Sunday, June 29, 2008

Regarding the Home, the Demos and their Commissaries

( special article)

Common logic, which ensures the survival and welfare of all the entities on earth belonging at least to the fauna, in which humans are also included, is something which we have many times said we possess from birth as our basic weapon of survival and we are obliged to practice it and develop it throughout our lives.

We are also obliged to use to the fullest the general common logic as it has become shaped through the eons so that it can accommodate and protect as much as possible the coming generations, based on the essence of experience of the departing ones.

Great attention is required in order to have a vertical and clear separation between common logic (which is priceless and necessary) and common opinion (which is confounded, rarely confirmable and usually destructive as it is presented). While common logic is in essence simple but fundamental positions based on the knowledge of the relationship of action-reaction and prediction exactly as in the results of a longitudinal and wide-sample research (and therefore very reliable and representative, almost at the level of natural law), common opinion is the exact opposite of that since it is based on subjective and superficial evaluation of situations and values on the basis of influence and imposition: common opinion is not driven by a need for objective representation of reality geared to correct conclusion drawing but by a need for inclusion to the general group with unconditional agreement and consent to anything that is presented as position of the general group as a ticket in.

For example: a child who wants to be included in the game during recess by the big group of kids will agree or copy the behavior the big group of kids has towards another child/ the teachers/ the cleaning staff/ etc regardless of whether this same child considers this behavior correct/ prudent/ constructive or not (that is why many children feel bad after school).

On the same token which is exactly what drives common opinion, operates every person who needs ‘to be included in the game’ and for the sake of this big group he/she sacrifices principles, time, money, family, self esteem and even his/her body and life- against his/her common logic, the first priority of which is the protection and well being of the aforementioned things.

Yes, but man is a social being, therefore man cannot survive on his/her own and the ones who can are ‘unnatural’ and unhappy. Therefore I am not going against common logic by following common opinion. Isn’t that so?

Unfortunately it is not so. We will follow common logic to prove why not. For certain, man is a social being. But have we realized what we mean by this term? We must always be careful with terms and concept we are told because many times they are presented in a way that they are undefined and each one infers what each ones already believes/is afraid the term or concept means and not the meaning under discussion.

So, when we say that man is a social being we mean that man is made to be an independent part of a group of equally independent individuals so that man will be able to contribute along with the contributions of all the other people for the achievement of a common goal which is clear and commonly accepted by all the individuals of the group and equally constructive for everyone. Man, therefore, is the agent of an idea/ goal/ policy which will yield fruit for him/herself as well as the other people equally well: man, that is, is socially positively oriented, a social being.

However, what happens on the basis of need for someone to be included in a group which is driven by common opinion and the policy of this common opinion does not render man a social but an anti-social being: it renders him a dependent person seeking the lending of his/her potential to some other individual (which spells out blind obeisance and following without the contribution of any estimation/ constructive thought to anything) in the form of contribution, aiming at the reward of waiving of responsibility but also any further participation and contribution in common affairs. Therefore with the consent of any ‘common opinion’ without any presence of evaluation process regarding the quality and correctness of that opinion, the people who follow it (and are ‘in’/ ‘trendy’/ ‘opinionated’/ ‘progressive’/ ‘liberal’/ ‘open-minded’/ ‘intellectual’/ ‘clever’ / etc) buy out their obligation to oversee and protect the interest of their own selves and society, indifferent to the fate of this society and their own person. Therefore these people are extremely anti-social and therefore against the nature of man to be a social being. Therefore, these are the people who are unnatural, sick and harmful.

The man who is truly a social being (i.e. a healthy representative of his/her kind) is the one interested primarily to protect and promote natural health, mental health and psychological health as well as the potential for development in a positive and augmenting trajectory regarding intellect which, in its own turn, will defend even more the types of health I mentioned. This cannot be achieved with technical education alone (i.e. studies of all kinds) but with full use and understanding of common logic and its principles.

And what are those?

The basic principles of common logic are universal and absolute and very simple. In particular:

1. I do not consent to anything before I examine it thoroughly. Time which is invested in the examining before the decision is made is a fraction of the time saved by avoiding future problems which would arise from a forced, superficial or ignorant decision, the resolving of which is time consuming, energy consuming and high cost.

2. If I am burdened with time constraints to ‘hurry and catch an opportunity’ then 99.9% of the cases there is a trap or other kind of foul play which if I was allowed to exercise principle 1, I would immediately see. Therefore I prefer to ‘lose the opportunity’ and keep my possessions.

3. If I am being psychologically blackmailed to take back or not act according to a decision I have made based on principle 1 because I am being threatened I will be badly characterized, or turned away from the group or lose some priviledges or appreciation or anything else which is unfounded and non-tangible, supported by the opinion of third parties and many times undefined third parties, then I know my decision is very correct and it will yield me power and status for me and my real group.

4. I do not under any circumstances accept the existence of so called ‘gray areas’. The gray area is synonymous to anarchy, anomy, lawlessness as well as a lack of logic and positive motive and goals from those endorsing and enforcing it (and from which they benefit in one way or the other). If the so called gray area does not clear our in fully understandable black and whites then I refuse to be part of and participate in the process as it will not be in my control and that of my common logic and therefore I am in danger personally as well as the ones I am representing.

5. I do not accept and I oppose anyone trying to avoid clearing out the gray area for me, claiming that I am not capable of grasping it, it is impossible to be explained in simpler terms, it is not my jurisdiction to understand it, he/she has no time to explain it to me, or for any other reason does not accept to make it clear. If the process of action – reaction (that is, how the action about to take place will have the result it claims it will) is not clear in all individuals without exception, regardless of their socio-political and educational level and who have not suffered brain damage, then there is possible foul play or unclear action and we are obligated for the sake of our interests and those of the group we represent not to consent and bring opposition.

6. I do not accept that actions necessary for my survival and that of my social group like principle 5 is impractical, utopian or impossible. The being possessing the capacity to discover the way to split the atom, live in all the range of geological/climatic conditions, discover the way to cancel out gravity, viruses and bacteria can find the way and the method to explain methods, policies, strategies, reports, balances and so on so that principle 5 and all the others can be achieved.

7. I do not accept any kind of violent enforcement upon my person and my intellect whether this is attempted by few or many, by regimes, governments, committees, councils, newspapers, magazines, television, authors, awars, scientists, high profile people and others: all without fail will have to be able to convince on the basic of common logic without implicating technical knowledge that is none of my concern, and without pressuring me through propaganda and blackmail or lack of time so I can make my estimations.

8. I do not accept the concept of ‘done deals’ or ‘drawn conclusions/ complete processes/ perpetual conditions’: the being having managed to turn away age-old torrential rives, change the shape of shores created after millennia and be enforced only on the force of his/her common logic against the natural weapons of other predators has the capacity and obligation to reform anything undermining his/her existence.

9. I am not deterred from my course by blackmail that I will be alone. I am a social being and by following the above principles I show that I possess the power and force to support constructively other social beings who by nature will be attracted to me. Therefore I shall never be isolated. On the contrary, the other, anti-social beings trying to blackmail me in this way are the ones ravaged by alienation, isolation and loneliness.

10. I do not accept that there are dead ends, unsolvable situations, inert situations because of the concept of ‘between a rock and a hard place’. All the situations have a positive solution which is fully constructive and the only reason that anti-social beings try to thwart the solution is because in a truly constructive solution, their weakness and lack of intellect would become apparent and therefore they would have a position no higher of that of a dependent in the social group.

These basic principles of common logic hold for our selves and all the social groups from the family to the state to international alliances. Based, then, on these principles of common logic, we will analyze the current statements of several people who improperly hold positions of leadership or responsibility in the Greek state. Of course, given that the profile of these people is the same internationally, the only thing changing for other countries in terms of content in this blog, is the names.

No comments: