Cenocracy: A Declaration for Greater Independence
Cenocratic Precedents


In developing the structure for a government, the designer(s) may well look to the past for ideas. Not necessarily to mimic, but to gain some insight into possibilities for consideration. But such a situation occurs in various other endeavors be they science, religion, mathematics, linguistics, sports, etc... In short, one looks for ideas to be used in developing a strategy that may at least give an outline if not an indirect suggestion which alters a vague representation into a more visible construct. While such ideas may in a subject area far removed from that which a particular reader is submerged in at a given moment, there is some basic quality which makes itself available to usage by those whose mind is particularly receptive to a portrayed theme.

Such ideas may be referred to as precedents, in that they not only have come previously in time, though perhaps in a very different context, but might nonetheless well be used as a justification for effecting a given design. Precedents are examples. In terms of law, a determination of a wrong or right may be based on one or more examples which are similar to a particular case. In such an event, a judge and jury may render a verdict based on previous examples instead of a mere statute... it is a highly desirable flexibility in the law which permits individual cases to be judged on their own merits... differences of perspective denoted as the spirit of the law or the letter of the law. It is a dichotomy of old that would be better suited to the present age that is future bound by reinterpreting distinctions in a three-part categorization of Art of Law, Science of Law, and Spirit of Law. Unfortunately, the philosophical end of law is dragging its feet because its tail-end remains in and returns too often to a distant antiquity in an attempt to gather insight.

With respect to the present context of consideration, there are examples from other subject areas which might be applied as setting precedents for the usage of a Cenocratic formula. However, let us review the specific contour of the formula which is being addressed. This component is one in which the Cenocratic usage of a Peoples Legislative Branch placed alongside the three present (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) Branches is to be contrasted with the present structure that is absent such an addition. In other words, the former is a three -to- one schematic and the latter is a three, in singular, one. We might also portray it as a 3 to 1 and 3, though someone else might prefer some other image such as 3:1/... 3.

The U.S. Government presently uses a three-patterned Executive - Legislative - Judicial formula based on the Charles Montesquieu's 1748 notion of "Separation of Powers" commonly referred to as a "Checks and Balances" provision. Whereas the design is meant to keep all of the branches from exerting too much power, the reality is that they do... because the practiced design permits them the ability to do so. Both the President (Executive Branch) and Congress (Legislative Branch) can hold up needed legislation, and the Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) can either delay making a verdict or favor a verdict in accord with a given political philosophy that is in-tune with the person who selected them for office. All three branches of government have means and methods by which they can interfere with a particular action that is needed by the public and the people have no recourse in which to force the government to stop playing a game of power struggle or be selectively opinionated... unless the people resort to some form of revolt. The need for using a Revolution (instead of a more rational approach) to effect policy, proceeding, or public desire is built into the system as if it were a radically extreme variation of an auxiliary (peoples) branch of government... which some might analogously refer to in terms of a "Hail Mary" football pass. Such a situation is a highly incredulous state of affairs to be practiced by a modern literate society and needs to be rectified by a re-design in the structure of government.

In developing the logic, though some might prefer the usage of the word "argument" for the adoption of a Cenocratic formula... as a means of illustrating the colloquial exponent of conversational content that "it makes sense"... expressions or ideas which provoke the development of simple images such as the fore-going enumeration, can be beneficially useful to those whose vocabulary or subject matter experience retain a primary interest in information that does not go beyond a Jr. High or High school level... though some may be self-taught in advanced subject matter.

But looking solely to the past with respect to former political ideals reveals but a superficiality of design architecture. We can not rely primarily on mere political themes of the past to provide assertive support for an idea whose structure and eventually acquired collectivity of public ideas will far exceed the simplistic nature of present social governing systems. While the initial efforts of establishing a Cenocracy will be by elementary steps, once a foothold has taken place, the people themselves will collectively transform themselves into an unrealized sophistication of practiced potential. Whereas many sciences, religions and even the military look about to all of nature to formulate some enhanced perspectives through analogy and metaphor, if not replication— such as flight, camouflage and a concretion of properties such as rock formations... political perspectives very often lack the initiative to look beyond their immediate purviews... even when the very basics of politicized jurisprudence often takes its cue from experiences derived from nature or similarly, from the generalized natural state of a person in a given context.

The three-branch government can be referred to as a type of symbiotic tri-partite structure that is forced to find some measure of harmonious inter-activity on behalf of the whole organism, which is the Nation or State. Whereas the three are intended as some controlling organ such as a (Macleanian) tripartite brain, it is a brain whose personality can be deduced as that expressing multiple conflicts that some, with a penchant for psychology, may analogously describe in terms of a Reptilian, Old Mammal and New Mammal brain. Whereas the public, if viewed as the heart, body and soul of the State or Nation organism, is frequently left to suffer in the wake of the conflicts without recourse except to resort to the instinct of survival called Revolution... Otherwise it must engage in activities which attempt to numb, to obscure, to rationalize, to deny, to excuse, to indulge distraction, to inebriate, or to drug their acknowledgment of the multiple consternations revolving about in the activities of its tri-partite brain. It's brain, when viewed from the analogy that its tripartite structure are three "supposed to cooperate" branches, is not cooperating with addressing the needs of the body-politic. The State or Nation, as an organism, must either continue in its present course of dealing as best as it can within set governing guidelines, or permit the organism to mature, and perhaps even evolve into a new species by adopting a greater insight into its-"self" by way of a new social formula of social "self"-governance.

But let us look at some precedents for considering the adoption of a new social governing formula:

While those with a penchant for perpetuating governing systems as they are... because they have found a workable niche'... will look to the basics of life called genetics and denote a triplet coding system; others, when it is pointed out, will see a three -to- one characterization. For example, DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), has the amino acid structure of Adenosine - Cytosine - Guanine and Thymine:

Adenosine - Cytosine - Guanine + Thymine = DNA

RNA (ribonucleic acid), has the amino acid structure of Adenosine - Cytosine - Guanine and Uracil:

Adenosine - Cytosine - Guanine + Uracil = RNA

While both have the same initial three, the latter amino acid defines the particular. Analogously, the three branches of government are defined by the people in a Cenocracy, by the addition of a Peoples Legislative Branch. The people are an essential component, though some perspectives might prefer to call them auxiliary items. In short, the structure of government must move beyond its problematic design and adopt the architecture of a three -to- one characterization. Simply put, this means to utilize another government branch called the Peoples Legislative Branch.

A simpler example taken from an American context, is to note that vending machines very often utilized the accepted formula of three coins denoted as nickels - dimes - quarters, with some machines accommodating the usage of a dollar bill, a entity of paper, that is a singular comprehensive quality containing the three. In like fashion, to illustrate another widely recognized item, is to say that sentences may use one of three ending punctuation marks. And for a third example, let us make reference to the usage of three colors defined by their application to a piece of cloth and named flag.

But Let us take another example, though its description is known for having controversial elements of discussion, derived from Christianity. While many are aware of the Trinity, in that it represents the idea of three persons or aspects in one God, it is the people whose presence is to be noted as a valuable asset even though they are minimized into an adjunctive, lesser quality. If they people are not included in the equation, the people revolt by adopting a different religious perspective, including the denial of the Trinitarian concept. Even if a person denies the concept, just like if people were to deny the three branches of government, there would nonetheless be activities revolving around Executive - Legislative - Judicial references. There is the head of a church, the functionaries of a church, and the laws of a church, more commonly denoted as religious laws. Whether you separate or combine the three, they nonetheless must coincide with the needs of the people, or must effect useful changes on their behalf as the primary concern; and not use the people (i.e. "flock") as a tool by which an established church authority can perpetuate itself at the expense of the people, as has so often been the case. When church authority fails to assist the people in their religious needs, the people revolt if there is no way for them to play an individualized or collective role. They develop a new religion to satisfy and legitimate their views. While the people are not necessarily viewed as monsters, they might be viewed as being "only human", unlike those who are "chosen" to lead the 'flock' who sometimes view themselves as being "different", "closer to god", or a little less human and more godly or saintly.

Setting up circumstances which enables one to be "chosen", or at least be defined accordingly, is very irresistible to some people. They must be seen as reflecting a quality above some norm that thus renders them into a state of "higher being", though they may socially revert to the usage of an expressed humility which is likewise interpreted to be a quality exemplifying someone who is frequently thought to be "better" than the average or normal person who some think is egotistical, conceited and in many ways, self-centered. It is a role to be practiced from one's own vantage point, and that they, or someone supporting them, attempts to arrange circumstances to create a particular effect, like a stage-hand in charge of setting up scenery...

...For example, elections are particularly contrived to set up the situation in which someone may play out the role of a "chosen one"... a character role that seems to be indelibly imprinted on the human psyche to take part in... either as the main actor, an assistant to the actor, or like so many extras on a movie set... scenes which become so often repeated by other settings one must stop viewing for awhile or become so mentally serialized that they can no longer think an individualized thought....

...For example, many people prefer that some religion define the meaning of God and Morality for them, little realizing that religion seeks to sanction itself as a "chosen one" by claiming that God and Morality belong to them, when they are actually separate issues. Religion, God, and Morality become like three conflicting branches of government that the "Religion Branch" tries to dominate and often does, because the people refuse to exert their own opinion due to a taught frailty of conscience. Whereas a person, or the people have a right to speak, they cower in the presence of an assumed "power" instead of accepting their rightful place of speaking their own mind... though at first attempts may be little more than monologues of taught repetition, mirrored reflections of standardized beliefs, or poorly articulated babblings of oneself finding their voice.


They're only human. This three-word phrase is used by those historians who want to minimize acts, actions, or activities of those they want to be viewed for a contribution made that is defined as desirable. For example, the founding fathers of America who committed acts we of today would clearly define as illegal, do not have their reputations diminished by referring to them as monsters. Yet, if a person who was not a Founding Father had committed a similar act, they might well be viewed in a dimmer light of respectability. Whereas it is commonly asserted that History is written by the victors to show themselves in a good light, it nonetheless shows an inclination towards effecting an hypocrisy.

The killing of thousands to effect a robbery is viewed in a different way than if the killing occurred during a war. If the killer of the robbery is a priest and the killer of the war is a criminal, the writer of these occasions may well resort to personal prejudices in disclosing one or another detail... with an emphasis on the good or the bad. However, an inclination towards one spectrum or the other can obscure the presence of the other side... as well as incremental variations between. In other words, and to the point, that which we are taught to interpret and define as good, such as a government structure, may actually be less so. And only by a correct definition might we afford ourselves an amicable ability with which to correct flaws. Yet, though we might itemize problems, our inclination towards rationalizing the bad into something less so, may keep us from initiating a correction.

A people want to believe that their government is the best design which is best for them. Without an available alternative and supportive criteria for adoption, they will dutifully protect and defend their practiced assertions. In addition, if circumstances are not bad enough for a given majority to protest against, physically or at least vocally, there is no incentive to look elsewhere... since in their view, all is right with their world. With governments designed by those who want to minimize faults and maximize perceived merits, the social structure such as public education, laws and colloquial "street" philosophy is drawn up to assist in its retention. Though, like America, it was established by way of a Revolution, it was a Revolution stirred up by those in the upper and middle classes, while it was the lower classes which did most of the actual fighting. Because the middle and upper classes impressed their ideas as having the most merit, the design of the government was and remains one which is meant to benefit them the most... though in recent years the middle class has become more and more marginalized.

However, though the Revolution was in large part created by those with a direct economic incentive for doing so, the early American colonies were in some respects seen as a state of lower class from the business, political, and social gentry of England. It matters not how some in the American colonies saw themselves when compared to those in England whom they tried to emulate, they were nonetheless, on the whole, viewed as a type of "other" social class. While many tried to recreate England by way of a "New England" by having similar furniture, drinking the same tea, wearing similar clothes, and speaking the "Kings' English", they were not actually considered to be a part of the English nobility or authority... even if they regarded themselves as having such a parity. While some have commented that many so-called Americans were little more than displaced English men and women, the breadth of displacement was differentially perceived, depending on what shore you stood on. The to-be Americans actually did not recognize how differently they were perceived until the English government started enacting laws which did not take into consideration the people themselves. Much in the manner in which the present three branches of government have and are treating the people of today... with a significant similarity to ancient England's disregard for Self-Representation.

This disregard is another precedent. But there are many. While the aforementioned three -to- one portrayals rest on perspective, on deduction and application, this is the very nature of our presumptions of established truth. Most are by way of trial and error, with a few having found their way to some semblance of experimentation to provide some measure of proof to bolster our confidence in. It is this confidence with which we have asserted that the present structure of social self-governance is correct, is the best, and in particular, is our own. Yet, the increasingly realized similarities amongst the peoples throughout the world is rendering the divergencies of political structure into an obsolescence. There is an increasing measure of convergence taking place. It is a convergence of intellect beginning to acknowledge a reliance on the same conclusions though they may have initially originated in seemingly different perceptions and different instances. It is the development of a singular language of an implied consciousness being expressed in a new form of government... a Cenocracy... though many do not yet know it by name.

Be a new form of government called a Monarchy, a Socialism, a Communism, an Oligarchy, a Democracy, or whatever, each has come to replace a former. There would not be a need to do so if there were not a need to do so. While remnants of a former structure may persist in form if not in some deed or ceremony, the old name was replaced with a new name... to affect and effect perception. This is why the usage of the present social structures, even if they are though to be fronts for something otherwise existing, such as Democracy concealing an Oligarchy, or it is called a Democratic Socialism to conceal a modern day version of serfdom; there nonetheless needs to be a change in order to confront those who would use such terms as a cloak... and dagger against the people. It is difficult to conceal oneself in the same manner when the terrain has changed. While some may remark that an adaptation will merely appear, it will be much less effective if the change in terrain is accompanied by a new social ordering, as a Cenocracy promises to effect. It is needless to say that a mere change in name is enough to alter the underlying disposition, unless the disposition is directly related to the name in use. It is sometimes more difficult to alter perception based on attempting to change a definition, if the definition is too closely aligned with the name that is further associated with something good or bad, whether or not the added labeling is correct.

While the precedent of using an old word in a new context has some merit, such as by saying that a Cenocracy is a New Democracy (Ceno-Democracy), this might lead some to advantage them towards re-establishing an assertion for using the old governing formula by reverting to a sole usage of the term Democracy in a social atmosphere suggesting a re-invigoration... which disavows the need for making any suggested "radical" changes; with the term "radical" to be viewed in a disparaging way. The adopted usage of the word "Cenocracy" is not meant to conceal, but unveil. While some people adopt a new name to conceal an old identity such as in the case of entering into a government protection program for having committed one's testimony against one or more others who might seek retribution... others adopt a new name to provide themselves and others with a more favorable perspective.

A person has every reason not to believe in a Cenocracy when their adopted usage of a Democracy affords them with a measure of prominence in their given social setting, they earn an acceptable level of wages, and are permitted a given expression of power.
Date of Origination: Sunday, December 14, 2014 3:54 AM
Date of initial posting: Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Updated Posting: Monday, December 22, 2014