Cenocracy: A Declaration For Greater Independence
Outside The Box

One thing that has struck me recently about my current educational experience is the feeling of complete and utter resignation that prevails in our universities. Both the fields of political science and of public administration seem to be resigned to the fact that we must address all of our current social and economical issues within the framework of our current form of government. Thus, every idea or potential solution can only exist within the parameters of our current political, legal, and constitutional realities. I don't know how we can ever really solve any problem until we are freed from the current paradigm we've boxed ourselves into.

Daniel J.

Problems can not be solved by the same mind which created them. ---Attributed to Albert Einstein.

Thus, solutions require the same mind to think differently, or a different mind with a new way of thinking. Some have even considered the possibility that the reference to a "different mind" relates to a different type of hominid, if not something altogether different... and they don't mean computerized.

Some people honestly do not know what "Thinking Outside The Box" means if asked to describe a definition, yet they may perform such an activity on a daily basis. Others think the phrase “Thinking Outside The Box” is an overused expression that has been rendered into a trite and tired cliché referring to creative thinking that should be scooped up into a dustpan and tossed out onto some sort of outdated dictionary-cataloged rubbish heap. Their selfishness disregards the reality that not all people view the phrase “thinking outside the box” as a cliché and nor does it always refer specifically to thought. Some people are honestly hearing or reading about the concept for the first time and are applying the notion to such things related to their religious congregation, social circle, group of friends, sports club, dietary regime, daily routine, etc...

Upon closer examination it can be found that the phrase itself is not the real culprit of their dyed-in-the-wool animosity, it has merely become a distorted image of projected ire related to the context (or person) that presents it with such irritating repetition like a song they can't get out of their head. Such a situation greatly lessens their ability to distinguish the phrase being used monotonously, or, as in the above perspective, quite tellingly.

Nonetheless, one must wonder what they think about when hearing the much older phrases such as “I Love You,” “Home Sweet Home,” “Praise The Lord,” and numerous others that, one might argue, are used more often and in alternative contexts to represent a variety of ideas. Such a superficial reflection suggests that their way of thinking is that if they can get others to follow in their (distorted) logic, the people will be more apt to remove or replace the old “Of, By, For the people” phrase with something new that best fits into their personal long-term game plan... and if necessary, let the people be damned! Needless to say, they don’t care if they have to borrow an idea from some historically overlooked obscure time and place so long as it creates in them some sense of being a (reigning) blue blood that is in control... hence, in a typical “between the lines” clandestined manner we find their usage of criteria from yet another old phrase: “something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue”...a black and blue citizenry!)

To dispel the notion of "outside the box thinking," they may resort to the usage of a figmented fragment (or is that fermented?) (or fragmented figment… or fig fermented fragments) of creative thinking by selectively adopting the usage of a particular problem to support the answer they want to convey, but that we the people can sum up with another phrase not yet considered because they are unable to prepare for the unexpected that arises via original (radical) thinking: “Connect the dots to make a box so the end result is faux.”

Their chosen problem to find the answer they want to the box problem may be the (trite and tired) usage of a nine dot (3 X 3) configuration:










In other words, a particular problem and solution is preferentially chosen to provide others with that which convinced them and will (hopefully) persuade others to believe is irrefutable evidence. Even though the nine dots may not be enclosed within an easily identifiable outline that some may prefer to call a square instead of a box, or recognize that the page upon which the nine dots are placed is yet another type of box-like enclosure, their desired solution to the problem, however they wish to define and apply it, must occur within the structural limits of their thinking processes. They want to make us think our ideas are false if and when we attempt to solve a problem (typically of their own making) according to their rules and procedures with the desired outcome, even if the outcome desired is yet another problem requiring yet another committee (which they or someone they know can oversee), which for some unfathomable reason makes them automatically conclude their ideas are true even though the problem was never in fact solved. They will use a “patent pending” set of instructions (so they can alter them when the people outwit them) which tell (i.e., demand) the prospective believer to connect all nine dots with only four (interconnected) lines without lifting pen or pencil from the page. When the subjects seem unable to find the single (authority) expected result in a flash of (gestalt-like) genius instead of after multiple attempts (if at all, in what some may call a traditional step-by-step deductionist/reductionist process-of-elimination form of logical sequence), the lack of achieving the desired answer is said to exemplify what we should all take for granted; which is the view that to solve problems by (creative, original, genius) insight requires some level of professionalism, i.e., expertise.

If we accept this type of blockhead nonsense thinking, from their perspective it means that the so- called tenured politicians are the only ones with enough expertise to find the solutions to the problems confronting all of us in society. By extension, we should follow the expert advice of corporate officers, Pentagon personal, medical staff, Journalists, Meteorologists, etc., without question... because (some of) these “experts” arrogantly feel they know what’s best for us all and would never willingly lead us along a path towards becoming some form of collateral damage. It goes without saying that the problem with their rather silly perspective is that those who are thrust into the "think outside the box" metaphor as if it were a conventional straight jacket sort of box, have placed themselves dead center into the cliché convention’s internal bubble wrap, contents cushioning popcorn, or tissue-paper wrappings, which is rather surprising to imagine about those who may often consider themselves to be creative thinkers with an above average capacity for imagery, visualization, and perhaps even memorization. Not only is their interpretation of the "Box" metaphor made into an unrealistic box itself, but so are the chosen problem (defined as they see fit) and its concurrent instructions (of how to get out of the box, never get in the box, or dispense with the box entirely). (However, “box-like”thinking may be appropriate if you work in a box-making factory’s R & D program and creatively imagine yourself as a box for a particular customer’s goods).

Metaphorically speaking, they are reminiscent of someone trying to square a circle while being unable to find the very pen or pencil they are standing on, much less that they are asked to perform a mathematics problem as opposed to providing a graphic (geometric) representation!

Similarly, for example it is much like being a status quo thinking psychologist who asks someone to tell them what is meant by “a rolling stone gathers no moss,” and to their dismay, because the person doesn’t answer in a conventionally expected manner, by replying that a rolling stone does gather moss,... that is if the “stone” is viewed as the earth. And it may be particularly disturbing (jealousy?) to the so-called conventional professional who may consider themselves to be an unconventional thinker, that if, upon being asked where the idea came from, the person says that the idea just “popped” into their head... or that a little bird told them, or a small voice inside told them…etc.,) Instead of what is sometimes referred to as lateral, the so-called professional in this instance is relying on literal or concrete thinking.

Piaget is surely shaking his head in disbelief that there are so many adults that haven’t matured beyond a simplistic adolescent stage of mental development and yet hold positions affecting the lives of so many. Those with a stuck-in-a-rut youthful mind in this day and age frequently confuse different forms of thinking such as virtual with visual, convergent with divergent, and perhaps most telling: me/myself/I with we/us/ours. They are also likely to interpret the collective views of the radical citizenry as a redundant exercise in the practice of selfish mediocrity instead of as a viable united means of brainstorming to concentrate effort, energy, and expenditures towards a singular objectified focus for the betterment of all. Heaven forbid what the present day poopy pant generation will impart on society with their infantile self-centered do-as-they-please attitude where they attempt to justify laziness by defining their actions as a youthful style, rebelliousness, and creative self-expression. It's like the old adolescent argument of not making one's bed because they are going to use it again. Such stupidity is quickly addressed with reality by leaving their dishes dirty and taking away their toilet paper. In other words, there is no need to clean dishes or wipe one's butt if they are going to be used again.

Unrecognized Box-like structures

In thinking about box-like structures, we must examine our typical definition of what is meant by the word "box". Is it a structure with a definable top and bottom as well as sides? Are all the sides equal and have equal shapes, or can there be irregular contours? Sometimes we are asked to write our name or numerical figure in a rectangular-shaped area called a box that was placed on a flat page. By enlarging our definition, web pages can be seen as box-like structures. So are cell-phones, television sets, radios, vehicles, houses, buildings, and graves. Most of us live in a box called a house, trailer or motor home. We live on box-shaped property that may or may not be defined by trees, walls, fences, and the like. For someone living in the "wide open" spaces, the sky, distant mountains, and miles upon miles of open terrain become the sides of their box. We sleep on/in a box called a bed, shower or take a bath in a box, and compartmentalize the structure we live into separate boxes with identifiable names called the kitchen, bedroom, den, basement, attic, conservatory, library, gym, etc... We drive to work in a box called a vehicle (bus, taxi, etc.) and are usually employed in a box called a business. The business uses a variety of box-like forms, and may pay you with a rectangular box called a check, that may or may not be deposited into a checking and/or savings account box. If you commit a traffic offense and are caught by a law enforcement officer, he may give you a box-like structure called a ticket to pay with a box-like structure called a personal check, actual money, or a credit/debit card. Needless to say, one can look about them and see a multitude of box-like structures. No less, the Earth itself is a round box in a box called a solar system within another box called a galaxy within yet another box presently defined as the Universe. Any limitation, whether defined as good or bad or neither, can be described as a box.

Those who start a revolution, be it a Cenocratic one or otherwise, want to eliminate, alter the content of, or redesign/redefine the parameters of existing boxes within the boxlike structures labeled as business, government and religion:

  1. In the case of religions, there typically is a box defined as holy and called a religious text that may or may not be accompanied by other box-like texts from which hymns are read/sung. Religious stories are boxes as are times and places of religious worship. A religious hierarchy is a box-like structure within which are different compartmentalized structures called positions, chain-of-command, levels, etc... A call to a religious service may be made by someone in a box-like structure using their voice, a bell (real or recorded), or something else. Attendees to religious services may sit in the same box-like positions called seats, benches, chairs, stools, etc., while wearing specific go-to-church clothing akin to a box-like prescribed uniform dictated not by a God or supreme religious figure, but their particular social circumstances. Religious services are typically conducted in the format of a box-like structure with a repetition that is comforting to some, while others find they can not tolerate the brain numbing redundancy so typical of many brain washing techniques. Heaven, and for that matter Purgatory and Hell, in any typical sense, are box-like mentally contrived structures.

  2. In the case of Business, there are box-like structures called S.O.P.s (standard operating procedures) in an attempt to ensure all employees act and think in a similar unified fashion of redundancy sometimes referred to as being "on the same page". S.O.P.'s are extremely important with respect to the handling of dangerous or potentially dangerous substances, equipment, and sensitive company information. While most employees of a company may not practice or even be aware of S.O.P.s' that are not discussed openly, some exist such as providing the funds necessary to pay off a law suit if a questionable business practice ends up in court and is lost. Thus, such S.O.P. provisioning permits a company to pay a fine, if caught in a criminal act, and yet still achieve a net gain in profits. They will simply alter the unspoken box-like S.O.P. structure to some other questionable activity formula for which yet another level of funding will be set up in the event a criminal case is brought against them. Various companies utilize a box-like process of selling other boxes called goods or services. The shape, advertisement, price and availability of their goods (products) very often result in profits. Most, if not all of them rely on some form of deceptive advertisement to dupe consumers.

  3. In the case of Government, it typically is divided and subdivided numerous times into a multitude of box-like structures, each with its own sub-divisioning criteria. With respect to the Federal government, it may be established on basic rules-of-thumb outlined in one or more boxes called a Constitution and Bill-Of-Rights. These boxes may be further annotated and elaborated on with other boxes called amendments and laws. In short, governments are social governing structures. Simplified, these structures are boxes.

Political Movements:

  1. Typically call for replacing one or more political candidates for another one claiming that by doing so, with their particularly chosen candidate, there will be a huge and significant governing difference. In other words, by viewing the candidate as a wooden peg piece, they want to replace one peg with another one into the same existing government hole. Such political movements do not want the average voter recognizing that by simply changing one candidate for another, there is no substantive change unless the previous candidate had made some monumentally egregious errors in their specific political role. This type of change is like changing diapers on an infant.

  2. Sometimes call for a new law that may be referred to as a proposition.

  3. Less often call for the re-writing of existing laws and amendments.

  4. Infrequently call for a re-writing of Bills-of-Rights or a Constitution.

  5. Rarely call for the overall structural redesign of a government.

The structural redesign of a government is so far removed from the considerations of most people. In other words, they can't think outside the structure of their social box that requires them to think in a simple, similar manner over and over and over again, whether they are a labourer or physicist. For some people to learn how to think differently, they must be placed into yet another social box removed from their current one or else be confronted with in attendant lines of sanity that they may not be able to cope with through the adoption of a temporary form of moral social structure, even if none are readily available to mimic. Analogously, they approach the understanding of government like they do a sports game. They understand the changing of one or more players, the changing of one or more coaches, umpires, referees, etc., and the changing of the game ball. They even understand the necessity of stopping a game to attend to an injured player. They may even applaud some advances such as replays, game recording and the medium by which games may be watched and/or listened to. However, most people rarely if ever think about improving a game in terms of redesigning the overall structure. Some may even feel such a thought is an insult to the traditions and time-honored values of the basic game (that most really have no clear idea about), and that a redesign would be a bell ringing death toll. They might even consider that a redesign offers nothing more for them to participate in because they wouldn't understand it in the same manner and terms as they do the old one. Hence, their first knee-jerk emotional reactions to a redesign are negative.

Most people fail to recognize that the games they are adamant about not changing, are not democratically run institutions. The public, for the most part, are left out of the decision making processes regarding team and league activities. For example, the cost of a ticket, like taxes, are not determined by the public. With respect to loyalty, an interest in a particular team and league are chosen in much the same manner as having an interest in a political party or religion. Very often it is because that is what they were brought up to follow within the confines of their immediate family and social structure. There is no rhyme or reason in terms of a logical matrix for someone to prefer one team (religion, business product, or political party) over another. Most people simply practice some sort of status-quo acceptance.

A problem with calling a government structure a communism, democracy, or socialism, is that the average person seldom if ever examines their own definition of what is meant by a democracy. If they did, they would see that all present day democracies are not what they think they should be. American democracy for example, is actually a plutocracy because so much of the current politics is determined by corporate sponsorship of either a political candidate or legislatable bill. Businesses could care less who is in office, so long as they kow tow to their demands for increasing the limits of their greed. They especially don't want the people to be in charge of their government, and particularly like a government that uses a packaging scheme called a democracy, with a contents (Constitution) label that has the duped acceptance of the people as if it were a seal of approval from yet another established institution with its own hands in the political process cookie jar.

From the previous Cenocratic Text:

They continue to deny the people equal access to the very same Constitutional documents they promote for necessary changes that will guarantee each citizen individual status as a sovereign person with a right to an opportunity for Self-Representation. Whereas any all such documents professing to substantiate itself on the grounds of a Democracy must, by reason of the most elementary of explanations, include the provisions for a Peoples Legislative Branch. Only by such inclusions can every person be ensured that theirs is a government ruled first and foremost by the people and is not a government ruled primarily by politicians who follow in the footsteps and exploit the views used (for example) by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution whose ideas of a democratic confederacy are thought by some to have been, if not in toto, then in part influenced by Native Americans. Though it was a futuristic insight in its day, deriving its principal from the original model of an idea created in the minds of those not wanting to fall victim to the same atrocities as their fore-bearers of other nations, it must nonetheless be recognized as a stepping stone without which We-The-People would not be able to develop a truer Democratic process for those of us living today, and those who will follow in years to come, whatever paths our heirs choose to take for their own well being as it will exist for them.

However, it is an absurdity beyond belief for those of us living today to pretense an understanding of knowing what will be best for those born in the centuries to come. Adaptive generalities are fine, but not when they are presented by a select few as mandatory dictates that should not be questioned, altered, or abolished simply because they are placed in a glass case protected by a twenty-four hour surveillance system, with or without armed guards, by those who want all others to pay homage to and rely upon them as the foremost authority from whom we should seek counsel and guidance.

Let us not forget that, for the most part, the U.S. Constitution was drafted and ratified (not by the whole public… particularly not women, blacks, Native Americans or other non-whites), but by a consortium of white, land-owning businessmen who had an economic stake in their decisions. However, incredulously, when George Washington called upon this Congress of businessmen to supply their army with desperately needed food, clothing and war materials, they almost completely shunned their responsibility since the gains for immediate monetary compensation out-weighed empty purse propositions! They had difficulty seeing beyond the grasp of their own greed but no trouble in deducing the need to evoke emotional fervor in the public so that uneducated citizens would rally to their call of “to arms” whereby they could more easily conceal their presence away from any actual combatant activities. They were quick to start the rebellion and just as quick to duck behind the crowds they encouraged to stand against their declared enemy. The actual battlefield fighting was left up to the people themselves to persevere, for the most part, the non-fiscal personal hardships and losses of conflict in order to achieve a lasting vision of future possibility. Likewise, it is once again up to the people, from all walks of life, to assemble, to organize, and if needed, resort to combatant activities for the purpose of confronting the tyrannies inherent in all present day forms of Representative government on this planet. If Patrick Henry (or William Wirt) had been alive today, the slogan:

"Give me Liberty, or give me death! might very well be: "Give us our full unfettered Self-Representative liberty or we will give you your death!"

Actually, it's not theirs for the giving, but ours for the taking to regain true control over our lives. For many, this is the last opportunity in their lifetime to offer a direct physical and/or personal contribution. Many look introspectively at their own lives and acknowledge that, although they live, their life needs a greater purpose, a greater meaning, something to be a part of that is larger than themselves... so much more than what they have done on a day to day basis for so many years. Some have no family, friends, or relatives that they feel are deserving of their time, energy or resources. Others want to make a personal sacrifice because they know it is the right thing to do for those who will come in the future even if those of the past and present have not been so kind to them. There are many of us who have the strength and courage to forgive in order to effect a direly needed social change greater than indulged acts of selfish anger could ever accomplish.

Each of us in our own way harbors a willingness to give our all for a collective magnanimous cause greater than any singular effort, for a similar purpose, than each of us could possibly do on our own… though we would try nonetheless. While it is well known and widely respected acknowledgment that Individual efforts can do wonderful things for humanity, it is more difficult for some to appreciate the good that can be accomplished when such individuals collectively exercise a similar spirit of effort for the sake of all societies, human (and otherwise defined life forms), inhabiting earth. The only failure humanity should rightly be ashamed of, is the failure to not try.


"Cenocracy" is a specific government formula that entails the adoption of a dominant Peoples Legislative Branch into the governing structure, whether millions of people in one country choose it to be Communism, or millions of people in another country choose it to be Socialism, or millions of people in yet another country choose it to be Democracy. Hence, present forms of Communism, Socialism and Democracy are out-dated models of social self-governance and pale in comparison to a Cenocractic governing style which allows the people to vote on any and all issues they want, be it immigration, gun ownership, abortion or whatever. Such a style, with respect to an American application, also calls for a new Constitution and Bill of Rights developed and ratified by the whole of the public. Page III provides examples of two existing Democratic government structures modified to a Cenocratic perspective.

Cenocracy will become the most formidable social and political philosophy known to humanity.

Page Updated: Monday, May 21st, 2012