Sincerity or thoughts which are endangering a system's stability?
Sincerity or thoughts which are endangering a system's stability
?
Sincerity or thoughts which are endangering a system's stability?
People love to speak of "freedom of speech", a right which appears to be public property in any democratic society. Freely phrasing thoughts is usually only accepted within the dogmas supported by society.
Tanscending a dogma is an extraordinary experience, as the author of this account can inform you from own experience. Even in a society in which an increasing amount of rigidity of a dogma is noticeable, such an experience is difficult to explain to the followers of this dogma; it is not understood. The dogma the opposing figure tries to undo in his consideration is for its followers a fixed point; an unshakeable given. The opposing figure is put outside of the group, because he experiences reality completely different to those who have not yet transcended the dogma. For the majority of society, the dogma is something self-evident, something which cannot be undone. The dogma is a fixed foundation, a set standard that is needed to build upon. Such a fixed point can, for example, be a theory of physics from which people, who follow this theory, shape their world image. However, this could just as easily be a social structure or passed law.
Those who have transcended a dogma are seen as a threat by the indoctrinated society at a certain point in time. This, however, is certainly not yet the case if the dogma is not yet so rigid; in the start and blossoming period of a dogma, maintaining this 'fixed', accepted point is viewed as simple. The dogma gives people a clear answer and direction to the daily course of events. In such a period, its followers look with a smile at people who oppose this certainty, who openly explain the structure of becoming rigid and the eventual downfall of this dogma in time. However, as time goes by, it becomes more and more difficult to solve problems that occur within a dogma in a humane way. People who truly and humanely want to understand such a dogma in its structure, those who want to point out the problems which become visible due to holding on to such a dogma are seen as a threat by the indoctrinated in a society in which the dogma is very rigid; the smile of yesteryear towards these people is long gone than. The indoctrinated environment paints the opposing figures as negative: they try to undo a fixed fact, which surely can't be the intention. In view of the consequences of holding on to the dogma for a society, these opposing figures often have no other option. In the indoctrinated society, during such a development in which the dogma becomes more and more rigid and finally is buried, reason is harder and harder to find. The strangest motivations are produced by the dogma's followers: "If we all start to think like that, then...", "It is important that we all keep the faith, because otherwise...", "People who talk negatively about... will be prosecuted." For those who have transcended the dogma, such unreasonable argumentation equal argumentation similar to: "If we didn't have that huge storm early October, it wouldn't be autumn now", because a radical world change by the rigidity and downfall of the dogma is simply as inevitable as the change of seasons.
With some caution, the author wants to touch on a contemporary dogma, which is becoming more and more rigid: the application of the monetary system as a communal language in which we express ourselves. A system which, for us people, appears an unshakeable fact. The monetary system is a means which tries to guarantee the conditionality of human action; giving an answer to this action by means of cause-effect causality. Man's position: "I will do something and there has to be something in it for me" needs, with the help of a conditional system, to be answered in a credible way. However, in light of the inherent structure of a conditional system, this is always temporary. Sticking to such a system, such a language will, due to the inherent structure, always result in confusion. Due to expectations outlined by such a system and its raised conditions and man's dogmatic adherence to it, such a dogma's rigidity will end in a catastrophe for its followers. An attempt is made to explain why the application of a conditional system is only temporarily credible, how and why confusion occurs and how this will generally unfold in our time.
The characteristic of dogmas is dual, is paradoxical. It is preferable that people are in agreement regarding certain matters so as to come to the creation of a construction. However, this agreement or certainty creates also the rigidity which is the dogmas downfall: two matters which are both incompatible and supplemental in encompassing the notion dogma in its core. This twofold structure of opposites: the state of being both incompatible and supplemental is typical for the world's structure. This 2-nature that is inherent for being able to distinguish; perceiving one thing because it relates to another. The nature of dichotomy, which inherently states that there is a connection; nothing can exist by itself in this world. A world in which everything is relative, every element is in relation to another, where everything has a connection. Can you talk about light if there is no dark? Thus, the presences of a great order in the world also confirms the nature of free will. The definition of order, after all, has to be set against its paradoxical opposition to exist here, in order to have a contrast, a distinguishing, a relation or connection.
People who are indoctrinated by a conditional system, who apply this system as a communal language in order to communicate with each other are not aware of this dogma, as it would otherwise no longer be a dogma. The definition of dogma can, after all, only be collectively recognized if people have transcended it; up to that point, people saw it as fact, an undeniable assumption. A conditional system appears to be perfectly viable during a period in time. That is the case if, for the majority of people that adhere to a conditional system, the proposition: "I will do something if there's something in it for me" can remain viable in a seemingly credible way. Successfully applying a conditional system has the creation of a contrast, an opposition, a relation as its characteristic or starting point. This created contrast reaches across time, and while the society adheres to the dogma, while this dogma appears to float through time without problems, the oppositions keep on expanding out of necessity. In our world, these oppositions in the monetary system are expressed as 'credits' versus 'debts'. Two expressions that are both incompatible as supplemental each other for the right of existence of the conditional system. Due to the world's structure, humanity struggles with the great paradox: The increasing contrasts which form the conditional system's right to exist also ensure the rigidity and downfall of the system in which oppositions, credits and debts, are once again reunited. Does the conditional system get a dignified death, or do we, by collectively dogmatic adherence, get an unparalleled death struggle?
Characteristic of conditional systems is the manipulation of time. While human action is done in the present, the raised conditional construction speaks of claims', savings', 'debts' and other matters as being in the future. In a conditional system, this manipulation of time is necessary in order to answer the conditional attitude of the indoctrinated human. However, it is typical, as indicated earlier, that as time goes by and the dogma appears to fully satisfy, the contrasts keep piling up and are expressed more and more in the future. The result is that the dogma is becoming more comprehensive, larger and more rigid and keeps getting closer to a reversal.
The reversal created in adhering to a conditional system is inevitable, because, within this system, people think in contrasts. This reversal is revealed in roughly two different ways: the contrasts decrease (debts decrease and, thus, credits also decrease), whereby confusion is created. Adhering to the dogma without big problems is only possible when the contrasts increase sufficiently for every period in time. The theorem "I will do something and there has to be something in it for me" can now no longer be through for the majority of the indoctrinated; Also, the already existing contradictions between credits and debts do not appear to be harmoniously reconcilable, because people keep reasoning and acting from within the doctrine of the conditional system. For this reason, very gradually unrest, despair and madness within the indoctrinated society develop. Such a process of rigidity and confusion within the dogma, in which the contradictions were united in chaos, was experienced by an earlier generation in the beginning of the 1930s until halfway through the 1940s.
The second reversal scenario largely means that the conditional system becomes implausible, which is experienced as very unpleasant by the indoctrinated society. In such a scenario, the contradictions keep increasing (debts keep increasing and as a result, so do the credits), which creates confusion because the conditional system becomes more and more implausible after every step or measure taken in time in order to keep expanding these contradictions. The matters flowing forth from the application of the conditional system will also keep on expanding further over time. When we project ourselves into the dogma, we can give the following concrete examples: an increase in credits and debts, longer repayment terms, emergency accounting measures and ad hoc changing of multiple rules within this dogma. What is special about this is that the indoctrinated, as a kind of proof of the dogma they adhere to, indicated that the situation is improving, that the problems have been solved, while the madness of the measures taken and the creative artefacts executed within this conditional system actually serve as a counter-argument for their adhered-to dogma; the measures taken are actually signify that the dogma is dying.
It is not the intention of the author to disturb people in their slumber, however, in light of the consequences in the near future of adhering to the monetary system as a conditional system, writer has no other option; Rather take the poisoned cup! Doing nothing and waiting passively is also choosing a side; it is consenting to the always increasing contradictions and the further rigidity of them in the indoctrinated society, which, thinking and acting within the monetary system, cannot be harmoniously reconciled. For the reader, who cannot transcend the dogma, the author of this article could later, in his opinion unreasonably, be called "the person who, on his own, collapsed the entire world economy and his structures." In light of the structure of the monetary system and all kinds of conditional systems, a big change in the experience of the author is inevitable and he could do nothing else but point out to people that there is an increase of problems that would be revealed concerning the inherent structure of a conditional system and people's insistence of acting within such a system. Problems which appear completely unexpected to the indoctrinated, but of which the opposing figure is more aware than anyone else.
It is also not true, if the reader draws the conclusion, that the author of this article is positioning himself as an opponent of a conditional system. The author merely tries to expose the structure of things of which people, by means of free will, can settle themselves harmoniously into a complete societal change, because expressing ourselves in a conditional system at this moment in time will provide more and more problems and unrest among the indoctrinated. As noted earlier, adhering to a conditional system has the following paradoxical characteristics: The increasing contradictions (credits versus debts) ensure both the material blossoming of a society, but also for return of development. The return can occur by the continued adherence to a conditional system, which created confusion and whereby such a change is experienced as a catastrophe by humans, or with the transcendence of the dogma in which the current developmental standards which result from the application of a conditional system are pulverized and where the change is experienced worthy, humanely and with wise understanding. A conditional system is in essence paradoxically biased, in which its characteristics are both incompatible and supplemental each other in encompassing the entire cycle; the complete essence of the world.
One dogma can be exchanged for another, in which the current policy makers are blamed by the future revolutionaries that they have acted wrongly and in which is preached for a better world. In hoping that the reader more or less can follow this reasoning, he or she will understand that blaming policy makers is founded on no reasonable grounds when one states that, when reasoning within the boundaries of this conditional system, another route was available which would not lead to confusion and problems. Also promotion of alternative conditional systems as being a better alternative and which would not lead to problems is an illusion. At random, I think of: a monetary system based on the gold standard, a debtless monetary system, point systems, barter, etc. etc. Conditional systems always create a contrast, a contradiction: "I will provide a product or service now and in return, I will acquire a claim which I expect to be repaid in the future". Contradictions which expand over time when using a conditional system and which also are always become united; it is up to man's free will to do this by means of conflict or in harmony.
Is this an appeal for a bankrun or a similar malevolent appeal which tries to endanger the stability of the financial system? No, the reasonable reader will realize that this is absolutely not the case after reading this article. The essence that is tried to put into words is, by means of the structure of things, more fundamental than pointing out who is to blame within this system and create the impression that the problems we are experiencing now on mainly financially/economically speaking could have been prevented within the accepted dogma: The application of the monetary system as a communal language by people. Such reasoning would come down to the same thing as a participant of a chain letter who would expand on the wrongs within the chain letter which led to problems. In view of the intrinsic chain letter structure, which is also characterized for a conditional system, it is only humane and reasonable that the participant summons up the understanding that a chain letter functions well for a time, but that the expectations he or she keeps having with continually increasing contrasts can be wisely released and that the participant does away the conditions the chain letter creates to do something for others.
As is true for all time changes, it's difficult to explain to a next generation why a different religious conviction led to the stake, why putting the flat earth up to discussion angered the adherers of this world view and why we, humans, had expectations of a conditional system, a system in which you could save, manipulate time, a system in which contradictions expanded and were expressed further and further into the future and which, at a certain point, would be inevitably united after all. Just like the reality of other connections/contradictions in earlier periods, such as, for example, the relationship emperor-subject, the contrast created by a conditional system - credits and debts are also submerged in time, these contradictions are once again reunited and subsequently neutralized. A unification of contradictions, which can occur in harmony in the transcendence of the dogma or occurs by force by permanent indoctrination of participations by means of conflict between civilians, companies and governments on a world-wide scale.
The author wrote this article unconditionally, not knowing the consequences of his action; is he awarded gratitude or will he be scorned by his environment? On humane grounds, however, he had no other choice but unconditionally deliver this address to you; just like love is unconditional: to approach the loved one without knowing the consequences. Is the approach considered or brutely turned down?
Is Your Paranoia Justified? The grand national - betthief.com Fibreglass moulding technicalities Why People Prefer To Switch to Dual Fuel Be Wrinkle Cream Wise Best Place To Offer A Car Fire Risk Assessor Spend A Night In Playing Bingo Amazon Adventures Fire Regulations - UK Even The Best Chefs Use Meat Thermometers Staying Fit With Yoga Try Vimax Free Trial