Christocism - The Seven Laws of Hierarchy

Prev: Here

If the Sacred Subjective is the foundation for Apotelic Kindness, then we must establish a framework by which the inevitable existence of Hierarchy will be dealt with in this philosophy.   Here are Seven Rules that I think best apply:

"All human wisdom is contained in these two words — Wait and hope."

Abbé Faria says this to Dantès near death in the Château d'If. He is dying, Dantès is watching his only friend and teacher go, and this is Faria's final gift — not treasure, not knowledge, but orientation. It is the distillation of everything he taught Dantès about patience as a weapon. 

1) Hierarchies are knives; useful tools that must be watched and kept from children.

2) Just hierarchies remain accountable to their lowest rank, prioritizing individual dignity over collective convenience.

3) Power must continuously prove its value to those at the bottom through demonstrable results, not deception.

4) Perpetual review must engage both experts and masses to protect individual dignity from unnecessary diminishment.

5) Action speaks louder than ideology; all collective entities are accountable for their direct effects, not their stated intentions.

6) Individual rational interests must remain central to society, with coercion minimized to what the vast majority agrees is necessary.

7) If a child cannot understand the morality behind your actions, you're probably deceiving yourself and others.

What does this even mean at a practical level?  These rules cannot prevent the abuse of hierarchy but since, at the end of the day conservatism is the tool of hierarchy and history shows us that this is the primary vector for unkindness or anti kindness, then preventive maintenance in the abuse of it can reduce the risk of an objectively unkind society.   Without it, it will be wielded as a weapon by those who have power but do not deserve it.

It should be understood that all roles are conditional and that no role is an identity.   Just authority is only just so long as the practices of that power are upheld and accountable to those who must suffer under it.   If it is observed that the role is not living up to the standards of those with whom power has been imbued then that power should be instantaneously revoked.

"Moral wounds have this peculiarity — they may be hidden, but they never close; always painful, always ready to bleed when touched."

The narrator says this about Villefort, the man who buried his own living child to protect his career. His institutional role consumed his humanity so completely that every subsequent act of self-preservation reopened the original wound rather than healing it. 

This applies to:

• Moral roles (leader, judge, protector, healer)
• Intellectual roles (philosopher, strategist, prophet, critic)
• Institutional roles (authority, expert, office-holder)
• Symbolic roles (myth-maker, channel, exemplar)

There should be no permanent authority that is not derived from those put under power; and whenever a child is born into an institution that they are not independently able to rationally join of their own separate recognizance free of influence from those around them, then it is inevitable that an innocent shall be the victim of choices made in the past to serve the needs of those abusing Hierarchy to preserve their own position for its own sake.

"The difference between treason and patriotism is only a matter of dates."

The Count says this to Fernand Mondego during his unmasking — the man who sold out Ali Pasha and built a career on betrayal dressed as loyalty.

The absence of authority and power can be just as tyrannical as its overwhelming abuse.   Hierarchy is going to happen; whether it is formal or informal.  The absence of a rules or laws based order is instead going to create an abstract social structure that will simply let the loudest voice in the room grab a mob and burn the heretic.   Anarchism is just as tyrannical for its toxification of a healthy anti Hierarchical movement as a majority libertarian town refusing to pay for taxes to keep Bears and criminals from destroying the town.  Hierarchy is going to happen; the question is whether it is just or unjust; kind or unkind.

Matthew 7: 21-23

 King James Version

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Christoicism - The Sacred Sovereign Subjective

Prev: Here  Next: Here

What does it mean to be human?  Philosophers and Spiritual authorities have asked that question as long as we have had language, but one above all stands out to me.  Descarte and "I Think Therefore I am" shows that we are, and we think and we know therefore that we are.  It is among the most elegant and self evident products of philosophy.   But as near as I can tell; every other Philosophy or "ism" sets that aside and then explores the ideas that they espouse about human activity and compare and contrast that philosophy.

But I think this is a mistake.

Before we step from the basic of individual ethics and see how these principals are applied to a larger scale, I think its important to take a step back and explore what this concept means.

Per Meriam Webster

Sacred: 

as in holy

not to be violated, criticized, or tampered with 

 

Sovereign

main

coming before all others in importance 

 

Subjective

as in personal

of, relating to, or belonging to a single person 

 

So the fusion definition could be said to be....

 

Sacred Sovereign Subjective (adj.) Pertaining to the inherent spiritual authority and autonomy of an individual to define, experience, and determine personal meaning, truth, and reverence according to their own inner experience, without external mandate or institutional prescription. 

 

If everyone is valuable at the root level simply by being alive; and even conservatism concedes this point...then we have to accept what this really means.  This is the root of why Apotelic Kindness is the core principal of Christoicism.   If the definition of being human is being aware of ourselves and experiencing the world at large; then we are all cosoveign and all cosacred and our subjective perspective at root level is our own autonomous right to experience and we should all work together to enable as many of us to be able to make choices as freely as possible.

That's it.  That's the root source of our morality or any moral system; you can argue about who what when or how or why; but if you challenge the root value of all human life, there is no way you can claim anything approaching objective morality.   This is why engaged philosophy matters.  This is why using Apotelic Kindness to measure the effectiveness of a philosophy is so important, but it posts to a larger principal; a simple litmus test to side step conservative chicanery.  

Any philosophy that DOESNT tie a root to the concept of the Sacred Sovereign Subjective; any religion or spiritual movement or code of law or code of human behavior that does not assign dignity value and honor simply to a human life for experiencing itself is an absolute an immediate failure.  This is the foundation of morality itself; it is the 101.  And before going off and exploring more details on how to do things, much less how to measure that success as objectively as possible (remember; self deception is the death of self) it is important to understand the root beneath it all.

An engaged philosophy must be engaged.  An applied philosophy without ideological roots becomes a pragmatic mercinary focus on tactics without a moral strategy.  An ideological philosophy has strategy without moral tactics ensuring that you destroy the village in order to save it.     

Edmond Dantès begins as a victim of men who treat his life as a disposable tool for their own advancement. In his pursuit of revenge, he nearly destroys himself by adopting that same cold logic, viewing his enemies as targets rather than living beings. Only when his schemes claim an innocent child does he realize that no cause justifies violating the inherent value of another person.

Christoicism - The Hierarchy of Values

Prev: Here Next: Here

Seven questions to determine if something is moral and good are all well and nice; but if you are doing the classic trolley situation in your own personal frame, its too much to ask or apply.   The most important thing about philosophical morality you need to remember besides Apotelic Kindness itself is that a Value has many definitions but here is the one that matters for Christoicism.

A Value is Something that forces a Moral and Ethical decision that matters and costs you to maintain it.

It is well and good to be for public school lunches until you get your tax bill and have to actually pay for it out of your paycheck.  It is well and good to honor military service until you have to pay $2450 for a President to Fuck that Particular Fish and Bomb that Particular Thing when they file their taxes.   It is well and good to consider yourself an honest person until your wife asks "Do I look fat in this dress?"  

If something is a value it is worth having.  All of these are values; Integrity, Courage, Compassion, Honesty, Loyalty, Respect, Kindness, Justice, Freedom, Wisdom, Humility, Gratitude, Perseverance, Fairness, Accountability, Generosity, Patience, Excellence, Authenticity, Empathy.  But you can't do them all at the same time.   And more importantly in the crisis of the moment what you choose shows what you value.  That is what REALLY makes it a value.   But if you are aiming to be a good or decent person, or apply the seven questions to all of those it can be exhausting and frankly impossible.

Mercy vs. Justice: Dantès discovers that Maximilien and Valentine are innocent victims caught in the wreckage of others' sins. He could destroy everyone connected to his suffering—but he chooses to save them instead. Yet he doesn't forgive Villefort or Danglars. The question becomes: which ones deserve his vengeance, and which deserve his mercy? He learns that absolute justice would make him a tyrant.

Thus the need for a Hierarchy of Values.   You can HAVE all of those values but not have them at equal measure.   You can decide ahead of time if you choose patience over wisdom, or gratitude over compassion.   You'd think that some of these aren't antithical but I also guarantee if you think about it at a deeper measure, you will find that all of them have been in conflict in your life at some point or another.

Unless of course you didnt care about it at all; but that doesnt make it a value for you.

The Hierarchy is a mental exercize that lets you choose ahead of time.   That helps you avoid regrets later on.  This can be as simple as "What are my top 3 values and what order are they in?" to a formally written list where you frequently update and change what all of them are.  Good luck remembering the order of all 20 in your life though.

Loyalty vs. Honesty: When Caderousse appears, broken and dying, Dantès remembers the sailor he once knew. He gives him money and comfort—loyalty to an old friend. But he won't lie about Caderousse's complicity in his betrayal. The kindness and the truth have to coexist, even when they pull against each other.

Here is the key pivot; if you are doing this right a value must always have circumstances where it DOES trump the other values even if it isnt your top virtue.  Mercy without Justice is terrible and Justice without Mercy is also terrible.   There are moments where one is clearly called for above the other; the Hierarchy is simply your default and can never be a substitute for wisdom, inner reflection or just plain old common sense. 

One measure that I might recommend is in the conversations you have with yourself; pick a person who represents that value.  It can be a famous person like Benjamin Franklin or a fictional person like Clark Ken.  It can be your maternal grandfather or it can be some mythological figure.   Think of a hypothetical scenario; something you think might realistically occur some day and ask yourself with these two people what they would each do in the situation and determine how they would react and see whic one resonates properly with you. 

Authenticity vs. Compassion: Dantès could reveal himself to everyone he loves and be known for who he truly is. But keeping his secret—staying the mysterious Count—is what allows him to save the innocent without destroying them with knowledge. Sometimes you have to remain hidden to show compassion.

Christoicism - The Law of Seven Questions

Prev: Here and Next: Here

It is not enough to simply abstractly apply apotelic kindness; we need some method of measuring it.   That is not to say that we cannot propose a baseline, but it is important to understand it must be iteratively believed and appplied to those to whom our actions are meant to benefit.  If we do dark things for the greater good; a lack of appreciation by those we claim to help is the single greatest measure of the hubris of our actions.

Here are seven questions one can ask to measure the approach.  These seven will not solve every problem, but they cover enough actions such that we can hope to achieve some measure of decency by the impact of our actions.   And if it violates all seven, it is likely something we can willfully and truthfull call evil.  Conversely, if all seven are clear or approaching it, then we are probably in the right or approaching it. 

Is it kind? Does this action genuinely create kindness, not merely the appearance of it? Kindness is the arbiter of necessity.

Is it necessary? Can the good I seek be achieved through less harmful means, or am I rationalizing expediency?

Is it true? Does this action align with reality as best I understand it, or am I deceiving myself or others?

Would I accept this if our positions were reversed? The most reliable test of justice is whether I would willingly trade places with those affected by my actions.

How will this cascade through consciousness? How would this decision be judged by minds wiser than my own, both now and in generations to come?

What story am I using to justify this? Am I casting myself as the necessary hero, others as deserving villains, or creating false narratives to enable what I already want to do?

Would I do this in front of the children who trust me? Not as performance, but as a model of the world I wish them to inherit and the values I truly believe in.

In the book, at the zenith of his power; Edmond Dantes spots the suffering of innocents at the near-death of Valentine de Villefort and the utter ruination of their family to those who hda done him no wrong.   He had miscast himself as Providence knowing that none could deliver justice but himself.  But he saw in his wrath the violation of these questions; kindness, necesssity and saw in the mirror that he had become the oppressor not the hand of a just but absent God.   He had the wisdom to withdraw total justice and show mercy, restraint and take the long view.  

Christoicism - What is Engaged Philosophy and Why Should I Care?

Prev: Here and Next is Here

It's nice and all, to sit here and talk about philosophy; but most people don't give a shit.   And that's a damn shame.   There are three reasons for this:

1) Religion: Religion is a philosophy that includes spiritual beliefs and a deeply held personal shared cosmology.   (Leaving aside parody or joke religions like my favorite Pastafarianism)  Religion requires faith, and faith demands a significant percentage of a person's executive function.   That's not to say that they don't exist, it's just harder.   The problem with this is that a functional democracy that isnt a theology requires a secular society.   Religion without spirituality is a hollow shell; and spirituality is inherently subjective.   When you imposeit on someone else at the state level you cheapen faith and you cheapen the state.  I am not the only one to think this.  I have plenty of blog topics on the subject.  

He goes to the chapel to tell God that he will take Justice himself; for no angels or pastor camed to save him.  Religion made many people in the book more moral; but it still allowed the rot and corruption that locked him away.

2) Pure Philosophy: These are philosophies that answer existential questions about reality.  They are the definition of the Ivory Tower.  These are technically  "logic, metaphicsm epistomology and meta ethics" but arguably also "applied philosophies" that are super reliant on those otherwise good mechanisms which includes Analytic Philosophy, Ancient Greek Philosophy (Plato or Socrates), or Rationalism.   I'm also going to include any applied philosophy or religion that gets so caught up in theory here that it becomes meaningless in the real world.  "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"  "How many steps can I walk on the Sabbath without breaking it?", Creationism vs Rationalism (Fuck your Darwinism science if your theory comes in I'm out of a job!), The World Is the Way it is Because Aristotle Said So Because Some Ancient Bishop Is Respected and the Church Embrace that, or in LDS connotation-Pepsi has Caffine so Ban all Vending Machines from Selling it!  Either way, its so frufru and out there that the average Joe Lunchbox who is barely making ends meet could fucking care less.

The lies of his captors wasted years of his life.  The false ideologies of trying to stop Napolean instead condemned the injustice of the state; an innocent man to rot.  This was a failure to Dantes.

3) Applied Philosophy: If you think of or have heard of a phlosophy this covers everything else, but it focuses on the pragmatic.  But in my experience that pragmatism can get a little TOO pragmatic and just as lost in the weeds the other direction.   Examples include: A company doing something horrific for short term profit at the expense of its long term brand, Dismissing a moral argument because something is legal (Slavery was legal, concentration camps were legal, gamified abusive social media for minors is legal, "We had to destroy the village to save the village!" etc.   At some point the practical application of the philosophy just breaks down and the so called practical principals are sacrifice for convenience, the greater good etc.  Its a mess.

The rage of Danglar's justifiably outraged son cost him his life.  The parable of taking revenge being the digging of two graves was in this story a real one, and Dantes saw he had to change to achieve his goals.

I am going to say something shocking.  The religious fundamentalists who say that Secular Socity is not founded on common values are right; after a fashion.  The Founding Fathers were fans of an participants of the Enlightment, so each of them had a philosophy in mind when they helped to create the 1789 Constitution.  Other democracies since have State values such as "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" (Liberty, Equality and Fraternity) but as beautiful as those are they are not a robust philosophy.   Europe values Dignity, which is not at all manifest in the United States legal theory at all; and the UN Declaration of Human Rights has served as a guiding psuedo philosophy for the foundations and principals of most modern nations states since its application.

A Declaration of Human Rights is not a philosophy.  If your brain is the hardware, then what you do, remember and consider is the software as are skills etc.   A Philosophy is an Operating System for your moral compss if you have one.  The closest thing the United States has is the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and to a lesser extent for serious political junkies the Federalist Papers. These are also not philosophies.

They leave the Republic to vulnerability of attack from Demagauges and Moral Crusaders used by Vile Men.   A Secular Society cannot have a religious underpinning but unless the Philosophy is sufficiently flexible to allow any member of a democracy to see it as viable; there isnt much difference between imposing a religion and imposing philosophy except in one critical area.  History has now sufficiently shown the cost; the United States Empire and the corruption and rot and planetary damage it has caused from Technofascism and willful neglect of the damages caused hy slavery, capitalism and Climate Change.  

So What Is An "Engaged Philosophy?"

"Both is Good" is indeed right.  An Applied Philosophy without the Pure Philosophy underpinning becomes "Destroy the Village to Save the Village" and a Pure Philosophy without Applied Philosophy becomes "Angels Dancing on the Head of a Pin."   Apotelic Kindness on the other hand, ensures that your philosophy is only as good as it is MEANINGFULLY APPLIED to an iterative recursive adjustable scale.   It must adapt to the real world but constantly apply the questions that it asks about the world and do its best in a meaningful scale.

But its more than that.  This ensures that a state can use the philopophy as a foundation for the values of a state; whether a busy mother with 10 children who knows a few axioms or a scholar who wishes to dive into the guts.  The shared language must be applicable to all.  It doesnt have to be Christoicism, but *Any Engaged Philosophy* is better than NO philosophy at all.   Once you embed the theory with applied mechanisms to ensure that it can work at a large and small scale it becomes useful as a blueprint for the state or anyone else.

Let me repeat that with different words because it is important.  The 1789 Constitution is called the blueprint of the country because it is not just an outline of the Basic Law of the United States,    The power of the story is titanic; I spent years helping the Mythic Imagination Institute because I believed in their msision and still do, but a story is only as strong as its author; and with multiple authors you need a FRAMEWORK to keep the plot and theme.

Too much metaphore?  

Then let me boil it down.  The Constitution isn't working.  The philosphies; economic and otherwise of the20th and 19th centuries aren't working.  EVERY single one of them isn't.  So I'm creating something that is, and the single biggest factor that all of them have in common as a failing point is mentioned at the top of the article.  Christocism itself would say that if something better comes along adopt it....

But I've been waiting a long damn time....so I'm doing what I can.  You want answers? You want specifics? I'll give them too you but in chunks.  There is a technical writing technique called "Information Mapping" that involves breaking things down which is what I'm doing here.  The key point isnt to explain everything that Christocism does, but show you what an ENGAGED philosophy is and isn't.

Until next time.

Banned Trump Documentary

 Trump got this banned and if he hadn't we would all be better off.