Threesology Research Journal
Super-Sanity and Cenocracy

Cenocracy: On the path of a New Government —

FWT Homepage Translator

It is quite likely that those who come upon this page are experiencing either a short, medium, or prolonged journey into the intellectual realm of "Super-sanity". While it can not be ascertained the exact trail you took to get here, you are here because yours is a journey seeking a new path of understanding and discovery. While your preference may be science, religion, education, business, art or some other noted creative enterprise... the present context is focused on the political realm. We are seeking a new form of government because present political structures throughout the world are failing miserably at the task of addressing the multiple issues confronting us, not the least of which is population growth, a dwindling resource share, and environmental concerns which have not typically confronted the realization that the Earth is headed along a course of continuing decay from which we, under our current knowledge, can not forestall... and should not rely on the prospect of eventually developing the necessary knowledge in some future age; as a means of offering an excuse for developing the necessary logic of dealing with the situation as we can with current understanding.

Far too often we have governments whose policies coincide with business interests that are not aligned with what is best for humanity. An example of this is the regulation of ingredients for food that are not directed along a course which is best for health... but more so inclined towards giving manufacturers what they want in order to make a substantial profit without incurring too much loss; which provides for a maximum of ingredient dosages which do not show an appreciable correlation between ill-health and a given substance. If the food industry was regulated with an intent for providing the best combinations of ingredients for optimal health, and everyone's health appreciably improved; then the improvement in health would hurt the medical industry. Typically, governments do not develop policies which are best for a given population, but a given business enterprise whose wealth they can share in on a personal level such as through having stock in a company, or collectively in the form of tax revenues which they get to manage without the say-so of the public.

However, in our discussion of Super-sanity, let us not overlook that there are those who are afraid of perceiving that they and others are living out a lie... such as in the case of the phony practice of democracy in America. For whatever physiological reason which predisposes them to perceive in a super-sane way, they see discrepancies in laws, business affairs, religious ideology, some philosophical conception, or political orientation. They see it and upon making a remark about such a reflection, find themselves amidst one or more who don't see the same thing and refuse to accept that what they believe is wrong... thus claiming that they person experiencing a super-sane moment don't know what they are talking about. Instead of being believed or given the benefit of a doubt, you may at first be jokingly referred to as "crazy" by a friend, colleague, family member or associate... but if you persist, they may begin to increase levels of persecution in an effort to get you to believe as they do... because they need you to agree with them in order to confirm that what they believe is true... even if it isn't.

There may be no one you can encounter in your social circle of family members, friends, relatives, co-workers, etc., who will ever reach your level of super-sanity. They would prefer that you were a drug dealer, drug user, criminal, prostitute, drunk or even dead... instead of someone who thinks outside their ideological realm. They would prefer you engage in an activity that is detrimental to you, because it is something they readily understand. They do not understand your super-sane perceptions and it is a waste of time trying to support your views with facts and logic. Their ignorance of what you are trying convince them out of, may be ingrained too deeply. They need you to participate in their reality, even if it is playing out the role of someone outside the law or is degenerate. They would rather have you deaf, dumb, and blind than someone who thinks differently than they do... and shows them to be deaf, dumb and blind in their belief system. They don't want to accept you on your terms, but those terms which are most useful to them in their world-view. If your super-sanity does not coincide with the reality they believe in, they may either sabotage your individual efforts or out-right reject you and want you to leave their world. They want you to participate in their world-view as they think you should and not as you perceive the silliness or irrationality under which they may live.

... And yet, the world can be a very big as well as intimidating place if you are not aware of others who share in your type of super-sanity... be it religious, scientific, philosophical, political, or otherwise. For some, they adopt the strategy of keeping their ideas to themselves, all the while looking for an opportunity in which to develop an enhancement of their super-sanity that will enable them to free themselves from the bondage of their social confinement. But many people confuse social advantage wrought by financial gain with super-sanity, and think the fastest way to increase overall wealth is to indulge in a criminal activity because of the potential for gaining large sums of cash. They think monetary wealth is an indication of intelligence or is at least a good substitute for it. They really do not understand super-sanity as a type of intelligence in its own right.

A person who achieves a perfect score on a college entrance examine may be called intelligent or even super-smart, but they are not necessarily super-sane. They are simply someone who can effectively answer a given set of established questions in a given context. If anything, it indicates they have been appreciably trained to think in a perfectly controlled way that educators might like all students to achieve. If anything, such a situation would indicate a society of super-brainwashed students, not to mention instructors, parents and all social contexts which would be geared to producing such students. An ability to answer every question in an expected way does not answer the question of how to develop a question that no one can answer... and this does not mean give the wrong answer, nor not give an answer, but develop a question that can not be developed and therefore has no answer... thus indicating our state of ignorance because it is a dilemma that would be sought after by those seeking an answer for in the "proof" of a rationalization.

For those who may be experiencing a moment of Super-sanity and have taken it upon yourself to seek some new perspective because conventional models of leadership have been found to be lacking in the necessary "path finding" (or "path teaching") ability. Whereas in very distant days of yore there were those who were assigned the title of "path finder" because they had a unique ability of choosing a course amiable to the well-being of the tribe or clan; it is clear that the present political models for choosing those who are to be endowed with the ability for choosing which path a nation takes, have far too often shown themselves to be wrong-headed. Political processes the world over have shown themselves to be inadequate to the task for producing the best leadership. We need a new model of selectivity which will have profound repercussions on the overall governing process.

When leadership is shown to be inadequate to the tasks before them, they frequently resort to using tactics to design circumstances which best fit their abilities. For example, it is easy to make a military strategist look good or great so long as the military situation at hand is suited to be answered by their abilities. When no such military situation exists, they may need the assistance of others to produce and promote the necessary circumstances because it is a mutually beneficial circumstance, and is an arrangement sometimes referred to as a military-industrial complex. There are a lot of back-scratching circumstances which take place that put the personal interests of given players ahead of the needs of the public. Very often, the public is seen as a means to an end.

You in fact may have an idea that is much better than any which are being played out in a given social arena... but you have no platform for presenting your idea(s). The task in getting your idea(s) known is all the more difficult when being confronted by a horde whose personal viability rests in their ability to help perpetuate the form of government (or religion, or science, or education, etc....) which currently exists. "Change" to them either means to replace one person for themselves, or with someone who thinks like they do. In other words, those whose ideas supersede present orientations are confronted by an army of those who represent a formidable force of controlling interests. They are those who have constructed various layers of protection, much in the manner that a new civilization is built atop the ruins of an old one... complete with the ghostly superstitions which become inter-twined with prevailing ideologies of supportive rationalization.

Indeed, as has been noted in a short reference by Dan Jacob Wallace, "‘Democracy,’ put simply, is a word used in reference to a confused, jumbled mass of incoherent ideas." Yet, the same can be said for Communism and Socialism, if not Theocracy. Like the artifacts of ancient peoples, ideas become overlayed and compounded into a heap of refuse that some impart upon themselves a uniqueness of perception by claiming a given artifact is a treasure, an antique, or some other sentimentality to be cherished and revered. Eventually, laws begin to govern more and more behavior... even ideas and how they are generated in the first place. Emotions become tied to political correctness... which is just another layering of permissibility or denial. And yet, when it is discovered how much the changing environment plays in the construction of biological scaffolding from which ideas are generated due to the contouring taking place with respect to a given physiology; this fact is ignored or down-played by those who want to use such knowledge to their advantage, but not make the knowledge wide-spread.

For example, in the case of the United States and many other countries; their governing structure relies on political arrangements born from ad hoc measures in attempting to deal with situations as they arise. None of them were constructed with the intent to deal explicitly with the size and growth of their current populations nor the complexity of inter-racial, inter-gender, or inter-cultural issues. What we have are the results of layerings which give the impression of being sturdy due to compaction, but that such pressures do not bear the fruit of a hardened gem... they create foundations which are subject to crumbling due to a construction based on poor foresight because those who attain a position of authority have poor hindsight.

You no doubt can readily see the situation and want your nation... perhaps all humanity to move beyond such nonsense. However, they do not... if it means they can not play out the role they perceive for themselves. And they will side with those who want to perpetuate things as they are, as they understand them to be, because they have found their niche' of personal viability and want everyone to see the world through their same distorted perspective, and they will stop at nothing in their attempt to arrange circumstances to reflect the reality that they perceive to be true or want to be true in order that their mindset has a role in which to participate. It matters not what has to be destroyed or who has to be killed, or what atrocity has to be instigated. And though you realize this, and they can see that you realize this, you are in a position that is not threatening to them and can be used by them as an example of someone catering to a fringe, lunatic, or conspiracy theorist orientation. However, you are super-sane when compared to the masses of people who are persuaded to believe in the nonsense perceptions promoted by a leadership with a deranged mentality that is over-looked by most people.

You are Super-sane, because you can see through some, if not all of the nonsense being provided by one and another "official" perspective... all of whom have a stake in perpetuating the system as it is being played out. Yet, knowing is not enough for many of you. You want to do something, While you may resort to the language of many before you who have ventured into the realm of Super-Sanity by calling for a Revolution!, your level of super-sanity may well take a step or two beyond this perception as well. In other words, you realize that most efforts of protesting are not enough. They are little more than a government-sanctioned means of venting emotions and letting of steam that typically amounts to little or no actual change in any policy except to give military or para-military civilian forces an opportunity to practice crowd control measures. You are seeking a different formula of strategy to bring about purposive change, because conventional political methods are not sane enough. Whereas they may have been super-sane in the past when compared to older measures of political practice, they too have now become as their predecessor was and must be replaced... except that they have no incorporated means for doing so. They must be forced.

And yet, so we must ask before committing ourselves to participate in a forceful overthrow of the established status quo, what is your idea? We can not simply claim that you are so "super-sane" that your ideas are far too advanced to be adequately conveyed in words or pictorial illustrations. We need something a little more concrete than words conveying an impression you have, no matter how complete it may be in your own mind. If all of us are to have some agreement, we should at least be privy to the same illusion that you have... which is the present process being used to run governments throughout the world today... in other words, they are run by the processes of a believed in illusion— like the illusory democracy The U.S., Britain, China, France, Germany and so many other countries practice.

We need to know what your ideas are. And we need to know whether or not you are open to have your ideas being modified... or if you prefer a dogmatic approach in that everyone must believe as you do or you will reject them as being too ignorant for your brand of presumed super-sanity. In short, we need a forum for those of us who have ventured into a realm in which discussions about creating the development for a new political system will far out-reach anything that is presently being thought of independently or within the discussions of a few who have touched based on the internet. In other words, you are not alone in your super-sane realizations, however they may presently be constructed. Granted we accept the need for a Revolution, but how is it to take place? Perhaps we should start by a short review of ideas concerning the notion of Revolution itself:

(Revolution) in social and political science, a major, sudden, and hence typically violent alteration in government and in related associations and structures. The term is used by analogy in such expressions as the Industrial Revolution, where it refers to a radical and profound change in economic relationships and technological conditions.

Though the idea of revolution was originally related to the Aristotelian notion of cyclical alterations in the forms of government, it now implies a fundamental departure from any previous historical pattern. A revolution constitutes a challenge to the established political order and the eventual establishment of a new order radically different from the preceding one. The great revolutions of European history, especially the English, French, and Russian revolutions, changed not only the system of government but also the economic system, the social structure, and the cultural values of those societies.

Historically, the concept of revolution was seen as a very destructive force, from ancient Greece right through to the European Middle Ages. The ancient Greeks saw revolution as a possibility only after the decay of the fundamental moral and religious tenets of society. Plato believed that a constant, firmly entrenched code of beliefs could prevent revolution. Aristotle elaborated on this concept, concluding that if a culture's basic value system is tenuous, the society will be vulnerable to revolution. Any radical alteration in basic values or beliefs provides the ground for a revolutionary upheaval

During the Middle Ages, the maintenance of the established beliefs and forms of government remained the priority. Much attention was given to finding means of combating revolution and stifling changes in society. Religious authority was so strong and its belief in the maintenance of order so fundamental that the church directed people to accept the inequities of power, instead of upsetting the stability of society.

Only after the emergence of secular humanism during the Renaissance did this concept of revolution, as a cause of the desecration of society, change to embrace a more modern perspective. The 16th-century Italian writer Niccolò Machiavelli recognized the importance of creating a state that could endure the threat of revolution; but, at the same time, his detailed analysis of power led to a new belief in the necessity of changes in the structure of government on certain occasions. This new acceptance of change placed Machiavelli at the forefront of modern revolutionary thought, even though he never used the word revolution in his texts, and he was primarily concerned with the creation of a truly stable state.

The 17th-century English writer John Milton was an early believer in revolution's inherent ability to help a society realize its potential. He also saw revolution as the right of society to defend itself against abusive tyrants, creating a new order that reflected the needs of the people. To Milton, revolution was the means of accomplishing freedom. Later, in the 18th century, the French and American revolutions were attempts to secure freedom from oppressive leadership. Modern revolutions have frequently incorporated utopian ideals as a basis for change.

Immanuel Kant, the 18th-century German philosopher, believed in revolution as a force for the advancement of mankind. Kant believed that revolution was a “natural” step in the realization of a higher ethical foundation for society. This idea helped serve as a basis for the American and French revolutions.

The 19th-century German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel was a crucial catalyst in the formation of 20th-century revolutionary thought. He saw revolutions as the fulfillment of human destiny, and he saw revolutionary leaders as those necessary to instigate and implement reforms. Hegel's theories served as the foundation for the most influential revolutionary thinker, Karl Marx. Marx used Hegel's abstractions as the basis for a plan of class struggle, centered on a fight for the control of the economic processes of society. Marx believed in progressive stages of human history, culminating in the working-class overthrow of the property-owning class. For society to advance, the working class, or proletariat, must take over the means of production. Marx viewed this eventuality as the conclusion of the human struggle for freedom and a classless society, thus eliminating the need for further political change. Communist revolutions led by Marxists took place in Russia, Yugoslavia, China, Vietnam, and Cuba, among other countries, in the 20th century.

One modern historian, Crane Brinton, analyzed the tendencies of a society prior to a major revolution. He saw a pre-revolutionary society as having a combination of social and political tensions, caused by a gradual breakdown of the values of a society. This leads to a fracture of political authority, as the governing body must rely upon an increasingly desperate use of force to remain in power. Commensurate with this is the emergence of reform elements that serve to emphasize the corruption of the political authority. As the existing political order begins to lose its grasp on authority, momentum builds among the diverse forces of the opposition. As the government becomes more precarious, the splinter groups that form the threat to the existing order band together to topple the authority.

Brinton also observed the different stages of a major revolution. After the government is overthrown, there is usually a period of optimistic idealism, and the revolutionaries engage in much perfectionist rhetoric. But this phase does not last very long. The practical tasks of governing have to be faced, and a split develops between moderates and radicals. It ends in the defeat of the moderates, the rise of extremists, and the concentration of all power in their hands. For one faction to prevail and maintain its authority, the use of force is almost inevitable. The goals of the revolution fade, as a totalitarian regime takes command. Some of the basic tenets of the original revolutionary movement, however, are eventually incorporated in the end. The French and Russian revolutions followed this course of development, as did the Isla-mic revolution in Iran in the late 20th century.

A strictly political revolution, independent of social transformation, does not possess the same pattern of pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary events. It may be merely a change in political authority (as in many coups d'état: A sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force.) or a somewhat broader transformation of the structures of power (as in the American and Mexican revolutions).

Source: "Revolution." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

Yet, the article is speaking about conventional ideas concerning "Revolution", even though it pointed out that the concept of Revolution is itself open to a revolution in definition and deed. Different times and places call for different tactics. What works for one does not mean it will work for another context. Revolutions, like protests, are tools. As many a mechanic might tell you, the tools now being used were once the original ideas of others. In some cases, new types of tools must be designed to fit a given task. Many, many ideas are developed by individuals who have their ideas stolen or swindled from them; and adopted by another for their particular production interest. Original ideas are the products of those experiencing a "Super-sane" moment that is realized by one or more others as a needed implement for a given task that can be exploited into a larger profitability. In other words, one super-sane moment can spark additional ones, while each one in turn become an eventual expression of mediocrity. For example, the invention of the wheel, a pot, a nail, paper clip or even a clothes or bobby pin were once novel ideas that were expressions of someone's super-sanity. Yet, they are now so widely known that they are reduced to a state of mediocrity. They can not emerge as expressions of super-sanity unless knowledge of them is totally lost.

Date of Page Origination: Monday, 10-Oct-2016... 03:40 AM
Initial Posting: Saturday, 10-Sep-2016... 08:20 AM
Updated Posting: Saturday, 31-March-2018... 10:19 PM