Introduction
Dear fellow
believers, members of the royal family and
ministers of the government; dear officials
of discussion and maintenance, dear
maintainers of the public order; please
accept my regards and respects for all in
service of God and the State.
I received
an official request (April 2002, for the
local government) to express my opinion on
the order of the state. Whom would I want as
my official representative, what political
party would be my allegiance? This one asked
in the context of democratic elections. I as
a citizen would have the duty, would be
obliged to express my motive of political
preference. I have to contribute to the order
of the state. Since the state maintains and
protects me as a citizen, I owe a confession,
I have to choose, determine my position, make
up my mind, express my belief, propose my
science, defend my paradigm, preach my
concept of order. Acknowledging this argument
I will state my case, and do so not for the
first time. I will even repeat this as many
times as needed.
Preliminaries
Democratic
elections is the issue. So, as a responsible
scientist, a behavioral scientist in my case,
I will do my duty. First of all to clarify my
philosophical point of view, I have to say
that, scientifically, I am a confessed
rationalist in the first place. I believe
that reason is the way to awaken the original
person of God in man. Rationalism is in this
with me only meaningful embracing the concept
of God. Ratio, the weighing of the relative
magnitude of two quantities, plus God, the
Supreme Being, is reason whereas ratio minus
God is a mental disease. Reason is the
opposite of mental disease; we say that we
have gone mad giving up the interactive of
reason. Humanism I decry for not being
comprehensive, it is an all too vague concept
of tolerance that just as well leads to the
good of man as to the institution of human
foolishness and ignorance. Ratio relates to
reason as the human would to the divine.
Reason and not the human is the way to arrive
at the original purpose of the authentic
person of God, which I hold as axiomatic to
my defense. The human is of the category of
ratio, the weighing of opposites, reason is
of the category of the divine: an outcome of
wisdom or the sum of our experience. Thus I
afford to reduce the concept of humanism to
the concept of ratio; the humanist might
speculate on his ultimate divinity, but I
rely on the outcome of reason. In fact is
reason the proof of the divinity taking human
nature for granted. The fear I am talking
about is the false notion that divinity would
be of any dependency to the world. God is
happy in His heaven and is not obliged to the
earth. We may or may not approach, that is
the reality. What I want is the proof of God
and reason is of all miracles and magic of
the divine my final aspiration. Thus I defend
myself as a rationalist in respect with the
concept of God striving for the evident proof
of reason, not the evident (human) proof of
divinity as the material proof of heaven is
always false or illusory. The only reliable
proof of divinity is reason and nothing else.
From reason we have goodness, respect, peace
and propriety. From falsifications we have
darkness, disbelief, oppression, revolt, war
and poverty. If one says that the purpose of
humanism would be reason, then in what would
it differ from rationalism? With the right
purpose in view is the problem of dualism
thus solved and all rationalism and humanism
with another purpose false, nay even a
neurotic defense leading to unstable
compensations, that are also called abuse of
goodness and belief.
The second
paradigmatic issue of relevance to state my
point of view about modern democratic
elections is that of pragmatism: that
practical consequences are the criteria of
knowledge, meaning and value. Something, some
reasoning, some strategy should have
practical value. If it doesn't work it is not
true but must be condemned as escapism or
irresponsibility. I am in so far a pragmatist
that I belief in the practical consequence of
reason, the abuse of this argument for the
practical outcome of material profits I
reject the same way as I reject the practical
outcome of divinity in humanism without
reason. Reason is the science of balancing
the interest of heaven and earth with
rationalism as its servant and as such I
consider pragmatism the counterweight of
humanism. Each of them is, albeit an
inescapable reality in its self, an unbalance
of one-sidedness on its own estranged from
the purpose of reason; from that
one-sidedness we have found false preaching
in religion and false capital without
societal responsibility. Rationalism is the
way to deal with the duality of the material
abuse of the pragmatical argument and the
falsification of the concept of divinity in
humanism. Thus far the preliminaries to my
argument.
A
Methodic Approach
In defense
of reason as a goal in itself, as the
ultimate purpose in defense of the original
person, as the veritable proof of divinity
and the only proper practical outcome to
assure peace, prosperity and equality, I will
thus set up an absolute of reasoning, knowing
the reasoning aiming at the soul about the
phenomenon of democratic elections, following
the method of rationalism. For this I have to
confess myself to my most important
predecessor in this, namely the french
philosopher René Descartes. Following
the argument above is he in my opinion the
father of the modern scientific method and
its outcome of soulfulness and
selfrealization in the human at the one hand
and of scientific power and control by
pragmatical endeavor and defense at the
other. Descartes formulated the method as
follows: first there is uncertainty with a
methodic doubt, then there is division, then
there is the assigning of a definite order to
deal with the complexity so that finally the
complete of the reality is incorporated
[see
also the charter of
order].
This would from a rationalist perspective be
about the way to arrive at a proper
government which seems to be the issue with
the demand for a popular vote.
Doubt
So first of
all doubt. Uncertainty is not nice, can be a
mental disease and stuck in it it can lead to
serious disarray. But this exercise is for
the devoted, not for the non-devoted who are
factually only out for abuse and their
personal profit. For the ones of God it is
always good to ask oneself for the proper
relative and the right reference not to fall
into false absolutes; for them could
uncertainty be the royal road to freedom and
liberation in selfrealization. For the ones
without devotion are false absolutes for sure
the goal and interest and is thus doubt a
tormenting part of their inescapable
psychological reality of repression and
denial. Thus piously taken is fighting the
necessary doubt an enemy of our freedom. We
for the sake of God and our modesty have to
exercise doubt, praying that we find our
liberation in truth by it. In service of the
truth I for this primer of doubt have to
question thus the concept of free elections.
First of
all, pragmatically, why should we elect a
government if we have one already? A simple
question, but very true, proving that we
apparently cannot afford to be certain about
whatever government we would have. It would
be heresy to this reason to state that we
wouldn't need elections. But there is more to
it. This argument is only valid for a
government that is of God, that is not
separated from the religion or the conscious
exercise of respect for the inherited wisdom
laid down in the scriptures. A state
separated from the confession to a concept of
God ruins this argument; a state thus
conceived would then only exercise false
authority in denial of the traditions with
and persons of the classical wisdom. For
without a concept of God there cannot be an
obligation to make choices; one would force
people into the doubtful. No 'noblesse', no
'oblige'. Free elections with a 'valuefree'
government can only make for a hypocritical
effort to find the confirmation of the
dissatisfied, in a schizoid state of hating
the ones one tries to welcome, which is
philosophically as well as behaviorally an
unacceptable practice. Practically that
practice will reduce the interest of the
people in free elections so that in reality
with less than fifty percent voters of the
electorate the election must be declared
invalid in favor of the sitting government.
It is only democratic if the will of the
majority is respected. If one votes for
satisfaction by not participating in the
elections would one - would it be the
government or the people - be in offense
taking the majority of the voters for the
popular majority. Thus seen does the present
system always , even with a majority
vote, arrive at a bad government of
dissatisfied paranoid disbelievers, as one on
that case does not know anymore whether the
eventual majority logically was enforced niet
meer of de eventuele meerderheid logisch is
afgedwongen. Forced confessions don't hold
the case. So one can see how democracy
without a conscious effort to respect the
classical wisdom does lead to a dictature of
possibly a minority that by definition can
only rule with terror and repression.
Godlessness is a disaster, irreligion is
maturity; the two concepts should not be
confused. Since as yet we are not having this
dictature (...), must be concluded that we
are not godless in our governing at all so
that the separation of church and state is an
illusory one. Aren't all god-conscious people
of a religious background? Didn't we see the
Prince of Orange marry in church with all
heads of state present? Where is that
separation then? Who invented that confession
we do not practice? Or is that just a remnant
of an ignorant past we rather see disappear
so that the real drama of the fall-down into
dictature can take place? Thus enough doubt
is cast on the practice of free elections
that keep up a pretense of being valuefree,
which practically must immediately be
abandoned as soon as the falldown really sets
in; or have we already? One can slide down
without being capable of restoring if one is
simply lazy and too easy in guarding the
soul's interest. If we would be really
god-conscious we wouldn't pretend to be
separate from our schools of moral learning.
It is a psychologically speaking a neurotic
exercise in a immature conflict over the
power of rule. Would it be humanistic shame,
or pragmatical deceit or some other
philosophical fallacy of half truths we
cannot part from? Are we maybe attached to
our bookcases in stead of being aware of the
authority thereover? Have we ever finished
our studies dear politicians? And could that
make a reasonable rule if we fall short in
our command of knowledge? Enough again, now
we are uncertain enough about elections or
whether we are really value-free or capable
at all this way. From the first part of the
method we thus learn this: separating church,
synagogue, mosk and temple from the state is
a schizoid exercise that rationally cannot be
defended without falling in unreason,
disbelief, decay, disrespect and dictature.
We thus doubt the valuefree approach. The
roots cannot be denied, otherwise the tree is
uprooted. It can quietly from the command of
reason be concluded that for any responsible
government some kind of religiously founded
confession to a concept of God is an absolute
prerequisite. So far the truth
uncovered.
Division
Next part
of the method is that of division: we have to
cut the problem of representation up into
different parts to arrive at a proper command
over the problem. Analytically is the
practice of binding people with political
parties easily a double bind: if one does not
vote does one does not take responsibility,
and if one votes does one possibly contribute
to the general dissent which is also
reprehensible. The desire of the dissatisfied
compulsive hankering for another government
leads to madness. What should the populace
do: be satisfied with the wealth achieved and
be called irresponsible or should they
participate in the conscious effort to
disagree with one another, with always the
majority being in favor of the wrong parties
in opposition? Thus one can imagine that
behaviorally a lot of angry and crazy people
can be expected. With the moral schizoid we
were driven into the neurosis of an uncertain
hypocritical conception of God already. And
now this. The schizophrenic of collective and
individual selfdestruction is as good as
certain this way. Sure any way is that never
any political fraction will rule the world.
Mature politics consist by coalitions. But
then again the same argument as with the
moral one is found: making coalitions the
very reality and necessity of political
parties becomes an exercise in hypocrisy
again. Isn't it so that politicians represent
also the interests of politicians? Isn't it
so that politicians in political parties
simply obscure the representation of their
own interest? Aren't it the students, the
workers, the clergy, the intellectuals, the
withdrawn middle-aged, the detached elders
and even the military that always feel
oppressed this way? Don't the politicians
dress up like business people with free
enterprise and tax-reduction as the major
issues of their campaigns? With these doubts
it is not difficult to acknowledge that
apparently we have difficulty of arriving at
a balanced representation of the public
interest. Nor to the age, nor to the
profession is one systematically represented.
In stead is the complication of this reduced
to the vague philosophical ground of a
political populist option. One tries to amend
on the system of election, but one does not
put the political parties themselves second
to the popular reality of all agegroups and
professions. Political ego represses thus the
justice that of the soul should be done to
each.
So are also
the unemployment-figures and the sick-leave
numbers a source of great concern. And
naturally is something that does not exist a
great problem. With the first part of our
method we saw namely that politically the
god-conscious person in principle is not
covered by the management of the state. Thus
is to them all devotional activity - read:
the work of voluteers - workunemployment.
Well devotion, has always been a problem for
the atheist: it is a threat to the false of
power not to be the Supreme Lord that employs
all as one cannot get His control.
Unemployment does not exist if one redefines
the concept of labor. It scripturally
speaking never has existed, since the very
term does not occur in the scriptures - that
is why they are called holy. Involving all
kinds of volunteered devotional activity in
the concept of labor does a basic income for
each worldcitizen become an inescapable
reality. In the welfaring countries with
millions living on social security and
healthcare funds it is only a matter of
respect for those devoted people not calling
them lazy or cowardly, to see that this basic
income is the reality already. One only has
to give up the envy with, the false demand of
proof of being fit and healthy for another
employer than God. The argument not to be
envious with the fact that one couldn't work
for someone else but for God is waved away as
being impractical as one, factually, should
give only funds to people who deserve it, so
say the scriptures. But who else but the
person and his precious honor of ego is the
judge of that? One may arrest overt crime,
that is all one can. Always has half the
population worked as a volunteer, however one
looks at the statistics according ones
political purpose, even more, everyone should
and really does too at least half the time of
his day live so just to stay healthy.
It is quite
evident that fighting the literal disease,
one creates the disease in this. Thus is our
stress defined by our materialism and is it
inevitable that the ego of political parties
belonging to it in time will disappear into
the background of having free unions of
whatever kind. To justice these parties may
thus not thrive at the cost of the younger,
the married young adults, the withdrawn
middle-aged and the detached elders. Nor may
they, non-discriminatory speaking, flourish
at the cost of workers, enterprisers, the
rule, the military and the police itself and
the intellect, priesthood, the spiritual and
wise. Political parties must acknowledge that
the ego is send out to defend the interest of
the soul once one is cured from the moral
schizoid mentioned before. Thus can the
natural reappearing of the classical division
be recognized of the former class-society and
the stratification according age. Seeking for
proper division in governmental
representation one cannot escape this
classical problem of division. Constantly
denying it is useless. There should,
rationally speaking, with the inescapable of
this reasoning be eight formal parties of
discussion, or better said reference points
of discussion: the party of youth, of the
young adults, of the middle aged, of the
elderly, of labor, of enterprise, of
intellect and of the noble rule. These two
times four is eight formal divisions of
discussion which according the two dimensions
of status en vocational interest together
result in sixteen identification groups,
should, with their people recruited from all
kinds of unions, debating clubs, parties and
institutions, discuss their interests in
parliament and thus be effective in not
losing any energy, nor money in futile
conflicts about the political ego. Thus one
will never suffer the illusion again that any
party will will ever be the ruling one having
a majority. That would be forbidden by law
then.
Fighting
the
falsehood.
Next
problem is that of order. The complexity of
the diverse formal parties and their material
and spiritual interests necessitates also a
system of election, an exam for
participation, an application-routine or line
of succession of some sort that has to evolve
from the present system of free election. If
by law has been fixed what kind of
representation can be voted for is
undoubtedly a greater stability of rule
achieved. That stability itself could then
even become a problem of caste-identity in
which people exclude one another in
privileges and inequity because of belonging
to another group. Inequality and
discrimination are things rightly fought, but
the perspective of personal emancipation and
transcendence must not be missed with that.
In order to keep the falsehood out of this
status-orientation system there must be a
notion of the complexity of people ascending
and descending in their material interest.
One is either more involved with the higher
functions of helping, discussing, developing
insight and controlling the mind or with the
lower functions of regulating the lust, the
body, the material business and the
socializing. From the lower to the higher
will one in degrees have another philosophy
of life and another consciousness of order on
the different rungs of the ladder of
selfrealization. Ultimately does free
election mean that one has to choose for ones
own selfrealization, peer-group and one's own
mission in life, finding one's own duty with
the status-oriëntation group one grows
into and out of again. That is the true
meaning of democratic elections. The groups
are in fact fixed by nature, but not so the
people. That is is the original meaning of
having a career or a new government: there
should be confidence in a natural evolution
through age-groups, levels of transcendence,
degrees of experience and professions. That
natural truth of age, type of service and
level and degree of involvement is absolute
and fixed, but life itself is the dynamic
experience of it in social mobility. This
emancipatory idea would be the perfection of
humanism and the final logic of all
pragmatics.
The
rationalist option is there only to secure
the sober realistic reason about balancing
the interests and keeping oneself free from
illusions of control. If the control lies not
by the ego, but in the scientific, properly
divided, interest of the soul in the complete
of the spiritual and material reality of the
original person that, yes, so must be of God
with the rules of the game, is such a final
concept of order to be appreciated as a
solution to respect the dynamics of a
personal life in stead of being feared for
its fixation, falsification and illusion of
stability. That is the justice that needs to
be done. Psychologically it would mean the
end of existential anxiety, identity
confusion, and hopelessness in relations of
attachment. With a predominance of political
parties one always fears of the ego, while
with formal representation groups one is
freed in a dynamic life that is truly
democratic in its permission for all to
equally participate.
Incorporating
each
Thus far we
saw at step one the necessity of a
God-conscious approach, next we saw the
natural reality of all people as participants
in one of the sixteen formal
status-orientation groups. Thirdly we
realized the safeguard necessary to prevent
the falsification of identifying with that
statusorientation, introducing the concept of
time in a personal evolution through those
groups. At last we have to discuss the
problem of covering the complete of our
society, nay the whole whole world with it. A
new world order is emerging from the digital
revolution of information exchange and the
multinational of enterprising. Communications
vastly improve our knowledge of one another,
but the problem of modern time, estrangement,
is not solved directly. We cast with our
'tolerant' materialism, a shadow of terrorism
since the sixties of the twentiest century,
not mentioning the false rebellion of a
warmongering Napoleon against the traditions
of a rusty nobility, the godless and
blood-red repression of Marx and the
destruction of a zonetime-freakout Hitler
abreacting national frustrations and european
colonial mischief. Such is the nature of
modern time in which the problem of modern
time is simply modern time itself as an
oedipal abreaction in adolescent rebellion
against the inescapable conditioning father
of natural cyclic time.
Returning
to a sober vision of our natural personal and
cultural reality along the lines laid out
above and before, must we, in order to
incorporate as many people as possible, as we
already saw, accept that redefining the
concept of labor is the solution for the
problems of sick-leave and unemployment. The
psychology of modern time is quite easily
pushed back to the individual responsibility
of the citizen by denying the government a
legal settlement of time with the argument
that that belongs to the domain of
selfrealization in which a legal prescription
of time is off limits. The redefining
comprises a cultural respect for each his
individual way of life, unprecedented in the
world's history. The real purpose of post
modern deconstruction is to achieve that
reality in giving up all false politically
inspired pragmatic or humanistic, and even
rationalistic, imposition at the one hand
being vigilant to a more natural division and
order of state at the other hand. Such a
reform is is feasible, natural and realistic.
One only needs to pay attention and one sees
it spontaneously happening provided that each
does his duty. Each can, as we saw, operate
and find representation at his own level of
transcendence and control whatever his age or
profession.
A
legal implication
The
condition for incorporating everyone
necessitates a moral norm, a general set of
rules that makes democracy and free elections
not a question of political concern, but a
natural reality. One is that
fundamentally and cannot be forced into such
a system, one can only awaken to the present
reality of it working oneself more
consciously in favor of it. The morality
required, the rules of the game, are
fundamentally the common denominator of the
interest of non-illusion, love, reward and
social quality found in all religious,
political and philosophical exercises about
the definition of human values
(see
the Filognostic Manifesto part I of the Order
of Time).
Only with a morality which assures us of the
qualities of the human being in tolerance
with his weaknesses can the revolutions of
the intergation of mankind (its holism!?),
the concept of soul, the digital
communication, the local principle and of the
freedom of personal time management (see
the
Filognostic Manifesto part II of the Order of
Time)
take place, nay be recognized and promoted.
The vision is founded on an unequivocal
respect of time with the cyclic of the
universe: by the natural order of father time
we find our natural self no longer estranged,
nor in culture, nor in relating to our grand
material nature with its confounding modes,
our original mother. Since this classical
traditional and even primeval respect of time
is typically different in structure for the
different religions and cultures, is the
abolishing of legal settlements of time
mandatoryif one wnats to arrivce at a natural
method tpo form a government. A legal
settlement of time makes of the political
culture a religion of standardtime imposed by
law which is contradictory to the freedom -
and purity - of religion as laid down in the
constitution, in the Koran in defense of a
'pure', that is to say a natural moon and sun
in the respect of time, in the Bhagavad
Gîtâ equating the person of god
with the time of the sun and the moon, and
the christian Bible which forbids the
manipulation of time (see Daniël
7.25.
and the Lord's prayer in defense of the 'as
above so below' morality). Respecting this
truth and solving that problem, we can become
thus again be the children of God we were
intended to be instead of the children of the
falsifying state and thus cure from all our
political trauma's and compulsions.
The final
conclusion must be always: democracy involves
all and the wanted freedom is found with the
human loyalty, the conscious choice for the
divine but sober vision and acceptance of the
natural reality of our biological and
cultural diversity. That is the true of our
lives, that we, having it politically
represented at the one hand, at the other
hand as citizens time and again critically
must reconsider in going to the ballot-box;
as it has always been, and will always
be.
(last
revised 26-6-2006), R.
M.