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.







After having discussed some formal issues of history, reference, action and political management in the first section the following questions of leadership, obligation, practice and protection remain:


 Contents Section 2:


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.

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.

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

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

8.1) Housing.

8.2) Sanity and health.




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

At 2.2 and 2.3 we saw that to conclude to the form of God and the question of authority, there was no form acceptable but that of change, time, itself and that representation of that change is a matter of personal responsibility and individual cultural preference, not of political choice. The best politics can achieve is the democratic freedom of each to take responsibility for one's own free time. A system with a certain timerespect as we know with standardtime does not excuse one from the duty of taking responsibility for settling ones own time when the obligations to the system, however good or bad that might be, are fulfilled. From behavioral science it was concluded that to walk on two legs, to make a difference with the system is a natural and healthy way to maintain ones sanity. To be alternative and rebellious can be a hobby so to say. It is quite common for modern man to have several jackets of adaptation in the closet of ones behavioral repertoire. So the kuhnian concept of paradigmatic revolution might apply to formal society and its system of reward; always there has to be either this time-option of order or an other. But the personal reality of every worldcitizen is different: there are many options formal and informal to choose from that are not in conflict but complemental. Two calendars can very well exist without any conflict as one might settle ones choice of going out in the evening or watching television while the other calendar sets your business appointments during the day. From this one could say that life, reality is in fact the master of the game and that one-sided options are the slaves that have to obey that holistic master. Individual people living after the state-order may think one-sidedness is all right, for the mature option of selfdetermination though this one-sidedness might not be enough. The fact is that most people live one-sided options of life when it comes to time management. One has one Lord, one fix of time and serving two would be impossible. From this religious point of view we might not understand the necessity of alternation for the sake of individual sanity and collective peace. Of course: one religion is enough. Usually one attends to one school of thought at a time. But this very reality of onesidedness obliges to go deeper than just an alternative against ones own religion.. Within the alternative alternation needs its own life. It becomes a complex. Because so many are overly stressing accomplishments in the mode of standardtime others are forced to live in its shadow of an eternal time of 'leisure' called unemployment. And that time has the same characteristics as the time casting the shadow: it is of the same mode of consciousness, the same rhythm. But in the shadow the price must be paid that the ones repressing the necessary alternative don't want to pay. Those unemployed who are forced to live an alternative may have the anger, the frustration, the curse and the madness of the system that does not want to know its own shadow. They even might become UCK terrorists if the social climate permits that. Unemployment is a challenge for the strongest to live not only a more balanced life, but even a holy life of service to God. Bluntly stated: one either goes to the psychiatrist or one joins a religious order for the sake of peace. The religious order has to do exactly the opposite of what the materialist option does: work as a volunteer, live a celibate life, have no possessions and regulate the desires (of making it for oneself) in abstinence. And everybody knows that this is wrong. Nor the materialist life is healthy or sane. it ends in welfare diseases and armed conflict, nor is the religious life sane and healthy. Wanting to go to heaven, losing all love for the paradise that is the world, all kinds of material duties are neglected: one doesn't eat wholesome, one has no appreciation for the sacrament of marriage or the games of love with the other sex, one does not enjoy like any child can in the art of manufacturing, arts or literature of the ego save for the bare necessities of belief (the superego). The conclusion before was that the goal is holistic: balanced between the two interests, the truth of life must be sought in the middle position. That is wisdom, that is reality. Therefore there are two main options to explore:1) what are the divisions and content of a balanced life? and 2) how do we guarantee and understand the interests of the soul that should prevail over the interest of the ego?


5.1) What are the divisions and content of a balanced life?

About this there is a lot of dispute. First of all we have to distinguish the different fields of work. From the filognostic example of The Order of Time one has a clear idea of dividing the interests of true employment for the sake of a balanced life. As we saw before, could those who do not serve this division be considered the factual unemployed and dropouts, especially when they work too hard or pray too much. They are the real problem of a balanced life: the saints clinging to their penance as well as the slaves of the system who cling to their overdoing materially. Nor the pope, nor the president are capable of drinking a (malt-)beer with the so called unemployed down town. And still this is the purpose of the ultimate order of society: leaders are just other employees that also have their evening off and also need to have a good time in free association with their brothers and sisters in freedom and equality. Only then there will be a reasonable restoration of the concept of social control; only if leadership and fame do not make any false authority or other perversion of the social interest any longer. From images/fields.gif can be learned that the fields of work concern that of the physical, spiritual, individual and social kind. The totality of employment is about work for the physical body, the spirit, ones individual interest and the interest of the (world)community. One has from this holistic concept of labor to be as well a materialist, a fundamentalist, a capitalist as a communist at the same (or better the dynamically different) time. Still this is the sober wisdom of a scientific option or vision of reality: everybody needs sleep (sleep materialist !), everybody needs a break (have this cup of tea moralist!), everybody needs to have a job (do it voluntarily warrior of labor!) and everybody needs somebody (go out you lonely man, couple or family !). Only if the materialist makes it a good habit to go asleep, the fundamentalist is willing to 'drink his tea' with others taking a break, workers don't (over-)do it for the money only, and lonely people seek others in free association, only then there can be sanity and balance for a worldorder of a holistic diversity of cultures. The scientific of this view is in the simple truth that everyone does go to sleep, works for himself, does take a break with it and does live for other people too. The psychology of this division is in the problem of the equal distribution of time: either one sleeps too much, works too hard, does too much religious exercise or is too egoistic fleeing from the other man. Proper distribution of time and force makes the greatest strength and accomplishment any athlete can tell us. Thus logically having 24 hours a day one should sleep six, work six, spend six hours taking a break for God's sake and have six hours for other people. To the calender this should in fact also be so: a holiday with others , a day for work, a day for your hobby and a day for the pleasure of the body and the brain. Either of these single options makes a prison that one can hate and become sick with. These six hours and four days constantly tend, in a normal modern person, to be mixed up into ignorance. To the clock too much of socializing will make you an adulterer or private dictator, too much of sleep will make you neurotic or insane, too much of work will make you sick and feeble and too much of God will make you an intolerant miserable demon of morality. To the calendar too much of holidays will depress you, too much of work will make your life of service a lie becoming destructive to the interests of others, too much of the hobbies will make you an egoist and too much of God will make you an hypocrite.

We must not ask politicians to settle this for us: no one will accept the government to dictate any of these forms of behavior. At best the government can permit a 30-hour work week and tax overwork instead of rewarding it (what it costs to pay all the social security to the ones pushed out of society with it!). At best they can reward people going out according to an alternative calender of their own with reduction cards or free subsidized services to promote public business on all (alternated) days of the week. At best they can support holidays that are neatly spread over the year. And at best they can publicly close offices at sundays and saturdays and permit people a random day for personal study. The government may embrace behavioral science reinforcing what they want, but individual people may not be legally forced to work less than they want, spread their holidays, go out every saturday or close their shops on sundays. The government must simply mind its own business of taxcollecting and setting the limits and sanctions.. That is all they can. And if they do it right there will be less police and less armed conflict and a better quality of and freedom in social control. The only thing they really must do is give the proper example: all the holy scriptures and historybooks tell the same story; bad leaders make bad states, good leaders make good states. They themselves must assure the continuity of the leadership and happiness that the people should follow by spreading their own recess, not meeting in the weekends, take a break of culture during the week and take a sabbatical day of study regularly in stead of a year.


5.2) How do we guarantee and understand the interests of the soul that should prevail over the interest of the ego? Simply balancing good with evil within ourselves with a clock and calendar is just part of the solution. To the solution there, of course, must also be a clear moral lead. This is the authentic demand that the call for authority makes. The question is who or what is actually leading in this. Evidently the logic of a sane and wise sense of reality should be in charge, whoever would be in charge of it in science & religion, government &the military, trade & commerce, and labor &sports. From platonian philosophy we can borrow a division of three principles of the soul. From that we can upgrade it from the vedic root to the modern postwar interfaith options of worldorder. "The Republic" proposes to divide the soul in three fields of interest: that of gain, honor and knowledge making up the rich man, the brave man and the wise. These would be ruled by money, distinction and truth. Vedically this aligns to the basic division in the tree modes of material nature: there is the indolence of material interest of tamo-guna(ruled by Shiva, the God of destruction), there is the mode of passion rajo-guna (ruled by the Creator, Lord Brahma) and thirdly there is the mode of goodness sattva-guna (ruled by the Maintainer, Lord Vishnu). Considering these three modes basic to the nature of the soul the Greek are correct in their division of the principles of the soul. People have a fee choice to lead a destructive, constructive or conservative life. No political system can ever defy the innate structure of human and material reality. This is the theoretical ground for the tolerance and conduct of the state. But this seems quite abstract. What could filognostically be the practical value of this philosophical/vedic ground? Taking it seriously the division of the soul represents levels of development. It is the gross scheme of individual progress for cultures and people. From material interest the aspirant of the 'divine life' has to learn to control his passions of ego and creation in order to attain to the wisdom and goodness of a more conservative position. Many radicals later on in their lives turn out to be conservatives. Thus seen this is not betrayal of the cause but simply the consequence of getting older and wiser. Revolution, rebellion and destructive lifestyles are quite common for young people, creative lives quite normal for the married people educating children to be adapted and selfrealized, while the more dull and authoritative moral life of the conservative type is quite common for the elderly. This is the reality of human life in progress and for conceiving a worldorder this is of paramount importance: there has to be a formal concept that takes these different natures, authorities of God in respect. There must be a life for the aspiring young people who want to make money and lead a materialist life. There must be a life for the married loyal people who live creative lives taking all responsibility with passion and excitement. And there must be a life settled for the elderly with their conventional approach. Vedically this is expressed in the so called varnashrama system discriminating in vocation (varna) and status (ashrama). This varna-ashrama-system has been abused as a false distinction of honor and class in a caste-system losing the vision of divinity. This has been corrected by vedic reform reformulating the true nature of devotion: there is equality of class in devotional service with the alternative system of selfrealization. In that alternative, class merely means that one can have originated from labor, trade, governing or the intellect but that it is more decisive to be recognized to the above mentioned division of the soul than to the division of labor one departed from. Thus the authority of the division of the soul pertains to the level of commitment (see images/commitment.jpg ) to the guardian order of apollonian interest as formulated in "The Republic': one distinguishes the aspirant or beginner that is mainly materially interested in the benefits of the apollonian order of society. Next there is the one who is recognized after ten or twenty years of serious commitment and enduring service. Those are the honorable creative arrived people that actually are the backbone of working society. Next there is the experienced wise person that lives a detached life and passes on the knowledge of the appollonian order of life. They safeguard the society against the passions and irrationalities of the less selfcontolled honorable people. In turn the people of the second commitment educate and make place for the ambitious and aspiring younger generations that live for the gain of also experience and recognition of their revolutionary and rebellious innovations and services. Thus varna or caste makes only sense with the ashrama-system of commitment. There are actually four ashrama's as there is also the intermediate status between that of being married and detached of being withdrawn that is of relevance.

Because of the fact that there are two worlds - that actually should be one- knowing the spiritual apollonian order of philosophical guardians, as "the Republic" states it and the world of material interest that is in constant devolution necessitating rebirth, there must be a separation of ashrama or status and commitment or evolutionary principle of soul. There are three levels of commitment in gain, honor and wisdom that do not depend on age but on the merits of the soul to the order (the 'other world') and four ashrama's of individual status to which one belongs depending on ones age (also in the material world). Married or not, after 40 years of age woman should nor aspire any longer for offspring but live withdrawn while man should do so after their 55th birthday. This discrimination has a biological basis: woman lose heir fertility and as such the man can be 15 years older before platonian philosophy speaks of an unwanted individual bond of marriage (also the illegally living together is not wanted by them although they appreciate woman and children as a 'common good'). This makes woman withdrawn and thus wise earlier than man. And thus can a younger woman in principle be the teacher of an elder man in what wisdom would be. At the same time the man must learn to keep a bond with woman getting older and thus he cannot maintain his sexual preference and potency as the dominant lead in their lives after their 40th birthday either. Thus the culture of man is more of conscious sexual abstinence than that of woman. Hence the predominance of man in religion in general. From that school men must train their sexual potency to be in service of their selfrealization in stead of being the servant of their material interests.

This system of status-orientation in vocation, status and commitment (compare images/dentity.jpg or see fig 2 below) even applies to people who never married: they also have their creative period of having material byproducts or mental children from which they also have to overcome their passions of material interest and ego. The system is in conclusion quite a universal crosscultural reality that should be taken serious in considerations of settling for a formal order of state for the whole world. It is the basic notion of identity that gives people the recognition and intelligence of their own preferred natural mode, vocational calling and civil status of life. Only from such a system one may expect the proper respect for the person in all his possible stages and orientations in life, enlightened, reborn and employed with the apollonian order of filognosy or not. Also unenlightened one has a profession, a civil status and a mode of nature that exercises authority over the soul by means of employment. The order may seem unimportant and meaningless to a materialist but is of essential importance to the ones cherishing employment to the predominance of soul and wisdom. Also psychoanalytic interpretations of youth trauma in terms of the wisdom of the elderly are thus better understood as forms of ignorance not just to ones own life, but also to ones awareness, commitment and service to the very nature of the also employing order that is ultimately of liberation. As such unemployment in consideration of service to either of the two worlds one can live in, does not exist any longer and must be counted under the chapter of illusion.



6) Who are the people of liberation?

Politically they are often called: unemployed profiteers or opposition, religiously they are usually called devotees, believers & sinners, philosophically they are called guardians and naturally they are simply called a possibly human species of the animal kingdom. In the previous section we declared unemployment an illusion having to face the fact that there are two worlds: the world of the enlightened and the world of the ones living in material bondage: either one is employed for the material maintenance of the state, or one has to find ones own way of health and service without the material motive. The problem of unemployment ends if not only making money but also serving peace with social security is considered work. If the unemployed person realizes that politically he owes a offering of service being a profiteer, that religiously he is indebted as a sinner and devotee, that philosophically he has to guard the wisdom of peace and liberation and that naturally he has the same rights for food and shelter as any animal, then that person can be considered liberated despite of being materially unemployed. Politically the two world-theory pertains as said above to the level of commitment: one is insider or one is an outsider; politics, trade, intellect and labor can all be liberated in service to the system at hand that would represent the interest of God, goodness and all the eternal values of liberation. From the political point of view though liberation might become a struggle for power and a relative affair. In reality it is a struggle for the emancipation and enlightenment of absolute importance to the human concept of soul. Although the original vedic meaning has as evidenced by the small history of the values of liberation (fig1) been lost in the historic decline of the yuga's and forms of state, time and again a new rebirth was there about not being caught by the illusions of the individual (group-)ego and and its regression. The reality found scientifically is that of evolution: there is an increasing complexity in the material world because of which simplistic dominance of one worldconcept is in fact impossible. Never will the world be ruled by any specific system. Nor religious schools, nor political opinions, nor intellectual understanding nor the wisdom of eternity will singly rule the world. Species of animals might disappear, but new strands of mankind manifest and fight for their own right of existence. Forms change, but the diversity (read degree of freedom) once attained can not be unwound. This entropy of an irreversible diversity is a natural fact. It simply has to be accepted. It takes away all illusions of control and power. Scientifically one is reborn if one becomes a guardian of wisdom which practically means that one accepts and sees reality as it is without further judging about good and bad. This reality is described in modern popperian english philosophy as being of three worlds: the world of the self, the world of the body and the world of culture. These three worlds make the complete of consciousness. The brain derives its sense of reality from these three basic modes of perception: one is aware of ones identifications of self relating in ones own body externally in the culture there about. Or reverse: one is aware of ones own culture in relation to individual physical bodies in relation and attachment with a metaphysical kernel of liberation, intelligence and enlightenment called the witnessing self. Or from the middle position: one is physically aware of a difference between an outside world that is cultivated and an inner world of experience and remembrance. The question is now: 1) how must any system of liberation be served and maintained? Only after answering this one can have a clear idea of employment,work, peace and progress. Without it one is doomed to the categories of illusion: unemployment and conflict. To this question of employment there automatically has to be answered the question of status: if there is no unemployment then 2) what makes the difference of enlightenment in the levels of commitment that would ward of the illusions of power and dictature?


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

As we saw in the previous sections there is the necessity and reality of a scientifically founded holism that would care for the proper respect for all the different systems of liberation in their historical right of existence. This foundation was uncovered in the cartesian method that would ultimately try to incorporate as many elements as possible as a methodic declaration of principle. We also realized that there is the new medium of the internet that could be recognized as an opportunity to have an altar of Apollo, a computer in each home that could define the duties of sacrifice to the scientific God respected as the apollonian reality principle. We also realized that we needed a new term to define the progress of the individual in his sacrifices: filognosy. Simply stated a philosopher mastering the psychology could be found liberated in the proper love of knowledge, the filognosy, that is free from polemics and illusion (noncompetitiveness and truth in apollonian respect). At the same time the psychologist could only become liberated embracing the philosophy to such a degree that he would attain to the respect of filognosy. The purpose of his philosophical enlightenment would be that one has to progress from opinion and belief towards understanding and applied science in such a manner that it is free from repression and thus holistically would make a reality of filognosy as a science of goodness, understanding, belief and freedom of opinion. From the evolution of the values of liberation this would culminate to the virtues of The Order of Time proposing to honest sharing and caring being loyal to the actual discipline of the filognosy at hand. And this is the ultimate point the answering of the question leads to: How must we live the discipline of maintaining liberation and service to the complete holistic reality?

Religiously this question is answered quickly: one has to learn it from a spiritual leader, school or religion. Such a system will provide for the rules to find the proper concentration and endurance to realize what the continuity of the personal soul is all about. Religion gives a warning and has fiercely fought against all false teaching creating chaos and disaster of detachment without a proper alternative. Many sects ended in selfdestruction because of missing this point: one knew to say the material world of sin goodbye, but one missed the discipline of grace and respect that would preserve the holism needed for peace with and in the world. The Gita states that the true and pure devotee sees God in every living creature. Also the platonian philosopher states that the guardian of state is of the mode of goodness. No passion of false authority would torment him and bring his soul down. The Christian has to keep love for the fellow man and live in fairness and empathy. The modern politician realizes that democracy is necessary to keep the dictature out of the parliament: no one can have the majority or the game is lost. Everything must be settled by coalitions in wisdom. For not losing (the democratic) balance one needs a discipline and a concept of grace and gratitude. This discipline safeguarding against false teaching and undemocratic dominance is thus borrowed from the religious schools: they would proclaim from the values of basically truth, loyalty, penance and compassion the monastic vows of celibacy, obedience, non-possessiveness and non-violence. One should not chase (wo)man, be loyal to the vow of commitment, acquire no private possessions and respect all living creatures with a vegetarian life-style. The two worlds of spirit and matter are born from the necessity of grace: the leaders would follow the discipline and the common people would be weak in it having sex to their desire, eating meat, making money and losing their loyalty in divorces and estrangement. Any teaching should be based on this discipline or otherwise be considered false. All leadership should be based on this alternative world of spiritual order or else face a loss of control and authority. All warfare would be nothing but the result of disloyalty to that omnipresent culture of spiritual discipline found in all major worldreligions teaching it. Whether one is a Muslim Sufi, a Hindu yogi, asian Buddhist monk or monastic Christian: all follow these basic rules. It is the foundation of human intelligence and true authority of discipline. It is only the practice of grace and strategy of control that changes depending on the time and place. The method is the same since time memorial.

The problem with all these disciplines is in the social ego's they make: it is exactly the illusion of being holier than thou that goes to the battlefield calling the other practice of exercising authority demoniac: the preacher turns out to be a psychiatrist that is willing to deny the individual his sovereign rights for 'his own own good'. Waging war we would, missing our own image in the mirror, exorcise the devil out of the fallen and disobedient culture and restore the peace and order in the world. Thus the proof of God fell down to an ordinary test of strength: the strongest one has God at his side. Where did it went wrong? The answer must be sought in the social confirmations of the material identity of the group. The world would be liberated if the Lord could make Himself the standard of normality: no miracle will do, only the example that can be followed. Only a system that creates equality and not a false elite of priests, professors, Aryans or whatever conceited enlightenment of race or sex and other ego will give liberation to its own maker. The problem was: how to have a system that does not imprison, crucify or ,contrary to that, worship its own ruler of Lordship. From the Indian one might learn the other strategy of power and indolence: praise the other to heaven and let him do the job. He can't object the praise and he must perform the other man's job even better in order to be worshiped. Lordship would factually not be the purpose of the religion at all, God would. It is in fact not the concept of God that is the problem, but the overlording and inequality from it that constitutes the problem. To the discipline it means that in fact leadership cannot have a personal profitmotive: they , the leaders of discipline, must keep up a standard that can be followed by all. To a possible worldorder thus economically one may first of all never expect anything more than the lowest income of social security, everything above that is a downfall. All one can do for maintaIning the discipline economically is to raise the standard of living from the lowest possible income. More millionaires make a poorer country if the increase of wealth is not equally distributed to the lowest incomes that have to live to all stages in selfrealization and service to God. At all times it has been the duty of the state to maintain the respect and support of and for the interest of the ones living consciously in poverty. Since the falldown of all social ego during the ages and stages of cultural decline, any unemployed person may be a holy hermit guarding the true philosophy of the state and the world peace. Impersonally reasoning from a lawbook giving equal rights to all, a basic income of social security must be given to all that are not in material service but either found criminally against the laws of the state. They may not be humiliated or disrespected in repression of their honor otherwise, since they could be the teachers and guardians of the discipline that is needed for peace. Of course 'India' has many bogus-guru's that only vaguely resemble and answer to the discipline as described. But still any step in the right direction also must be respected. One wouldn't be punished for accepting poverty and celibacy although ignorance would like to. Nor may one be punished for not being perfectly holy from the beginning. In fact as previously described there are stages of commitment to money and honor preceding that of wisdom that might take 10-20 years each before one has overcome the destructive and creative propensities of lust and ego. Never hurry for holiness nor press for it. One will create demons fighting the system of imposition if one tries to oblige holiness. As all intelligent leadership knows: paranoia creates its own prosecution. The unenlightenend chase the unelightened. Serbs paranoid about UCK-terrorism created their own NATO-prosecution of murder.

Next to this vow of poverty for leadership, there must also be celibacy in leadership and in the marriages of present leadership. The worst dictators of history all were married people. The fact that a celibate (married or not) is himself more aware of the aggression around married life with its passions must not obscure the fact that to divert ones energies to cultural commitment and philosophical capacity wouldn't be more peaceful. The idea that (marital) sex would bring worldpeace has often been proven to be just a theory. Also should vegetarians be found in leadership as well as in loyalty to a certain order; confession to the regulative principles should be explicit in a basic vow like: 'honest and loyal i am willing to share and help to the order of filognosy'. Do not forget that the present leaders of the world never made a pledge this explicit. Maybe they swore something to honor God, the truth and the country on the bible or book of law, but will they stay honest, be loyal, share and willing to help for the apollonian cause of peace? If you ask them something, often the answer is: 'I have no time, i have obligations otherwise and elsewhere'. "We are married already" is their factual answer, one is not espoused to another type of order. One indeed has not the right mind of time for it. Still a vegetarian celibate being loyal and in poverty and sacrifice to the apollonian order of the state by means of a vow can be of opposing political interest. Such a vow does not conflict with a particular material interest although the fang might be pulled out of it. But the chance for a disciplined and filognostically proper approach of selfless sacrifice, peace and example is greater with it. Of course will there be as many holy man in each of the worlds of employment as there will be offenders of the law and the discipline. What would wisdom be without the knowledge of the offenses one made oneself? It is after all not holiness that counts, but confession to the actual underlying world-order of filognosy that does not make so much as a social organization and ego of 'marriage', but is more to be recognized in the phenomenon of the information-culture that is free in service for all maintained by all. Thus Lord Apollo rules with order: to the freedom and integrity of the individual and not to the temporary ego's of identification with a group of some kind (compare this with the social definition of The Order of Time: DEFINITION OF THE ORDER: ).


6.2) What makes the difference of enlightenment that would ward off the illusions of power and dictature?

This question cannot be answered without discussing the reality of ego. Modern psychology pointed out that ego is a necessity of sanity. To the psychologist it is better to be an egoist than to be a beast. In fact one needs a state-order and government that can take care of its own business without harassing the people, nor for paying taxes nor for social security reasons. Both options should be taken care of with a system that is equal to all and of servitude in stead of being a dictature. The Platonist is right in saying that ignorance and dictature is the characteristic of the fallen state: there is no real democracy, there is only an attempt to set the clock back in time. Still freedom once tasted cannot be taken back. It is not just the law of entropy stating this. It the complete of human intelligence that screams this out loud throughout the centuries: " do not humiliate us, respect us, treat us as equals". We are not children of the paternalistic oligarchic state or the kids of the queen. The aristocrat, the ruler and the formal uniform of police and the military can only be servants in a system that is of service. They cannot corrupt the system against all rationality and reason for the sake of their own petty unenlightened ego's in a dictature of ignorance. The war in Serbia is nothing but an extension of the false dictature of each individual state involved in the conflict. Based on material motives one cannot find peace nor sanity. Always the lust for power and control will make the false justifications of false elites making second rank citizens at the one hand and political opposition and enmity at the other hand. This is the hell of ego and no psychological glorification can undo it. The psychologist may say that it is better to be a damn hypocrite in service of a system of injustice that makes second rank citizens, than to be a direct murderer and unashamed dictator against all opposition. But ultimately the one demoniac position of false authority will meet the other at the battlefield: the egoist may face the perversion of its own truth: the dictator of fascist unrighteousness that could not contain the hypocritical any longer but simply exercised blunt power of racial or otherwise ego. A famous psychoanalyst once said that the ego is as peaceful as the ministry of warfare of fascist Germany. The problem of this ego business is how to subdue the ego to the interests of the soul. One has to be able to tell it woman and children. No heavy philosophy will do with inscrutable abstractions of doubtful definition and connotation.

The two-world reality pertaining to ego and soul must be unequivocally clear to each citizen, to each subject of the state. One will have to endorse that !) The state should be the servant and 2) It is more important to be someone than to be somebody. If one remembers these two fundamentals of peace we can continue in our filognostic quest for a righteous and fair state as part of a righteous and fair worldorder.


6.2.1) The state should be the servant.

It is difficult to have politicians that realize this. They rather defend(ed) military service and paying taxes to the contrary. It is all too easy to leave the system imperfect of service to prove the necessity of ones own personal power and control. The politician may say: the ignorant citizen wants it and therefore I have the right to exercise power and demand obedience and service in stead of delivering service. But this is no intelligence at all. This is a conspiration of dictature and its evil. Never will the mature adult person accept any dominance of another person for whatever reasons beyond the agreements of justice. Nor for taxes nor for social security, the individual adult believer wants to be persecuted and controlled on the ground of the 'roman' paranoia and theft of honor from an imperfect system. The politicians must learn to realize that 'selling the system' to exercise control is useless if at the other hand one wants to be free from that control oneself. Duplicity makes no justice but dictature of inequality. As long as governments represent the will for the private uncontrollable possession of what the Platonist calls "gold and silver", he cannot be the guardian of wisdom and peace. The guardian of the state is to him free from acquiring "gold and silver": that guardian would care and share to honor honestly and to virtue loyally. That is the nature of true leadership.

In modern time it is not longer necessary to promote the private possession of money. If one does not sufficiently realize the difference between electronic creditcards or plastic money and actual coins and papermoney in private possession one will always lose control finding the theories of management refuted. Any economic traffic of plastic money can be perfectly controlled, while private possession never truly can be controlled by definition of the very term privacy. From the computers each citizen can be (automatically) checked for his balance of economy without further paranoid personalistic false control of the government. That way the government can settle for an economic police: if you spend more than you get or have the right to based on your civil status, professional orientation or calling and level of commitment or principle of soul (48 economic groups see fig. 2), one has to account for it. If one stays within the limits of gain and spending one is free from control. This way each may challenge the economic control against spending and acquiring more than the individual norm allows (a norm settled by parliamentary discussion of each individual interest in equal representation). If I buy e.g. four t.v.-sets a year a state-official may knock at my door and ask whether I'm eating them or what. But if I have money for myself I can be just the fool I want to be and throw each season a t.v.-set out of the window. This latter freedom must be given up and recognized as the dictature of the ego. It is one freedom against the other. The freedom of irrational and irresponsible spending must be sacrificed for the sake of the freedom of the normal citizen that behaves to his own individual norm settled by himself in parliament and shouldn't be harassed by a paranoid paternalistic generalizing government supposing crime accusing and prosecuting everybody from the philosophy that man would be innately bad. This philosophy of the bad nature of man is a travesty of the lust for power. One can exercise power if one gives up the confidence in the good. The famous soul of human goodness can be sold to the notorious demon of the irrational and irresponsible warmongering ego of false authority. The concept of liberty is essential: who is to be free, the righteous good citizen that may go uncontrolled staying within the limits set by the law or the wild free entrepreneur that may do anything he wants with his so called private capital that is in fact the property of the people, the wise and the state? To fight the 'capitalist' system with this 'maybe socialist' option is not enough: one could not preach detachment from an evil onesided brutalizing system without offering an alternative. The system must be fought, nay counterbalanced with another system so that the individual worldcitizen can choose how to walk on those alternative legs. It will be difficult to have a truly holistic worldculture of free choice without having parties, believers, opinions and sciences in unenlightened egotistical opposition for the power and the right to control and enjoy. With the government one has to make choices to what rights what norms are set for what kind of liberty. There is no escape from this explicitation. It must be a fix of state-wise servitude to the soul opposing a dictature of ego. One may postpone it and reap the fruit of war from that cowardice and dishonorable hypocrisy. But reasoning, working serving and producing for peace and justice these questions of formal order cannot stay unanswered.

Fig. 2

---The 48 divisions of Status Orientation---




Withdrawn --
















6.2.2) To preclude the oppositions of egotistical warmongering falsehood, even within a renovated and counterbalanced system, it should be realized that 2) It is more important to be someone than to be somebody. This is the primal concept of soul. Simply one can explain a child that the cornflakes are more important than the specific package they come with. The same pertains to soul and ego. The system can only work in favor of peace if the filognostic soul of the content is served and not the personalism of the package. The person embodied is a necessity: one has to identify with the body and take responsibility for its interests. But never may that interest supersede the interest of the spirit soul. This very article might be essential to the truth of a future mankind of order and a present policy of making peace in Yugoslavia. But the actual writer presenting his own physcal body of enjoyment and control can with its selfinterest only be a hindrance as none really cares or wants to be dictated by the very package or physical body the content comes with. In fact the cardbox of cornflakes is thrown away when the content is consumed. Now we may buy Super Sister rice, but who gives a damn about Super Sister herself? Nor will the world buy anything from The Order of Time if one has to kiss the sweating feet of The Servant. His message may be fine; buy more computers or something and believe that the medium or the Tempometer is the message. But no sane adult will believe that the medium or the clock is more important than the message. Our sweet Lord said to that, that it is not His will that should be done but that of the heavenly (content of the christian package) father. Thus from all the religious, political and scientific paradigmatical packing of the truth of "the heavenly father' from filognosy it must be said in respect for all cultures of selling the message that Father Time and the continuing soul of respect for Him might be the ultimate ruler and authority. Only a fool would fight time. Time is the subduer of all forms and packages and those who deny it are in illusion. Although the soul must wrestle to have a sense of continuity over time forgetting time and forms, which is the religious/spiritual duty; the mortal body must inescapably serve that order of time that scientifically can't be anything else but a holistic complete of all possible orderings of time. It must be om purnam, the complete whole as the vedic literature states. One may be dualistic of two legs or holistic of thousand legs, but the marching of consciousness shall be. The dictature of standardtime and its imperfect system of madness and (super)egotistical political, scientific and religious control may hop on the one leg of ignorance and demo(n)cratic imposition, but the individual soul can never be denied to walk more efficient, faster and truthful on both the legs of personal choice, mature selfresponsibility and freedom of association.

From the informationculture one can observe this new reality of egoless service. Rarely does it matter whether a website offers the personal name of a webmaster or simply offers the e-mail address of a 'maintainer' a 'webmaster' or of a nom-de-net nickname. It is the offering of the information that counts, not the one who offers. Internet goes beyond the culture of the ego. The culture of ego as such is over: it doesn't really matter and dominate anymore who says something on the net. It is not to be somebody, but to be be someone that matters. It matters whether that someone is true or not, not whether that somebody makes money, is married or is a sinner or a criminal. Things must be judged to their internal consistency, effectivity, reliability, validity, truth, righteousness and whatever value of liberation essential to the progress of worldorder. That is the real purpose of the net. The very term gnosis implies knowledge for itself, but gives no immediate certainty about the ego's that are in service with it. The physical body, individual enterprise or individual product is kept at a distance and if it can't be properly inspected over the net no such product will be bought or believed from that distance. Rather one buys or believes something in real life where it can be returned or refused more directly. In fact the Internet shows the spin-off of each local culture: a writer , religion, science or whatever personal home-pager can afford it or not to put his book or other info of interest in full on the net. Still people will go to the shop for a print out of a book as printing it out for themselves might not be as easy or attractive. Still people will meet oneother privately or in public to see what is real of the offering and what not. Reading from a screen will not be popular (and the selling of books will) until one has learned to keep distance from the screen as with television and set the text to big letters. Learning people to know through the internet will not be popular until one knows how to cover the distance that was reinforced. Only then it can work as a medium connecting people in the real world. From serving the purpose and order of being someone in the first place one may attain to being somebody too.(although someone can only be reached by somebody). But that latter ego will always be as temporary as the membership to any association is and must thus be subservient to the someone that doesn't depend on a material person or a name and individual preference of form. That someone can be the Lord of Heaven, The Ancestor, Big Brother, The King of The World, God or the Holy Spirit. The somebody meeting with it is always just an indebted ego of that soul of the someone one has to attain to. As such a new medium like the internet made a new religion of the temporalistic respect of somebody that has to be reborn to be someone. The effort to become somebody with someone is the descending process, the effort to become someone with somebody is the ascending process. Both may be but the purpose of becoming one for the sake of world-order and peace is clearly set before that of being a body of a particular material interest. As such we may conclude to the ascending process in the first place: someone will keep the peace while somebody might lose it.



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

Step by step this manifesto has revealed the actual outlook of the emerging world culture describing it as a filognosy of timeconsciousness in the new informationculture of (being reborn to) becoming someone before being (already) somebody. It would have implications for the economic system using 'plastic' , that is electronic, money that can be controlled as opposed to coins and paper that always seems to run out of control in a state of paranoia about the "bad nature" of man. Prerequisite was the axiom of human goodness. A success of worldorder is a success of peacekeeping in the mode of goodness, not the success of winning a war taking the form of badness. Peacekeeping means one loses the war. Not just the war in Yugoslavia, but all war around the world. The more wars you win, the more wars you have. Its an obvious logic, but difficult to attain to since it puts a great demand on the sincere will and concept of collective and personal progress and emancipation. As we saw discussing the values of liberation in section one, we are in an evolution and as such not bound to this or that culture but by history. From the logic of that history we attained to a vedic insight of guna, varna and ashrama that would best be understood as an eternal division or scientific classification of men to their natural propensities of commitment (the platonian principles of soul), vocation (the more enlightened version of class and caste) and civil status (that would best link up to age-groups and generations). We also realized that this worldorder should be holistic: at the most one can make a subculture of state-management to which individual people are free to participate. This subculture of filognostic guardians of the state would be free from involvement with 'gold and silver' which could be realized by means of the already mentioned 'plastic money'. The state could make a save haven of (filognostically employed) loyal souls living another concept of liberty from the first of the non-committed of employment to the 'materialist ego' that simply may continue as it does now. The paradigm of the Tempometer that compares nature with culture would inspire for the holistic reality of a value-free social science of free choice at the one hand and a clear cut explicit of state-management and consciously propagated values of liberation at the other hand. Thus far this worldorder has taken the shape of a realistic expansion of the present multicultural post-modern inconclusive of the late nineties of the twentiest century. It is not a science-fiction description of an utopia, but an accentuation of the present reality of the internet, the scientific technological capacity for renovating the timerespect, credit-card management, new-age influences, interfaith scriptural truth and existing political motives. Thus the ideas of filognostic honesty, loyalty sharing and helping have taken a more concrete form.

Thus far we have a vague sketch of this New Time Worldorder. Next is the question: how does it really look like; to what extend does it answer to the problems of postmodern society? To have concrete answers first these problems must be set apart: 1)first we have the problem of representation. The state needs a government and how should this be stable and representative of what the people want. 2) Second there is the problem of authority how does one attain to authority and how is it exercised? 3) Third there is the problem of economy: how do we attain to control over the flow of money so that each will get (and keep getting) what he needs. 4) Forth there is the problem of traffic and transport. People and goods must be transported in such a way that it is efficient and adequate. 5) Fifth we have the problem of social control: one may organize as one likes but does it make a society free from alienation at the one hand and dictature and false authority at the other hand. There are more problems: that of ecology, education and housing e.g., but in the western welfarestate there are enough modern solutions for these problems already. These solutions are in fact already operating but not universally implemented. The example of existing statemanagement as it is now on this must be enough. The order as achieved already by these exemplary states (especially in northern Europe) prove that anyone can get schooling until he is 21 years of age, anyone can get a house and any city can have a system of processing the rubbish and waste of culture in an ecologically healthy way. Overpopulation is not a real problem yet: the planet can at least house 20 billion people given the proper culture of food and food supply (the promotion of vegetarian food is most efficient in foodproduction and in maintenance of biological balances in the fauna) and recycling of materials (nuclear waste cannot be recycled e.g.). As yet it is not proven that we couldn't stabilize the population at a certain level below that 20 billion. If cultural reinforcement is strong enough people can find sufficient satisfaction with it and are existentially less in need of biological reproduction. The real problem is to settle for the form of state that could manage a filognostic order for the whole world. As said this state can only be an expansion of the existing culture and not a repression. Still answering the above questions might provide for realities of social change that can be called revolutionary kuhnian shifts in paradigmatic approach. As such a new world order might consist of five separate revolutions in the fields of representation, authority, economy, traffic and social control. What would the face of these revolutions be?


 First we have

7.1) The problem of representation.

As yet we have dominating governments based on political parties. One may call the process of attaining to power revolutionary or democratic, what counts is the result: one may be glad if the actual government does cover more than 50% of the will of the people. Less might be called a dictature of some kind. Scoring between 50 and lets say at most 80% is not an ideal system of representation. This is called the dualistic principle of the state: one has a government that does not represent fully what the people want or how the people are. Such a government always makes an opposition with which there is duality: sometimes constructive sometimes destructive. Sometimes there is repression nationally, warfare internationally. The duality runs into egotistical oppositions of material interest that lose the ability to understand oneother and from that estrangement there is either civil disobedience, terrorism and civil war or international discord, boycott and international war. Opposed to this dualistic principle one may propose the principle of equal representation: the people are divided in separate groups of interest that cover the complete population. These groups hearten their own societal interests and are each represented in the government by a minister.(1* )The oldest person of them is the president. This principle could be called the holistic principle: it is more scientific, more comprehensive and more stable. Free elections are not necessary any longer: it requires individual commitment within ones own group of representation. Naturally some are drawn to governing duties and some are not. The system must because of that provide for a proper balance of representation so that no will to govern on itself will govern. To govern is a duty of all status orientations of society even that of children and senior citizens. In fig. 2 there has been a sketch of such a system providing for 48 different status identity groups. One could imagine a registration-system which would demand from each citizen that he subscribes to one of these groups. Any membership is not fixed by birth but by free choice: one has to chose for a 'color' so to say, but one is free to change ones orientation. This way all groups will try to be equally attractive in its benefits and duties. To safeguard an equal distribution against the possible corruption of free commitment, certain criteria must be fixed: one cannot belong to the married people if one is not registered as being married. One cannot be a student if one is over 21 years of age. One cannot be of full commitment "wisdom' when one is not even recognized as a representative of the order. These criteria might change according to necessity and be settled by parliamentary discussion. What counts and rules is the principle of proportionate representation. That is the goal the government, the parliament and the state-official should work for. This revolution redefining the concept of democracy to a reality without elections and political parties can be called the holistic revolution. It would make political parties not more and less than clubs of friends with an equal conviction understanding that it only works if that conviction does not supersede the interests of an equal democratic representation of all status orientations.


Next we have

7.2) The problem of authority.

We know in parliamentary democracy there are houses of commons and houses of lords. Chambers of discussion for the common people, usually local governments, and chambers of discussion of elected representatives: the senate. These 'Lords' are usually elder and of standing: they are renown for their commitment and generally accepted for their virtue and integrity. The problem of this is in the confusion of material interests and the interest of a non-material integrity of philosophy that should be free from the motives of 'gold and silver' as the Platonist says. This confusion can be called the material principle of state. The philosophical principle of state commands a more refined division according to the principle of the soul. These principles dictate a third chamber of discussion that would be lower in status from the other two chambers of commons and lords. This is the chamber of gain: the interest of gain should work on the same principle of representation as the other two chambers and heartening it should not be confined to separate interest groups as labor-unions and private boards of management. In fact this third chamber of gain is the brooding stove where all neophytes in government can develop their commitments and integrity of representation on the principle of material or a higher form of gain. All beginners in politics may vent their grievances and wishes trying to represent the desires of the people in heartening some aspect of material social ego enterprising and status. In this chamber of aspiration one may complain and plan for a proper income and respect for the different individual enterprises in society. From this house of aspirants the house of commons may derive their higher motives of honor and conviction of opiniated approach. Later on one is supposed to understand that gain without honor makes no progress but a downfall. Just as honor without wisdom equally loses control, democratically settled or not. This way the state would be in respect of the principle of the soul from the beginning. By separating the material motive from that of honor and wisdom these three chambers would effectively make for a revolution of the soul.


 Thirdly there is

7.3) The problem of economy.

As yet we have the principle of the free market. The problem with this principle is in the way one uses money: it is dealt with as with private property while the coin itself is supposed to rule private property. One cannot rule private property by means of identifying with it as said in 6.2.1. That makes a philosophically impossible paradox like a baron von Munchausen who tries to pull himself out of the mire of crime by his own hair. It is easily understood that from a free market principle never the crime can be precluded. Opportunity makes the thief and once we have this advantage of stealing from the community it is difficult to reverse it to a righteous distribution of wealth. Simply stated free market economy can never attain to a control of the flow of money to such a degree that economic crime is impossible. The ideal of free enterprising and profit is not violated on itself attaining to a system that is in full control of the flow of money. It is not said yet how that flow should be controlled and thus what the meaning of the concept of freedom in enterprise exactly would be. That is up to the government of the state with its chambers of discussion. They may decide who has the right to control what kind of money, for what purposes and under what conditions. But first of all a righteous economy needs control and not a psychology of paranoia about black markets, illegal currency, illegal trade, unrighteous commissions, bribes, illegal speculation etc. One is mopping with the tap open as long as the private property of money exists. Still each has to take responsibility for his own capital . Money righteously implies duty and responsibility. Not so much freedom and power as one corrupt desire might whisper in the ears of private ambition. In stead of a free market one should speak of a responsible market economy. For freedom and the power of God one may more effectively check out with a monastery than with a parliament or private enterprise. Maybe half of all modern legal actions and settlements somehow try to arrange for the control over money, although with a doubtful result. Somehow the terrorist in Yugoslavia costs us in the nineties and thereafter more money than twenty years of proper social security and its commercial revenue for them would have them keeping at home in Kosovo. Now we have the total destruction of Serbian economy for our free market economy of egoist control in private property. Against this principle of the free market with its shadow of economic crime and dictature there is the principle of digital money: that currency that in fact does not exist, but is better recognized as a system of credit-point management in a social science game of career-mobilty, social security and free enterprising. Since one is in full control of knowledge where the money goes, where is stays and where it is supposed to go and what it is used for, one can govern for a righteous distribution and reinforcement of wanted socioeconomic realities: through this digital revolution of economy the people by means of the government can attain to full control over the flow of money. Simply stated: plastic money precludes economic crime and crisis. No opportunity, no crime (who can steal a creditpoint when the credit is settled by clarity of income and expense?), no obscurity or lack of control, no crisis. Nor will there be any taxes needed since the government is in full control already (!). As such crime and taxes make the same objection: capital is not really capital when it is out of control and more a symptom and sign of unrighteousness, loveless selfhood and war. As long as one defies the concept of economic control by means of this economic digital revolution (already taking place step by step replacing money with creditcards) one is in fact at the side of thieves and frauds.


Fourth there is

7.4) The problem of traffic and transport.

Here we have the problem of the centralizing principle. Economy would make for the so called efficiency of centralized production and control. But, although from the point of view of management it seems to be handy to be in one building, from the point of view of distribution of the goods it is certainly not. Nor is the waste of time and energy on endless commuting adequate either. Transport even becomes impossible when everybody has to go elsewhere when there is never enough highway for it. The idea of decentralization is nothing new in politics and management. Rationally we might perfectly know this to be true, but do we really manage from the solution called the local principle? The answer is no. Modern management rules from the centralization principle with cultures of enterprising. Multinational companies have their headquarters in New York , Amsterdam or Hamburg, Singapore or Tokyo. The local principle is to that only a vague notion of the fact that the actual product or actual life of the citizen is always settled locally. In fact one confuses ones interlocal business life with the life with the wife, kids, neighbors friends and local community. To have a secretary for a mistress is not a solution to that nor is a divorce from the elderly companion a solution. Confusing the social activity of social cooperating for ones work in an office with having a social life at home is the error. It should be the same thing, but it is not because we sold the soul of the local principle for the money of the multinational interest of centralized management. Now it cannot be denied that centralized management is necessary. Of course there should be a United Nations, US of A, European Union, Indian democracy, Chinese state etc. But management should not be confused with the actual practice of using the product and enjoying the settled state of affairs in ones own environment. The revolution of the local principle is a difficult one. The central management cannot be missed although the digital culture provides for the network with the homeoffice (the wife in control!), the video-conference and the inter- and intranet chat and file-exchange. As such each home can become part of the decentralized association of a commercial or political board of management. Local branches for smallscale assembly and more effective distribution should be profitable saving on commuting, offices and transport. Still the psychology of estrangement between the local and the central interest needs to be overcome. What counts in first instance in this revolution is to stress the importance and efficiency of the local principle and arrive step by step at the best balance with centralized control of that efficiency and adequacy necessary for the most economic traffic of the people and the transport of their goods. The very culture of local socializing for work and leisure itself is to that in need of a revolution of its own:


The fifth problem is that of

7.5) Social control.

In fact is the modern ego socially controlled by all kinds of separated unions, companies, parties and clubs and is the only social control over it settled by law. The law obliges to respect the officials who check us out against crime and abuse, deceit and fraud. One could say that the only formal social control one agrees about nowadays late twentiest century is the legal one. Opposed to this (super-)ego-oriented principle of ingroup social control is the principle of a between-group concept of free association. It is in fact this free association that is the true sanity and freedom of the community we are after. Never will the world as said be ruled by a single party, club, police/military force or union of whatever kind. Only the public meeting place where all can encounter all in equality can be called the freedom of social control. All the rest of ego-determined ingroup control - however holy or familiar - constitutes no freedom at all but on the contrary provides for more and more between-group violence as can be seen in e.g. european soccer-supportergroups and with gangs terrorizing the streets or street violence in general. Also the violence of terrorism and warfare can be considered a perversion of social control. The answer to all this 'street'-violence is simple: everyone should go on the street and not make it a domain for groups in competition of a dominance of ignorance. The formalization of such free association must not come from the ego of some religion, political opinion or another paradigm of control over people. It can only be if it liberates and makes the sanity of all people instead of limiting it and driving it into conflict working against the mature option of free choice. The authority of settling for this social control can only come from a scientific concept of what religious people call God. To the common man it must be clear that meeting oneother must be a good habit and take place for the proper reasons: to overcome estrangement and to attain to mutual emotional recognition, community and support. There can't be a simple moral or personalist lead in this. One has to settle for a value-free formal concept of order that specifies what exactly a good habit of socializing would be.

In short: first there is concentration (the control) and second there is spreading (the socializing). The concentration specifies when exactly one does meet as a good habit, the second must take care of an equal distribution of attention for all the services and associations offered in the social field.. The principles seem contrary, but they are not. As explained above one needs a system of non-profitmotives and personal approach to overcome a system of profit and keeping distance in material (private enterprising) selfinterest. Everyone knows that just to work and no leisure is no happiness and pleasure. Watching television at home can also be considered a type of work (attending to the needs of the worldcommunity to communicate about the troubles of life at a distance). Thus as we always knew we need a weekend off for the family and the religion. But also for study, socializing outside the private sphere, and to escape from the contrivances of keeping distance (t.v., telephone, video, internet etc.) one needs a day considering the proper balancing as discussed above at 5.1. Only then a liberated form of social control and a free associating society where one learns to know who lives in ones town and neighborhood is realized. Isn't it the estrangement and impersonalism of modernity that was its problem and fundamental cause of ultimately war and social destruction with violence in the streets? Opposite to the principle of (the conflicting) ego that factually rules the social control of modern society the temporalist principle must be placed. The temporal revolution implies that for the sake of the restoration of social control in free association (in whatever group of preference thus) one individually has to adopt another calendar and even clock to settle for an equally potent concept of time-management that is powerful enough to break though the hypnosis of the material attractions, conditionings and regressions of the egoculture of standardtime. Thus one accomplishes with an alternative of time management the control over the seeming conflict between concentration and spreading of attention for a free association of social control. It is not the moral directive thus that will bring social control. From that we know and remember narrowminded onesided dictatures of unenlightened social paranoia and prosecution of deviants. The timeculture at hand needs an acceptable alternative that can provide for a concentration on a certain regularity according another calendardivision that would spread the attention equally over all days of the week thus escaping from a conditioning to social events settled by standardtime.(see / 2754 A.U.C.* ). One can say that such an alternative system will also come up with settlements that condition and train the individual to be caught and be exploited with personalism and the advantage of doubt. But having two systems next to oneother one cannot deny that the freedom of choice is preserved with it and that the debilitating onesided conditioning is broken. The government may as said before , from the behavioral point of view, reinforce the social behavior wanted by means of a special reductioncard or even free services. To strengthen going out as a good habit It may subsidize the sell of soda's cheaper and alcohol more expensive, or of vegetarian low-fat snacks and meals in stead of risky meatproducts. It may support cultural engagement by offering reductions to entrance-fees or free entry for concerts and other theater-productions as the cinema. Actually this is happening already: the welfare state does promote the participation of students, unemployed poor people and old-aged people with special reductions on cultural events. It is in this direction that the restoration of social control from the adventures of modern engineering should take place. The temporal option itself might not be an option for the government in first instance. They have their own agreements of standard-time and should settle for a fair time-independent distribution and reinforcement of risk-free behavior and consumption for all cultures and habits of time. Only later on, as an alternative of timeculture makes a majority in the government can an accent be placed for counterbalancing against the unwanted conditionings of bad habits in a maybe wornout system.



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

Now these pages have to make an end to the argument of war and peace. In the previous chapters we saw how through a recapitulation of history we realized that we are in an evolution of the practice of the values of liberation. Next we saw that about the right to speak we had 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 realized 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 realized that there is a system of holistic healthcare possible to account for this abridging of the gaps of duality. In the next section fifth the question of authority was answered clarifying that the show is factually run on properly balancing divisions of time that factually employ everyone and that an holistic answer to the dualistic fallacies must be founded on a realistic system of statusorientation that is reflecting the principles of the soul. Sixth answering the question who these people of liberation are there was 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 was discussed concluding that to the problem of representation, authority, economy, transport and social control we need to shake the hand of five revolutions called the revolution of respectively holism, soul, the digital, locality, and time . In one phrase thus far we could conclude to the necessity of an holistic revolution for sake of the soul that uses the digital capacity of an information culture that restores the local respect and social control with a proper renovation of time-management. Now this is all very clear we have to close the argument and formulate what exactly we are fighting against maintaining such a system and how we should defend the peace of this holistic future.

The theme of this filognostic manifest is work and unemployment. The factual conclusion is that our modern/postmodern culture is in need of a formulation of what the progress of the values of liberation actually should be. The term liberation implies the one of employment. One may be enlightened freed from desires, but one is only truly liberated if one finds a job with it. Finally we simply want the problem of unemployment out of the world. Before we make any definitive statements about this, first we must realize what the concept of labor factually contends. Vedically it is called karma. According to vedic knowledge we have three forms of karma: akarma, karma and vikarma. In straight English this is most simply understood as respectively: spiritual work or work for God, material work or work for the consequence of the physical body and unwanted work or crime. From this division we realize now again as we did before at 5.2 that there is factually no concept of unemployment from the vedic root. In the platonian republic there is no mention of unemployment either; the term is not used. There are the guardians (officials, politicians, philosophers and soldiers) of the state and the different classes of labor and trade that have to divide their duties and cooperate for all provision of services and goods. No mention of unemployment. In the Holy Bible there is neither any word of unemployment: one either serves the devil, or one serves God or lives an ignorant life of misery. The mission is to help the poor and fallen souls and restore their honor in the love of God. Thus as well as logically from the realization of the linguistical impossibility of an absolute definition of labor as from scriptural truth we must declare together with the filognosytically formulated interests of the soul the concept of unemployment as illusory and political. Calling everyone unemployed whom we cannot control and subdue to our own dictate of labor is in fact unchristian, unwise and a proof of alienation from the culture of the knowledge of the soul in general (not to say bluntly egoistic). A soul may have karma: a certain obligation with the material body that is a consequence of certain actions, desires weaknesses or misdeeds in the past. A soul is in constant evolution emancipating or regressing from one involvement to another in a way that may be unique. No government can plan for all these diverse ways towards oblivion or towards remembrance of God and soulfulness. The government is simply not the employer. We concluded to the necessity of a holistic (not simply political) fivefold revolution. The factual employer is Life itself, the Soul itself, the Lord, the Superego or the Almighty Reality of Time obliging us to respect all the natural changes of matter the way they are. And again as said above at 6.: no human being will ever rule the world. Not even the Lord Himself can outdo his own cultures of religion, chastisement and education laid down and fixed in another place and time: history is history, respected or not. Nor will any scientific paradigm outdo the moral education, peace and social coherence of the different religious systems to themselves, however regressive they might seem to be. In fact we have to work for a society and social control that can't be anything but holistic and alternative. The alternative is just an alternative, a complement, a counterweight. The five revolutions of holism, soul, the digital, locality, and time are separate programs of action, they are expansions to already existing duties and individual cultural options of emancipation that eventually might together have a political consequence and general paradigmatic turn of tables sooner or later. Politics cannot run the show really though since wisdom has to rule and not just motives of gain and honor. It is summarizing not 'gold and silver ' that is the real philosophy of leadership and guardians of state. The real struggle is for 1) housing. and 2) sanity and health


8.1) housing.

Unemployment is the problem of those who talk about it. Therefore first of all this discussion must end realizing that simply everyone who is not without a house and is not sick is employed. Crime is a special case of moral disease or sickness to be cured by fines, imprisonment & reeducation or forced labor. Death penalties, denying the soul the housing of the body, are much too easy and a sign of societal weakness. It is the same as putting people on the street who can't pay the rent in stead of giving them an economic reeducation. If I would be a murderer I would be very grateful to be killed and have my karma being taken over by the ambitious community eager after a (my). job. Likewise many dropouts were happy to see their debts disappear with their housing. But is one really willing to pay the price of stealing another mans life? The countries exercising this simplistic eye for an eye penalizing are simply naive in the consideration of what the eye of life factually is: it is the complete vision of a complete human life. Also taking the lives (read housings of the souls ) of animals and even trees this should be considered. How many people have to live like pigs and cows just for food and procreation waiting (in the ad-mire) and crying (mooing) for their physical end in hospitals butchered by surgeons explaining them that they are really no predators but predominantly vegetarian primates. How many scientists are just meditating studying the corpses of trees smeared with ink taking pride (and money) keeping still as a plant in a pot for the sake of 'peace', a healthy atmosphere and biological balance? Let's cut this short: each may kill and have the consequences of karma or physical labor coming with it as far as the law permits us to have death penalties for enemies, animals, criminals and trees. But let us be honest also: we are not to judge about oneothers karma and be of total war and destruction in political individual and collective oppositions in the name of employment. One may be employed by a political party, an commercial enterprise, the military or an other institution of the state. What must be accepted as the cure for this financed conceit of housing is that we are first of all employees of the soul with all its holism of divine omnipresence, principles of respect for as well the elderly and wise as the honorably recognized and aspiring motivated beginners hoping for material gain. We should not in the name of this "employment" deny oneother ones housing (in the broadest sense) and call oneother unemployed because we are all differently of karma. Either nobody is employed by no one or everybody by the soul. The ego of whatever power or kind can never employ everyone; it can only engage others to a limited material concept. But the rest is and cannot be called unemployed or unmotivated and be denied the housing and sustenance one needs oneself with the same civil rights.


8.2) Sanity and health.

The real fight, the real struggle for existence is that of sanity (all war is there between our ears). The real struggle is nor only the struggle to have no homeless refugees, junkies, bums and tramps fleeing from the wars of commerce and ego-politics that cannot end without a conscious strategy of peace and worldorder providing sustenance, housing and respect for all walks of life (all karma). The real struggle of life is about health in its broadest sense: healthy social control. Healthy psyches of filognosy instead of neurotics and schizoids of psychology with its denial, projection and egotistical destructive passion. What is the use of fighting unemployment that from the soul does not exist making people sick of a society that does not exist either? The illusion of unemployment must be finished, otherwise the war will not end. The illusion of a 'society' of social alienation and violence must come to an end: that is no society at all but a disease of lacking social control. Such a social health cannot be bought: such a social health is the real employer one has to work for individually to begin with. The struggle is for a free associating society that makes a realtime and true time social reality in a healthy sense of progress and value-free philosophy of liberation in reciprocating service. Therefore the mission is as it always was: love and respect oneothers employment to the soul and help the really sick and miserable dropouts to regain their physical and social health in offering them from our own health the clear vision and trust of a righteous society in progress towards a standard high enough to keep God from chastising us for at least a thousand years.

1*: A counsel of ministers of statusorientation-representation making up the best (most representative) governing capacity possible can together decide what the former functional division in ministeries could imply: they could be institutes that are partly independent with appointed leading state-officials who are obliged to respect the decisions of the government concerning their policy.




Section 1