure for the psychology, then the different stages of knowledge development are no real stages that replace one other, but separate layers of consciousness that make up the complete organism of mental physical and societal health. Then, from this point of view, would repression of the previous stages, denying them their organic coherence with the other parts, be the real psychological problem of philosophy. Lets say that political parties maintain opinions of how a state should work. Debate is then the prayer of belief without which there can be no peace: without the war of the words, there can be no peace in material management. The understanding following is the policy of the government democratically chosen from these debates of opinion. Anyone who does not belief in the debate is excluded from the understanding of the government. Also is understood that international debate for the understanding of a world-government is also needed. Ultimately we want to arrive at a science of social management that would do justice to all worldcitizens. The problem in this case is in the repression of the individual philosophies of management: The single opinion does not really need or want the debate in parliament. Nor does the debate really need all opinions to participate. It can just as well be a conspiration of civil servants who only care for a salary. Also the government is convinced that it can work without the duality with the parliament: only a strong leader is needed. Ultimately the science of worldorder comes around saying that whatever the government, debate, or individual political opinion, the science itself does not need nor depend on these realities. The psychology in this context can be recognized as that of the social ego. The ego or material self of a science, government, parliament or political party, tends to declare itself godlike and omnipotent, not in need of a soul of filognosy that would master this 'so called psychology of repression' that always leads to injustice, halt of progress by corruption and abuse and ultimately total destruction of the very ego of false authority itself in armed oppositions and warfare. From this example it is thus life-important to overcome the egotistical repression of philosophical psychology and arrive at a holistic concept of filognosy. Thus the practical value of the holism becomes apparent. Missing it is simply costly and dangerous. The science has to accept all kinds of understanding. The understanding has to acknowledge all kinds of beliefsystems. And all belief has to accept & forgive the individual aberrations of opinion. Not one stage of knowledge development can stand firm without the foundation of the other stages. It is a complete building of holistic filognosy of which not a single cornerstone of evolution can be missed. The government thus cannot go without the goodness and trust of understanding, a concept of God for the need to belief and a motive of action, and an individual opinion to prove its own relativity to time and place. Without these filognostic preconditions there cannot be a wordgovernment ever. How can the leadership of the world go without goodness & trust, God & order, motives & hope, and relativity & identity. This concept of holism has a (scientific !) basis in philosophy itself. From the cartesian method we may remember that after 1) doubt for recognition of the true of a problem, one 2) has to arrive at proper categories and divisions from which 3) an order can be derived that would figure as a solution. The end stage of the method is then 4) the holistic cartesian conclusion to incorporate as many elements in this order as is possible. Thus socratian questioning and doubt finds its commitment to the apollonian holistic order of filognosy it was originally dedicated to.


4.2) What are the consequences of such a concept for mental health care?

Easily it is forgotten that the government and the wanted worldorder constitutes a concept of mental health. One may safely say that such a concept of order is as difficult to attain as the cure for schizophrenia and psychosis. Isn't war just a form of collective psychosis? Isn't the war of the nineties against the Serbs founded on a declaration of insanity? Isn't a civil war of Serbs against ethnic Albanians a form of state-schizophrenia (to be treated with an "Iron Curtain" after total defeat)? Are the military, mental health workers, psychologists and psychiatrists? Are the politicians behavioral scientists? Is the practice of defending human weaknesses in psychotherapy by means of psychologically trained therapists supported by the Government or the international diplomacy? Are there any psychologists defending the Serbs if this war is a trial for answering the question what proper fighting against UCK-terrorism would be? Apparently the prosecution of psychiatric intervention by the NATO is not the problem of the government. Apparently it is difficult for the government internationally to keep in touch with the economically uncertain and governmentally neurotic and schizoid psychological client by means of state-supported psychological help. Apparently the politicians have no idea of how to support a science which has no clear opinion about good and evil, no clear respect for beliefsystems and is in no agreement about what and how to understand. Still psychology is a social science with quantitative methods and systematic controlled practices of treatment, assessment and experiment. From the previous section it may be concluded that psychology may only expect to be part of the governmental policies if it masters the philosophy to the the degree of holistic filognosy, just as philosophy can be respected by the government if it attains to mastery of the psychology of its own paradigmatic repressions. Maybe mental healthcare is only right in the hands of the scientific community as a whole to which the civil population might democratically decide for themselves which authority best to consult for what purpose psychologically labeled or not. Shouldn't mental health care from the beginning be in the hands of education? Parents and schoolteachers for kids and academics of all specializations for the adults? But this is only possible if science itself realizes its brahminical (vedic) ground and unity. This might only be possible if the complete of christianity accepts and recognizes the reality of the practical vedic reform of filognosy it has experienced in the second half of the twentiest century and in the nineties somewhat vaguely known as New Age holism. Time will tell whether this is really what has taken place this century. Seen this way New Age (the New Time !) is not an heretic form of nouveau riche egoism and false enlightenment, but a serious transformation of the whole of the western christian, nay complete world culture. The confusion about this definition of social reality may be called post-modernism: the new clothes of the emperor and dictator of bodily egointerests or positively stated the recovery of the theme of cultural enlightenment and renaissance out of the turmoil of scientific progress.

Soberly seen mental disease, whether seen individual or collective is a problem of social control. Always it is the mission of the individual to settle his inner world of imagination in agreement with the outer world of society and culture by means of social control. The (social) reality-testing is the crux of the problem. Of course psychiatry is right saying that there are chemical imbalances in the 'disturbed' brain and that they can be dealt with artificially (temporarily). But from what are these problems originating? Psychologically it is a problem of programming behavior to the demand of a balanced lifestyle (and resulting balanced chemical state). To be balanced is the definition of mental health. Fearing the confrontation with the inner world people live unbalanced lives fed by desire, greed, lust, envy, anger and other weaknesses. Either one works too hard, sleeps too much, eats too much (or too little), is too selfcentered, too altruistic, too much of television, too much of alcohol and cigarettes, is too little of exercise or too fanatic in morality. Always there is some part lost out of sight and the result is a psychology of symptoms that can be approached physically with medicine (or military with arms). Still the only true cure for an unbalanced life is to settle for a proper time schedule that provides for all aspects of life that need balancing. Order is simply the perfect remedy and the name of God in psychology. To be in order psychologically is the same as being a good devotee of God (not arguing about belief). The problem of a balanced lifestyle is that of social control. To check reality a state, family or a single has to face the respective international commune, the society and the public life to assure the possible reality testing that makes up the social control. The problem is in the necessity of free association. It is a paradox: the control is in the freedom while the freedom escapes from control. One cannot say one should be member of the European Union, that one should invite or accept invitations of people for dinner, or that one should be member of a political party. It is not a matter of the people one goes for, it is a matter of the system one associates with. The alternative of social control against the private interest (however profitable to itself) cannot be of the same interest, of the same system. If the private interest of free individual sovereign enterprising is from the same mind and system as the system of social control then never can there be found any enlightenment in it. Ultimately one escapes from the one option to the other. Therefore they cannot be of the same kind. If one escapes from selfconfrontation in socializing that social control will reflect the dictature of the bodily desire one needed to escape from. The social control will be an extension of the same problem and be just as miserable and unenlightened. If one escapes from selfconfrontation fleeing from social control then the dictature of the fearsome ego-interest will result in an equally unenlightened nightmare of forsaking the duties, losing the mind and lacking selfesteem. The buddhist and yogi may only meditate if the dharma is right, if the duties are done. First clean the house, and then meditate. Thus enlightenment will be righteous and thus will the selfconfronted spirit not be alienated and schizophrenic but holy and unestanged. On the filognostic precondition of a balanced holistic development of knowledge, one free from repression, projection and denial, such a mature independent sovereign and sane worldcitizen, worldfamily and worldstate is possible. Without it it is doubtful if there will be any way out of the recurring problem of warfare, unrighteousness, false authority and loneliness. Mental healthcare seen from this perspective of progress thus wouldn't be really in the hands of a psychotherapeutic elite, government or union of states. It would be a worldorder of proper alternation to which all deliver service, all are employed, not to persons, but to a system that assures the proper freedom in ones choice of social control, reinforcing and guarding the preconditions of filognosy (as a science of goodness, understanding, belief and freedom of opinion).


4.3) In what sense can there be any formal system of liberation that is nor politically impotent nor of destructive opposition and false authority?

From a cartesian concept of holism and the necessity of alternation and balancing for proper mental health the question is about freedom answering what the proper politics of complement would be. Does freedom exist in an ordered society, or are we trying to agree about an illusion of freedom always being caught in the shackles of of a system? Whatever the non-political works of selfrealization, the state is in need of a set of rules that delimit the freedom of the members of the state. The constitution of a state or union of states or of a future worldorder is inevitably a fix of law. Although the peace is derived from individual selfrealization as we saw, the maintenance and defense is from the state, the union or worldorder in constitutional agreement. From our small history of the values of liberation there was the realization of our postmodern confusion of values: there was sexual, paradigmatic, political revolution, conflict and war in the second half of the twentiest century. These wars in Korea, Vietnam, The Gulf and in Yugoslavia have something in common. They are conflicts about the sovereign right of states to settle their own order in defiance of dependencies of an international nature. Just as with single adults each is fighting for his independence learning his own lesson from his own history. Korea and Vietnam showed the opposition of the cold war: capitalism against communism. The Gulf and Yugoslavia show the opposition of religious systems: Christians against Muslims or Christians against Christians that are against Muslims. The arguments in the latter two wars are the same as in the fist two: the fundamentalist Muslim tries to paint the christian a capitalist swine while the Muslim is accused of socialist repression of individual freedoms and civil rights. Apparently modern time (since '45) is a confusion about moral directives. Common wisdom says that where two are fighting two must be guilty. Also from the psychological point of view must be said that here we might see the reality of projection. In the previous sections we dealt with the individual responsibility for one self. When it is about freedom, sovereign rights and moral standards, we turn out to be blaming one other of our own weaknesses. Modern time was all about fighting for freedom individually, but how about fighting for freedom statewise? What weakness are we factually dealing with? From the second worldwar we remember that there was a call for strong leadership: fascism was a cramp of leadership. In the war against the Serbs we see the opposite: there is factually no real leadership as simply the government has to deny the lawlessness. There is a discrepancy between the rational defense and the actual practice of ethnic cleansing. The latter is done with all kinds of illegal practices as wearing masks and destroying identity papers to prepare for the argument that these Muslim refugees are not refugees but illegal immigrants. The fact is that the state goes against its own laws betraying its own people with propaganda, thus betraying in fact an absence of leadership. The fearsome state official, the president, has to obey the dictature of emotional resentment and irrational conduct. This kind of illicit free enterprising could not be countered: it was born from within the system of state-management that missed the necessary holism to cope with the complementary nature of the two main cultures of Islam and Christianity. The next question is thus in what sense can we attribute qualities to these two main cultures that can work as a political complement in stead of ending up in an uncontrollable opposition of misunderstanding the common holistic ground?

War shows the nature of the conflict: uniforms go against uniforms and from that may be concluded that any war is a failure of peaceful formalized order. We still are waiting for an international order of formal identification that makes an order thus holistic that it no longer fights itself in the uniform. Wearing different uniforms is not the solution for the problem of being uniform of an opinion or belief of order. The war also shows that there is a need for difference, identity and in fact liberation from the uniform. The uniform on itself constitutes no liberation in that it does not serve a personal identity, but is a symptom of lacking it. This quest for an identity is recognized as a psychological problem of ignorance: we do not know how to have an identity and not fall into false authority and international armed conflict with it. Of course the solution for these conflicts of opinion about sovereign rights can be found within the beliefsystems that should give the proper political understanding of a (social)science of peace (see 4.1). Islam has the strong practice of respecting time: their religion implies that five times a day one has to bow to Mekka. This is a clearcut order of time. Christianity is in opposition with this religious practice of time. Christianity makes a pragmatical use of time manipulating the clock for the ease of international communication and transport, while the Bible itself talking about the nature of the Beast (nr 4 in Daniel's dream) states (Daniel 7:25) " He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time". One may also doubt if the Islam is really free from this error of moral conduct as not each mosk may have the same time-schedule of prayer neatly set to the order of Allah or God, that is real sun time. And if as well as Islam as Christianity are worshiping the Beast of time-manipulation this way, then who is surprised finding these systems in armed conflict to learn about the hell of their own disobedience? From a scientific point of view this 'disobedient service to the beast' might be difficult to classify: one could say that it is not democratic, never did the people of Amsterdam ask fascist leadership to impose American zonetime the wrong way. Never did the people of Europe ask the politicians of the Union to set summertime to the English option. Politically the Beast is called demagogy: we do in leadership as we like as long as we can make the people believe in it. This could be the dictature the platonian "The Republic" was talking about: democracy would be perverted and go to hell with the dictature of apparently standardtime and its subduing of the Jews and holy man of modernity. Mean time was brought by the French Revolution (the revolutionaries couldn't it figure out for themselves, they projected it in an ambition for power over Europe). The first worldwar created the seeming necessity of not having a free selfrealized tropical schedule but an demagogical state imposed concept of summertime to save energy collectively as a measure of crisis (only America allows nowadays each state the freedom to have it or not as e.g. in Arizona and Indiana). And the greatest horror of the Beast came with the imposition of zonetime over Europe by the fascist rule (and this zonetime is still the only thing respected from that falsehood). So far the Beast of false authority in politics. In the other sciences it can also be seen as reprehensive and Beast-like: purely philosophically it is not wise not to see the reality of time-changes as it naturally and culturally is and reduce the concept electromagnetically ('against' Newton) to the mere validity of the unit of measurement. There is philosophically no reason to believe or argument to defend that the paradigm of electromagnetic time would be any better than the newtonian timerespect for the heavenly bodies. Thus we arrive at psychiatry that could say that to make a worldconcept of your own with an incomprehensible idiosyncratic technical jargon that as good as no one understands equals the incomprehensible paralogics of a madman not capable of transferring any knowledge. The physicist would say that to the definition of a year, a day or even a minute or second there are as many options as there are stars in the sky and that maybe pragmatically standardtime is handy for sitting in a train or using the telephone, but that to say that it would be more intelligent, they will certainly dare to doubt. Scientifically the defense of standardtime and the Beast can be found in the behavioral and social sciences that simply have the mission to respect man and its culture of time-manipulation as he is without further moral judgment and directives. In fact they are the reverends of the scientific belief that standardtime with its pragmatical-economic paradigm could make a peaceful world. They defend the reality of the state teaching people in therapies that it is a matter of selfrealization. What is your individual answer to the dictates of the state? Not to change the world, but to answer, to respond to the challenge of state-authority and have your own system against the system is the true complexity and order of life. Psychology goes in many paradigms to prove that that is the way to deal with the Beast: it loses its power in the individual freedom of the selfrealized ego. Egoism is the answer to the devil. Fight the Beast with its own weapons. That is how you win the war. Just remember the assertion rule that you may not harm the interests of others with your selfrealization, that is in fact the only morality preached. Thus in sum we might religiously need some penance concerning timemanagement, politically we could need some passivity not to make a greater chaos of demagogy and its contarevolution and scientifically we can best conclude that to give each the right to settle his own paradigmatic time of preference does best do justice to the human reality. Filognostically this holism of worldorder would have to look like an as good as religious motivation for a time of God, political passivity (not to confuse with indolent unresponsive disservice to the democratic -time & order-will of the people) not imposing anything further and scientifically have for all a timepiece that, just like a computer, reflects the individual preference under the complementing guidance of an operating-system of time respecting the natural tempo of spin of everything in the sky that is of relevance to the experience of natural time (shown is an astrarium or tempometer, see designs of The Order of Time). This way a world peace is feasible in respect of individual freedom and identity and necessary cultural complementing and implementation. Thus mankind can make a start with considering wearing another uniform than the military and police-uniform - that defies and battles against the 'evil' of individual identity and ego in vocation and civil status - and thus arrive at a formal system of identification, liberation, work and employment; a compromise between the total chaos of individual freedom (each is free to participate and contribute) and the necessity of an ordered and sanctioned state, union or worldorder (no one is free to go against the constitution thereof).


Section 2