Post-imperialism-A-Template-for-a-New-Social-Order

[quote author= whitecoast]I do agree each sex generally has specialized inclinations. But that IS a generalization.[/quote]

There are always exceptions but as a general rule those characteristics are more stronger by women. Men can only take notice and learn from it. They should !!

[quote author= whitecoast]and so cannot capture the nuances of every situation,[/quote]

So we should guide the decision on the minority. I think that’s to risky if we are speaking about children.


[quote author= whitecoast]What's your opinion on wearing clothes? Or using electricity? Or performing blood transfusions? Do you see where this whole "appeal to nature" thing gets us?[/quote]

Maybe if you stereotype (generalize) me with some religious folks than yes. Than I see what you are getting at.


[quote author= whitecoast]Not all women have a strong maternal instinct[/quote]

No, but as a general rule it is better than men.


[quote author= whitecoast]But even going by stereotypes[/quote]

You cannot say it’s just a stereotype and say this on the same time :

[quote author= whitecoast]I do agree each sex generally has specialized inclinations[/quote]


[quote author= whitecoast]lesbian couples should be lauded as the best child-rearing combination because of all the "feminine energy"[/quote]

No you see, because the centers are likely very different. That’s why gay bi etc can have shaman potential.


I know this subject will not make me popular. Maybe rightfully so, I don’t care. I really would want to know more about it. But I am afraid we are just left at our own observation where everything can be blamed on subjectivity.



[quote author= kalibex]'Stay home and raise the kids.... Oops; there's a war on, go out and work; we miscalculated and too many pf the men are off getting killed and traumatized... Oop; war's over, get back in the house...oh, and start consuming like crazy, too...'[/quote]

I know society today makes it appear that raising kids is some kind of suppression tool used on women. If you have kids you cannot be free. How dare they? No more Me time. Having a family should actually be something wonderful. Couples who disagree should not have children. Yet many sadly do for the wrong reasons.



[quote author= Mal7]I don't see anything wrong with people in highly skilled work areas, like neurosurgeons, receiving a higher salary than others in less skilled work. The neurosurgeon has had to train longer, and has a position where their duties are more critical and needing of careful attention than a relatively unskilled job such as apple picking.[/quote]

''I have a certain talent so I should receive more'' The thought of them helping people with their talent is clearly not enough. Only monetary gain can bring that fulfillment. Its very STS and not community (STO) based. But that’s how our society works. Thinking outside this thought frame takes effort.


[quote author= Mal7]So I would prefer a society that allows more free enterprise.[/quote]

To what purpose, where comes the need come from to absorb more and more in the first place. The Native Americans had a saying : Take what you need and nothing more. That’s the true community spirit. Al else is just greed.

Besides, every talent that can be of huge service of the community (science, medicine etc) would reach planetary level. Meaning that the best and brightest at a certain science worldwide would truly cooperate this time. Human potential at its fullest. This never happened before.
 
Where is the thread going? Thought experiment.... the people in this forum are part of this post-imperialistic society... imagine they had reached consensus about how it'll be like... how would it be? Pierre's article represents the view of the elders who have studied humanity's history for countless years... why are some people not accepting their dictates? How do you treat such people in this new community? Do you modify the design to meet a consensus agreement or do you do something else?

E.g.

1. The Gay couple adoption thing. In real-time.... knowing some people don't agree with not allowing gay couples to adopt and others do... what do you do? How do you resolve the problem? What's the bottom line?

3. What about if you have a woman go on a 3 year maternity leave, salary paid for, then come back for a year, then go on another 3 year maternity leave, salary paid for.... in 7 years, she would have worked for only 1 year.. but got a full salary for the 7 years? The employer.... what's to stop them from I don't know.... hiring more men compared to women... Can the employer call upon the assistance of the state to cover such costs for paying wages to women on maternity leave for a minimum of 3 years whilst also paying salaries for their replacement at work?

4. On the subject of community points... if a woman is on maternity leave... how is she getting community points during the period? Will you dish her out community points just for being on maternity leave? If so, what's the limit before you stop dishing out said community points for having kids... 1 kid, 2 kids, 3 kids? In essence, is the distribution of community points different between men and women?

5. How do you deal with dissent? e.g. a campaigner to get gay couples to adopt kids... are they earning community points or are they losing community points due to their activities?
 
[quote author= LW]The Gay couple adoption thing. In real-time.... knowing some people don't agree with not allowing gay couples to adopt and others do... what do you do?[/quote]

I don't know. Having a developed emotional center means that love comes more natural. I don't think it should be taken lightly. What if both men don't have this. Without a developed emotional center, where comes the desire for adopting children comes from in the first place? I would say for the wrong reasons.


[quote author= LW]How do you deal with dissent?[/quote]

You can’t. It’s not an authoritarian state. The things outlined in this new system should come natural. People who revolt against a community-based society would most likely do so because they don’t see enough things that would service them. ( Greed ) Society today is so messed up that people would receive it as unnatural. Just a dozen people control almost all wealth on the planet. Is this natural? In this new system wealth is put second place, community first.


Maybe Edgar Cayce already hinted at such a system for the near future :

“In Russia there comes the hope of the world, not as that sometimes termed of the communistic, or Bolshevik, no; but freedom, freedom! That each man will live for his fellow man! The principle has been born. It will take years for it to be crystallised, but out of Russia comes again the hope of the world.”

"..for changes are coming, this may be sure -- an evolution or revolution in the ideas of religious thought. The basis of it for the world will eventually come out of Russia. Not communism, no! But rather that which is the basis of the same as the Christ taught -- his kind of communism."
 
luke wilson said:
Pierre's article represents the view of the elders who have studied humanity's history for countless years... why are some people not accepting their dictates?

luke, do you really mean to suggest that people are being dictated to and should just quiet down and accept whatever comes from 'dictates' or that specific people are seeing it that way? Or am I misinterpreting something?

In any case, and for others benefit, if there's any doubt about how I, personally, feel about this template, I can clear that up now before going any further.

First, I like it and ATM have no problems. As a result, when people do express concerns, I'd like to know what's behind them, not only so I can learn something that might change my mind or solidify an earlier position, but to see if I'm anything other than stupid to begin with. If I'm being seen as a defender, that would not be entirely correct.

So, if I question someone or ask them to rethink something, it will most certainly not be because I'm "invested in something" or blowing up with subjectivity or whatever Gurdjieff would say, it's simply done with the idea of uncovering substance that might help me as well as help the other person learn something or solidify his/her own ideas.

That said, I'm willing for this to be my last post on this topic if anyone else comes around (not calling names) making subjective assessments of other people's subjectivity along with other vague insinuations without actually adding anything to the discussion because we're talking about a potential community organization here, not some problems with preferred arrangements for items in a bathroom medicine cabinet. IOW, I'll step aside, no problem, if anything I say happens to be seen as anything other than a sincere attempt to participate, because I'm nothing and this is not my house.

And, FWIW, I do understand the need for order and clear-headedness, but if this conversation were happening with people together in the same room IRL, I would fully expect things to get heated, to hear some hollering, to see some pained expressions and be moved by some laughing --basically the full range of human emotion, because it shows people care about an issue - maybe too much, but maybe not too much. Most of the time in such cases when people don't feel personally attacked, they get it out, calm down and brighten up considerably due to their concerns being taken seriously, whether they 'win' the points they're making or not.
 
I think you could still do a lot of community activities while on maternity leave. If nothing else, all of the mothers could get together and have a sort of daycare/Pre-K where they talk and the children play together. These types of things could earn community points, even if you're a little more limited in what you could do before.

In practice, I think that women will still have to choose to some extent whether they want a career or a family. I think that due to the other laws in the society, most employers would grudgingly have to put up with the maternity leave. You could create a society where women are respected and revered for their "goddess" potential, but I do think that some industries that are more career-building oriented and seen as more desirable (there is a large surplus of applicants) will prefer men by a wide margin. Since production is mostly localized, most women should be able to get a job, but what will happen is that the men will be moving into higher positions because they have been busy career-building while the women will become subject to a glass ceiling because they were off raising children. Due to the compact, decentralized nature of the economy, everyone would be more needed, so eventually you would find companies that would have to take a chance on the maternity leave simply because they have no choice if they want to hire workers. This would put a curb on the exploitation of women, especially if the government can shut them down and confiscate the assets if they don't comply, causing the owners to lose massive community points. So the other laws of the template would constrain this to some degree, however I can see all kinds of games going on behind the scenes to cost-shift these women onto someone else's shoulders so that company A can make more money than company B, for those individuals who are still profit oriented.The minimum wage is high enough that women won't be impoverished for having children, but I think it will definitely make a difference in earning potential later on.

By the way, I don't accept this template because "Pierre said so," I accept it because I have been following along on my own with some of his research, and I arrive at basically the same conclusions.

Edit: I don't know how much we should get into the 4D stuff in this discussion. My understanding was that this template was designed for the "thousand year" transitional period and was thus firmly rooted in 3D principles, while leaving the door open for some 4D stuff like free energy technologies and metaphysical research. So it would start out with basically 3D needs and concerns and perhaps morph into something a bit more exotic as the centuries went by and the society was built.
 
Neil said:
Edit: I don't know how much we should get into the 4D stuff in this discussion. My understanding was that this template was designed for the "thousand year" transitional period and was thus firmly rooted in 3D principles, while leaving the door open for some 4D stuff like free energy technologies and metaphysical research. So it would start out with basically 3D needs and concerns and perhaps morph into something a bit more exotic as the centuries went by and the society was built.

Well, then the 'keep the psychopaths out' details are really, really crucial, then.

If they would inevitably fail to gain community points, and then fail to control themselves (and/or be used by a 4D nasty as a proxy), and be caught committing a crime or atrocity, would they then be dumped in a special psychopaths-only 'enclave'? With a choice to be killed if they could not take incarceration anymore?

If so... What would it take....to keep them there?
 
There are many, many details that could be worked on; the whole thing was basically CONCEPTUAL about figuring out how to shift the basis of society to something OTHER than communism, socialism, or capitalism.

Community points, how and for what, exactly, they are acquired is just a basic concept. And what do they ultimately mean and what benefits? Obviously, those who have more community points can experience certain benefits as a consequence of their service to all. But it can't be based just on one's occupation.

And speaking of occupations, society will collapse a lot faster if the garbage collectors go on strike than if the brain surgeons do.
 
bjorn said:
I know society today makes it appear that raising kids is some kind of suppression tool used on women. If you have kids you cannot be free. How dare they? No more Me time. Having a family should actually be something wonderful. Couples who disagree should not have children. Yet many sadly do for the wrong reasons.

That's why the suggestion that there be mandatory parent training didn't rub me the wrong way - we have mandatory drivers ed, but no parenting training here, now? No wonder we're so @#$%ed-up.

Who knows; it might turn put that far fewer people would have the temperament, etc., to pass through the training and be certified or whatever it was, to begin parenthood. And with no 'Well, you have a womb, of course you're going to (want to) have children' pressure (IMO to feed the endless appetite of the Machine), there would still be plenty of other things to be done that not everyone might even 'need' to be a parent.

In which case, those doing it would likely pursue it whole-heartedly - which I suspect is partly the point.

And if the instinct to reproduce does still reign supreme - a sane, non-pathologized society would support that increase in families, too.
 
Buddy, apologies, it looks like 'dictates' is not the right choice of words.

why are some people not accepting what they say?

Does that read better?

I don't think those who agree are 'defenders' and therefore those who don't are 'attackers'. For me, it's just a matter of consensus.

Assuming the forum is the closest thing we have to the ideal community... how do things get resolved, how do community points get distributed? Community points in the case of the forum as far as I see go to people who lets say, do work on sott, become EE instructors, help others solve problems, demonstrate knowledge/awareness/responsibility etc. How do differences get resolved if/when they arise? Well, in the forum there are guidelines which represent what must be adhered to. If these are broken then expulsion is inevitable. Regarding other things e.g. differences in views but not representing a breaking of the guidelines, then as far as I see, the differences just remain and life goes on but every now and again these unresolved things bubble up e.g. see this. However, on the darker side, over the years, there have been cases where those who got expelled have come back to attack the forum or those who acquired enough community points later emerged to be deficient in some way e.g. see the content of Muxel's thread in the Swamp.
 
kalibex said:
Neil said:
Edit: I don't know how much we should get into the 4D stuff in this discussion. My understanding was that this template was designed for the "thousand year" transitional period and was thus firmly rooted in 3D principles, while leaving the door open for some 4D stuff like free energy technologies and metaphysical research. So it would start out with basically 3D needs and concerns and perhaps morph into something a bit more exotic as the centuries went by and the society was built.

Well, then the 'keep the psychopaths out' details are really, really crucial, then.

If they would inevitably fail to gain community points, and then fail to control themselves (and/or be used by a 4D nasty as a proxy), and be caught committing a crime or atrocity, would they then be dumped in a special psychopaths-only 'enclave'? With a choice to be killed if they could not take incarceration anymore?

If so... What would it take....to keep them there?

Good questions and legitimate concerns, I think. I haven't worked out details in my own head yet, but I can offer a couple of thoughts of hope.

1) I think open communication and frequent contact between community members is good. Not with an intent to limit privacy, but to decrease vulnerability to predators.

2) Plans for emergencies from attack by someone or whatever, might be good to have on hand as a guideline of sorts, but it is more realistic, IMO, to realize that no matter what people say they will do or what they plan to do, no one really knows what they will do in certain threatening situations, but people do physically respond to danger to themselves and others quite automatically.

For instance, we still live in a ponerized society, yet during 9/11, ordinary citizens began rounding up all the boats they could find to help get people off the island. The political leaders were being interviewed by reporters and government had nothing to do with this, but people simply rose to the occasion.

Similarly, a 'psychopath', or whatever, involved in some crime, say of violence or attempted violence against another, will probably be dealt with on the spot by the intended victim or his/her helpers.

A potential scenario I envision is something like this: I'm out in the street, mulling over which way I want to go when I see someone run up to you and start beating you or whatever. Without even thinking about it, my body is probably going to simply take off in your direction and I'll wind up doing my best to stop the violence, even if I'm hurt in the process.

I'm just trying to say that because, even if we mentally don't have much of a social relationship, a full physical/physiological relationship already exists between bodies that are in each other's field of awareness. You can call it bodily empathy or whatever word you want to use, but when we pay attention, we can all notice that our bodies respond to all life in its vicinity and, of course, we are biologically programmed for survival.

It doesn't have to be encouraged, rather it requires restraint to stop efforts to help others and oneself. So, I think planning might do well to take that into consideration.
 
luke wilson said:
I don't think those who agree are 'defenders' and therefore those who don't are 'attackers'. For me, it's just a matter of consensus.

Assuming the forum is the closest thing we have to the ideal community... how do things get resolved, how do community points get distributed? Community points in the case of the forum as far as I see go to people who lets say, do work on sott, become EE instructors, help others solve problems, demonstrate knowledge/awareness/responsibility etc. How do differences get resolved if/when they arise? Well, in the forum there are guidelines which represent what must be adhered to. If these are broken then expulsion is inevitable. Regarding other things e.g. differences in views but not representing a breaking of the guidelines, then as far as I see, the differences just remain and life goes on but every now and again these unresolved things bubble up e.g. see this. However, on the darker side, over the years, there have been cases where those who got expelled have come back to attack the forum or those who acquired enough community points later emerged to be deficient in some way e.g. see the content of Muxel's thread in the Swamp.

I think that what is exhibited in what you describe above is the AIM/process to form a true esoteric group/seed as described by Gurdjieff. And what he describes, if you think about it carefully, is logical AND takes into account some things we have observed about other dimensions/densities - through both manifold accounts of same by experiencers, and explanations offered by Cs. I think I'll quote that section of ISOTM in extenso.

"The process of evolution, of that evolution which is possible for humanity as a whole, is completely analogous, to the process of evolution possible for the individual man. And it begins with the same thing, namely, a certain group of cells gradually becomes conscious; then it attracts to itself other cells, subordinates others, and gradually makes the whole organism serve its aims and not merely eat, drink, and sleep. This is evolution and there can be no other kind of evolution. In humanity as in individual man everything begins with the formation of a conscious nucleus. All the mechanical forces of life fight against the formation of this conscious nucleus in humanity, in just the same way as all mechanical habits, tastes and weaknesses fight against conscious self-remembering in man."

"Can it be said that there is a conscious force which fights against the evolution of humanity?" I asked.

"From a certain point of view it can be said," said G.

I am putting this on record because it would seem to contradict what he said before, namely, that there are only two forces struggling in the world—"consciousness" and "mechanicalness."

"Where can this force come from?" I asked.

"It would take a long time to explain," said G., "and it cannot have a practical significance for us at the present moment. There are two processes which are sometimes called 'involutionary' and 'evolutionary.' The difference between them is the following: An involutionary process begins consciously in the Absolute but at the next step it already becomes mechanical—and it becomes more and more mechanical as it develops; an evolutionary process begins half-consciously but it becomes more and more conscious as its develops. But consciousness and conscious opposition to the evolutionary process can also appear at certain moments in the involutionary process.

From where does this consciousness come? From the evolutionary process of course. The evolutionary process must proceed without interruption. Any stop causes a separation from the fundamental process. Such separate fragments of consciousnesses which have been stopped in their development can also unite and at any rate for a certain time can live by struggling against the evolutionary process. After all it merely makes the evolutionary process more interesting.

Instead of struggling against mechanical forces there may, at certain moments, be a struggle against the intentional opposition of fairly powerful forces though they are not of course comparable with those which direct the evolutionary process. These opposing forces may sometimes even conquer. The reason for this consists in the fact that the forces guiding evolution have a more limited choice of means; in other words, they can only make use of certain means and certain methods. The opposing forces are not limited in their choice of means and they are able to make use of every means, even those which only give rise to a temporary success, and in the final result they destroy both evolution and involution at the point in question.

"But as I have said already, this question has no practical significance for us. It is only important for us to establish the indications of evolution beginning and the indications of evolution proceeding. And if we remember the full analogy between humanity and man it will not be difficult to establish whether humanity can be regarded as evolving.

"Are we able to say for instance that life is governed by a group of conscious people? Where are they? Who are they?

We see exactly the opposite: that life is governed by those who are the least conscious, by those who are most asleep.

"Are we able to say that we observe in life a preponderance of the best, the strongest, and the most courageous elements?

Nothing of the sort. On the contrary we see a preponderance of vulgarity and stupidity of all kinds.

"Are we able to say that aspirations towards unity, towards unification, can be observed in life?

Nothing of the kind of course. We only see new divisions, new hostility, new misunderstandings.

"So that in the actual situation of humanity there is nothing that points to evolution proceeding. On the contrary when we compare humanity with a man we quite clearly see a growth of personality at the cost of essence, that is, a growth of the artificial, the unreal, and what is foreign, at the cost of the natural, the real, and what is one's own.

"Together with this we see a growth of automatism.

"Contemporary culture requires automatons. And people are undoubtedly losing their acquired habits of independence and turning into automatons, into parts of machines. It is impossible to say where is the end of all this and where the way out— or whether there is an end and a way out. One thing alone is certain, that man's slavery grows and increases. Man is becoming a willing slave. He no longer needs chains. He begins to grow fond of his slavery, to be proud of it. And this is the most terrible thing that can happen to a man.

"Everything I have said till now I have said about the whole of humanity. But as I pointed out before, the evolution of humanity can proceed only through the evolution of a certain group, which, in its turn, will influence and lead the rest of humanity.

"Are we able to say that such a group exists? Perhaps we can on the basis of certain signs, but in any event we have to acknowledge that it is a very small group, quite insufficient, at any rate, to subjugate the rest of humanity. Or, looking at it from another point of view, we can say that humanity is in such a state that it is unable to accept the guidance of a conscious group."

"How many people could there be in this conscious group?" someone asked.

"Only they themselves know this," said G.

"Does it mean that they all know each other?" asked the same person again.

"How could it be otherwise?" asked G. "Imagine that there are two or three people who are awake in the midst of a multitude of sleeping people. They will certainly know each other. But those who are asleep cannot know them. How many are they? We do not know and we cannot know until we become like them. It has been clearly said before that each man can only see on the level of his own being.

But two hundred conscious people, if they existed and if they found it necessary and legitimate, could change the whole of life on the earth. But either there are not enough of them, or they do not want to, or perhaps the time has not yet come, or perhaps other people are sleeping too soundly.

"We have approached the problems of esotericism.

"It was pointed out before when we spoke about the history of humanity that the life of humanity to which we belong is governed by forces proceeding from two different sources: first, planetary influences which act entirely mechanically and are received by the human masses as well as by individual people quite involuntarily and unconsciously; and then, influences proceeding from inner circles of humanity whose existence and significance the vast majority of people do not suspect any more than they suspect planetary influences.

"The humanity to which we belong, namely, the whole of historic and prehistoric humanity known to science and civilization, in reality constitutes only the outer circle of humanity, within which there are several other circles.

"So that we can imagine the whole of humanity, known as well as unknown to us, as consisting so to speak of several concentric circles.

"The inner circle is called the 'esoteric'; this circle consists of people who have attained the highest development possible for man, each one of whom possesses individuality in the fullest degree, that is to say, an indivisible 'I,' all forms of consciousness possible for man, full control over these states of consciousness, the whole of knowledge possible for man, and a free and independent will. They cannot perform actions opposed to their understanding or have an understanding which is not expressed by actions. At the same time there can be no discords among them, no differences of understanding. Therefore their activity is entirely co-ordinated and leads to one common aim without any kind of compulsion because it is based upon a common and identical understanding.

"The next circle is called the 'mesoteric,' that is to say, the middle. People who belong to this circle possess all the qualities possessed by the members of the esoteric circle with the sole difference that their knowledge is of a more theoretical character.' This refers, of course, to knowledge of a cosmic character. They know and understand many things which have not yet found expression in their actions. They know more than they do. But their understanding is precisely as exact as, and therefore precisely identical with, the understanding of the people of the esoteric circle. Between them there can be, no discord, there can be no misunderstanding. One understands in the way they all understand, and all understand in the way one understands. But as was said before, this understanding compared with the understanding of the esoteric circle is somewhat more theoretical.

"The third circle is called the 'exoteric,' that is, the outer, because it is the outer circle of the inner part of humanity. The people who belong to this circle possess much of that which belongs to people of the esoteric and mesoteric circles but their cosmic knowledge is of a more philosophical character, that is to say, it is more abstract than the knowledge of the mesoteric circle. A member of the mesoteric circle calculates, a member of the exoteric circle contemplates. Their understanding may not be expressed in actions. But there cannot be differences in understanding between them. What one understands all the others understand.

"In literature which acknowledges the existence of esotericism humanity is usually divided into two circles only and the 'exoteric circle' as opposed to the 'esoteric,' is called ordinary life. In reality, as we see, the 'exoteric circle' is something very far from us and very high. For ordinary man this is already 'esotericism.'

" 'The outer circle' is the circle of mechanical humanity to which we belong and which alone we know. The first sign of this circle is that among people who belong to it there is not and there cannot be a common understanding. Everybody understands in his own way and all differently. This circle is sometimes called the circle of the 'confusion of tongues,' that is, the circle in which each one speaks in his own particular language, where no one understands another and takes no trouble to be understood. In this circle mutual understanding between people is impossible excepting in rare exceptional moments or in matters having no great significance, and which are confined to the limits of the given being. If people belonging to this circle become conscious of this general lack of understanding and acquire a desire to understand and to be understood, then it means they have an unconscious tendency towards the inner circle because mutual understanding begins only in the exoteric circle and is possible only there. But the consciousness of the lack of understanding usually comes to people in an altogether different form.

"So that the possibility for people to understand depends on the possibility of penetrating into the exoteric circle where understanding begins.

"If we imagine humanity in the form of four concentric circles we can imagine four gates on the circumference of the third inner circle, that is, the exoteric circle, through which people of the mechanical circle can penetrate.

"These four gates correspond to the four ways described before.

"The first way is the way of the fakir, the way of people number one, of people of the physical body, instinctive-moving-sensory people without much mind and without much heart.

"The second way is the way of the monk, the religious way, the way of people number two, that is, of emotional people. The mind and the body should not be too strong.

"The third way is the way of the yogi. This is the way of the mind, the way of people number three. The heart and the body must not be particularly strong, otherwise they may be a hindrance on this way.

"Besides these three ways yet a fourth way exists by which can go those who cannot go by any of the first three ways.

"The fundamental difference between the first three ways, that is, the way of the fakir, the way of the monk, and the way of the yogi, and the fourth way consists in the fact that they are tied to permanent forms which have existed throughout long periods of history almost without change. At the basis of these institutions is religion. Where schools of yogis exist they differ little outwardly from religious schools. And in different periods of history various societies or orders of fakirs have existed in different countries and they still exist. These three traditional ways are permanent ways within the limits of our historical period.

"Two or three thousand years ago there were yet other ways which no longer exist and the ways now in existence were not so divided, they stood much closer to one another.

"The fourth way differs from the old and the new ways by the fact that it is never a permanent way. It has no definite forms and there are no institutions connected with it. It appears and disappears governed by some particular laws of its own.

"The fourth way is never without some work of a definite significance, is never without some undertaking around which and in connection with which it can alone exist. When this work is finished, that is to say, when the aim set before it has been accomplished, the fourth way disappears, that is, it disappears from the given place, disappears in its given form, continuing perhaps in another place in another form. Schools of the fourth way exist for the needs of the work which is being carried out in connection with the proposed undertaking. They never exist by themselves as schools for the purpose of education and instruction.

"Mechanical help cannot be required in any work of the fourth way. Only conscious work can be useful in all the undertakings of the fourth way. Mechanical man cannot give conscious work so that the first task of the people who begin such a work is to create conscious assistants.

"The work itself of schools of the fourth way can have very many forms and many meanings. In the midst of the ordinary conditions of life the only chance a man has of finding a 'way' is in the possibility of meeting with the beginning of work of this kind. But the chance of meeting with such work as well as the possibility of profiting by this chance depends upon many circumstances and conditions.

"The quicker a man grasps the aim of the work which is being executed, the quicker can he become useful to it and the more will he be able to get from it for himself.

"But no matter what the fundamental aim of the work is, the schools continue to exist only while this work is going on. When the work is done the schools close. The people who began the work leave the stage. Those who have learned from them what was possible to learn and have reached the possibility of continuing on the way independently begin in one form or another their own personal work.

"But it happens sometimes that when the school closes a number of people are left who were round about the work, who saw the outward aspect of it, and saw the whole of the work in this outward aspect.

"Having no doubts whatever of themselves or in the correctness of their conclusions and understanding they decide to continue the work. To continue this work they form new schools, teach people what they have themselves learned, and give them the same promises that they themselves received. All this naturally can only be outward imitation. But when we look back on history it is almost impossible for us to distinguish where the real ends and where the imitation begins. Strictly speaking almost everything we know about various kinds of occult, masonic, and alchemical schools refers to such imitation. We know practically nothing about real schools excepting the results of their work and even that only if we are able to distinguish the results of real work from counterfeits and imitations.

"But such pseudo-esoteric systems also play their part in the work and activities of esoteric circles. Namely, they are the intermediaries between humanity which is entirely immersed in the materialistic life and schools which are interested in the education of a certain number of people, as much for the purposes of their own existences as for the purposes of the work of a cosmic character which they may be carrying out. The very idea of esotericism, the idea of initiation, reaches people in most cases through pseudo-esoteric systems and schools; and if there were not these pseudo-esoteric schools the vast majority of humanity would have no possibility whatever of hearing and learning of the existence of anything greater than life because the truth in its pure form would be inaccessible for them. By reason of the many characteristics of man's being, particularly of the contemporary being, truth can only come to people in the form of a lie— only in this form are they able to accept it; only in this form are they able to digest and assimilate it. Truth undefiled would be, for them, indigestible food.
 
luke wilson said:
Buddy, apologies, it looks like 'dictates' is not the right choice of words.

why are some people not accepting what they say?

Does that read better?

Any problem that might exist might be with me, luke, but thanks for clarifying. I could have assumed you didn't mean 'dictate.'
 
Nienna said:
I remember seeing a video either on the forum, or on fb where a researcher was trying to get across the idea of competition to a group of tribal children in, I think, Africa. They were told that the first one to fun fast enough to cross the finish line would get a bag of sweets. These children couldn't understand why only one person should get to have a prize. So they all held hands and ran together and crossed the finish line together and so all got to share the sweets.

I remember this story too. It's an interesting one because it shows the importance of culture: our set of beliefs, our way of thinking, our definitions of good and bad, etc.

Rules are only the visible part of the iceberg. They don't have much meaning when disconnected from their source: the cultural factors that they should just formalize/materialize.

Maybe that's the reason why the first principle in Kin school is nationality (i.e. the culture shared by individuals of a same nation):

Happyliza said:
Hence the principles of the Kin school should be as follows:

1. The principle of nationality (narod), or Kin alike image (Rodoobraznost). Language, national songs, dances, handicrafts, customs, traditions, military arts, along with the culture of visual perception, sound and movement — all components of the concept of nationality — these are the living conditions for introducing the child - Kinsman into a world developed by the Kin, represented and unfolded in him and by him.
 
Neil said:
I think that due to the other laws in the society, most employers would grudgingly have to put up with the maternity leave.
Not all employers are large companies with hundreds of employees who might be able to accommodate 3 years maternity leave for the small number of people on leave at any one time. If you were an employer in a small business with 2 or 3 employees, how easy do you think it would be to pay 3 years maternity leave? I think 3 years leave would most easily be managed by having the state pay it, through taxation collected from the whole population. This is how Sweden pays for the 480 days maternity leave it offers.
 
Laura said:
There are many, many details that could be worked on; the whole thing was basically CONCEPTUAL about figuring out how to shift the basis of society to something OTHER than communism, socialism, or capitalism.

Community points, how and for what, exactly, they are acquired is just a basic concept. And what do they ultimately mean and what benefits? Obviously, those who have more community points can experience certain benefits as a consequence of their service to all. But it can't be based just on one's occupation.

And speaking of occupations, society will collapse a lot faster if the garbage collectors go on strike than if the brain surgeons do.

Okay I accept a society could operate in which everyone receives the same income, regardless of their occupation.

I disagree with other points in the thread that seem to me to come from a viewpoint that money is bad, and that people who exchange goods or services for money are greedy or selfish. Trade and the use of currency are almost universal across humanity and civilized history, they are not just a corruption of Western imperialists. Some people seem to think it would be better if there was no money, everything was free, and all work was voluntary. Abolishing money and trade wasn't something that was suggested in the "Template for a New Social Order".
 
Back
Top Bottom