| 1 |
Postulate nothing: no observer, no distinction (e.g., object,
event), not even dimensions (e.g., space, time). |
| 1.1 |
Processes: consider changes (not towards the same), transformations
(towards the same but different) or computations (changes or transformations
in symbolic structures). |
| 1.2 |
Recurrence: consider processes that continuously interact, changing,
transforming or computing themselves. |
| 1.3 |
Organization: consider a network of interacting processes. |
| 1.4 |
Open Organization: consider an organization that does not close on itself
so that it cannot maintain the activity of its processes. |
| 1.5 |
Closed Organization: consider an organization that closes on itself
so that any activity among its processes leads to further activity among
its processes. |
| 1.51 |
For the activity of a closed organization, “inside” or “outside” blend
into “inside and outside”, leaving no room for “inputs”,
“outputs”,
“time”,
or “space”. |
| 1.52 |
A closed organization maintains its activity, but it does neither define
nor maintain itself (its processes). |
| 2 |
Organizationally closed organization (self-organized organization):
consider an organization that recurrently defines and maintains itself. |
| 2.01 |
This organization closes on itself so that its processes continuously
regenerate the same network of processes. |
| 2.02 |
This organization defines itself as a dynamically stable unity called
Organizationally Closed Unity. |
| 2.03 |
From the perspective of an organizationally closed unity, “inside” or “outside” blend
into “inside and outside”, leaving no room for “inputs”,
“outputs”, “time”, or “space”. |
| 2.1 |
Self-organization: consider the recurrent regeneration of processes
that allows organizationally closed unities to continuously change, transform
or compute themselves, thus maintaining their organizational closure. |
| 2.11 |
Since processes and open and closed organizations neither define nor
maintain themselves they may only form, inextricably, part of organizationally
closed unities. |
| 3 |
Niche: an organizationally closed unity specifies a
possible domain of interactions (shared processes) with its own and
other organizations and processes such that without this domain the
unity disintegrates. |
| 3.01 |
Call this domain the niche of the unity. |
| 3.02 |
The unity shares processes with its niche. |
| 3.1 |
Cognitive domain: consider the niche and all other intersections
of an organizationally closed unity with other organizations and processes. |
| 3.11 |
The unity shares processes with its cognitive domain. |
| 3.2 |
Interaction: consider the activity of the processes shared in the
intersection of the cognitive domains of one or more organizationally
closed unities. |
| 3.3 |
Perception: consider the activity within the closed organizations
that form part of the cognitive domain of an organizationally closed
unity. |
| 3.4 |
Distinction: consider the intersection of a closed organization
with one or more processes, thus separating them from their background
(other processes). |
| 3.5 |
Cognition: consider the generation of new closed organizations that
share processes with and expand the cognitive domain of an organizationally
closed unity. |
| 4 |
Observer: consider an observer as an organizationally
closed unity that shares processes with its cognitive domain. |
| 4.01 |
An observer perceives, distinguishes and knows within its cognitive
domain. |
| 4.1 |
The cognitive domain of an observer may share processes with the
cognitive domain of another observer, such that: |
| 4.11 |
The observer may perceive, distinguish and know the other observer,
which may perceive, distinguish and know the first observer. |
| 4.2 |
Two or more observers may interact through their cognitive domains
forming open organizations, closed organizations and even organizationally
closed unities, all made of observers. |
| 4.3 |
Trivial: consider one or more observers that respond predictably
to stimuli. |
| 4.31 |
Non-trivial: consider one or more observers that respond unpredictably
to stimuli. |
| 5 |
The logical perspective: from this perspective one or
more observers distinguish an organizationally closed unity from its
cognitive domain, thereby adopting the logical dichotomy: the distinguished
organizationally closed unity or the distinguished cognitive domain,
one or the other. |
| 5.1 |
For these observers, dimensions (e.g., space, time) emerge together
with this distinction. |
| 5.11 |
So do a processor (the distinguished organizationally closed unity)
and an environment (the distinguished cognitive domain). |
| 5.12 |
For these observers, however, these distinctions appear as “discoveries” (of
dimensions, processor and environment) to share with other observers
adopting a logical perspective, in a world a priori “out there” and
as free of paradoxes as possible. |
| 5.2 |
If these observers attempt to “explain” the processor,
it will appear to them as an open organization (with inputs, outputs,
divisions and parts) made of processes (events in time) that produce
components (objects in space), but no longer organizationally closed. |
| 5.21 |
The organizations that constitute the environment of the processor
also appear open, with outputs and inputs that match the inputs and outputs
of the processor. |
| 6 |
The paradoxical perspective: from this perspective, one
or more observers do not distinguish the organizationally closed unity
from its cognitive domain such that the unity and its cognitive domain
appear to these observers as a paradoxical continuum or as a paradoxical
context. |
| 6.01 |
For these observers, dimensions, processor and the environment vanish. |
| 6.1 |
Since a paradoxical perspective implies a paradoxical and logical
perspective, these same observers may make tentative distinctions in
this paradoxical context as attempts at distinguishing a world “in
and out there” to share, at least in part, with other observers. |
| 6.11 |
This world “in and out there” welcomes paradoxes. |
| 6.12 |
The paradoxical context (the unity and its cognitive domain) remains
untouched and ready for new attempts. |
| 6.2 |
Paradoxes (paradoxical perspective): consider self-referential sets
of different, even conflicting, possibilities such that they blend into
each other dissolving their differences and conflicts. |
| 6.3 |
Logics (logical perspective): consider non self-referential sets
of conflicting possibilities that exclude each other without solving
their differences and conflicts. |
| 7 |
An observer observing itself: this leads to the following
dilemma: |
| 7.01 |
From a logical perspective, an observer may observe itself, either
at the same location but at different instants (emergence of time), or at the same instant but at different locations (emergence of space). |
| 7.1 |
An observer observing itself at the same instant and location (a
paradoxical, unpredictable observer) reveals a paradox with no logical
solution. |
| 7.2 |
This observer offers a paradoxical context from where the same or
other observers, adopting a logical perspective, may extract or deduce
distinctions, and then more distinctions from those distinctions treated
as new paradoxical contexts so that the world “out there” for
these observers slowly emerges. |
| 7.3 |
The logical observer: consider an observer that adopts only a logical
perspective and hence only extracts or deduces distinctions from a paradoxical
context and allowed by the logic chosen, such as considering other observers
as paradoxical or logical. |
| 7.4 |
The paradoxical observer: consider an observer that adopts a paradoxical
and logical perspective and makes tentative distinctions in a paradoxical
context considering all possibilities, such as considering other observers
as paradoxical and logical. |
| 8 |
Living organism: consider an organization that produces
and maintains itself as an organizationally closed unity that defines
its cognitive domain and that: |
| 8.01 |
as a paradoxical observer interacts with, and makes tentative distinctions
in its own paradoxical context (the living organism and its cognitive
domain). |
| 8.02 |
as a logical observer distinguishes itself from its own cognitive
domain as a processor whose space and time emerge together with this
same distinction and from which it extracts or deduces further distinctions. |
| 8.1 |
A living organism, as a paradoxical observer, interacts with and
tentatively distinguishes the self-producing organization of a living
organism maintaining its organizational closure through a closed network
of processes (tentative events in time) that produce components (tentative
objects in space) and that continuously regenerate the network of processes. |
| 8.2 |
A living organism, as a logical observer, may extract distinctions
from a paradoxical context, but may not act as a paradoxical observer. |
| 8.3 |
A living organism, as a paradoxical observer, may act as a paradoxical
observer and as a logical observer. |
| 8.4 |
A living organism, even without a nervous system, defines and supports
its own cognitive domain and cognition. |
| 9 |
Nervous system: consider one or more closed organizations
that intersect with a living organism and its cognitive domain, expanding
it. |
| 9.1 |
A logical observer distinguishes the nervous system only within the living organism and interprets sensory surfaces and effector surfaces
as “inputs” to and “outputs” from the nervous
system that match “outputs” from and “inputs” to
a world “out there”. |
| 9.2 |
A paradoxical observer interacts with and tentatively distinguishes
the activity of the nervous system as “nerve” impulses that
encode only “how much” not “what” the living
organism “perceives”. |
| 9.21 |
Since everything “perceived” translates into nerve impulses,
the nervous system does not discriminate (distinguish) between impulses
coming from an “outside” world and those originated “within” the
nervous system (“inside” or “outside” blend into “inside
and outside”). |
| 9.22 |
For this same observer, the encounter with other observers triggers
the invention of a tentative world “in and out there”. |
| 9.23 |
While some of these observers adjust, share, and thus “confirm”,
tentatively the invention, others do not. |
| 10 |
Environment: logical observers distinguish the intersection
of their cognitive domains as a common dwelling and call it their environment. |
| 10.1 |
The distinction of an environment appears to these observers as
an invitation to extract or deduce further distinctions. |
| 10.12 |
These further distinctions appear to these observers as processes (events
in time) that produce components (objects in space) forming open networks
of processes and components that exclude these and other observers. |
| 10.2 |
Language and communication emerge in this way from the activity
(of processes) in the nervous system and thus, the logical observer
invents a world “out there” independent of the observers. |
| 10.3 |
Since processes, components, open networks of processes and components,
and an environment neither define nor maintain themselves, logical observers
may only distinguish (extricate or deduce) them from organizationally
closed unities (paradoxical context), which will appear open and no
longer organizationally closed (nor paradoxical) for these observers. |
| 10.4 |
Paradoxical observers interact with and tentatively distinguish
an environment as a world “in and out there”, through which
they may, with some difficulty, relate to logical observers. |
| 11 |
Complex: consider paradoxical observers interacting
with self-organizing, unpredictable, paradoxical, non-trivial environments
that include the observers, thus eluding trivialization. |
| 11.01 |
Interaction: any limit between the “distinguished” and
its “background” vanishes for one or more of these observers
interacting with themselves or socially. |
| 11.1 |
Simple: consider logical observers distinguishing non-self-organizing,
predictable, logical, trivial environments that exclude the observers,
thus embracing trivialization. |
| 11.11 |
Distinction: a clear limit between the “distinguished” and
its “background” appears essential for these observers in
social intercourse. |
| 11.2 |
Observers cannot trivialize organizationally closed unities. |
| 11.21 |
Any attempt to trivialize them will either fail or destroy (loss
of organizational closure) the organizationally closed unities (also
a failure). |
| 11.3 |
Observers cannot trivialize a complex environment without destruction. |
| 12 |
Mind: consider the activity of the nervous system that
encompasses thinking, perceiving, emotions and feelings. |
| 12.1 |
Consider emotions and feelings as the paradoxical activities of
closed organizations (that cross and include the sensory and effector
surfaces) inside and outside the nervous system of a paradoxical observer. |
| 12.11 |
Therefore, emotions and feelings thoroughly escape the logical observer
since the logical observer contemplates only inside or outside the nervous
system. |
| 12.2 |
Just as in the network of oscillators discussed in the Introduction,
where external stimuli may drastically reduce the possibilities (number
of choices available), so may suitable stimuli applied to the nervous
system stunt, in different degrees, its potential for emotional, physical
and intellectual expressions. |
| 12.21 |
The resulting damage, temporary or permanent, often not obvious
and sometimes desirable as in a hierarchical environment, where moderate
or no thinking at all constitutes a requisite for membership. |
| 13 |
Language-games: imagine predictable and unpredictable
games that observers play, logically, inside or outside and, paradoxically,
inside and outside their nervous systems, thus defining their forms
of life. |
| 13.1 |
Meaning: consider the uses that observers give to words in language-games. |
| 13.11 |
If the language-games change or vanish, so do the meanings of words
used by observers. |
| 13.2 |
Language: consider the language-games trivialized (made predictable)
by logical observers, where the meanings of words soon evaporate. |
| 13.3 |
Explanation: consider the attempts to trivialize a language, e.g.,
using it only to follow rules while striving for a “logically
perfect language”. |
| 13.4 |
Communication: consider any attempt to use a trivialized language
among observers. |
| 13.5 |
Thinking: consider the activities involving the nervous system of
a paradoxical observer, including emotions and feelings, and thus offering
new language-games to the observer. |
| 13.6 |
Conversation: consider the activities involving the thinking of one
or more paradoxical observers, thus offering new language-games to these
and other observers. |
| 14 |
Groups: consider observers interacting through their
cognitive domains with other observers forming networks of observers
and thereby creating organizations of different sizes and forms, such
as open organizations, closed organizations or even organizationally
closed unities, all made of observers. |
| 14.01 |
These groups, originally undistinguished by their members, remain
as such for most of their members. |
| 14.1 |
Integration: members must follow the rules to define and maintain
the group. |
| 14.11 |
Disintegration: groups, whose members do not follow the rules, fall
apart. |
| 14.2 |
Logical observers adopt or reject the rules of the group through
language, explanation and communication thus participating in trivial
language-games and forms of life deprived of meaning and sense. |
| 14.21 |
Paradoxical observers think and converse generating paradoxical
contexts that lead to new meaningful and sensible language-games and
forms of life. |
| 14.22 |
Consequently, logical observers tend to make the group and its rules
rigid and structured while paradoxical observers prefer to make them
flexible and unstructured. |
| 14.3 |
If the activities of the members surpass certain complexity, paradoxes
may arise among the rules of their groups. |
| 15 |
Following rules: consider logical observers merely rejecting
or adopting the few distinctions used as rules for their groups and
those used to follow rules. |
| 15.01 |
Since these observers only make distinctions as in following or not following rules, appropriate rewards or punishments can easily entice these and other observers into following rules and transform their groups
into hierarchies. |
| 15.02 |
These observers reinforce their following of rules through language,
explanation and communication and with a hierarchical organization for
their groups. |
| 15.03 |
Paradoxical observers do not, and prefer to think and converse. |
| 15.1 |
Since these rules constitute the essence of their hierarchies, logical
observers often exaggerate their relevance and use them, for example,
in “education”, with regrettable consequences. |
| 15.2 |
Logical observers follow rules and pursue the goals of their hierarchies
without regard for other observers, young observers included. |
| 15.21 |
These observers develop a need to protect themselves from thinking,
conversation, self-reference, paradoxes, uncertainty and unpredictability. |
| 15.22 |
Therefore, they nourish a conspicuous ignorance about these “unconceivable” concepts. |
| 16 |
Pondering rules: consider paradoxical observers thinking
and conversing about rules, thereby stimulating other observers to do
the same. |
| 16.01 |
These observers interact and make tentative distinctions as in following
rules and not following rules. |
| 16.02 |
These observers do not form hierarchies; they rather invent and
participate in language-games with other rule-pondering observers. |
| 16.1 |
Rule-following members protect their hierarchies from disintegration
by maintaining the number of rule-pondering members as low as possible. |
| 16.2 |
Rule-pondering observers, however, occasionally manage to join hierarchies
of rule-following observers, attempting to make their members think and converse. |
| 16.21 |
If partially successful, one or more members will leave the hierarchy
and will contemplate thinking and conversing. |
| 16.22 |
If successful beyond all expectations, the hierarchy will disintegrate. |
| 16.23 |
If unsuccessful, the intruding observer risks an unpleasant expulsion
such as would happen to a teacher caught educating his/her students. |
| 17 |
Hierarchies: consider open organizations with two or
more levels made of one or more observers. |
| 17.1 |
For rule-following observers, the hierarchy follows a simple logic,
a consequence of logical reasoning: a member who follows the rules expects
promotion and praise; a member who does not, expects demotion or expulsion. |
| 17.11 |
This simple logic, swiftly assimilated by rule-following members,
implies for them that rules only flow (apply) from high to low so that
self-reference (and paradoxes) cannot happen. |
| 17.12 |
However, hierarchies must intersect with closed organizations to
maintain their activity; for example, without the following loop hierarchies
disintegrate: |
| 17.2 |
“Rewards” (wealth, power, praise etc.), bestowed on
those towards the top; “punishments” (enslavement, demotion
or expulsion, etc.), bestowed on those towards the bottom; these latter, forced to close the loop that chains them, supply with their labor the “rewards” for those towards
the top. |
| 17.21 |
Other recurrent loops give hierarchies flexibility, but also remain
unconceivable to rule-following members. |
| 17.22 |
As hierarchies grow, these loops weaken and break; rigidity or disintegration
result together with the silence of rule-pondering members. |
| 17.3 |
Narrow goals, promotions decided from above and blind loyalties
from below inevitably promote the most narrow-minded members towards
the top. |
| 18 |
Hierarchies in society: societies organize within a
mixture of closed (non-hierarchical) and open (hierarchical) organizations. |
| 18.1 |
Within hierarchies only few enjoy the product of the labor of the
majority, who toils for survival and relentlessly loses hope of breaking
the chains. |
| 18.11 |
This and the breeding of rule-following observers within this majority
ensure the survival, growth and propagation of hierarchies, an unhealthy
recurrence that leads to a static stability difficult to disrupt. |
| 18.12 |
Hierarchical societies replace their long-term goals with narrow
short-term goals, similar to the “profits at all costs” of
corporations, thus stimulating all their members to abandon their most
cherished interests and place business above all. |
| 18.13 |
In this context, human diversity of interests, curiosity, inventiveness,
creativity, ingenuity, emotions, feelings, etc., decline to the point
of extinction, so that something called “human” replaces
human, with considerable loss. |
| 18.2 |
Meanwhile, hierarchies take over one or more governments, dictate
their own laws and logic, and make their actions (deemed always positive
by propaganda and deception) accountable to none. |
| 18.3 |
Without eliminating the hierarchies, every attempt at improving
the life of humans has ended and will end in a failure. |
| 19 |
Instruction: consider the members of a hierarchy “learning” to
follow passively its rules. |
| 19.1 |
Social relationships among rule-following observers need the predictability
of observers with respect to each other. |
| 19.11 |
Instruction makes observers predictable. |
| 19.2 |
Instruction reduces the number of possibilities (choices) available
to observers, fostering the loss of meaning among observers and their
environments. |
| 19.21 |
For example, rule-following observers call “democratic” and “free” a
nation ruled by corporations; “university” and “hospital” institutions
run as corporations; “professors” and “physicians” those
who neglect their declared vocation to participate as rule-following
observers in corporate activities inside and outside their institutions;
etc. |
| 19.22 |
Meanwhile democracy, liberty, university, professors, physicians, etc.,
and their meanings, cease to exist for these observers and for those who
follow them. |
| 19.3 |
Instruction stimulates social knowledge, explanation, communication,
logic, predictability, folly and illegitimate questions, questions to
which the questioner already knows the answers. |
| 20 |
Education: consider observers attempting to develop
thinking and conversation and thus making themselves unpredictable with
respect to each other. |
| 20.01 |
Education improves the ability to offer tentative distinctions and interactions, increasing the number of choices available to observers. |
| 20.02 |
All the observers can pursue and achieve an education as long as
they avoid competition, since it begins by excluding thinking and soon
it omits conversation. |
| 20.1 |
Observers may educate themselves and stimulate others to do likewise,
as long as they understand uncertainty as welcomed and unavoidable. |
| 20.2 |
A non-hierarchical society breeds rule-pondering observers thus
stimulating the generation of dynamic stabilities and instabilities
and avoiding the dehumanizing static or dynamic stabilities, a healthy
recursion. |
| 20.21 |
In this context, human diversity of interests, curiosity, inventiveness,
creativity, ingenuity, emotions, feelings, etc., flourish unrestricted. |
| 20.3 |
Education stimulates individual knowledge, thinking, conversation,
paradoxes and logic, unpredictability, wisdom and legitimate questions,
questions to which none of the concerned knows the answers. |
| 21 |
Idleness: contemplate the art neither of following rules
nor of not following rules and the art of following rules and not following
rules. |
| 21.01 |
Education contemplates idleness to stimulate thinking and conversation
among observers, and to nourish their original uncertainty and unpredictability. |
| 21.1 |
Paradoxical observers welcome idleness and education, offer tentative
distinctions (logic) and interactions (paradoxes), and do not form hierarchies. |
| 21.2 |
A hierarchy welcomes neither idleness nor education. |
| 21.3 |
If observers ponder rules and attempt to think and converse they
will find life difficult, if not impossible, within hierarchical societies. |
| 21.31 |
These societies appear as prisons to observers in search of education
and idleness. |
| 22 |
“Reality”: consider a simple environment that,
chosen (distinguished) by logical observers, excludes the observers. |
| 22.1 |
From this point of view, “reality” should conform to
some immutable pattern that will require neither more distinctions nor
interactions nor choices. |
| 22.2 |
However, every pattern adopted needs adjustments here and there
to eliminate contradictions, to “solve” paradoxes, etc. |
| 22.3 |
Since logical observers can neither adjust a pattern nor offer a
new one, they attempt to induce or coerce reluctant paradoxical observers
to do it. |
| 22.4 |
Paradoxical observers either hide and isolate themselves or develop
different avenues (e.g., philosophies, the arts, logics, mathematics,
the sciences, etc.) to assuage the demands for a goal that they do not
desire. |
| 22.5 |
Invading hierarchies of logical observers under different guises
make of these avenues instruments for instruction. |
| 22.6 |
Many paradoxical observers surrender to these instruments and abandon
their education, their curiosity, inventiveness, creativity, etc. |
| 23 |
Searching for “Reality”: consider logical
observers forming hierarchies to reach for “reality”. |
| 23.1 |
However, these hierarchies make any decision from the “top” seem
appropriate, since it elicits no resistance or criticism from “below” due
to implicit or explicit intimidation from “above”. |
| 23.2 |
Hierarchies stimulate irresponsibility, arrogance and slave holding
towards the top and diligence, obedience and slavery towards the bottom. |
| 23.3 |
Foresight, creativity and imagination vanish at all levels, making
of these hierarchies a population of ants in an anthill, predictable
creatures, and humans no more. |
| 23.4 |
“Reality”, chosen (distinguished) towards the top of
the hierarchy and accepted towards the bottom remains a firmly adopted
delusion as any other unquestioned belief. |
| 24 |
Tentative realities: consider paradoxical observers
that choose (invent) many complex (self-organizing, unpredictable) environments
that include the observers. |
| 24.1 |
Tentative realities correspond to as many or more flexible, unpredictable
environments as paradoxical observers involved. |
| 24.2 |
These observers interact through the processes shared by their paradoxical
contexts, defined by the observers and their cognitive domains. |
| 24.21 |
They interact through tentative environments and playing tentative
language-games. |
| 24.3 |
Since organizationally closed unities define and maintain themselves,
they appear to these observers as the only possible unities. |
| 24.31 |
All the rest appears to these observers as a mere consequence of
their activity: tentative environments, with all their tentative distinctions
and interactions, offered by paradoxical observers to themselves and
to others through education and rejected or adopted by logical observers
through instruction. |
| 24.32 |
All originates and ends in the observers (organizationally closed
unities). |
| 25 |
Propositions and distinctions: while using language,
logical observers make distinctions, thereby attaching specific possibilities
of truth (true or false), of value (good or bad), of inclusion (included
or excluded), of logic (logical or paradoxical), etc., to propositions
(including this one) and to sets of propositions (such as books, texts,
etc.). |
| 25.1 |
These observers explain and communicate among each other adopting
or rejecting propositions about objects and events, morality, aesthetic,
beliefs, etc., as if propositions mirrored a world “out there” (“reality”)
separated from the observer of the world. |
| 25.11 |
These observers adopt a language and theorize. |
| 25.12 |
This leads to knowledge inspired by logical reasoning alone, to information,
to certainty and to scientific understanding alone, to incomprehension
and to dogmatism. |
| 26 |
Propositions and interactions: while playing language-games,
paradoxical observers treat propositions (including this one) and sets
of propositions (books, texts, etc.) as paradoxical contexts for interactions,
considering all possibilities. |
| 26.1 |
These observers think and converse about tentative objects and events,
tentative ethics, tentative aesthetics, tentative beliefs, etc., thereby
offering propositions as paradoxical contexts for interactions, as if
the world (tentative realities) beheld the observer of the world. |
| 26.11 |
These observers neither adopt a language nor theorize. |
| 26.12 |
This leads to knowledge inspired by paradoxical and logical reasoning,
to meaning, to uncertainty and to philosophical understanding, to comprehension
and to skepticism about logical reasoning alone. |
| 26.2 |
For these observers any proposition must contemplate its counter-proposition
so that proposition and counter-proposition blend into a paradoxical
context where the observers make tentative distinctions. |
| 26.21 |
The same applies to books, texts, etc. |
| 27 |
Delusions: consider a belief that contradicts an accepted
classification of beliefs into true or false. |
| 27.01 |
Delusions do not affect paradoxical observers since they ponder
and contemplate beliefs as true and false. |
| 27.02 |
Delusions, however, affect logical observers since they only explain
and communicate, do not ponder and consider beliefs as true or false. |
| 27.021 |
Consequently, other observers (or themselves) may easily delude
them, singly or collectively. |
| 27.1 |
For example, the delusion of different observers sharing the same thoughts affects only logical observers who also suffer from similar delusions: that they can share their beliefs, dreams, imaginations, etc., as well as the same truth, the same religion, the same god, etc. |
| 27.11 |
These delusions, harmless in the mind of one individual, can reach
pandemic proportions when, stimulated by hierarchies, they invade the
minds of many observers. |
| 27.2 |
Deprived of an education, humans seek refuge in religion and/or
rule following to avoid despair; thus they loose their diversity of
interactions. |
| 27.21 |
And societies replace their dynamic stabilities and instabilities with static stabilities
without a future. |
| 28 |
Humans in society: consider multi-cellular organisms
such as ants or bees that ensnare the living cells that compose them;
anthills and beehives, as new living organisms, trap the ants and bees
that constitute them. |
| 28.01 |
So it happens with the population of humans in society who increasingly
serves the goals of entities made of ensnared, predictable and expendable
humans. |
| 28.02 |
These humans do not notice these changes. |
| 28.1 |
Most, if not all, past and present societies of humans have used
hierarchies, religion and all kinds of persuasion to keep their populations
in check, thus reducing or suppressing thinking altogether, and fostering
rule following. |
| 28.11 |
This approach will lead, without doubt, to a new living organism
that will ensnare everyone, including those who have proposed and support
it. |
| 28.12 |
As every living organism, the new organism will also encounter death
in one way or another (including suicide) carrying everyone along. |
| 28.3 |
Aware that hierarchies take away their humanity and also their lives,
young minds must, with courage and caution, reject, and by all available
means, prevent or dismantle hierarchical societies, corporations and
institutions, beginning with those based on accumulated wealth. |
| 28.31 |
This they can achieve by encouraging humans to think and converse,
to change from rule followers to rule pondering observers. |