Expansive essays

I have included a link to a comprehensive essay covering a variety of subjects, and in the body of the blog I am including another.

The first is http://www.geocities.com/ilya_shambat2005/renaissance.htm. You may not agree with all things there, but I believe there are significant ideas there.

The second follows.

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND MULTIPLE PATHS

Part 1. Freedom of Thought: Virtue and Root of All Other Virtues


The man's life is a result of the mindset that he possesses; and the
same is the case for societies. The people's beliefs, perspectives,
perceptions and feelings and outlook that are their function shape the
world they inhabit and the world they bequeath to their kids. The
mindset, through actions done in its pursuance, becomes
self-perpetuating and self-fulfilling. And the ideas shaping it become
reflected in the nation at all its levels, shaping its social movements
and its climate and ultimately the lives of all that are in it
involved.


The mindset, however it came to pass, therefore becomes the ultimate
and complete authority over the lives of the people within the
civilization. It becomes so complete and encompassing that people
don't question it, but are rather by it shaped. The mindset -
whatever its origins, whatever its methods, whatever its function -
becomes therefore a greater, more complete and more invasive power over
the lives of the people than does the government. By shaping the minds
of the people it shapes all their actions and then the world they
create with these actions. As such it becomes the true authority of the
land.


To be in any way regarded as democratic, an authority has to be
balanced and checked and held accountable. In other words it must be
official and open and complete and thus subject to accountability that
comes from being brought open into the sun. An authority that is not
official is an authority that becomes unaccountable, unchecked and
unbalanced. Which means that it is well on its way to becoming
totalitarian.


America, seeking rightfully to avoid totalitarianism, has applied
checks and balances on all levels of official government. This has
prevented any official organ of power from turning tyrannical and
absolute. The same checks and balances, however, have not been applied
on American society. They have not been applied on American
communities; on American media; on American business; on American
churches; and especially on American public opinion. Which means that
totalitarianism has found a way to slip under the radar screen and
through controlling the minds of people has found a way to create a de
facto tyranny in the land of the free the home of the brave.


What are the signs of this totalitarianism? They are all around us.
They are in fears bludgeoned into people's heads, from fear of being
different to fear of being open to fear of being fully alive. They are
in similitude of thought; similitude of feeling; similitude of
perspective, all bludgeoned into the minds of America from earliest
ages. They are in the hideousness of American social climate from high
school onwards and the strident sellout psychologies that pander to
this conman's totalitarianism by portraying the people's legitimate
reaction to such climates as pathological. They are in the control of
people's wants, minds, hearts and desires and their twisting into
wanting, valuing and seeking what they would in many cases never
rightfully want, fear what they should never rightfully fear, seek what
they should never rightfully seek and believe what they should never
rightfully believe.


I refer to this as conman's totalitarianism, precisely because it is
unofficial. To people who think they are free under this arrangement,
the correct question to ask is, "If you all are so free, then why are
you all the same?" To go further: Why do you all dress the same, want
the same things, believe the same lies, approach life with the same -
mindset? And if you truly believe in freedom, then why are you so
vehement in attacking anything that is in any way different from
yourselves, whether these be the people within or the people without?


It makes no sense to create a country designed to be free of official
tyranny when unofficial tyranny takes its place and exercises over
people's minds (and thus over their lives, and over their
civilization) a greater coercive power than is exercised by the
President, Congress, Supreme Court and state and local government. It
makes no sense to create a country designed to be free when the basic
unit of human consciousness - the mind - is twisted into
perpetuation of a big lie. To be democratic, authority - all
authority - must be official, checked and balanced, and thus
accountable. And in standing up to conman's totalitarianism in all
its aspects, one does one's duty as a true American patriot.


Freedom of thought is at the basis of all other virtues. Freedom of
thought means true freedom; freedom that shapes one's mind and
radiating out of it one's life and one's actions within the world.
Freedom is prerequisite for knowledge; as it is only within the context
of freedom that one can be free to acquire true understanding, one not
shaped or manipulated by usurpatory interest or mindset of any kind.
Knowledge, in turn, is a prerequisite for responsibility and ethics; as
it is only through knowledge that one can understand the world enough
to know the full range of consequences of one's actions and then act
in a manner that's calculated and thus could regard itself
responsible. And it is only a choice that is calculated and informed
that can consider itself ethical, as it is only by knowing the
consequences of one's actions and taking responsibility for them that
it is possible to make a choice based on values.


By transitive rule, freedom is a prerequisite for ethics; as it is only
within context of freedom that it is possible to make choices, not
based on avoiding or anticipating consequences for self, but rather
because they are the right thing to do. And freedom of thought, being
the root of all other freedoms, becomes the prerequisite for ethics.


Thus, it is impossible to have ethics, responsibility, or any other
virtues we see people claim to profess to believe without freedom and
knowledge. And it is impossible to have actual freedom and knowledge
without freedom of thought.


Which means the following: That it is only through freedom from the
oppressive mindset that it is possible to attain to any kind of virtue.
And that in freeing people from conman's totalitarianism one does
sacred duty before ethics, responsibility, knowledge, and America.


Freedom of thought has another virtue that is just as real. It is
freedom of thought that allows people to see what others don't see.
This has multiple applications. The first of these is that it corrects
errors that happen when people think the same way and exposes them to
perspectives they need to think better and understand the world more
completely. But it does this furthermore: Become the root of all
innovation that exists in the world. Which innovation depends on people
to come up with new ideas that are a result of original perspectives.


And it is this innovation that is at the root of all manmade good that
exists in the world.


Therefore freedom of thought is not only at the root of all other
virtues (liberty; knowledge; responsibility and ethics) that are
espoused by America. It also is the reason the world has what it has
now. And as such, it is the true and unshakeable source of not only
moral good, but physical and political and technological and artistic
good. Which makes it, quite truly, the saving grace of humanity and the
reason for all it has accomplished.


Part 2. Absolute Case for Democracy


I say not only that it is man's right to be free of all forms of
unofficial authority. I say that it is man's DUTY to do so - duty
before America and the Republic For Which It Stands. I say that any
mindset that is unwritten and unofficial, is unaccountable, unchecked
and unbalanced, and as such lacking accountability becomes tyrannical.
And that any serious interpretation of democracy - also of life and
liberty - requires a citizenry that is aware of all unofficial forms of
tyranny and stands against it.


Whether that tyranny be the mindset of Fort Wayne, Indiana, or the
mores of the average East Coast suburb, or the mindset of gangs.


I do not advocate freedom of thought as a form of rebellion. I advocate
it in and of itself, as a virtue, and the necessary condition for all
other virtues. I embrace it passionately and completely, not as a
matter of contrarianism but for its own sake and for the sake of all
else that requires it - all the other virtues stated above.


And I say quite clearly that true democracy and true liberty demands a
passionate, unconditional and absolute embrace of the freedom of
thought - as the true accomplishment of civilization and the core of
all its stated virtues.


In many cases, the arguments for democracy have been the wrong ones.
Relativism - the belief that all things are uncertain, and that
certainty is what distinguishes totalitarianism from democracy - is a
flimsy justification for democracy. Indeed it is a definition that
opens democracy to accusations of cowardice and corruption and serves
not democracy but totalitarianism.


The only true, moral, absolute basis for democracy is absolute
conviction in absolute rightness of human freedom. And that means
absolute, unconditional and passionate embrace of freedom of thought.
In and of itself and as a basis for all other virtues.


The freedom of thought is the most fundamental of human liberties. And
freedom of thought involves also freedom of personhood. And radiating
out of that freedom of thought and freedom of personhood come all other
freedoms and all other virtues. It is impossible to have a country that
one proclaims free when there is no freedom of thought,
self-definition, emotion and personality.


It is impossible to have a country that one proclaims free when
official totalitarianism is replaced with unofficial totalitarianism of
a mindset controlling people's minds, hearts, spirits and
personalities.


And in freeing people from such unofficial totalitarianism it becomes
possible to arrive at population that is truly free.


Freedom is therefore a necessary condition for all other virtues. And
in affirming, passionately and absolutely, the freedom of thought, one
affirms likewise all other virtues.


Which then becomes the absolute and unshakeable ethical foundation for
democracy, and, as I have just shown, the root of all human attainment.
One that is far superior to the conman's ideology of relativism -
and one that possesses enough strength to combat the threats to
democracy, both external ones and internal, that we see today.


It is of course unavoidable that mindsets will come about. Recognizing
their power of authority over people's lives, I thus postulate
applying to them the same logic that has been applied rightfully and
successfully to the branches of American government; The logic of
checks-and-balances. Seeing in all mindsets - as in all governmental
organs - the capacity for both right and wrong, I seek to subject
mindsets to the same accountability as is done to American government.


Making them known and official is the first step.


Part 3. Ideology and Psychology


Scott Peck described as "neurotics" the people who take responsibility
for things that are not their responsibility - and as "character
disordered" the people who do not take responsibility for things that
are.


My response: The issue in many cases is not psychological but
ideological, and the ideological explanation is both simpler and more
precise than the psychological one.


It may come as a surprise to people who think in terms of emotional
forces, but one's conscious beliefs have a fair amount of things to do
with how one relates to the world. And these conscious beliefs differ
tremendously in what is believed to be one's own responsibility; what
is believed to be the next person's responsibility; what is believed to
be the government's responsibility; or what responsibility is shared,
to what extent and among whom.


Do you remember Beatles' song, "Hey Jude, don't carry the world upon
your shoulders?" The "carrying the world upon your shoulders" appears
to be a quite common - ahem - neurosis among people with particular
ideologies. Let me ask you a stupid question. Was Jude an objectivist?
A conservative? A libertarian? Could he have been these things? Or was
he a liberal whose self was identified with the good of the world, who
believed in shared responsibility, and who found life meaningless for
himself and intolerable for all unless the world was in a good shape?


I ask another stupid question. What is the responsibility of any given
person, for what, and according to whom? We see people fight over this
issue all the time. We see people shunting the responsibility at
someone else; we also see people taking responsibility for one or
another issue, or cause, or project, or society, or outcome, that many
would say is not their responsibility - but that, without someone
taking responsibility for it, would never get accomplished at all. Are
the first group character-disordered? Are the second group neurotics?
Or is this something that people have been doing for as long as - well,
for as long as there was a responsibility to shunt one way or another,
which is to say for as long as there were people?


Remember Communism? These were the people who believed that
responsibility was shared and a part of each citizen as well as
humanity as a whole. Indeed the same ideology was mouthed once by
American leaders, from FDR to Kennedy - and now, guess who - Mr.
Compassionate Conservative. Were these people possessive of character
disorders? Were they pushing on America a mass neurosis? Or did they
simply recognize that responsibility in any given society contains both
the individual and the shared aspect - something that was articulated
by Mr. Theodore Roosevelt of all people, long before these - ahem -
supposed sociopaths took these ideas to such places as "The only thing
to fear is fear itself," "Do not ask what your country can do for you,
ask what you can do for your country" and "Mr. Putin has a good soul."


Indeed I am of the belief that each ideology arrives at its own
peculiar mix of supposed character disorder and neurosis. The people
who believe in shared responsibility will be described by people who
believe in individual responsibility as both taking responsibility for
things that aren't their fault and not taking responsibility for things
that are. The same is the case the other way around.


I ask the final question. Where does your responsibility stop and
another person's responsibility begin? What is responsibility of which
citizen or which entity or which collection of citizens or entities?
I've had people tell me that I had a responsibility to myself, and to
tell me what that responsibility was. I've had people grow exasperated
because I kept saying that I was not interested in things in which an
American citizen is supposed to be interested and in pursuit of which
he is supposed to expend his life. Let me get this straight. You tell
me what I owe myself? You tell me what I should want and what I should
strive for? And then you claim that we are living in a free country?


A person who believes in every person being completely responsible for
his life will be both a character disorder and a neurotic. He will
strive obsessively to be completely at top of everything, including
things that he can do precious nothing about; and he will do nothing to
contribute to shared good. That similar characterization will be
frequently made for people who believe in shared responsibility, needs
no elaboration. So this is my question to Mr. Peck:


Where does one person's responsibility end and another's begin?


Where does one entity's responsibility end and another begin?


What responsibility belongs to individual, to country, or to one or
another entity?


And what does a healthy character do to determine which delineation and
which ideology is legitimate?


There are two directions of interest in any human being. One is
self-interest; the other is other-interest. The I-Thou duality
manifests in concern for self and concern for the next person or for
the world. The two components can be arranged in many different ways. I
am here to show the best way to arrange them.


Part 4. Self-Interest and Other-Interest


The evolutionary theory supposes that man has evolved both as species
and as self. That is, man exists as part of humanity and as his own
unique self, and interests of both are combined. Man competes against
other men, but he also serves mankind. The error made by tribal, or
statist, or religious ideologies, is to claim man as solely part of
humanity; the error made by Ayn Rand and Nietzsche is to claim man as
solely himself. Both are half-right. Man exists as himself and as part
of humanity.


Which means the following: That man's orientation to the world consists
of self-interest and other-interest. Both are absolutely legitimate and
natural and, as I've shown, worthwhile. Currently in America we are
seeing the worst possible combination of the two. The other-interest is
to attack in man all that is original and all that is his own and all
that is different from that of his neighbor - in essence, all things
that a man stands to contribute and all that in him makes for
meaningful liberty and existence worth having. The self-interest
meanwhile, under the rubric of liberty - the liberty that I've just
shown the same people to deny others in any meaningful form - is used
to attack man's ability to engage in any collective political or
philanthropic action to improve the lot of one's fellow man. The
concept of "selfishness" gained from collectivist ideologies is misused
to attack all meaningful liberty - especially anyone whose thoughts,
beliefs, feelings and interest differ from that of those who claim to
represent social interest. Meanwhile the concept of liberty gained from
capitalist ideologies - the liberty that, as I've just shown, is denied
in any meaningful manner - is misused to attack any collective action
that seeks to give people a way to a better existence. Thus we have the
worst of all possible arrangements: People formulated on the inside,
with all meaningful freedom and goodness and originality and beauty
forbidden - and the fear of collective action denying people political
power necessary to actually improve their condition, while forcing
these people to compete against one another and be isolated from one
another and being more and more ensnared in a culture of consumer
coercion that claims to give liberty while essentially binding the
person for life.


Ayn Rand offered a way out of this arrangement: Complete self-interest
and interaction among people based on even exchange within the
framework of rule of law. Socialism offers another way out of this
arrangement: Collectivization of all economic activity and unified push
for common good. I offer something better than both.


I offer making the best of self-interest and the best of
other-interest. I offer putting the two where they belong:
Respectively, in the sphere of self-action and the sphere of
other-action. And what I offer is this: Self-interest leading to
complete self-determination, with freedom of thought and freedom of
feeling and freedom of self-creation - with acquisition of wisdom and
knowledge from many cultures and ways of thinking and personal
experience and social insight giving a person a way to completely shape
himself or herself and a life that he or she chooses in an informed and
open manner (including the options that are not a part of his
upbringing) - and other-interest leading one to do good deeds for one's
fellow man. What I offer is this: Self-interest determining self-action
and other-interest determining other-action. What I offer is this:
Complete and meaningful liberty of the individual - and philanthropic
work by the individual that leads to improved lives and a better state
for humanity.


What I offer indeed is arranging existents in a way that makes the best
existence. What I offer is the best of capitalism and socialism:
Meaningful liberty, with freedom of thought and feeling and being and
choice - and philanthropic activity that does actual and noticeable
good to the people who live now or are yet to live. What I offer is
making the best of one's life and the best of what one does for
humanity.


I offer removing the false strands of misconceived other-interest from
the person's mind, soul, heart and existence in order that he or she
can choose in an open and informed and free manner what to be, how to
think, how to feel and what to make of himself or herself. And I offer
removing the misinterpreted concept of liberty from political and
social arena so that it becomes possible for people to do good for
others and organize for common good. Liberty does not mean every man
for himself without any organizing objective; liberty means freedom to
think how one chooses to think, feel how one chooses to feel, be what
one chooses to be and relate to the world in the way one chooses to.
And common good does not mean turning the people into replicas of
oneself or destroying in them what they themselves uniquely are capable
of being or dictating to them what they can be or how they can live; it
means doing philanthropic work, teaching children how to think,
pursuing scientific knowledge, taking care of the elderly, producing
great works, helping those who are not advantaged to have a shot at
existence worth having, and pursuing goals that actually lead to
improvement in lives of humanity. It means being of service to others
and to one another; while allowing for each other complete freedom of
thought, feeling and being - and, from this position of true, actual,
meaningful liberty, to interact as actually free people who rightfully
see the need for improving life for the existing and the yet-to-exist.


In essence then, the concept of liberty and the concept of common good
must be redefined, from the worst possible form we've seen in 1980s and
1990s to a form that makes the best life for man and the best life for
humanity. Instead of the enslaving and short-sighted models of thought
we have seen, will be necessary models of thought that are liberating,
benign, prudent and leading to the best life, both for the existing and
the yet-to-exist. The self-interest will consist of passionate embrace
of life and liberty, along with knowledge and wisdom and understanding
- the freedom of thinking, of feeling, of being and of existence that
is required to make the most of self and most of life. The
other-interest will consist of prudent economic activity, education,
science, art, clean technology and philanthropic work that direct
other-interest in ways that are actually good for real people and good
for humanity.


It is through this arrangement of existence that life can be elevated
to a state worthy of that which is man and that which is mankind.


I do not believe in treating everyone the same. I do not believe in
treating everyone the way I want to be treated. I do not believe in
introjecting my needs, wants and personality into everyone around me
and bludgeoning them into being carbon copy of myself.


I do not believe that the world is made best by there being 6 billion
Ilya Shambat's, or Mike Tyson's, or George Bush's, or
Dilbert's, or Beaver Cleaver's, or Joe Blow's. I believe in human
individuality and as a result of it different needs, wants and mindsets
that are to people most natural and most enhancing of them expressing
their potentiality.


As such, I believe in treating the next person the way they, not I,
want to be treated.


And that is the categorical imperative that I seek to serve.


The world of individuals, all of them able to be the maximization of
their potentiality and their propensities for the good of themselves
and the good of the next person.


The world of people making the most of both their self-interest and
other-interest.


All able to be themselves completely and all willing and able to
contribute to the good of the next person and the good of humanity.


And all contributing to a world that is rich, colorful, passionate and
resplendent. That is made that way through the efforts of people toward
making it so - and through people being allowed to be the best that
they can be themselves.


And that involves the following:


Seeing and respecting and nurturing human individuality.


Recognizing that different things work for different people.


Recognizing that mindsets that are right for some are not right for
others.


And putting the mindsets into a framework of competition and
checks-and-balances.

Resulting in best outcomes produced through competition among mindsets;
freedom achieved through checks and balances among mindsets; and people
achieving fulfilling existence by finding the way to contribute within
the mindset and the resulting path that is to them most natural and
most right.

Part 5. Hierarchial and Holistic in Synthesis

There are many who want to shove down people's throats falsely
contrived and manipulated "lessons" that are used deliberately to
further a fallacious arrangement. The correct response is that wisdom
is gained by taking lessons that are right rather than ones that are
wrong, and by having perspective that makes such judgments possible.


Through manipulation of social climate and attitudes and actions and
reactions pursuant those attitudes, consequences are assigned to
actions that are not natural, but rather artificial & create an
impression of good actions being bad and bad actions being good. We see
that run through all societies and times. We have, for example, Pakis
saying that romance is disastrous and proving it by killing those who
fall in love. We have, for example, Cubans saying that business is
antisocial and proving it by killing those who do business. The idea of
God being through all things is used to excuse deliberate social
manipulation, by modes and creators of modes, as though those were
divinely ordained rather than manmade. The obvious problem is that
substance may manifest through nodes, but nodes, involving choice, mean
that they are not obligated to the ground of being but are as such
nodes capable of deliberate choice, God-ordained or not!


And then it is used to impose this order as though it was divine. Which
requires calling the bluff. If God is through all things, in other
words, then not only the order you create but the order I create is
manifestation of God - as is the order created by any of your other
enemies.


So we have environmental science claim that environment exists
according to its order, unless disturbed by man (devil #1). We have
systems like Confucianism that claim society as a matter of social
order having a place for everyone - place according to divine order -
unless that order is disturbed by man's ego (devil #2). We have
economic science that has applied this to economic activity and said
that all things are guided by "invisible hand" when in a "free-market"
context, with everyone competing against everyone, unless disturbed by
intellectually conceived and goal-directed political action (devil #3),
even as this same science adopts will and ego and montarily defined
self-interest (combination of devil #1 and devil #2) as basic concept
of legitimate human interest and claims the competition within
framework of law to be the natural order. After which we have the
concept of intellectual-political action uniting people in what it
believes to be intellectually right ideology; that seeks to educate
people based on intellectual and philosophical ideas and shared
interest (and which the economic mindset sees as meddling or evil or
arrogance - the same way the social interest was to the economic
mindset from the beginning - even as the media-intellectual-political
ideas created anyway necessitate for the people to move toward a place
of politics and philosophy and awareness of their civilization beyond
the dogmas of laissez-faire and even to protect laissez-faire demand
political and intellectual action on the part of the business class).
In this political-intellectual order the devil (devil #4) is
spirituality, which main proponents of this ideology see as being one
or another form of mental malfunction - much like the capitalists think
of the political-intellectual. Once that stops working, after many
corpses and disfigurements, and people start realizing after collossal
battling that, no, spiritual experience is real, the next step seeks to
create an order of people united in their spiritual experience and
loyal to their knowledge and conception of the divine. In that order,
the devil #5 is attained will. In all cases, we see a concept of
nature, then society, then economy, then intelligence, then
spirituality, then attained will, being divine; which order in all
cases starts through one or another stage of will-assertion. Each level
considers itself divine - unless disturbed by the artifact of man's
deliberate act of choice and of will as it stands to disrupt these
supposedly divine workings. And what each level fails to understand is
that the case of something being divine does not make what goes to the
next level less divine.


Each of these deified orders regard the next one as being demonic in
origin. It refers to it as one or another form of hubris, without
realising that according to a previous order it itself has been
regarded as hubris, and that what works is for gradations of hubris to
build on itself! We have evolutionists saying that the problem with the
world is that "freaks won't know their place" when if his belief in
evolution is true then it is the freaks that are the source of all
evolution, and it is their "place" to move the world forward. The
social order is based on man - the demon vis-a-vis the natural order.
The capitalist economy is based on ego - the demon vis-a-vis the social
order. The politics and ideology are based on ideology-based action,
which is the demon vis-a-vis capitalism. The same dynamics work at the
next levels. And what we are seeing at every level is, essentially,
demonization of the next stage of liberty, until it is either
supplanted by it or unless it subverts it to perpetuate itself.


The interesting part consists, once again, in the absolute insistence
of each preceding order ind the demonic quality of the coming one. The
new order gives promise to lift man to a higher level; the previous
order attacks by claiming that motive to be based in thinking oneself
better than the authority by which the order is believed to be ordained
(and to which will is made to believe to be subjugated). Essentially
each order considers the preceding level to be divine and the following
one as based in disruption of divine order. Both are right, and both
are wrong. If all is God, then so is what man does (and to all the
you-think-you're-God people, the response is: "ye are gods" is part of
the New Testament, it's a matter of how you use it). As the situation
rises, the deliberateness quotient rises, but the complexity of the
system builds. The life becomes more free of the preceding level, but
more tied to the following level. The devil becomes the shaper and is
then himself exceeded.


The patric religions and ideologies therefore envision a hierarchical
worldview, in which the levels (whether they be chakric, or corporate,
or social, or political) build on top of each other. Each succeeding
level is held in higher esteem than does the preceding, and each
succeeding level is held to be closer to the truth than the preceding.


The matric religions and ideologies envision a holistic worldview, in
which the totality of human beingness is held in similar esteem and
seen to be worthy of nurturing and existence.


I am of the belief that the two must combine, in a way that checks the
disagreeable features within each other and synergize to create the
best of all.


The hierarchical worldview is frequently visualized as a triangle, or a
pyramid. The holistic worldview is visualized as a circle, or a sphere.
The complete worldview I see as being visualized as a triangle within a
circle, or a pyramid within a sphere.


The hierarchical and holistic approaches are both ways of attaining at
divinity. Both the pyramid and the sphere are perfect. The sphere
contains the rays in every direction from the center with the same
distance; the pyramid contains an arrangement of sides that all aim
from the bottom to the same height. The two thus reflect two different
approaches: One of perfect completeness; the other of perfect striving.


Both are perfect; but both are also incomplete. Both likewise possess
capacity for right and capacity for wrong. The hierarchical model leads
to excellence, but also leads to cruelty and coldness and contempt for
what is held to be lower levels. The holistic model is encompassing,
but lacking the quality consideration fails to lead to improvement. In
combining the two it becomes possible for the two models to check each
other in capacity for wrong and to synergize in a way that makes the
best of both.



From the perspective of the center of the sphere, every place on the
sphere is equidistant. To the sphere, all things are equal in worth.
The triangle however increases in worth as it rises above the
foundation. The combination of the two arrives at perfection from two
different directions: The sphere, of light spreading out in every
direction and reaching completeness; the pyramid, of sides reaching for
heights from the ground and meeting at a single point.

The sphere enfolds, nurtures and gives life to all levels and the
entirety of human beingness. The pyramid motivates and structures and
leads toward higher places. When the two combine, life is served; so is
improvement. The sphere prevents the pyramid from becoming cruel and
oppressive and instead imparts beauty and goodness and kindness toward
life at all levels. The pyramid prevents the sphere from becoming
ensnaring and static and therefore guides toward excellence.


Both the sphere and the triangle serve and take away freedom. The
sphere frees from cruelty and coldness but also is capable of being
devouring and entrapping. The triangle frees from ensnarement but also
is capable of stomping, controlling and brutality. The freedom is
served, as it does in the government of checks and balances, when the
two levels must compete with each other and check each other's wrong,
while combining at what is right to achieve a greater state than each
is capable of doing.


The two levels of attaining divinity therefore must both work together
and work to check each other. The holistic gives life and goodwill to
all and makes the process beautiful rather than cruel and soulless. The
hierarchical motivates toward self-improvement and guides people to
make the most of themselves and the most of all. Like Quaballistic
pillar of mildness and pillar of severity, the sphere and the pyramid
work together to make the most of human existence: To make the most of
human experience through the the sphere's awareness and goodwill and
kindness, and to make the most of humankind through the pyramid's
rigor, motivation and demand.


In combining the sphere and the pyramid, are combined two great
approaches to wisdom. Both, I repeat, being perfect; but both being in
and of themselves incomplete. The two complete each other and check
each other's capacity for wrong, while together combining to do what
each is in of itself incapable of doing.


It is held in holistic approach that the heart is a way toward
knowledge and wisdom - that, being created in divine image, it
contains in itself blueprint for truth. It is held in hierarchical
approach that the mind is a way toward knowledge and wisdom. Both are
capable of knowledge and wisdom; but they know and are wise in
different ways. The way at which the mind and the heart both attain at
the same truth, is to be seen as the consummation. In the interim is
possible wrong in both cases; and in checking each other in doing
wrong, while guiding each other to consummation, both the holistic and
the hierarchical reduce the wrong done while improving each other and
helping each other be its best and make the most of life.


The holistic and the hierarchical, the heart and the mind, like female
and male, are of equal truth and of equal value. They synthesize to
make the most of each other and most of self and to make likewise what
has not existed before. The holistic nourishes and heals and
replenishes; the hierarchical motivates and guides. When the two come
together in mutual understanding, is achieved a state of affairs that's
both kind and excellent. And as they check and balance each other, what
is eliminated is the wrong in each other, while allowing the right in
each other to blossom and achieve more magnificent state of affairs
than one of which either is capable.


The result of this combination is complete humanity and complete human
experience, where life is made best it can be as are the living. People
are motivated to be their best; they are also given (and give) goodwill
and love and nourishment toward that purpose. The mind is improved; so
is the heart. And the mind and the heart, both being made their most
and both as such imparting of their fruits to the living, work together
to make the most of human experience, both for humanity and for each
human being.


Checking each other in each other's capacity for wrong, and synergizing
in where they are right, the hierarchical and the holistic express and
give life to and empower and challenge and vitalize the totality of
human beingness - leading toward most of human existence and most of
humankind. Through its own efforts, humanity becomes its best and makes
the most of human experience, bringing together both the holistic love
and the hierarchical excellence to make life the most it can be. Love
is served; so is improvement. And the result is the best of all worlds.


In holistic and hierarchical working together in synthesis, or synergy
within the framework of checks and balances, is achieved the optimal
state of humanity and the optimal state of life.


Part 6. Multiple Paths

I do not advocate socialism, and I do not advocate communism. I
advocate something that builds on the status quo, based on what has
worked well in it. I am applying here two concepts that have worked
wonders: The concept of competition and the concept of
checks-and-balances. I take it to a higher level. And that is as
follows:

For there to be multiple paths based on fulfillment of multiple forms
of self-interest and other-interest, is to achieve, through these paths
struggling among each other, the optimal outcome for the people -


As they check and balance among each other, for them to prevent any
form of nature or mindset from being tyrannical and thus to create
meaningful freedom -


And in the process allowing people to find the place in these paths in
which they, according to their talents and propensities, contribute
their best toward that outcome and thus have fulfilling lives.


Now I am saying this based on the computation that, as far as a
people's good is affected - the good that is a result of the
natures that are present in them and thus of the form of interest that
is to them most significant - there are many forms of good that can
be created, which serve the totality of human nature and thus the
totality of human happiness.


The multiple levels of human nature means this: That there are many
forms of good that people are capable of fulfilling; and many others
that they would demand. The multiple natures and multiple intelligences
mean that there are different things that people legitimately may
demand, and different things that they may be equipped to supply.
"Things" here do not merely mean consumable goods; they also mean
anything that can fulfill one or another form of nature, mindset and
interest. They mean everything from physical, intellectual, emotional
and spiritual nourishment, to addressing common concerns, to educating
the youth, to improving relationships, to creating embodied artistic,
architectural, technological and literary legacy of the civilization.


To address which are created multiple paths, in which people contribute
the intelligence that they have most present to fulfill the interest
they are most suited to fulfill and most interested in fulfilling, and
from addressing which interest the people derive most meaning and thus
arrive at most meaningful life.


And as they struggle among each other - as do branches of American
government within the context of checks-and-balances - they ensure
that none of them (and with that, neither interest; neither approach;
neither intelligence; neither nature) becomes omnipotent and
tyrannical, and that true liberty of people is served.


With there being multiple forms of interest, and there being paths
catering to those interests, it becomes possible further for people on
individual basis to find freedom that is significant for them. The
entirety of human nature is fulfilled; and the entirety of human
intelligence and talent is given a practical, free way to be
actualized. This is done using the mechanisms that have worked
already- the mechanisms of competition and checks-and-balances.
Rather than concentrating power, as did Marx in his errors, it in fact
diffuses it among paths. Which, as they struggle among each other, make
each other create the best outcome; and, as they check-and-balance each
other, not only protect liberty but take it to a far more inclusive
place.


By paths, I mean business; I mean education and academia; I mean
science and technology; I mean policing and diplomacy and legitimate
civil service; I mean thought and service that improves people's
lives and relationships; and I mean artwork and architecture that
becomes the embodied legacy of the civilization, that adorns it,
enriches the lives of its members, gives the civilization a legitimate
sense of accomplishment, and inspires the yet-to-exist. I am of the
belief, once again, that all these are legitimate and rational
pursuits, both involving different forms of intelligence as present in
humanity and through expression of these intelligences providing
fulfillment for sets of human nature that they are most equipped to
fulfill. I am of the belief that all of them are valid, but neither of
them has right to absolute authority or to claim the interest it serves
or mindset it furthers to be definitive. And that it is by all of these
paths existing and struggling among each other that is served both the
outcome (through mechanism of competition) and liberty (through
mechanism of checks-and-balances, here applied by paths upon each
other).


Which means that through competition among paths is accomplished
optimal outcome; that happiness as fulfillment of all forms of nature
and interest is attained; that more inclusive liberty - is served,
with neither approach being definitive and tyrannical; that meaningful
life becomes a reality for more and more people as they find ways to
paths that the forms of intelligence they possess are most equipped
for, and that people have way to contribute the form of intelligence
(or labor, or talent, or any other form of potential) in which they are
most endowed.


In mathematics there is a concept known as game theory. Based on it,
the participants in a system seek to maximize their benefit, and some
solutions benefit some at expense of others and others maximize the
benefit of all. The solution known as Pareto-optimal is the outcome in
which the interest of one can only be increased by harming another's
interest to a greater extent. And the goal of the so-called game -
which of course is completely serious - is to attain that
Pareto-optimal outcome: The outcome that is regarded as the optimal
solution to the game.


Each path - as defined above - fulfils the mindset that is
appropriate to it and a basic interest, self-directed or
other-directed, that is most present in each individual and that is
most significant to him or her. It allows people to actualize in the
process the forms of intelligence and talent in them and gives them a
legitimate way to impart of their fruits. And in so doing they fulfill
the entirety of human nature - by the entirety of human intelligence
finding a way to contribute to the outcome. The result is the optimal
one: One in which people find ways to achieve according to their basic
form of intelligence - and the entirety of human interest is served
through their efforts. Optimal on both demand side and on supply side.
Optimal in the level of human fulfillment accomplished on the demand
side - through what is created by different paths to serve different
levels of human nature and interest, and in the levels and the
completeness of self-interest and human nature that their efforts
serve. And optimal on the supply side - through people involving
themselves in pursuits that serve the level of human nature and
interest that their talents are most competent to address and that
their values are most interested in fulfilling.


I involve in this situation concepts, once again, that are behind the
greatest economic and political accomplishments in history: The concept
of competition and the concept of checks-and-balances. As paths compete
with each other, they are made to create the optimal outcome, while
people find the way to contribute their optimal by finding place in
paths that actualize their form of intelligence. And as they struggle
among each other within a framework of understanding of each other's
roles, they exert checks-and-balance upon each other, making sure that
neither become tyrannical, and that liberty and life in people are
protected and actualized at the highest possible level.


This is not Communism. This is not socialism. This is America's
principles taken to the next level. This is not increase of control but
its reduction. And this is furthermore something that increases rather
than decreasing liberty, happiness and meaningful life, by logic shown
above.


The multiple intelligences among people; multiple forms of human
interest, both self-interest and other-interest; multiple mindsets and
talents and outlooks; mean that life, liberty and happiness are
accomplished by there being a functional way to fulfill these interests
- through people using the forms of intelligence of which they have
in most abundance finding their way to paths that fulfill these
interests. There are multiple forms of human nature, and making the
most of human existence consists of acknowledging and valuing all these
forms of nature and giving them a way to be fulfilled within a legal
framework. As function of these forms of human nature, there are many
legitimate forms of interest, both self-interest and other-interest,
and making the most of human existence consists of acknowledging and
valuing all of these interests and giving them a way to both be
legitimately fulfilled. As function of there being multiple forms of
intelligence, there are many legitimate paths in which people can give
of the form of intelligence that they have in the greatest abundance;
as function of there being multiple values and outlooks, people find
way to pursuits that to them are most meaningful. And through there
being multiple paths, which struggle among each other, is made the
highest outcome created - while, as they struggle among each other,
they destroy tyranny and stranglehold of a single mindset and make
liberty that matters to people on individual basis a reality for more
people.


The success of free-market economics is based on the businesses having
to strive to achieve best product, and people finding ways to
contribute according to their gifts. The success of check-and-balances
system of governance is based on the branches of government checking
each other in order that none should become tyrannical or
unconstitutional. I am taking the logic of both and applying it to the
next level:


That many paths - all fulfilling different forms of interest - are
necessary for the fulfillment of the entire thing that is human nature
and human interest;


That through struggling among each other they are made to produce their
best outcome;


That through there being multiple paths that check each other the
tyranny of a single mindset or interest or attitude or approach to life
is averted;


That as a result of this there is meaningful choice and meaningful life
and liberty;


That people working within these paths use their intelligence and their
efforts to feed the form of happiness that they are most equipped to
impart;


And that people finding a way to involve themselves in these paths,
according to the forms of intelligence and talent and mindset that is
to them most appropriate, is the way to make the entirety of the human
creature bear fruit and, through these efforts, fulfill the entirety of
human nature.


Thus, it becomes possible to achieve happiness as fulfillment of the
entirety of human interest - through people finding the way to the
paths that utilize the intelligence that they have in greatest
abundance and through work in those paths fulfilling the interest they
are most suited to fulfill -


That through competition among these paths brings them to optimize
their product and accomplish the best outcome -


While the logic of checks-and-balances allows multiple mindsets bring
them to balance among each other and check each other and make sure
that none ever become tyrannical, thus achieving the maximum freedom as
experienced by people on individual basis -


And as a result of that the approach of multiple paths arrives at most
complete happiness, most meaningful life and most inclusive liberty for
everyone affected.


Part 7. Better A-Frame Relationship


There is in psychology the concept of M-frame relationship and A-frame
relationship. In M-frame relationship, both parties stand (as in two
sides of "M") and sustain the relationship through their emotional
self-sufficiency. In A-frame relationship, the parties lean on each
other (as in the two sides of the "A") and require each other to stay
afloat emotionally. When one of these parties tries to stand up, the
relationship breaks and the other falls; and the mindset of the
relationship, being based on mutual leaning, demands that neither party
can grow. The relationship thus becomes a blockage to growth and
development, and the two parties end up destroying each other.


That may be as is, and I am sure that both of these are the case for a
lot of people. But I am here to talk about a different kind of A-frame
relationship; a much better kind of A-frame relationship. An A-frame
relationship that is superior to both the entombing A-frame
relationship and to the dry, boring, vain M-frame relationship as
prescribed by psychology of emotional self-sufficiency and mental
hygiene. An A-frame relationship that merges each party's interest in
growth, with caring for each other, with inspiration and goodness
sustaining them both and guiding them individually and together to
higher and better place. An A-frame relationship that is inspired,
beautiful, full of heart, enriching, livening, caring, compassionate
and focused on what is good and true - which goodness and truth
manifests to both partners, manifests through both partners to one
another, and becomes a daily quality in their lives.


I am speaking of this kind of A-frame relationship: In which both
parties are in contact with, and merge at the point of, heaven (the top
point of A), which manifests through both, inspires both, directs both,
informs both and leads both to it. The other part of the better A-frame
relationship is the contact between the hearts of the partners (the
line in the middle of the A), allowing for ongoing and unimpeded flux
of passion, compassion, caring, understanding and goodwill between
them. This true A-frame arrangement - with heaven at the top sustaining
both and forming the point at which their souls meet and are sustained
by wisdom and luminosity - and benevolence and compassion and goodwill
in the middle between each parties at the heart level being free to
flow without obstruction caused by one-upmanship or power games -
creates a relationship that is at once inspired, beautiful, emotionally
fulfilling and good for both parties; where the heaven, being the focal
point of intellectual and spiritual union, is manifest through each
party and directs the mind and spirit of the relationship; while the
hearts are in constant mutually refurbishing contact, imparting to one
another passion, compassion, caring and goodwill.


In many relationships I've examined, I found either heart bond or mind
bond. The first resulted in emotional closeness in context of mental
battling; the second resulted in mutual purpose but either emotional
deadness or emotional violence. Ayn Rand's concept of love as an
entirely ego phenomenon was seen in her life in her own relationships:
Relationships that either ended with nastiness on her part when she
felt spurned, or in which she essentially dominated the partner. This
is what happens when there is no heart bond. I've seen unity of purpose
- the top point of the "A" uniting the minds - sustain relationships
among people whose hearts were no longer together - only to result in
extreme emotional violence in the process and, when given the
opportunity, to fall apart when the relationship's purpose ended. I've
seen heart bonds unite people whose minds were in different places -
and the minds by self-righteousness and miscommunication destroying the
bond of love. But man is a being of both mind and heart; and it is not
adequate for there to be just one or the other. There have to be both;
and it is this - the unity of spirit and mind at the top and the bond
between hearts in the middle - that is the meaning of true A-frame
relationship. Which indeed leads me to think that that is the only kind
of relationship that can completely fulfill human beings.


I am acquainted with a priest whose marriage was falling apart because
of constant bickering, until he asked God (in his case, Christian God)
to direct him to the solution. He opened the Bible on a section from
Romans that said to have righteousness by God rather than by self.
Having lifted his mind out of ego battling and made the determination
to see himself and his wife the way God saw them, he was able to see
things from a top level; at which point he was able to unite his will
with that of heaven and, inhabiting that place mentally, actually
exhibit the compassion and goodwill and charitability that was the
first requirement of being Christlike and that was required for a
sustainable relationship. After both he and his wife took the mind into
that place, their bickering stopped. At which point the interaction
they had was cleared of internecine negativity, and the love they had
for each other at the heart level was able to blossom, while being
guided at mind and spirit level by actual spiritual truth.


This is what I mean by a true A-frame relationship: A relationship that
unites the spirits and minds of people in divine truth and divine
light; while allowing at the heart level emotional sharing. The hearts,
being directed from the top by divine wisdom, become warm and tender
and have tons of treasures to share with one another. While the minds
and spirits are united with the source of all such gifts: a source that
is absolute, endless and always willing to oblige those who seek it
sincerely.


In case people think that I am speaking only for Christian believers, I
will put forth something said by basically pagan Gerry Spence: That
sometimes in a relationship the way to win an argument is to lose the
argument - let the other party have their way at the low level and
keeping the love alive. It of course takes a fair deal of faith to be
able to do that effectively, rather than getting run over or thought
weak or all other nonsense that the crude of mind think. In case the
person is thick (and this is something that must be done by women more
than by men, although apparently in some places now it's the opposite),
it is worthwhile to show one's strength once in a while until people
see that kindness and deference are not the same thing as weakness.


The concept of human being - as a being of spirit; of mind; of heart
and of course of physicality - necessitates that all of these be taken
into consideration. To visualize a relationship as sustained by divine
bond at mind and spirit level, while each other's hearts become vessels
of that light and constantly share beauty with one another - is to
visualize a relationship that is fulfilling of the entire thing that is
the human entity. For minds and spirits to be guided by real spiritual
truth and united in its service and its pursuit, is to impart the
people of endless treasures of heaven - which treasures flow into the
hearts and empower caring for and cherishing of each other. The true
A-frame relationship places the spirit and mind in the infinite and
unites and uplifts them with light of eternal truth. The hearts both
partake of that light and share with each other the splendor which it
in them instils. The spiritual, emotional and intellectual nature of
humanity is fulfilled and manifest as an ongoing daily share, with
daily life of the partners rather than only Sunday services or Zen
practice being a scenery of manifestation of the divine good. Higher
love guides human love and makes the relationship a canvas of its
manifestation; a canvas on which is painted the masterpiece of creative
intelligence, as inspired by above and as manifest through the hearts
and minds and lives of the partners.


The partners do not lean on each other; they are rather united in
inspiration and wisdom. The hearts are connected to one another and to
spiritual light, which manifests both to them and through them. The
spiritual and emotional nature of humanity is fulfilled and becomes a
daily reality. The love human and love divine are united; and life
itself becomes a place of the implementation of inspired and
impassioned magnificence; which, completed by emotional closeness and
compassion and caring for one another, creates a life in which human
love and divine love work together in harmony and make life truly one
of love.


This is the true A-frame relationship, and one I heartily recommend to
anyone who wants to have beauty in their lives.


Part 8. Intrinsic vs. Referential Psychology


I advocate also this: A complete human existence. One that recognizes
the truth of the multiple levels of human nature - multiple likewise
intelligences and approaches - and makes the most of them all, in the
same way as the multiple paths can be used to achieve the completeness
of social enterprise. I advocate man that is at once spiritual,
intellectual, material, egoic and altruistic, combining all forms of
self-interest and other-interest into completenss of human beingness.
And for this I advocate that people partake of the mindsets that
address one or another form of human existence; apply them where
appropriate; and through the synthesis of these levels of human
existence live and impart a full life.


The feelings and thoughts of people can be explained in reference to
something else (a code; an ideology; a belief; a method); or they can
be explained inherently, by looking at essences, by feeling the
feelings themselves. The first results in abrasion; the second results
in compassion. And it is the second method that is the only one capable
of producing people that are not only true, but also emotionally
complete.


The error that keeps creeping into psychology, despite the actions of
Rogers's and May's and Fromm's of the world, is that of projecting the
method used to understand the mind, onto the mind, and then judging the
mind rather than understanding it in case its own methods differ. Allow
me to explain what I'm talking about. The scientific method is a path
toward understanding things; that requires a particular kind of logic.
In studying things other than mind, it is fine; but when one approaches
the mind FROM THE POSITION OF the scientific method, he is easily
subject to this error: Comparing the mind's processes to the process
(scientific method) he uses in studying the mind; and judging them when
they are inevitably found to be run by a different logic, the way one
would judge other-than-scientific approach within the laboratory.


Which leads of course not to exploration but to judgmentalism. Anything
that is run by a logic that either is not of the scientific method or
that the scientific method cannot be found to understand, becomes an
"issue." The logic of science gets interjected into the mind, squashing
its own processes in the process. Compassion goes; so does imagination.
And the result is projection of human perfection as someone with the
mentality of a brick (and the physical and emotional qualities that are
commensurate with that mentality), and vicious attack on anything that
is more alive - or rarefied, or exquisite, or inspired, or passionate,
or indeed attuned to the higher logic of life.
What logic indeed motivates a flower? Is a flower linear? How could it
be? A flower is the following things: Individual (with none like the
other); intricate; multifaceted; tender; and delicate. WHat logic? The
logic of consummation - of being one's best, as fruition, fulfillment
and justification of the species; which being best is necessary both to
consummate and to lead to the future. THe logic? An integrative logic,
combining the CONSUMMATION with CONTINUITY. The attainment of the
species, and a link to the times to come. That's no "issue." That's how
the thing is made - rightly so - and instead of dissecting it why don't
you look at what's in front of you and see the actual logic by which it
runs.


Which is quite different from assaying things from the position of (and
in reference to) the mindset running the discipline. Understanding
human feelings in their essence is quite different from assaying them
in reference to a code or a norm. I've made it my job to experience all
kinds of feelings that I understand them directly. And it is only
through this process that anything close to understanding can possibly
be achieved.


Another persistent error in assaying people is that of continually
doing so in reference to a norm. A cat is seen to be perfect not by
being of a norm, but by being the best she can be as a fruition of her
own potential. But a human being is seen to be perfect when he or she
fulfills one or another normative function. Which means that people's
minds are expropriated and put in service of one or another usurpatory
construct. But what it means most of all is that any true perfection -
perfection as attainment of one's possibility - is destroyed, while a
cask is imposed at the top to shove
people under a crucifix.


There was a woman on the Net who said that she lusted after the
criminal element. One person - operating from the standpoint of one or
another supposed norm (one of course out of millions developed through
history) - said that the fact she lusted after scum meant that she was
scum. He defined her feelings in reference to his perspective: One that
claims that criminals are scum (while heartless, malicious, abusive
bullies like him are not). Someone else - operating from a
psychological self-esteem paradigm, in which all bad things are a
result of people thinking poorly of themselves and if they feel better
about themselves they will magically become the citizens they want them
to be - said that her problem was low self-esteem. He, once again,
defined her feelings in reference to his perspective: That of
self-esteem psychology, in which all is about self-esteem and feelings
are functional to it. But none bothered to look at how her feelings
actually were experienced. What made the criminal element attractive to
her? Was it some erotic fascination, with people who have discarded all
bonds and are indulging in the forbidden? Was it some kind of freedom
from things she either could not identify or ones she could? Did she
herself feel like a criminal? To claim it her being scum, or to claim
it low self-esteem, did not explain how it felt inside. And to see
psychologists, who are supposed to understand such things, time and
again rejecting compassion and falling into the trap of projecting one
or another form of judgmentalism or lack of compassion ("Compassion
went out of passion, that's all your concern meant") or mechanistic
thinking, is to see a problem endemic to the profession, and that can
only be overcome, not by only externally observing feelings, but by
internally feeling them.


To reiterate: A feeling is not known unless it is felt. It does not
exist by reference to a norm or an ideology; but in its own right and
according to its own logic. And projecting one or another form of logic
on mind, and judging it when it is seen to be run by a different logic,
is not science but bigotry. Indeed it is a betrayal of scientific
spirit; whether it comes under name of rationality or self-esteem or
anything else. Examining the mind and being the mind are two different
things; and the logic of the second need not legitimately accord with
the first. Indeed it may have a logic whose intricacy blows your mind;
and attacking that is a hideous error.


An error that is just another manifestation of a still bigger error, to
which humanity has been prone for centuries: Of assuming all people to
be the same and treating them likewise. That is a projection, once
again, of one or another mindset upon something that runs by its own.
Not only does that result in destruction of liberty, but it results
furthermore in degradation of the world and all people in it. The
categorical imperative involved is that of creating gray and lifeless
society. And the solution to that is this:


I do the next person no favors by treating them the way I want to be
treated.


I do the next person favor by treating them the way they want to be
treated.


And in this I honor the next person's individuality and preserve it.


And that is the categorical imperative I seek to serve.


Part 9. Metaphor and Beauty


It is a main tenet of modern science that the universe can be seen in
its laws and its essence from any vintage point in the universe. This
means likewise that the universe can be seen in every part of human
mechanism. This means reason, but it also means intuition, passion and
metaphorical intelligence.


The latter consists of seeing the qualities of one aspect of the
universe in another. As the poet draws parallels between one set of
events and another, or one phenomenon and another, he sees right into
the universal essence as it is manifest in both - and attains wisdom
that sees and manifests and wraps the mind around the
interconnectedness of all things and the sublime universal wisdom that
lives through both.


Metaphor - and particularly extended metaphor - is therefore a path to
wisdom and intuitive understanding that is at least as valid as, and
more rewarding than, scientific analysis. It is a path that lets the
people see one thing as reflected in another and the universe as
reflected in both. It is a path that lets the people develop intuitive
feeling for the totality of the universe and its various reifications.
And that is as sure a path to wisdom as anything people have thought up
in either the scientific or religious paths.


The stuff of the mind of the people - both the intellect and the
emotion - is the root of their selves and then the root of their
actions. Therefore education and cultivation of beauty in all its forms
becomes in a very real and practical sense the basis for beautiful
existence. As stuff of people's minds, beauty in all its forms
becomes the basis for their thoughts and ultimately the basis for their
behavior. Radiating out of minds, which have been attuned to beauty,
beauty becomes the stuff of relationships and the stuff of the social
interactions and a daily, practical, ongoing reality of experience of
humankind.


Beauty stops being seen as inapplicable to the real world and instead
becomes formative of the real world. Which is indeed its right place in
the order of things: As the culmination of substance and form; its
consummation; its triumph; and inspiration for yet-to-be.


And which beauty becomes then a practical reality - through the
practical mechanism of people using their minds and actions to make it
so.


And with this, the wisdom and inspiration of humanity's benefactors
in history stands redeemed.


Ilya Shambat.