Ethics manifesto

crux0. There is a subjectivity paradox in every case of a historical success, which is the objective sign of verity of the solution of how to achieve it.

A formula for successful solutions of how to answer personal life’s challenges, tends to be characterized by paradoxical wording. It can even come to: ‘the worse is the better.’ For example, if my friend will give me a clip on my ear, I shall be trying to catch him in order to give a slap in his face. I’ll be doing that not because of resentment or anger — there would be none of it; I’ll be striking back in order to give an adequate response to the playful invitation for having some fun. So, when I find myself arguing  in the company of people, men and women, whose group judgement is relevant to me, I stand up for my position with excitement. My rivals can be arguing with anger, can use biting words, but still, we don’t cross the line; when we are about to compete for certain status inside some group, we must play fairly by an unwritten interaction rules of that particular group.

There is neither Cain nor Abel roles in sports; none of a sin can persist in sport victory. The very ethical dimension is absent from a result of a fair competition.  However, if we imagine a situation, when my rival  crushes a mug with back of my head, thus making me a bit retarded or weak, he or she would have destroyed me as an equal competitor. I would definitely feel resentment. However, feeling the insult, I still would be having a conscious choice to behave in two absolutely different ways:

  1. I could include an irreversible damage to the rival’s health as one more legal rule of our competition; this means, I could be trying to take a revenge. This case would not be a question of ethics, though, because of me exonerating my rival by spreading the borders of fairness of our competition to the extent of the crime;
  2. I could refuse to take a feral and infantile success (a purely subjective one, though) of revenge. By backing off from revenge, I would be pointing my rival’s code violation out; by doing so, I would produce a clear pretext for ‘disqualification’ of my rival. By backing off from infantile sweetness of revenge, I could be unfolding the dimension of ethics. According to the law of conservation of energy, my resentment, as well as the very sin of violation, couldn’t disappear without leaving a trail. It is very common that violation provokes anger and revenge.  However, what would it be for me to refuse a persecution and taking a revenge? By refusing to take a revenge, I would be creating a new one dimension for the playground of the competition. Along with other dimensions, this new one would be producing a space of ethics.

Ethics dimension is also the dimension of right and legitimacy. The paradox is, that if my rival violates the code in order to win, I win the competition automatically because of my rival’s loss of legitimacy; there is no reward for violation in sports. The dimension of ethics is a real dimension in human’s personal universe. It may well be, that the winner of the historical rivalry determines exactly in the dimension of ethics. To give up a revenge is one of the most powerful techniques of an ‘ethical kung-fu’.

The Manifest with its ‘historical success’ is another one eschatology, though. Any eschatological culture postpones the end of the history to some indefinite moment in the future; however, it is still absolutely positive even in its’ most radical currents (success = success). As you have already noticed, there is a certain paradox in how a subjective recognition of a success correlates with an objective one. The paradoxical historical (i. e. objective) success formula  is in the refusal of realization of feral and infantile intentions. An objective success is always a historical one, because history is an attempt to make our memory more objective (recall Ayn Rand’s objectivism formula A = A). It is notable that the Perfect Master grade in the Masonic tradition was used to be depicted as a dead king. I interpret this as the Perfect Master is one who possess neither feral nor infantile (i. e. purely subjective) features of character; the Perfect Master is the one who had turned into an archetype (i. e. something, that is objective by its’ definition). If to take an initiation as a ‘cultivation’, or even ‘textualization’ technique for human animals (scarifications and tatoos are all belong here), then there should be no secret in what the highest initiation grade should imply. The Perfect Master — is a state of heritage of the culture. Could this state be considered as the highest objective success? This is especially interesting because of a paradoxical consequence of historical success that presumes that the one who initially was struggling for success, will be gone.

perfect_master

Some people say, they prefer knowledge to any blind faith. This is their choice. Probably, they are not aware of the possible paradox that the yield of the faith could be much better than the yield of the knowledge.

1. A human being, for herself or himself, is the only acting and responsible entity in the whole of the perceptible universe; herewith, the human being, even for herself or himself, exists as a fractional, but not an integer one.

A personal existence of a human being, which has been subjectively experienced by a person, should be understood as a fractal set, which has used to be unfolding in time. But, the fractal set of what? It is the fractal set of phenomenological experiences, i. e. of anything and everything the human being knows that takes place in the perceptible universe. However, why do I state that the multitude of experiential states is a fractal set?

Personal growth, mastering of professional skills, development of global scientific knowledge system, evolution of etiquette of an interaction, a reflective addition of ‘post-‘ prefixes to names of cultural trends — all of these could be depicted as multidimensional space-time functions (you may imagine a graphical pattern, which becomes more complicated with each new iteration, in time). All these ‘development’ processes possess all the features of a fractal set of states; they are self-similar sets; their fractional dimension is a consequence of traumas.

Which trauma am I talking about here? This trauma has been used to be named an initiative one. Narcissistic trauma definitely belongs to a sort of initiative traumas. An initiative lack of integrity initiates the history and  the progress, as a compensation tendency. A personal existence of a human being, i. e. her or his history of phenomenological states simply must have begun since the trauma. The trauma was the impulsive cause, as well as the price which human species had to pay for obtaining such a high degree of reversibility of their (our!) intellectual processes. Stanley Kubrick had brilliantly filmed the initiation of humanity in his 2001: A Space Odyssey.

2001_ape_monolith_460

The traumatic factor in the film was the Monolith; the Monolith had broken the virgin integrity of phenomenal states of monkeys, making the dimension of the space of their phenomenal experience fractal (once again!)

A collective «recollection» of an initiative trauma could be noticed in the legend of banishing of Adam and Eve from Eden. However, how all of that could have anything in common with an ethics? Here is a consequence: don’t be afraid of being an individualist and an egoist in making decisions. In the long run, you are the only one who is completely responsible for your decisions and actions. In other words, your traumas, as well as your cognitive system, are only yours. It is not a state or a race or a nation which should be understood a subject of development and/or evolution, but you, personally. Neither your state, nor you employer, nor friends will be responsible for you having no children, for example. Why should you be in need of those peoples’ advices, though? Social environment is no doubt of a great importance; however, one should correctly understand its role in his or her personal universe.

When the trauma happens (i. e. the dimension of personal space of phenomenological experience cracks), an individual obtains a possibility to leave her or his biological vicious circle of reproducing her or his ancient behavioral patterns, which were once important for survival, though. This trauma may initiate a half-vicious spiral moving!

The conception of singleness of personal existence relates to ethics of personal responsibility. Any construct (some content of knowledge, some memory, some belief) is the product of personal intellectual (i. e. adaptive, according to J. Piaget) activity. Everything, which is reflectable (via recall, evaluation, imagination) — is the product of individual’s own cognitive system. The ‘axis’ of the system is an ‘individual’ him- or herself (which means, there is no one, since the axis is purely virtual!) This would remind us the Cartesian theatre, but if only there would be an ‘individual’; however, there is none. A human self-consciousness is a compound up to the last part of it (I’ll be using the term ‘individual’ further, though). Rene Descartes has invented the «cogito, ergo sum» formulae as an attempt to prove his own existence, which means the existence of his Ego. However, I have found the formulae for proof of one’s own existence, proposed by Augustine of Hippo, more precise: «Si enim fallor, sum». This is because of a human being has used to make mistakes continuously. Human perception, as well as understanding, couldn’t be regarded as any sort of measuring tool for reality, even if these are socially-conventional perception and socially-conventional understanding. I’m even about to determine a human being as a ‘recursive sin reproductor’, if the ‘sin’ was a synonymous to a ‘mistake’, or ‘fallacy’ (it is, however!) Here, we have some important (bio)ethical consequences: Since all the phenomenological content of any particular individual cognitive system is its own product, then the individual herself or himself is the only one who is fully responsible for what she or he had used to produce all that time. An ‘outer world’ has been produced by an individual cognitive system as an explanation of ‘how could this or that be possible’. An ‘outer world’ is a product of assimilations of outer irritations and of accommodations to these. It could be useful to remember, that a semantic relationship between different phenomena exists only in the cognitive system of an individual as her or his own product. Paradoxically, such an attitude will contribute to what we call a ‘socialization’.

 2. The only significance of any notable individual life’s event is nothing but a preposition to act either right or wrong

I do recommend everyone to consider one’s own life exactly in a context of ethical choices in order to achieve what we call a socially approved success. This means, one should better be watching her or his own life through eyes of ethics. With the help of will for a success, the achievement should be easy. Such an understanding of any of life’s events could be enough to become better by atoning for sins of imperfection. Relativism in value judgments is an extremely dangerous form of psychological defence (rationalization). At least, does the amount of your income matters for you? The same way, moral ‘values’ are unequal, traditions are unequal, philosophic and religious concepts are unequal. The very ‘multiculturalism’ is impossible due to cultures are used not to be equal even from the viewpoint of ethics. An outcome here would be: Don’t play with fire if you stay in a puddle of a gasoline; it always matters what you choose. Such a purity (or intolerance) could be considered as a useful one at the stage of one’s own Ego manifestation. The Ego will no doubt become stronger if one would practice special psychological exercises, which consists of withstanding of a tension between semantic entities (actions, opinions, beliefs, etc.) I would name it ‘semantic wrestling’, for in order to be successful, one should possess a strong Ego. We say that someone is characterless if she or he hasn’t been taken seriously by others. In the words of Kant «Character is the ability to act according to the principles». But the character is a property of an intellect; character is nothing but a conglomeration of adaptations, so it has used to be developed through an activity. Individuals are in need of principles in order to develop their characters and as pretexts for their ethical choices. Mostly all mature-natured Individuals are aimed to consciously construct themselves in accordance with the desired result; thus, they bring to the world something new, which hasn’t been there before — themselves as states of art, as an achievement, as a capital. It is useful to be firmly sticked to one’s own point of view because such an attitude produces serious pretexts for serious actions, which, in their own turn, are going to serve as pretexts for further actions of other individual ‘players’; this no doubt will contribute to an exponential growth of total amount of communications. This also means ‘to be someone’. In order to became someone, one should be consistent in her or his own actions, that is, always to hold the same side of barricades. After all, frequent changes of one’s point of view discredits the meaning of the point of view itself, which could be of a great harm to the very ability of an individual to influence at social communication. Actually, being influential is critically important to what we call the social recognized success. I’ll explain this: Niklas Luhmann in his «The Reality of the Mass Media» was speaking of mass media having been generating communication in order to produce an opportunity for further communication to emerge, which was their true purpose. By extrapolating the idea of Luhmann to the progress of civilization, one may say the progress has been performed for the sake of progress itself, by multiplying total amount of acts of communication. An insider’s secret to successful business is: It is the business which multiplies the amount of communications in the world, brings truly huge profits to its’ owners and should be considered as a successful one, though. A successful business creates new opportunities for communication (Facebook, Tweeter, PayPal, etc), new pretexts for communication (football matches, cinema premieres, fashion shows, concerts, etc), contributes to successful communication (leisure, transportation, household goods, etc). Any ideological movement, or a service, or anything else which does not provide a sufficient pretext for further communication, should be considered as unsustainable and been doomed to oblivion.

JRR Tolkien books are brilliant because of they have produced a huge amount of communication (bestselling books, private role playing all over the world, the very fantasy genre with thousands of its’ authors, multimillion-dollar films, video games, hundreds of thousands of memes over the Internet, etc.) This allows me to say, that JRRT was an ingenious builder of the ‘Tower of Babel’ of capital.

3. A level of an individual ethical purity could be measured objectively by measuring quantitatively the level of her or his socially acknowledged success

The basis of the world’s progress is the exponential growth of the capital. Those persons who denounce the progress of civilization, or at least resist, are going to end as poor losers. Behold: the progress comes to be possible with accumulation of surpluses. However, historical progress of civilization is not dedicated to the construction of Deus ex Machina; neither it happens for the sake of completion of the construction of the proverbial Tower of Babel. One shouldn’t worry about such a progress, because the completion of construction of the exponential ‘Tower of Babel’ of capital is impossible. Here is another one example of encouraging infinity and «innocence» of the global world’s progress:  a «re-entry» of a distinction between self-reference and outer-reference (terms of Niklas Luhmann) could be performed an indefinite quantity of times; however, there is always a blind spot which last after each iteration of the re-entry. The blind spot is the one who performs the distinction, i. e. the spectator of the ‘Cartesian theatre’.

Cartesian theatre concept
Cartesian theatre concept

Thus, anyone who strives for well-being and for more intense consumption should be considered as a builder of the Tower of Babel of capital. With capitalism, it should be sufficient for anyone just to increase one’s own consumption rate in order to contribute to the progress of human civilization. A refusal to participate in this global process of an entire civilization should be considered as self-pity and arrogance, i. e, the sin.

One should understand that the construction of the Tower of Babel is a game, which demands its players to improve themselves, to learn something new, to develop their characters, to acquire wisdom, if they are about to win. The playground of  the world works approximately by Decalogue laws and with the philosophical purpose (probably, the secondary one) of revealing their truth (i. e. if one isn’t about to take these laws for granted, she or he should learn it from their mistakes). One can not live contrary to the Law without being totally punished (however, it could be difficult to notice the interrelation of life’s events, especially when one hasn’t been familiar with psychoanalysis or structural analysis). A layman may complain about capital uses people as a mean for own reproduction and multiplication. However, an initiate mason knows that people can use the game of the accumulation of capital as a free-will competition and a training ground for their own minds. The sanctity of the game of world’s progress and of accumulation of capital is in the fact that, in order to win, one should possess pure heart and grasp correct understanding of the Law. It may seem that a layman and a mason are both right, each one in her or his own manner; however, the difference is that the point of view of the ‘mason’ produces concrete pretext for acting in a constructive manner, when layman’s perspective doesn’t.

The aim of any organization is to accumulate as much of capital as it can. Thus, those people who are able to accumulate for themselves (money, respect, personal victories, popularity, etc.) are about to occupy a senior position sooner. There has always been justice and it has always been irresistible. The Law of Conservation of Energy could be considered as a manifestation of justice in physics, for example. Justice is not something that could be irreversibly violated. However, remember the sacred christian symbol of the lamb. In nature, the ram is an aggressive, jealous, freedom-loving animal; therefore, everyone is welcome to be the same. There is one more piece of advice for a lamb: a sport-like (i. e. which doesn’t cross the lines of actual ethics) competition with peers, but not proletary-Luciferian struggle of a resentful  employee, may contribute to one’s personal career advancement. It is because of the world, which is a playground of competition; and the society as a system of communication, which forms the rules of the game, which are too unethically to offend.

4. A lamb of God is always a triumphator

The lamb of God
A lamb of God is always a triumphator

This is the main hypothesis of the Manifesto. The lamb has always been an ethical figure of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The lamb has always been used as a symbol of moral purity, humility, chastity and kind-heartedness in Abrahamic religions. The lamb should also be considered as a symbol of exemplary Ego of a worshiper of God. The lamb, who is able to love and who has consistently been adhering to the principles of biblical ethics, will no doubt win throughout. The one who is puffed up, will be overthrown into the mud and will become a poor loser. The pride is the most disgusting sin in Orthodox Christianity, and Christianity, in its own turn, is the religion of the historical progress (according to Mircea Eliade, it was eschatology which gave birth to the history. In pagan cultures, for example, the end of the world was happening with the beginning of every new year. However, the expectation of the end of the Scattering (גלות), or longing for the second coming of Christ, postpones the end of the world to an indefinite date, thus creating the history.) But what is the pride? The sin of pride should be considered as such a point of view at the pyramid of social stratification, which takes the position of the observer (usually, it is near the base of the pyramid) for the top of the pyramid. When viewed from such a perspective, the pyramid looks as it were inversed, which could be fatal for the observer: As an example, the popularity, wealth, romance, comfort and prestige may unconsciously became despised, along with revaluation of deviant elements.

luciferviewpoint
The sin of pride is an invalid point of view

It is paradoxically, as well as true (recall the ‘0’ chapter of the Manifesto), that the pride is something opposite to a self-esteem. Pride is a psychological defense in case of narcissistic constellation. Pride is used to be generated by infantile unconscious defences ‘automatically’. However, the self-esteem is a sense of correspondence of one’s own actual social relations to a consciously constructed ideal sample of it. Therefore, personal honor and dignity are to be earned and sustained by volitional actions. And the pride is for spineless ones. To verify this, one has to impartially compare successful people to losers. This could reveal how proud, infantile and full of self-pity these losers are.

Humility is the basic virtue of Christianity; a welfare of a Christian (which, in its turn, could be expressed not only by money, but in terms of health, climate conditions, habitat and subjectively experienced well-being, also) depends on how consistent is the subject of ethics reminds the image of the lamb of God. However, one should show the humility in the face of the hierarchic system of civilization, but not in front of peers. One should compete with peers, but not to rage against those who are on the steps above, especially if the pretext for the rage is their higher position.

When someone resents non-comfortable aspects of civilization, she or he may sin against the laws of the world order, i. e. against the order of God. If someone resents accumulating capital and dignity in peer-to-peer competition with others, she or he probably considers this competition to be ignoble, which has been ‘beneath the dignity’. However, every advantage comes from ethical consistency of actions and from victories in competitions and trials.

5. «Keep calm and carry on», irrelative of cruelty of an environment

A civilized society is the one which lives in conditions of legislative totalitarianism. Otherwise, it is not a civilized one anymore. Of course, the criteria of civilization are only possible to define in the context of a particular civilization (there are by, according to Huntington). At the beginning of 20th century, the world dealt with three competing ideological logoses, which were the right-wing socialism (fascism, nazism and monarchies), the left-wing socialism (communism, anarchism, social-democracy) and the american liberalism (inviolability of private property, value of individual freedoms and human rights). Just as at the beginning of 21st century, we can observe ‘the clash of civilizations.’ I do believe that all of them, except of one, are about to reveal their failure; I believe that the only one type of civilization will prove its viability — it will be the type which has been providing best conditions for an individual to realize her or his creative and competitive potential (the condition is personal freedom, of course). As a matter of fact, differences between these Huntington’s civilizations arise from differences of their codes of ethics.

One way or another, people live under circumstances of one or another civilization, in conditions of one or another legislation and with one or another set of habits. With the help of a police and a court, a society may deprive the accused one of her or his money, property and freedom. At the same time, the court is guided by pre-accepted legislative norms. These norms could imitate but still have nothing in common with the God’s Laws, even if there was a good will of theocratic lawmakers, for that. Usually, norms do vary from year to year, trying to meet the challenges of world’s progress. What kind of «overcoming of totalitarianism» we can talk about if the violation of normative behavior still rigidly entails fines or imprisonment? Moreover, the more advanced technologically becomes the society, the deeply the legislative totalitarianism penetrates into every manifestation of social life (as an example, chain stores with their unified corporate identity, instead of a variety of private and unique shops, could also be considered as the totalitarianism). No matter of either a dictator or a feminist initiates a legislative persecution; a legislative persecution is a legislative persecution, a prohibition of freedom of speech is a prohibition of a freedom of speech, an official ideology is an official ideology, a totalitarianism is a totalitarianism. Is there any difference in who will determine the content of legal norms? On the one hand, it is a question of redistribution of power; but on the other — there has always been the free market of power. The power usually tends to fall into the hands of the most consistent ones, or those who are about to demonstrate the greatest confidence, seriousness and political will. The historic shift of an actual political power from hereditary aristocracy to capitalists provides us with the most illustrative example of the nature of political power in a civilized society. The monarch and the aristocracy were in charge when using weapons they were robbing underclass for the sake of the «protection of the state»; at that time, this was the most efficient method of accumulating surpluses. However, when this method had become less effective, than the method of organization of new jobs with factories, as well as the method of modernization and automatization of labour, then the power had gradually began to go out of the hands of the aristocracy, turning the representatives of this class into a museum exhibit. We remember the lesson of history, that authoritarian personality like Stalin or Hitler was truly able to mobilize their controlled-by-fear society towards an increase of the turnover of the capital. However, the (post-)Christian liberal system of the capitalist’ West had shown us all that it always was of much greater efficiency in this regard! Capitalist society does not only produce more and better goods, than a socialistic one, but also demands no human sacrifices in a name of a regime. Nowadays, if the libertarian bohemians, with the help of a police, will better be able to multiply communication and circulation and accumulation of capital, then the right to make changes in the rules and to persecute for their infringement will fully be by them. Of course, one mustn’t be afraid of this. All the governments have always been an occupying governments, which were producing their terror with the help of the police machine. Under an Islamist government, an individual suffers from the fact she or he has been deprived from any possible lifestyle of belief except of norms of Shariah; under Hitler’s dictatorship, Germans were suffering from being forcedly turned into soldiers and told to work and fight for some sort of misconception. I don’t have to mention EU farmers, which suffer from being unable to produce more, than they are allowed to, as well as Russian youth, which suffers from police scandalous practices under the fascist regime of Putin. There is a quantitative difference, not qualitative one. However, regardless of a cruelty of a yoke under which you live, please, keep calm and carry on in moral purity. I wish you to be always the knight, which has been depicted on the engraving by Albrecht Dürer. Behold it: Death tries to scare you with time and to make you rush in hurry with the implementation of your ambitions, which can cause mistakes; the ugly Devil provokes you to start fighting it, which would be also a misconduct. This engraving wants you to pay attention neither to Death nor to the Devil, but to proceed your own way, quietly.

Ritter, Tod und Teufel
Knight, Death and the Devil is one of the three «master prints» of the German artist Albrecht Dürer

6. A consistency in acting in accordance with an appropriate code of ethics is the most straight way to achieve a success.

This should be sufficient! The true lamb of God lives in welfare and prosperity. What makes Swiss banks so profitable? Swiss banks are, as much as it was possible, have proved themselves to be honest and trustworthy; Switzerland, not only as a state, and not only as a nation but also as a brand, is full of undeniable dignity in eyes of the world’s society. Why did it happen? Throughout its modern history, Switzerland, not only as a state but as a manufacturer of the most reliable products and services, has always been consistent in its Protestant (mostly, the Old Testament) ethics. People around the world do rely on Switzerland and everything which has been produced within its borders. I believe that it was possible for Swiss to earn such a dignity because of their consistency and serious attitude towards their ethical principles (even the Christkatholische Kirche der Schweiz is independent from the Bishop of Rome, which makes it not responsible for Crusades!)

Poverty and heavy (i. e. improper) work should be considered as a punishment for sins; for the sin of pride, particularly. If one adheres to slave’s ethics, then no efforts will make her or him truly happy; it is most likely that an ethical slave will never be able to buy either own house, or a decent car, or to travel with proper purpose and comfort. Slavery is for slaves. It it paradoxically, as well as true, that hedonism is the doctrine which propels an individual towards poverty and suffering (recall the ‘0’ paragraph!) Proud losers, who do not want to give up their monstrous claims to their lives, are struggling in search of any ‘decent work’ as a fish which has been thrown at ice. They are not about to get anything ‘worthy’ as long as they will get rid of their pride and until they fulfill their sentences for their sins with the help of ‘improper work.’ Moreover, anyone who wants to get rich in order to sin more, will never get be rich! There is also a type of people who would never dare to come out to meet their punishment, thus they do injure their whole life! No matter how competent a person is or what are her or his learning abilities; she or he will get access to money only if she or he deserves it by the standards of ethics of humility before the Law, which Moses had brought to the world.

7. A universal multi-religious postulate of an initial impurity of a human being is true

Yeah, an individual ‘owes’ to ‘the world’ since her or his very birth. I do like the proof by Augustine of Hippo «Si enim fallor, sum», because it represents the most comprehensive feature of an essence of an individual being. Mistakes (i. e. sins) which every individual produces, are the only measurable feature of an individual Ego. In words of Jean Piaget, an intellect is a continuously developing consequence of adaptations which strives to assimilate every new irritation and, if there was a failure with the assimilation, it tries to accommodate in order to complete the initial attempt of assimilation (i. e. to complete just another iterative attempt to achieve the state of integrity.) It is our own personal universes which has been constructed by our own cognitive systems according to the perceptive data. However, which is the purpose of the construction? From evolutionary perspective, we construct the universe in order to survive. Yet, evolutionary perspective provides us with too estranged picture of reality which is useless when answering practical question of what to do next and how to act?..  Therefore, I suggest an ethical perspective: the vitality of the human being is directly related to the level of one’s own personal ethical development. Moreover, this is not only ethical perspective, but also a perspective of the fractional building of Tower of Babel of world’s capital. From the ethical perspective, a human being does represent the universe in her or his mind in order to bring to one’s own attention the ugliness of her or his world, in order to have some proper incentive to start improving it, i. e. to start improving the quality of the production of one’s own cognitive system. Descartes’ proof possess none of this practical depth, but just formally logical.

A subjectively experienced improvement of one’s own life’s quality, or a sensation of satisfaction of life, should be considered as an indication of a real improvement in the quality of the production of one’s own cognitive system. An individual can reflect her or his own emotion of envy, as well as she or he can reflect the presence of garbage on the street; if both the phenomena could be grasped by one’s own consciousness, then both of them are personal mental constructs, or the inner contents of one’s own cognitive system. Therefore, keeping  one’s own apartment clean and fixed should be considered as the same improvement of production of one’s own brains as well as a shift in an attitude towards other people of one’s own environment.

In accordance with the ethics of this Manifesto, an improvement of the «quality» of one’s own cognitive system should be considered as a moral duty of any subject of social relations; a consistent fulfillment of this duty will no doubt lead the person to socially acknowledged success in her or his life. This point of view is beneficial because it takes off from the agenda the question of «what to do?» and «who is guilty?» It is always the subject herself or himself whom to blame (if the universe has been constructed within individual’s own cognitive system, who else may be at fault if not she or he herself or himself?) And it is making the one’s own perceived universe more beautiful, which should be considered as the answer to the second question.

A subjective indication of an improvement of individual’s own cognitive system state should be taken seriously .

8. The living space of the Earth is divided by ethical principles

The principle is simple: better places are for better people. As a general rule, in order to increase environmental conditions (for example, to immigrate to another country while continuing to maintain an acceptable standard of living there), it would be necessary to have an appropriate level of personal ethical development. The current state of West-European society, which is mostly secular, though, paradoxically confirms my areal hypothesis.

In general, the wealth should be considered as a measure of a righteousness of a person in the terms of the Old Testament’s ethics. To the extent that a participant of social relations does not pay for any commodities which she or he has been consuming, she or he is a commodity herself or himself. Beware of demonstrative exceptions! Numerous exceptions, as always, are only confirm the general rule. The structure of the playground society demands that every situation must possess its own situational Tempter, who produces pretexts for acts of Faith of lambs; however, this ethics is not for those who take on the role of the devil, so be careful here.

9. Using drugs is an entry into credit relations

The essence of credit relations is that one obtains something that she or he may not acquire now by her or his own means (i. e. by the law of conservation of energy), but has to return some more, than she or he had took, after a certain period of time. Any narcotic substance acts the same way: it can bring joy when one should not be so joyful, but it will take away no doubt more than it has given, in some period of time, though. This refers to all the drugs and stimulants, including cigarettes, energy drinks and even green tea. The highest percentages are to be payed for the heroin loan, because the latter provides Heavens on credit.

When it is profitable to take a credit? It is when one is sure about dividends, of course. It is well-known that drinking alcohol together brings people closer, which contributes to their further friendship. The time saving factor is clear here, and it can bring good dividends. However, in the majority of cases, purely economically, drug usage does only impoverish an individual.

In general, narcotization of society keeps pace with progress. Why must it be inevitable? Firstly, because the narcotization is a compaction; a universe of a drunk person shrinks to the extent of a table, bottles and a buddy, for example. Alcohol, as well as PC games, allows anyone to realize her or his global ambitions in a «compact» manner (just recall how some youngsters are excited about telling their ‘heroic’ stories about how they were drunk, as well as gamers do when talk about their gaming achievements). Secondly, because credit obligations do stimulate a person to go all out in order to repay the loan, which saves the time for everyone (just think of what a great job performs a liver during alcohol overdose!) I would recommend to be of extreme caution and rationality with drug usage; one should be clear about the purpose of the usage of such substances.

In this Manifesto, I propagandize the underground of those who understand how the playground world works and, despite this, does not lose their self-esteem and stay sticked to the rules of the competition of life. There is explicitly the meaning of participation in the competition for all of its participants.

10. Any given situation is of quality as it seems to you, personally. At any given time period, you do know enough to act either ethically or violently

The main reason why we are all here to play the game of human civilization is a time-consuming process of restoring our own subjectively broken ‘integrity’. Prof. Metzinger describes this lack of integrity as ‘hedonistic treadmill’. However, the well-known human disposition towards mistakes should be the sequel of the initiatory injury, which was described in the ‘1’ paragraph of the Manifesto and which is considered to be the one which once gave birth to consciousness. Therefore, an individual is able to work on restoring of her or his own subjective feeling of integrity by the remission of her or his own sins, that is, which is to be performed via constructive, legal and useful activities. Such a constructive consequence is quite impossible to find through the analysis of causal relationships; this consequence is truly paradoxical (i. e. it i true, according to the ‘0’ paragraph). Lacan had worked out the conception of ‘Objet petit a‘ which, neither he nor his followers were taken for something that could be reached or satisfied. One of the claims of the Manifesto is that the ‘Objet petit a’ is achievable through legal business, constructive activities, art and charity. You can try it. The ruse of such a positive activity is that it ‘magically’, or directly influences the Real. I do believe, that assuming of Lacan’s ‘little object a’ could be even taken for her or his personal life’s task by any individual. In psychology this is called sublimation. I wonder, whether Lacan suspected his ‘little object a’, the lodestar of any analysis, could ever be reached, and how. However, once the patient ceases to suffer from semantic knots, which are having been tied by her or his own sins, she or he stops paying for the analysis. This is why analyst should only interpret, but not to suggest.

If something bothers an individual, then she or he should not to search for another angle of view at this problem. On the contrary, this concern should be taken for a personal invitation to activity and communication. Don’t listen to magicians, yogis, gurus and other esoteric representatives, because their teachings are useless; they perform magic rites in order to put into form of an action their idleness. Don’t lie down on the psychoanalyst’s couch if you do not want to be fooled. You are already know enough to atone your own sinfulness, which is the true and only cause of the inferiority of your life’s quality.

Some psychologists, business coaches, witches, charismatic leaders can try to promote their teachings under the flag of «fighting stereotypes». Behold — stereotype is a statistical truth. The only purpose of abandoning stereotypes is to remove the barrier of conscious criticism, which guards the subconsciousness from direct manipulation. Actually, sometimes, you may do need it, because the progress demands achieving new skills and be more adaptive. In general, it’s up to you how to reprogram yourself. You may well imitate strong and successful people by analyzing their behavior, so you can learn a lot. My advice would be to listen to those people who live the way you want to live yourself.

Добавить комментарий

Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *