A short discussion on the topic of what anarchy is. What is anarchy? Aikido - libertarian martial art

A book for those who want to be Human

Anarchy or what it means to live as a human and humanly, compiled and recorded by O. Dulfand 2013
ANARCHY IS NOT HAVING AN OLDEST SELF; TO BE THE FIRST, THE BEGINNING OF THE KIND; DO NOT HAVE ANYONE else's POWER OVER YOURSELF/OVER GOD – HE DOESN'T ‘RULE’, HE LOVES; AND LOVE – CREATES, INSTRUCTS, INSIGHTS, HEALS, SAVES, TRANSFORMES, BRINGING US TO DIVINE DIGNITY.../, BEING SELF-AUTHORIZED; TO HAVE NO OTHER LAW EXCEPT YOURSELF - TO BE THE HEAD AND LAW OF EVERYTHING, AND MEANS TO BE IN ABSOLUTE SUBJECT TO THIS LAW AND TO BEAR FULL AND ABSOLUTE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL YOURSELF AND FOR ALL YOURSELF - FOR YOUR ENTIRE WORLD, WHICH IS IN TO YOU AND IN WHICH YOU ARE ; FOR EVERYTHING THAT IS IN YOUR WORLD AND FOR ALL WHO ARE UNDER YOUR LAW... ;
INTRODUCTION The opinion that anarchy is lawlessness, absolute irresponsibility and permissiveness, selfishness brought to the point of extreme misanthropy, the denial of all and every law inherent in human nature, in favor of the passions of one’s own perverted consciousness, was created and spread by “the powers that be.” - those who are ''in power'', under ''power''. In fact, everything is exactly the opposite - the properties and qualities described above are precisely the property of all and all “democracies”, no matter what signs they appear under and no matter what masks they hide behind (democracy, theocracy, absolutism (monarchy), dictatorship...capitalism, socialism, fascism...empire, kingdom, republic...etc., etc.)... And this ''opinion'' is spreading (but in fact - just a blatant lie of an insolent the apparent impunity of demonism) by those in power and is supported by them in every possible way (by all possible means) so that you and I do not somehow accidentally come to our senses, waking up from the dope of inhumanity and godlessness, and would not want to return power over ourselves to ourselves , and having regained power - to return to Human dignity... In fact, anarchy is the absolute responsibility of each and every person to himself for everything that is his: - for the beginning ''anarchist'' - for all his reactions to everything that is in him and outside of it - thoughts, feelings, desires, decisions, sensations, passions,...situations, circumstances, events, people, nature, the passage of time, laws and rules, life and death, as well as for agreeing with these reactions or fighting them; for the “perfect” anarchist - for everything that He is and is His. There is not anarchy when we are completely maddened by resentment, envy, anger, hostility, lust, hatred, drugs, alcohol, money (their presence or absence, which, incidentally, is the same thing), imaginary or imaginary failures and victories (for the deceived after all, all concepts and ideas are just as deceptive, false...) we rob, rape, slander, abuse, beat and kill, seduce and corrupt, making others even worse than ourselves; and in general we commit all possible and impossible meanness and nasty things, while justifying ourselves with another lie, which was once again handed to us by the same “who are in power”, who have distorted everything for themselves - words, ideas, religion (faith) , concepts, customs, laws, science, art, public opinion, morality... Only when we begin to pay our attention not only to what “Vasya” said, but also to how we ourselves reacted to it and why exactly this way and not otherwise; not only that someone is right and someone is wrong, but also why we judge this way and not in some other way and, in fact, according to what measure I condemn or justify; in short - only when one of us begins to notice that not only outside of him, but also in himself there is a great many things that he does not own and that exist as if by themselves and according to their own laws; moreover, he will not only notice, but after thinking about it and starting to look for answers, he will understand that ‘’...every person is a lie...’’; and will not only understand, but also decide to rebel against this lie and destroy it in himself, regaining autocracy - then only he will begin anarchy... BOOK ONE STATEMENT PART ONE - LIES The vast majority of us not only do not know the TRUTH, but also for the truth (truth for you is how your ''today'' reality is perceived by you on the basis of your ''today'' sense of self) takes a certain form of lie. Therefore, in order to be able to have a serious conversation about anything at all, we need to identify, if not the lie itself (and this requires looking at everything with TRUE eyes, which is practically impossible for us today), then at least the circle of delusions in which our lies keep us. FIRST MISCONCEPTION - ''LIFE'' Every whole must be one, and every one must be whole. Let me explain: - a growing tree is a whole, united in the multitude of its roots, trunks, branches, leaves, fruits... But an ax stuck into the trunk of this tree is not part of this unity and is a violation of its (tree) integrity... In turn, an ax , although it seems to us to be a single whole, it actually is not - it consists of several parts that differ both in purpose and in material (axe handle, blade, wedge; ash, steel...). All these parts are connected artificially; and just as before the moment of connection they were absolutely separate, so after the connection they remain the same, which leads to the subsequent natural disintegration (separation) of both the entire ax and its individual parts (the butt burst, the wedge fell out, the ax handle broke...) . And what does what we used to call ‘life’ look like from this point of view?! If we depict “life” in the form of a straight line - a segment, then the beginning of this segment will be birth, and the end will be death; and the distance between them is ‘life’. Moreover, both birth and death are completely different from each other both in essence and in content; and our life (at least in our usual view) does not seem to be supposed to be death - after all, with the arrival of death, “life” ends, but while you are “alive”, it seems like you have not died yet... This means that each of these ''parts'' ends somewhere and somehow and a completely different one immediately begins; but then our “life” is neither a single nor a whole, and indeed is not a life itself, but is simply a meaningless heap of pieces and fragments of something that have nothing in common with each other, which in turn, not being a whole (since it is divided into pieces) cannot exist. The conclusion is that we have the most vague and contradictory ideas about our lives, or rather, we have no true concept or idea at all, and all our “knowledge” is simply a lie. Looking ahead (the topic is simply very important - what happens to you and I is more important than life!) Let’s immediately define the correct concept - our today’s “life” is dying, that is, death extended over time. Moreover, “birth” is the beginning of dying, “life” is the duration of dying, and “death” is the completion of dying (and that’s all! died!). Death – translated from Russian into our colloquial jargon – is your measure, to be with measure/to have measure/; to die - to measure, according to the measure you have taken... The current measure of most of us is the absence (disappearance) of God and Man. The true Measure is God-manhood. So - depending on the choice of measure, each of us today, going through our own dying/disappearance/, receives either the absence of Truth in ourselves and ourselves in the Truth (“you are not everywhere and always”; and this is the hell that lasts for you ''eternally'') - if the measure of his passing through his own death (dying) is ''dying'' itself and all his ''I want'' and ''I won't'' will be based on it... If the measure for him, even if not from the very “beginning”, will become Truth, then his passage will become the Transfiguration of his entire being (that is, both him and his life); - after all, he goes through not just some kind of “dying”, but himself dying (dead), or, if you like, unborn; then the false measure is replaced by the True one, the disappearance is replaced by birth (resurrection from the dead); then every step of your passage will be through death, but for the sake of its abolition; albeit still dying - but already carrying within yourself the resurrected Self in True Birth... SECOND MISCONCEPTION - SELF-AWARENESS OR REALITY If you are asked to describe your sensations at the moment of your touching any surface (for example glass) and you, having touched, describe this surface as cold, smooth, and hard; then this description will be true - the truth of your sense of self, but not the Truth... Why? Yes, because “hard”, “smooth” and “cold” are a description not of what you touched, but of how you felt yourself - the body (you are bodily) with the help of bodily senses , having touched something about which you have no idea (your tactile receptors on your fingers and palms somehow felt themselves, and having felt them, they sent a signal to your “brain”, and your brain to the reaction of the receptors reacted with your reaction... etc., but this is all just your body and in your body, but not what you “touched”, because it is outside the body and not “the body”. By the way, if you, the body, have nothing to ‘touch’, then for you, the body, it will be a feeling of your complete absence. We touch with all our physical selves - with all our feelings; both known to us - sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste - and unknown to us (we call them differently - foresight, intuition, faith... - but this does not make them more understandable and known to us). Conclusion - our entire reality with all its laws and rules is the reality of our current self-consciousness (mirage, illusion, feverish delirium...), the measure of which is the absence of Truth and is the lie of our complete ignorance of ourselves. MISCONCEPTION THIRD - TIME Time for our false self-awareness - self-awareness, or in other words - in our false reality - is something that we perceive as a certain duration, extent, distance. Moreover, this duration can, according to our self-perception, be completely different - time can “stand”, “stretch”, “fly”, “rush”, “disappear and appear”... But how do we We already said in the previous chapter that our sense of self is a feeling not of something outside of us, but of precisely what is in us and is ourselves. Hence, time is the extension of myself (my sense of self - self-awareness), which I feel / realize / differently, depending on my mental - bodily (spiritual) states, the measure of which is a lie... Or more simply - time is the distance in myself from me and before me; which I feel (realize) as not myself (not me). FOURTH MISCONCEPTION – HISTORY We are presented with history as a kind of continuous process that has a beginning and a further extension in time and space. Like, there was some kind of “big explosion”, which became the beginning of everything (what exploded, where and why - no one can explain, of course), as a result of which the universe appeared (it is not clear how), in which the “solar system” then appeared ''(but she wanted it - and it appeared!), then on one of the ''planets'' suddenly (well, just by magic!) ''life'' appeared, developing to the horror that the so-called ''scientists''( all their learning lies in the ability to pass off their crazy fantasies as absolute reality with the help of words that only they understand and abstract calculations...) is called “human civilization”; and now this horror (''human civilization'') is ''progressing'' in its desire and ability to disfigure and destroy everything... We habitually believe that there is a past, present and future; where the past is the time (history) that was before ours today; the present is what is now; and the future is what will happen ‘’tomorrow’’ (that is, comes after ‘’now’’); Moreover, the present is the result of the past, and “follows” from it, and the future is the result of the “present”; and all together they are a continuous endless chain, each link of which is inextricably connected to both the previous link and the subsequent one. Let's consider this statement too... Let's take a certain point in the future... Here it is approaching, approaching, approaching... and suddenly it immediately becomes the past, and without stopping for a moment in our ''now''... It turns out that we do not have a ''now'', and there is a ''future'', which instantly becomes the ''past'', bypassing the ''now'', which is just an illusion, a fiction, an unreality. What is the past - this is the place where the “now”, “today” me no longer exists (I have already “left” from there); and what is the future - this is the place where the “now” me is not yet... It turns out that “history” is a place where I am not (the place of my absence), and it does not matter at all whether I am no longer there or not yet; no – and that’s it! Everyone can carry out a simple experiment - put two mirrors ''face to face'' at a short distance from each other and light a light between them - a match, a candle, a light bulb - and then, looking into any of the mirrors, he will see a row of mirrors lost in infinity , in each of which a light burns, endlessly reflected in the infinity of reflections... This is the image and example of our perception today, the measure of which is the lie of the absence of the True us. Our familiar past and future are just distorted and distorted reflections of our True ‘Now’ by lies. FIFTH MISCONCEPTION – THE STATE If our reality is a lie of our ignorance of our True selves and, accordingly, rejection of the Truth, then the “state” in this reality is a lie generated by a lie and, in turn, generates an even greater lie... In our reality there is for us the following concepts: - ''country'' is the place where I live; ‘’motherland’’ 9rod, rody’na – translated from Russian – people of my kind, family, circle of close and distant relatives, etc.) - these are the people among whom and with whom I live; but the “state” - although it tries to pretend to be both a homeland and a country, it is actually neither one nor the other; but there is a lie that rules this people in this country... So - provided that the country is the place where I ''live'', and the homeland is the people among whom and with whom I ''live'' in this country; - the state is the lie of our deadness-unbornness, dying in our godlessness and inhumanity, ruling us in our country. Or in another way – ‘’the state’’ IS THE LIE OF MY INHUMANITY, THAT HAS SEIZED POWER IN MY COUNTRY OVER MY PEOPLE; THE RESULT OF HER/LIES/ IS THE DESTRUCTION OF MY PEOPLE IN MY COUNTRY AND MY COUNTRY TOGETHER WITH MY PEOPLE. When I write “mine”, I mean the inhumanity not only of myself or of any individual “Vani”, “Ahmed”, “Solomon” or “Patrick”, but the inhumanity of each and everyone of people; When I write the word ''country'', I mean not only Russia or Serbia, Israel or Iraq, but the whole World (although this applies to each individual ''country'' to the fullest extent)... Therefore, it will be absolutely true the meaning of the phrase - ''STATENESS'' IS THE LIE OF OUR INHUMANITY, THAT HAS SEIZED POWER IN OUR WORLD BOTH OVER US AND OVER OUR ENTIRE WORLD AS A RESULT OF EACH OF US ACCEPTING THE LIE ITSELF AS A MEASURE OF EVERYTHING. We can regain power over ourselves and our world in only one way - by refusing lies in all its manifestations... As a result of refusing lies, we receive not just some kind of ''power'' (even the most ''great'' ) in this world, and according to the concepts of this world; but we receive TRUE power - the power to be YOURSELF and make your own choice of YOURSELF and YOURSELF. WITHOUT REFUSING TO LIE, ANY CHOICE YOU CHOICE WILL BE FALSE. THE RESULT OF SUCH A/FALSE/ DECISION WILL BE/AND IS!/ AN ENDLESSLY INCREASING ETERNAL DISAPPEARANCE OF EVERYTHING IN YOU AND YOU IN EVERYTHING, WHICH YOU WILL ‘EXPERIENCE’ FOREVER. Lies rule in two ways - from inside our consciousness and from outside. From within - and simply impersonating us, our thoughts, feelings and concepts, and mixing with all our feelings, thoughts, sensations and awarenesses, distorting and perverting them; outside - through other people who, being deceived, like all of us, do deeds of lies (evil, inhumanity), succumbing to internal poison due to weakness of will and character, or completely consciously, recognizing lies as their master and the only and desired goal. So, it is these people we see, looking at the “state”, it is they who we consider to be in power, those in power, it seems to us that everything depends on their decisions... In fact, they are dolls, puppets in the hands of lies, unable to not only for the whole country, but even for ourselves to decide at least something... In fact, the “final” decision consists of the decisions of each of us and the decision of any of us can be decisive not only for him, but also for a huge many people who recognized this decision as their own; lies try in every possible way to convince us of the opposite - that we do not make decisions, and that nothing depends on our decisions; in those who, being mistaken and deceived, think that it is they who decide the fate of the world due to their own exclusivity, a lie until the last second maintains faith in this, not giving them the opportunity to correct or change anything... MISCONCEPTION SIXTH - MONEY Any coin or a bill, not to mention a ''bank account'' is not bread, not water, not air, not housing, not happiness, not joy, and indeed nothing of what is and is reality for us... That is , we can assert with absolute confidence that although “money” claims to be the equivalent (presence) of everything, in fact it is evidence of the absence (disappearance) of everything both from you and from each and every person, by measure to all who have this ''world'' and its laws... Just as for every sane person the self-replenishing and self-regenerating source of everything (food, clothing..., life) is nature (and for the wise, behind nature is God, who created it), so for every idiot (moron - one who, despite his stupidity; whoever considers it wisdom cherishes and cherishes it) money stands above everything (loot, money, money, bucks...). In fact, behind the multi-colored pieces of paper there is what in ancient books is called “mammon” - deception, stupidity, false, disappearing wealth... Mammon (mammon, mam) is such a state of a person when he voluntarily transfers his property of omnipotence (ownership of everything , possession of everything, disposal of everyone - someone or something - someone (or something) he is not, that is, not himself. The result of this state is the disappearance of a person (at one speed or another) in what he owned and the disappearance of what a person owned in the person himself (with a person, for a person). While money was still material (silver, gold, copper, nickel, paper...), the process of “monomization” was at least somehow restrained and regulated by “natural” factors (metal needs to be mined, a ship with gold could sink, pieces of paper could be stolen etc.) and therefore a person. Electronic “money” marked the stage when man lost the last remnants of his former omnipotence; he no longer owns anything (including himself!) and does not dispose of anything autocratically; - the maximum that he can count on in his current state is to be a petty servant in the Mamon reservation, and “for bread and water” diligently ruin himself, people, the world... The banking system is occupied with one thing only - making money. Where the banking system comes, fields and women stop giving birth, men disappear, and nature goes crazy, destroying what is left... SEVENTH MISCONCEPTION - KNOWLEDGE...No closed system can prove its truth (test itself for the truth of its statements, decisions and actions) based on itself - this requires a certain quantity that is outside the given system and serves as a measure (axiom) for the given system. Each of today's people is a self-closed system (a system closed on itself); and everything that I perceive as external to myself - the world, sky, earth and everything in the world, on earth, in the sky, including “other” people - are in fact just aspects (various forms) my awareness of myself; - that is, being elements of this system itself, they are “inside” it and, accordingly, cannot serve as a measure for this very system - man; Based on this, any and all of our “knowledge” cannot be true and, therefore, is false and is a lie. Both our “knowledge” itself and the system of teaching “knowledge”, based on the concept of supplying (teaching) “knowledge” from the outside, are deception. Since each of the people is such a closed system, then all knowledge is not outside of him, but in himself he himself is, as the entire possible extent of himself as the mind (the concept of the “body” about himself), the limit (limits ) which is corporeality (materiality) in all its many manifestations (material world, world of matter)... This means that every “external” teacher, himself being in fact one of the elements of the student’s world (one of the manifestations of the student himself as a closed system), does not introduce any “external” concepts for the student, taken from outside him (the student), but in one way or another helps (or prevents) various extensions of himself from becoming visible to the student, no matter - mental or physical. The student himself, in addition to direct participation in “learning,” also decides for himself whether to agree to certain “discoveries” or not. So, it is impossible to teach any people what is not in them; but it is possible to give the fact that they contain any form and any image (including distortion and distortion, as in a distorting mirror), accessible to a given person (or group of people). EIGHTH MISCONCEPTION - ''BODY'' OR IN ANOTHER WAY - CORPORITY We are all accustomed to the fact that everything in our world has its own boundary-limit (limitation) - earth, water, atmosphere, objects, molecules, atom, laws, life... But with all this, earth, water, air, trees, birds, people, sky... for us there is a single, integral world, where water is absolutely not earth, and a bird is not air, although water on earth (and in the earth) is a bird in the air; the object (body) is absolutely not the molecules of which, as we are convinced, it seems to be composed; molecules are not atoms at all, although they seem to be composed of them; well, people are not at all what they eat... In fact, the world does not consist of people, trees, birds, etc.; neither bodies consist of molecules and those, in turn, do not consist of atoms, and those of elementary particles, and those of... These are ''just'' different unfoldings (extensions) of our ''world'' within its inherent limits (restrictions). And our “world” is our sense of self within the limits of our self-awareness; and the limit of our self-awareness, which determines our sense of self, is our “now” state of deadness) unbornness), or more simply - corporeality (that is, when all my self-awareness is limited by the self-awareness of an individual body in its possible relationships with many other individual bodies). Blindness does not cancel light and color - it simply does not know them; deafness does not cancel the singing of birds and the roar of a waterfall - it simply does not hear them... Likewise, physicality cannot cancel anything - it simply does not know anything except itself (and cannot know!); being a “thing in itself”, it has itself as the measure of the All; being a lie, he lies about everything, posing as Everything. Likewise, the mental and spiritual are simply different forms (states) of herself, differing from stone or “meat” only by the density of her “matter”, so she weighs souls (in grams!), but she has spirits always either women, or men, or even a mixture of a goat, a bat and a connecting rod bear with leprosy... She, without any hesitation, claims that you are just a piece of meat of one shape or another, one size or another, endowed with her - physicality with certain properties and qualities, and only this is your beginning and your absolute end... NINTH MISCONCEPTION - THE WORLD Our entire life experience, which contains all our feelings, thoughts, sensations, touches..., everything external and internal, everything base and everything high, everything accepted and rejected; in short - that's it! is the passage of oneself by oneself and is our world, containing within itself the worlds of all other people as its own manifestations and, in turn, contained in each of these other worlds as a manifestation of themselves... This ''our'' world is the limitation of the World The true absence of God and Man, which (absence) in turn is our unbornness (deadness) and is the lie of our current self-awareness. The lie is not the True World itself, which is the event of God and Man, but our current self-awareness and self-awareness, which is our current “world”, where we look and do not see; listening, we do not hear; touching - we do not feel; not having been born, we do not have true feelings; being dead (unborn), we know ourselves not in the throes of birth, but in grave decomposition... This grave is I myself, who does not want to be born, this grave is my world, hopeless, meaningless and joyless in the grave, where everything always ends in worms... MISCONCEPTION TENTH – GOD? GODS...GODS Like in a cup of wine, when they add poison to it, no matter which side you drink from, you would still sip the poison; so it is in our self-consciousness - all concepts and each and every concept are poisoned by the poison of atheism. Already in the choice itself (there is a God or there is no God, he, she or they, which one to choose and then what to do with him...) everything is false - it is impossible to choose something that does not exist for you at all, that is simply absent in your consciousness... you godless everything is godless, everywhere, always and for everything there is no God! For you, a godless person, there is only the absence of God everywhere, always and in every way... By making a choice in yourself and from your own, you are actually making a choice for yourself; moreover, your own self, and not God’s, false, and not True... And then, having renounced your chosen self (there is no God...) or accepting (there is a God - he is like this, like this and like that) you build a relationship with “this”, completely not understanding what you did - not only did you call it not yourself (and the rule is cruel - he said - and it became so), but you also made ''him'' the measure of all yours; and now “it” rules over you and yours... He of the people who wants to be a Man chooses Himself and His own, rejecting himself and his own; that is, realizing that everything that he knows as himself and his (and even as not himself and not his) is a lie of inhumanity and godlessness, he leaves all this for the sake of what he does not know - God’s Himself and the True God. One of the people who desires changes (himself and his own) only within the framework of himself today, having himself and his own as the measure of everything, is an idolater and an idolater, no matter what he calls himself and no matter what rank, dignity and position he holds; the same one of the people who, by the measure of his changes, wants to have God and Man in spite of ''...the powers, principalities and authorities of this age...'', rejecting ''his'' habitual opinion for the sake of doing the will of God - he is the True admirer of God, is anarchist and stands on the path to Humanity; The will of God is for everyone to become like Him (likeness is the acquisition by the likener of the properties and qualities of the one to whom he is likened while preserving his nature and Personality). By the way, the idol, imitating God, also wants everyone to be like him; Considering that he (the idol) is your absence (disappearance, non-existence), you can imagine what the fulfillment of his (that is, ''your'') desire results in... He who has rejected ''...power, authority and the beginning of this age...'' gains autocracy and by the power of God-likeness he transforms himself and transforms his own, giving birth to God-manhood in himself and himself being born a Man of God... PART TWO - THE TRUTH How many people, so many opinions... We do not argue about the ''truth'' and do not prove it... We believe in it/The Truth / we just believe and trust her alone; and we speak about Her not out of selfishness or conceit, but for the sake of faith of those who want to know Her and become Her children... And our faith is based on the experience of many, many people whom the Truth has made Free... GOD Only the Beginning itself can be Beginning... The True Beginning is God, who is the Beginning, Extension and Completion of both Himself and Everything that is in Him. He is the Creator of Everything, and Everything is His Creation. Apart from God (outside him, apart from him) there is nothing, but Everything is in Him and is His. Outside of God there is no being (existence), for God Himself is Being. He is the Being of both Himself and the All in Himself. God is not only the Being of Himself, but also the Essence/content, meaning, nature.../of Himself. As an Essence - He is One (in the sense of quantity - one and only; in the sense of quality - one, whole, indivisible...) - God; as Being He is threefold - Beginning, Extension and Completion. Being is the Life of God in Himself by Himself. The One God, who has a triple Existence, is the One God-Trinity, where the Beginning is the whole of God, and not a part of God; Extension is the whole of God, not a part of God; Completion is the whole of God, and not a part of God, and all together (Beginning, Extension and Completion) they are the same whole One God-Trinity. We will not say anything more about God... Not because we have nothing to say, but precisely because too much has been said about him; and any word we say will immediately evoke associations with one or another religious movement or denomination... The reader, willingly or unwillingly, will think that we are speaking on behalf of some and against others... In fact, as we have already said, in all existing religions, religious denominations and simply all sorts of “near-religious” currents, God has been so replaced by human speculation and perversions of the godless mind that even the most “high” of them, whose origins are not demonic obsession, but True insight and even the Epiphany, separate God because of the lies that stick to everything, it becomes more and more difficult... Any true Word about God heard by a person immediately disappears in his head under a whole avalanche of all sorts of mental rubbish piled up there, from under which it is almost impossible to get anything out...
But what is impossible for man is possible for God... The Truth itself comes out to meet those who seek It; guides, instructs and protects a person, even when, due to his insensibility, he does not see, hear or notice anything... Seek and you will find; knock and it will be opened to you; ask - and it will be given to you... MAN...Man was created in the image and likeness of God... In Himself as Being, God “moved” (decreased...) as an Essence, giving the opportunity to appear (create, create) a new being of a new essence. This new essence, which has received its personal existence, is Man. For the creation of Man, God did not have any external (independent of him - God) reasons forcing him to perform this action; the only Cause of creation is God himself, and the only “motive” that prompted him to create Man is Love. Himself being superabundant Love (that which is always greater than itself), God wanted someone else besides Him to be the Beloved (the one who is loved) and the Lover (the one who loves)... P.S. ...Please do not confuse Love and lust, Love and narcissism, Love and consumerism (... I love cabbage pies, a mink coat and driving a Merc...); in short - I ask you not to confuse God-manhood with our current state of a numb, senseless, decaying corpse... Man created by God is (in the likeness of God) a One (Whole) Being, in the image of God having a triple existence (Himself in God and God in Himself)... Man is all of God's creation; but being (like God) an abundant being, he is always “greater” than all creation; always being inseparably - unmerged (that is, when two, being inseparable, do not merge so that one of them absorbs the other) is united with God and having Him as its own measure, it grows endlessly in God and by God. Having God as his boundless Beginning, Extension, and Completion, Man himself is the beginning, extension and completion of all creation. The triple existence of Man is the existence of Soul, Mind and Flesh; where the Soul is the beginning of Everything in Man and any and all beginnings in Man; Mind is the extension of Everything in Man and any and all extensions in Man; The Flesh is the completion of Everything in Man and is each and every completion in Man. This “Everything” itself is the creation of God and is Man himself. The soul is the whole Man, and not a part (piece) of the Man; The Mind is the whole Man, and not a part of the Man; The flesh is the whole Man, and not a part of the Man; and all together they are One Whole Man. The soul is no more and no less than Mind and Flesh, but at the same time it is absolutely neither Mind nor Flesh; The mind is no more and no less than the Soul and Flesh, but at the same time it is absolutely not Soul and Flesh; Flesh is no less and no more than the Soul and Mind, but at the same time it is absolutely neither Mind nor Soul... The Soul cannot be without Mind and Flesh, the Mind cannot be without Soul and Flesh, the Flesh cannot be without Soul and Mind. Only together they are Man; Separately, they “can be” only in a lied non-existence... The One (Whole) Man, as extension and limit, contains within himself each and every Man (all Men), himself being contained in each and every Man as limit and extension. The One Man, himself being the beginning and the end of each and every Man, each and every Man has for himself both the beginning and the end. Each and every Man, containing within himself each and every Man (all Men), is One Whole Man; and all together they are the same One Whole Man... The One Whole Man is an autocratic being and without his will nothing can happen in him or with him. The will of God is accomplished in Man only with his (Man’s) permission (consent); in the same way, the will of Man is accomplished in God only with the permission of God. Just as in the Divine-Human Existence everything happens only if the wills agree, so in the existence of the One Whole Man everything happens only if the wills of all Humans (all Humanity) agree among themselves. As in the previous chapter, we break off the conversation here; and as in the previous chapter - not because there is nothing more to say... Any ''truths'' without the experience of going through them with oneself remain an empty, meaningless sound... We have given here only those True statements, without which further narration would have been simply impossible. Still, you can find out “the rest” if you follow the path proposed to you... ...Yes, also - don’t try to immediately understand and explain everything with your current mind, the measure of which is inhumanity. The most that you will achieve in this case is to get lost even more in those false concepts with which your head is filled... In short, the one who walks will master the road... CREATION God's Creation is the true World and is the joint Existence (Event) of God and Man. Now let’s digress a little and try, if not to understand the principle on which Man’s own “view” of Everything is based, then at least to outline it; Without this, further conversation will be extremely difficult. So, let’s imagine a certain segment AB, where A and B are the edges (ends, boundaries, limits) of the segment, and the segment itself stretches “from edge to edge.” Neither ‘edges’ nor ‘extension’ can be torn off (separated) from each other; - if you remove the edges, and instead of a segment you will get something boundless (infinite), which has neither a name nor a definition; if you remove the extension, you get a point that has neither shape nor size... The segment itself (according to the mathematics textbook) can be divided (divided) into any number (from two to infinity) of pieces - parts of different lengths (extension), which will somehow correlates both with the “whole” segment itself and with each other (it goes without saying that each of them will have its own boundaries); but all this is subject to one condition - the original segment itself should not disappear anywhere. (Although our “life” experience speaks of something else - if we take and break - divide the whole, then instead of it we will get a large or not very large pile of fragments; but the whole will not exist...). So - in fact (in Man) it is impossible to divide the Whole (One) so that the Whole disappears, and separate parts or pieces arise... What in mathematics is represented as parts, or as the resulting ''other'' segments, in Man there is one and the same Whole, but within different boundaries - limits, differently limited and defined by the Man himself. So, the Whole is both the limit of Itself and the extension of Itself; moreover, any and every limit to Himself and any and every extension of Himself. Man is (by participation in God) a Single Whole Being. Man is the entire Creation of God, but by being like God, he (Man) is “greater” than the entire Creation. (To be ''more'' of oneself means that in Man there is always a Measure that exceeds any of his ''now'' state, according to which he can always be Other. This Measure for Man is God. To be more than Creation means that Man , being the ''One'' of Creation, there is Fullness and Measure for it). Only on the condition that Man is One, Creation is Whole. Man is One, subject to inseparability from God. Man is the “Head” of all Creation, and Creation is all his “Flesh”. Just as the head is inseparable from the body, so the body is inseparable from the head. As the head rules over the body, so Man rules over the creation; and just as the head knows its body not as something separate from itself, but as ‘itself’ and experiences all the feelings and sensations of the body as its own, so Man ‘knows’ the whole Creation by Himself and feels it as ‘Himself’. WORLD Man is the True World and Everything in the True World is Human. The world is the place of human life. The life of Man is the existence of Man in Himself by Himself. The world is the existence of Man in himself by himself; The measure of this being is God. The World of Man is the One Whole World, the completeness of which is Man. Man is the One of the Whole World; The world is the Whole of this One. Being a Whole, the World is not divided into any parts, pieces, zones, sectors, spaces, worlds, universes; but everywhere and always there is the same One Whole World; divided, He is shown to us by our lied consciousness, the measure of which is a lie. Man “defines” the World and is the limit (limitation, boundaries) of this World (the world cannot be without man, outside of man and “more” than man) and any and every limit in this World. Man is the entire Extent of this World, the extension of everything in this World, and any and all extensions of the World and in the World. The Soul of Man is the Beginning of the whole World (any and all) and is any and all beginnings in the World. The Human Mind is the Extent of the entire World (any and all) and there is any and all extension in the World. Human Flesh is the Completion (not the “end”, but the peak, the maximum possible height) of the whole World and everything in the World - anyone and anything. Each and every limit limits the entire World, and not part of the World; and in each and every limit the whole World/as a Whole/. Each and every limit is the whole World, and not a part of the World, and determines not a part of the World, but the whole World. ///Here we again make a small digression. It is necessary so that the concept of “limit” becomes at least somewhat clearer. Of course, we will take examples from the world that is familiar to us, a world where, I remind you once again, the laws of our unbornness (inhumanity) operate. By the way, I remind you that there cannot be a limit without extension, just as extension cannot exist without a limit. Let's take a tree - it is both a limit and an extension; limit (definition) – not a rock, not a ball, not a dog... but a tree; extent - trunk, branches, leaves, how we see, feel, use it; but at the same time leaves, trunk, wood, ash, yellow, dry... in turn, there are partial limits (definitions) of the main limit “tree”; but they are also partial extensions of the main extension - ‘tree’. Unclear? For our today's brains - yes... But not for our Real Mind... In short - when you grow up, you will understand.///. And at the end of this chapter - about dimensions... In the True World, everything is not the same as with us... Any and all extensions (''distances'', lengths, masses, volumes...) are the extension of Man himself in Himself, from Himself and to Himself, filled with Himself. So Time in the True World is the distance from Man and to Man, which is Man himself. Moreover, in every moment of “time” there is simultaneously all of Time and all other moments/Times/ of this Time; and this moment itself, containing all Time and all other moments, is itself simultaneously located in all other moments, both as a moment and as all Time. In every moment there is all Time and all Times. Time is the extension of the One Whole Man, the limit of which is the Man himself, and Times are the entire set of extensions of all People in the One Whole Man, the partial limits of which are each of the People, and the main Limit is the same One Whole Man. This is an absolute rule not only for Time, but for each and every one of the extensions and limits. AUTHORITY ‘’…All authority is from God…’’. Not “all” is from God, but “power” is from God... To rule over Oneself and One’s own is a normal property/quality/ of Man. It is impossible to rule over something that is not ‘you’ and not ‘yours’. To rule means to be This, to be in This, to have It in Yourself as Yourself and Yours... Lord, Master does not mean “master”, “director”, “administrator” (worldly kings, ministers, presidents, commanders , despots, “fathers of nations”, etc....), who are just stewards, that is, absolute slaves of the existing “order”, which they did not establish and which they cannot change even the slightest; they are just ''stupid'' executors (if they weren't ''stupid'' - they would truly rule...) of someone else's will, agreeing for ''lentil stew'' (trinkets like ''...love of money, love of fame, pride...'') sell your birthright... The Lord is the absolute Head and Law of Himself and His, bearing absolute responsibility for Himself and His. Responsibility lies in the fact that whatever you wish or do, happens in You and with You. As long as there is at least something in you that is not you and not yours, you are not a Master, but a slave; as long as you are not in Yourself and not in Yours, you are a slave; as long as “not your” will exists for you, “not your” law, you are a slave... The True Man, being the True Master, is not a slave to God, but a Son, beloved and loving; True Man does not rule over other Men, but being the Son of God, knows all other Men as Sons of God and loves them as Brothers. Each of the people who does not love others (... a person should not hate people, but the inhumanity that is in them; for this he must separate inhumanity from people...), denies Himself Sonship and renounces Autocracy in favor of godlessness and inhumanity... Nowadays we are all ''in denial'', all slaves, all fatherless, not knowing their family and tribe... But it is now that each of us can ''remember'' who he is; and having remembered, want to return to the Father... NOW Now is not Time, not Times and not any of the moments of Time and Times (True). Now is a state outside of Time and Times; extension, the limit of which is the unbornness (of man in God and God in man), and the measure is the absence of God and Man. This is not a theological treatise; and therefore we will not analyze in detail how and why we found ourselves in this state (we refer those interested to our text “COSMOGONY”). We simply state that our presence in this “now” is an absolutely reliable fact, confirmed by the reality of each of us. .. The reality of our being in this ''now'' (in fact, the being itself!) is characterized by the following properties, qualities and features: - we do not know ourselves (and we don't know ''ourselves'' ''today'' either; we do not Live (and do not even ''exist''), but ''pass through'' our unbornness (disappearance, absence of Man); we are subordinate to what we should have power over; subordinated for the sake of our instruction and admonition, but instead of gaining we enslave thoughtlessly and passionately to prudence; we disappear without being born; not recognizing the Man of God in ourselves and others, we deny both God and Man; instead of sanctifying, we subject ourselves to a curse, and having fallen under a curse (our own!), we blame in despair in this there is God... Well, now in more detail... Man as a Unity is generally impossible for us ''today''; being outside our concepts and sensations, he is inaccessible to either our reason or our perception; everything that we ''know'' or say about this, there are “hazy visions in the cloudy mirror” of our delusional consciousness... Only by allowing God, like a pregnant wife, to bear and give birth to Himself, does a person come to know the One – Himself and the One – His... Remaining “present”, we remain ' 'victim of an abortion', which they themselves committed; a miscarriage who does not want to be born, who rejects God as a Parent... The triplicity of Man - Soul, Mind, Flesh - is also “not visible” and incomprehensible to us; more precisely, our unbornness, having obscured the True, in itself obliquely and crookedly reflects It (the Triplicity), putting it in the most incredible and monstrous forms. So, “now”, not being unified and integral, everything is presented to us in the form of many sets, then united on the basis of some laws external to them, not arising from their properties and qualities into certain groups, associations, communities and objects (galaxies, molecules, peoples, heaven and earth, people, mountains, animals...), then falling apart according to the same ''laws'' into parts, pieces, fragments, fragments, components... Moreover, the fact that in one case looks like decay and decomposition, in another it is passed off as creation, appearance, formation (and vice versa). In the dividing and disintegrating (disappearing) ''now'' the Soul of Man is reflected as certain causes and principles, laws and rules both of the ''now'' itself and of everything that is located, happening and acting visibly or invisibly in it - events, processes, ''mechanisms'', structures, states, properties, qualities - everything possible and impossible; She (the Soul) in this reflection is not a Man, outside of Man (and outside of man, people), just a “soulless” law, rule, moment, fate, compulsion, like “now” itself, changeable and deceptive... Mind A person is displayed in “now” as the entire extent of firstly all this “now”, and secondly - as the entire extent of all these causes, principles, laws and rules (all their actions, all their actions), events, processes , properties, structures, reactions, feelings, sensations, images, thoughts, reasoning... The Flesh of Man is displayed firstly as the “now” itself - the material world, the world of “substance”, where all these principles, rules... etc . d. embodied; secondly, as each and every result (completion) of the action of all principles, rules and laws, events, feelings, images, reasoning, decisions (conscious and not very conscious), actions and inactions both throughout the entire length of ''now'' and in each and every limit of this ''now''. The integrity of Man is reflected by the ability of objects to have a certain form and content (stone, apple, planet, thought, body...) and preserve them for some time, and the possibility (property) of Man to be different and different in “now” is presented as limited multiplicity (plurality); it (they) is limited by “now” itself, which acts as both the main and partial limits (limitations), acting both “outside” and “inside” the set. Let us give examples for a better understanding of this: - many trees of many species, but a palm tree will not become a maple, and an oak will not grow from an oat grain...; there are many men and many women, but despite the fact that each of the men is a man, and each of the women is a woman, they all differ in appearance, age, upbringing, belonging to one or another nation, race, place of residence, state of health etc.; each of them can change the shape of their body (for a while) or change the shape of their “mind”; but it is impossible to replace your mind with “someone else’s” mind, and if an individual of a certain sex, completely crazy, decides to change this sex, then “it” will only be able to change external signs, without affecting the inner essence at all (even if there are changes included in the genotype), which is the same for all people - “man” - albeit with a small letter; ''man'' and ''woman'' are man's own manifestations, so that by giving up one of them, you lose both, gaining nothing but devastation and dehumanization (by giving up a sign, you actually give up the essence, and so Since it is impossible to abandon the essence, the essence becomes simply invisible and inaccessible to the “individual” to one degree or another, and along with the essence, all its manifestations become inaccessible). By giving up masculinity, you do not gain femininity; by denying femininity, you do not become a man... An individual who has renounced humanity is devastated; being devastated, it dies. So every pervert should be considered as having abandoned humanity, and therefore not human. Hence, one can (and should!) be accepted back into human society only through repentance for what one has done... however, we will talk about this in another part of our book. The Personality of Man is reflected in ''nowadays'' by ''individuality'', when each ''individual'' defines itself as different (''not the same'') from others, and not only by any external signs, but by some internal self-determination - ''I'' (which is actually a reflection of the Personality distorted by ''the present''). But if any and every Man, being the One Whole, contains within himself all other Men (each and every One, Whole, Personal Man), then the “individual” knows every other individual (and all other individuals) only as existing outside itself , separately from herself (even a mother carrying a child knows him as being inside her body, but not inside her “I”). Being itself a body (in its current self-awareness), it (individual) and everything that is inside it knows as a multitude of bodies of one or another shape, size, color/etc./... possessing certain properties and qualities and related to it (individual) in one way or another; an individual can even know “its own” thoughts, feelings, sensations only if they are corporeal – if “feelings”, then the feelings of the body; if thoughts, then clothed in bodily images; if sensations, then only what is in the ''body'' or outside the ''body'', but necessarily ''through'' the body (through the body) and nothing other than (without) the body... As with ''one'' body , so with all ''other'' bodies an individual has (and builds) only external relations, characterized by one property common to these relations - each and every ''body'' (even ''its own'') has one or another the degree of external independence (or dependence) on a person - a person can cut down a tree, and a tree can fall on a person; but a person cannot change the type of tree or turn it into a fish or bird (a boat and an airplane do not count...); in the same way, ''my'' body ''lives'' its own ''life'' - I can do something with it, but being an individual, I cannot control its internal processes (and I don’t!), which I'm completely closed; Well, again - I can’t turn it into a bear or a rat... Now about the body (physicality) with which an individual sees and knows itself - its properties, qualities, features... The body of an individual contains within itself all the possible extensions of itself for a given individual '' and ''ours'', the limit of which is it. This means that the body (corporality) initially contains all the properties, qualities, laws, and rules possible for a given individual that determine the existence of both this individual and the world in which it exists. It is impossible to either add to what is inherent in the physicality of a certain individual, or remove anything from the “embedded” without the disappearance of the world of a given individual and the given individual itself with its world and the appearance of another individual and another world... The individual can only choose one or another variant of the inherent into her physicality of the world and herself in this world. All possible extensions for a given individual are a person’s idea (concept) of himself, limited by his (individual’s) physicality. All possible limits (limitations) of a given individual are the bodily embodiment of a person’s concept of himself, limited by a given individual (individual). The measure of such an extension and such a limit (such limits and extensions) is the absence of God and Man. The body of an individual, which it knows as separate from the world (the body is not the world) and separate in the world (from other bodies), has a “mind,” which is a person’s idea (concept) of himself, limited by the separateness of the body. Based on this, we can say that ‘mind’ is the separate body’s concept of itself, and the body is the embodiment of the separate mind; their measure is the same absence of God and Man. Just as a person does not know himself as a Whole, but sees himself as a separate individual among many other similar individual individuals, then a separate individual does not know Wholeness. She cannot know (see, feel, perceive) her own body in its entirety, nor her own mind. Just as she/individual/ can perceive her body only in fragments (parts, pieces), so her mind is accessible to her only in the form of fragments - thoughts, images, concepts that she connects in certain chains (thinking). It’s the same story with the world around the individual... P.S. /fragment, part... is the whole mind or the whole body, limited by the perception of an individual, the measure of which (perception) is the absence of Integrity. This, in brief, is what we had to say about our present condition. Now we move on to the question of ''what to do'' and ''how to do''; and “why” and “for what” is now, we hope, clear... PART THREE - DOING The first, main, only and indispensable condition of any, any and every conscious action of yours must be the belief that only God-manhood is the True The goal, and the True Measure of this Goal is God. Why faith? Because faith is “knowledge” of the unknowable; without this faith, your usual feelings, thoughts, ideas, states..., setting themselves and theirs as the goal, will easily and simply spin you around and get lost in themselves, as they have always done successfully before and continue to do now... Walking along the path of faith, you in the future you will learn not only to believe ''in God'', but also to ''trust'' God. “Trust” lies in your recognition that you are God’s; that is, that it is God who is your Creator and Creator, who invested Himself in you as the Measure/Standard/ of all your properties and qualities, becoming your Strength and Power, the boundless Pinnacle of your ascent in Himself by Himself and to Himself... He, being yours With Love, Joy and Happiness, for your sake I became a man, I went through all your non-existence - all your sorrows, troubles and suffering, hardships and losses; all your powerlessness, lack of will and slavery; all your ignorance, delusions and despair; all your crimes and betrayals, malice and hatred... - so that nowhere and never, at any point in your wandering / passage / through this ‘world’, you would not find yourself alone and disappear, lost in this loneliness of inhumanity; but everywhere and always, at any moment, you could, by grasping within yourself for Him, your Beginning and Top, be born as a new Man. So, only by accepting this Everything “on faith” will it be possible for you to find Yourself (...everything is possible for the believer; the non-believer is already doomed...). To begin with, the concepts about God and Man that are presented here are quite sufficient; everything else will be acquired as each Path passes... We repeat once again - we are not going to arrange interfaith and interreligious showdowns here; our book is for those who are already ‘’ready’’, for whom this ‘’world’’, and everything that is in this ‘’world’’ ‘’...worse than a bitter radish...’’; ‘’...throwing pearls before swine...’’ is the most stupid and thankless task of all possible... REASONING The only True Gift (from God) is the Gift of reasoning (... a fool does not have a glass toy for long - he will break the toy and cut himself...). Without reasoning, everything, no matter what, is turned by people into a means of their own destruction. Therefore, we begin with him and him in the hope that we will end with him and him... So, I “today” am dead (unborn). This means that I am “dead”, all states, feelings, thoughts, decisions and actions are “dead” - their origin is deadness; length – dying; the result (completion) is death (non-existence, absence of self, experienced forever...). Whatever I touch (with my mind, feelings, hands, eyes...), I make everything ''dead'', decaying and filled with corpse poison, which in turn poisons everything, infecting with death... ...And God forbid I agree with the thought that supposedly I’m not completely dead, that I’m at least a little bit, but still (or already!) alive...; and therefore there is something good in me, and even if sometimes, I can do it, and moreover, I do good and beautiful things (well, I just sow and sow it around!)... You are dead! And you don’t live, but you go through your deadness (your dead self, the absence of Self). And if earlier you went through it (deadness), not wanting to know anything other than it and agreeing with it, dying senselessly and mediocrely, now you can (and must - to yourself!) at each and every moment of passing, at any and every point of inhumanity reject the lie of non-existence and give yourself and yours to God, be born as a New Man in the New World (please do not confuse it with “reincarnation”, I’m certainly not talking about this stupidity!). You are dead; but you're alive! Dead from your godlessness and inhumanity, but alive from God and Man... ...You die, seducing, raping and infecting with non-existence (the absence of God and Man) in yourself and with yourself (every thought, feeling, desire, decision and action, the measure of which is the lie of ignorance of the Truth) the entire Creation of God, which is given by God to you for Power, and which is the Whole of You... ...You are resurrected from death, giving God the opportunity to be born in you as a Man; in the Man born in you, you yourself are born God... P. S. I warn you once again - without knowledge of the Russian language, an accurate and complete understanding of this and similar phrases is impossible! ///…To truly know is not only to be able to pronounce something, sort of like ‘in Russian’, but to think in Russian and in Russian. Russian is not one of the many ''national'' ''fen'', but there is a ''royal language'' (''language'' in Russian - people). Rus-Ros - King of kings; Russian - tsar, prince, lord, lord; he is a king because he was “adopted” by the King - the One and True - and received his kingdom from the hands of the King as an Heir. So - Russian is not a sign of “nationality”, but a sign of a person’s belonging to the True God-Humanity...) ...Not the Russian who is “Russian” according to his passport, but the one who walks under God...///. ...In you dead (not born, dying) everything is finite, everything comes to its disintegration, decomposition, disappearance; for you, the unborn, there is only one thing left - to forever “experience” the disappearance of everything in yourself and yourself in everything... ...For you, the One Who is Born, Everything is always in eternal Renewal, Everything is always New and Different; and You, in this eternal Renewal, are eternally New and Different... ///...If a pregnant wife does not give birth at her due time, then the child will die inside her; if the child is not born, then the wife will also die.../// You - the Man - are the Whole World; but at the same time, You are always infinitely ‘’More’’ than the Whole World... You - one of the people - are the whole world in which you exist (whether you know it or not, it doesn’t matter...); but at the same time you are always infinitely “less” of this “your” world... You are a Man, as the trinity of Soul, Mind and Flesh is the Whole World and Everything in this World; but as a Person involved in God, You are the One Head and the One Ruler of this World, and the Measure of You/and as the World and as the Head/ is God. You are simultaneously in the World and outside the World. In the World You are the Completeness of the Whole World and Everything in the World; outside the World (''greater than the world'') You are God ''created'' by GOD; through adoption (by GOD) - the Son of God, similar to the Father in everything... You are one of the people - being in your self-consciousness-self-awareness a separate body among many other individual bodies (objects, items, individuals), in this self-consciousness you are only a very small a particle of a huge world, from which a very small piece of it (the world) is accessible to you in terms of extent in space and time. Not only can you not be outside your ''world'', but within the confines of that piece of land that seems to be accessible to you, you cannot not only be everywhere and always at once, but also simply be where you want (and so , whatever you want), just as a ''place'' in space or time can be occupied by ''not you''; and you, as an individual, cannot break or at least change the laws in this “world”... You are a Man, created in the image and likeness of God, being in God, as in the infinity of Yourself, you contain all of God in Yourself , being His limit and limitation... You are one of the people who have the “absence of God and Man” as their measure; you are infinitely determined and limited by this “...absence...”. God and everything connected with him, for you ''...absent...'' can only be known in the form of various forms of his (God) non-existence (absence, disappearance) in you and around you (for you): - he does not exist ''here'' or ''there'', if he ''is'', then where you are not and when you are not (not with you, not for you, not by you and not with you, not in your time and not in your world, not on your planet and not in your dimension...); you don’t see him, don’t hear him, don’t feel him and don’t know him, and he ‘’... doesn’t hear, doesn’t see and doesn’t want to know...’’ (according to your ‘’understanding’’); ... other people on ''his'' behalf say something to you, demand something from you, offer something, threaten with punishment and torment, or seduce with promises and tricks... The impossibility of God's presence in you and for you naturally follows and the impossibility of human existence (in you, around you, by you..). You, a Man, have everything and everyone in yourself as yourself and yours, and you yourself are in everything and everyone as belonging to everything and everyone. You are one of the people, you have everything and everyone outside yourself, separately from yourself and independently of yourself; you yourself are in everything as separate in the separate and among the separate, and if there is at least something in common between you (the separate ones), it is separateness. So, you ‘today’ are dual. On the one hand, you are a Man, created ‘’...in the image and likeness of God...’’ with all the qualities and characteristics characteristic of him; on the other hand, you are one of a huge multitude (and one in a huge multitude) of people, little people, “supermen” and non-humans (depending on your conceit and the opinions of other “individuals”); a piece of meat of one size or another shape, mixed with bones and liver, feeling and wanting something... As a Person, you are absolutely unknown to yourself; you don’t like yourself like ‘’...piece of meat...’’ (otherwise you wouldn’t be reading this book!); - if so, then continue reading; if everything is different, then what will be written next is not for you and not about you; don’t bother yourself and don’t waste time on all sorts of nonsense - you have more important goals - money, a career, a buzz, a hangover... at worst - at least you won’t die of hunger... Well, are you reading? Then let's continue... Are you familiar with agriculture? Imagine a field on which a peasant sows wheat... so - you are at once the field, the wheat (grain) and the peasant. /// homework right away - try to read in Russian and understand (again in Russian!) the word ‘’peasant’’; completion date – as God willing...///. Like a field (''earth'') you can be black soil, clay, sand or stone; fertilized and weeded or completely overgrown with weeds; be a steppe or foothills, permafrost or an oasis in the Kara-Kum desert... What kind of land you are, such are the methods of processing it, such are the fertilizers, the timing of sowing and harvesting, and what to sow - wheat or millet, rice or barley also depends on this... Like a grain thrown into the ground, it is invisible, inaudible and unknown for a very long time; and only then, completely unexpectedly, a weak, barely visible sprout appears, which can be trampled by both animals and people; wash away rains or kill frosts and droughts, eat locusts or livestock or wild animals that have climbed into an unguarded field; - so it is in you today (''earth''): - for quite a long time nothing is visible except ''dirt'', humus, manure and swarming insects and worms...; and when a sprout appears, it seems that it will not live even a day... But the weak-looking sprout breaks stones and breaks through thick asphalt and ice; and the snow is a warm blanket for him... ...If the grain does not die, the ear will not grow... You cannot kill/not to be confused with “kill”/ your current passions, desires, whims, concepts, goals, reactions, relationships..., you will not see the sprout; if you don’t see it, you will trample it, burn it, kill it... ///kill it - evaluate it differently, according to another Measure (measure); not to allow the previous measure to take effect, to resist it in every possible way...///. You need to understand that the way you/and everything around you and in yourself/ today you see, feel, know, think, understand is temporary, transitory, dependent; he was allowed to be only for the sake of the birth of the True You..., so that you do not end suddenly, disappear, disappear... As a peasant, you must understand that no one else but yourself will cultivate your field - others have their fields... ; even a mercenary will come to your field, firstly, for a fee, and secondly, only because you hired him; thirdly, you still manage and control him and his work; therefore, you are still responsible for an improper result... And there is no need to refer to the weather, nature, “not like this” land, a crooked plow and a bad mare...; - the sun and the moon are for you for a reason; wind and rain, heat and cold, day and night, winter and summer - they are all in your power and it depends only on you what they are; well, he made the plow himself, and he chose the mare himself... TOTAL: Whatever goal you set for yourself; whatever you are looking for; whatever you need (and whatever gets you); - in fact, the only Goal you have (and in general can only be) is yourself; you are looking only for yourself, and nothing else (no matter what you imagine or invent); all you lack is Yourself (no matter how much the “world” deceives you and no matter what “temptations” it gives you instead of You) and only you get to yourself; or rather, your non-birth (absence) of You, which is the measure and standard for you and all yours. And even when you choose ‘god’, you are actually choosing Yourself (or yourself); - different ''gods'' and you are different... ///We are talking about the TRUE GOD, the ONE AND the only one, who cancels (abolishes) all and every kind of ''goddesses'', ''goddesses'', ''gods'' , ''gods'', ''deities'', etc.... which are just a lie of your unbornness; with HIM - the TRUE and you are TRUE, with HIM - the ONE and you are the ONE; HIM has GOD and you are GOD; with HIM, THE FATHER, you are a SON; with HIM, a PARENT, you are HIS CHILD; with HIM and for HIM, for our sake, who became a MAN, and you/and each and every one of the people/, - MAN!.../// Only the TRUE GOD is the CREATOR; HE creates a perfect CREATION; The HEAD, COMPLETENESS and LORD of which is MAN. HE (MAN), being the HEAD, COMPLETENESS and LORD of the perfect CREATION, is the absolute limit (limitation) for him (CREATION) (despite the fact that GOD is the MEASURE OF MAN himself); CREATION is the infinite extension of MAN. ///The principle of ''Perfection'' - ...perfect is only ''perfect'' when it can be anyone and everyone, including ''imperfect'', while remaining itself (without losing its inner essence, essence )… What does the concept of “imperfection” mean in this case? - It means that the “perfect”, being simultaneously itself both an extension and a limit (limitation), like extension, is always infinitely “more” than it is the limit; hence, as a limit, it (perfect) is always ‘’imperfect’’ (‘’less’’) than itself – extension. Example - Man is his own limit and extension... Like the entire Creation of God (the World), he (Man) is the infinite extension of Himself; as the Head, Completeness, Lord of this World (God's Creation), he is the limit and limitation of Himself (the World!). The world was created in...the Image and Likeness of God...and as the image and likeness of God; hence, God himself, who created the World, (as the Creator, he is infinitely “greater” than the World) serves as “Infinite Extent” for the World. Man, being an independent Personality and essence (as a Personality, he is absolutely different from all “other” Humans; as an essence, he is not God, he is a Man), he himself “defines” the World (Himself!). Since he is not God, but His (God’s) Creation, he is infinitely “less” of God, which means, as a limit, he is infinitely “less” of the World (Itself!), for which “extension” is God. From this it follows that Man is “perfect imperfection” or “imperfect perfection”; that is, a perfect being, whose life is the endless growth of Himself within Himself, by Himself, from perfection to perfection... (... I say again and again - not to be confused with “reincarnation”, this disgusting lie, the product of slavish dullness and despair!). Further, the World, even limited to the state of “peace” by our unbornness, has not lost its perfection, but ideally corresponds to us, and we correspond to it; all connections, all processes and actions are perfect; and even if we further define - we further limit Him to the state of “hell”, then even then this “hell” will be “perfect”. At the ‘’...the end of times...’’ it is not the World itself that will disappear (‘’pass’’), but that limitation – the limit by which we ‘’defined’’ it. But just as both the World and the limit are you, then it is from ‘you’ that something will remain, and something will ‘pass away’. What if you never wanted to be a Human? Then only your non-existence, unbornness, non-existence will remain, which you will “experience” as endlessly as the World is endless.../// In the True Man (as a whole, a single Being and a single whole World) all the multitude of Humans (as Personalities) and limits); Moreover, each of the Humans is a True Human: - containing in itself all other Humans, it is itself contained in each of those who are contained in it. Being for Them an absolute limit and infinite extension, He (Man) himself has them in Himself as absolute limits and infinite extensions of Himself. He, for the People contained in Him, is the main Limit, and for Him they are private Limits (those that are subordinated/defined/ to the Main One). He, contained in other People, has Them for Himself as the main Limit, Himself being a private limit for Them... That is, this means that each and every Person is determined by others only to the extent that he himself allows (determines) this; but he also defines others only to the extent (being in them) to the extent that They allow (define) Him. The fact that you “today” do not see, hear, know or understand all this only means that you cannot and do not want to see, hear, know and understand this, but that is not at all what all this does not exist... You cannot, because the measure for all of you (all your feelings, sensations, concepts and self-awareness) is your unbornness (the absence of God and Man); but you don’t want to, because all your desires and desires are determined by your “physicality” (a state that is the result of your agreement with the unborn and accepting it as an absolute measure of “everything”). So, you “physically” carry within you (invisibly, inaudibly and unknown to yourself and to others like you) God and Man. God – the True One God – Trinity: - one essence, one will, three hypostases; where the Trinity is the Life of the One God in Himself by Himself; Man is the True Creation of God, a Single Whole Being in the trinity of Soul, Mind and Flesh... Together - the God-man: - two essences, two wills, one hypostasis (Person). The question is only one thing - will this ''Face'' be yours... Until the Man is born in you (I speak for both ''believers'' and ''non-believers''), or rather, until you allow God to be born in you as a Man (you ''give birth'' to God, and God is born as a Man/I remind you - a phrase in Russian!/), until then God ''doesn't see'', ''doesn't hear'', ''doesn't know'' ': - not because God is blind, deaf and stupid, but because ''You'' simply do not exist! Instead of ''You'' - an ''egg'' that does not want fertilization, it is busy only with its ''now'' and does not want to leave this state and will simply not do so without ''coercion''! It won’t happen, and that’s it! For the sake of lustful (from the word 'lust') pleasure, I am ready for any perversion - even masochism, even bestiality! But just don’t conceive, just don’t carry it to term, just don’t give birth, especially not going to give birth, breastfeed, change diapers and generally show at least some care for the baby... (I’ll make a reservation - it’s completely normal when she grows and develops; but when she came in the ''childbearing'' age, it must be fertilized; otherwise, it is ejected, becoming unclean... /time of ''purification'' for women/). God sees, hears and knows only Man, even the smallest one, even a one-day fetus... His desires are satisfied, God pleases his feelings, God speaks to him and listens to him... And until you “conceive”, you just a little ''organic'', a very small lump of mucus, which ''lives'', and feels, and thinks so and as much as and how it is intended not for Man, but for ''mucus''... Now you are one of ''of people''. What does this mean? And the fact that in your self-awareness - self-awareness, you are a kind of “body” of a certain shape, gender, age, size, etc.; whose existence ''occurs'' in a certain ''world'', which has its own laws, history, space, material forms... This ''being'' is limited by time, place, social status, physiology, education, race, caste, '' personal properties, qualities, preferences..., natural factors and one or another chain of events..., your relationships with other people and their attitude towards you... well, etc. and so on. This is a “generally accepted” idea that is imposed on you from everywhere and in every way (both outside and inside...). But if you step back from this “generally accepted”, the following will be revealed: You are not a “body”, but you are in a “body”. In the ''body'' you are inseparable - unmerged (this means that you cannot separate from the ''body'' in this ''world'' - both the body, and you, and the world will disappear; nor merge with it/the body / absolutely / so that the body absorbs you and you disappear, or so that you “absorb” it and it disappears / cannot). So, all the talk about “leaving” the body (even “you”, even “the soul”) or about the transition from body to body, or about the multiplicity of bodies (body in the body - astral, mental, etc.) .d.) let's leave it to the idiots... ''The body'' (physicality) for you is a limit (limitation), for it you are the extension that it defines. Hence, you “pass” not the body (corporality), but your corporeal self. When you pass through all of your bodily self, then corporeality, as a limit, is abolished by the infinity of God (''abolished'' means that corporeality, as a limit, ceases to be a limitation for you and yours/and yours - those who are with you''... one spirit...''/, but does not cease to be at all, remaining the limit of this ''world'' until it/the world/ ceases). That is, you can, having passed through your physical self, remain in this world for some time (for the sake of “your own”), without being limited by either the body or the world; but since other people, who have not passed through their physical selves, know everything through physicality and the physical, then for them you will still be “in the body”, despite your spirituality (...God is Spirit..., and you must worship him in Spirit and Truth...). In the same way, your departure from this world will look to them like either the disappearance of your “body”, or its “death” and decomposition. I will repeat once again - how we got into this “state”, when, where and how - this is definitely not a question for beginners (like many other “interesting” questions); do not look for answers to them ‘outside yourself’; There is only one answer to all questions - You are the True One. It is possible to receive this answer only as you grow up and as you grow up... ''Time'' is a ''distance'' (extent) from You and to You, filled with You (although corporeality reveals it and how not ''from you'', and ''not for you'', and ''not for you''...). No corporeality can abolish God-humanity - the True Measure and Law. Therefore, every moment of your body, you have at once all Time, and all Times (all Time in any possible limitations - “pieces” of Time). Or in another way - every moment contains all of Time and all other moments of Time and any (of any ‘size’) possible extensions of Time (just like space, matter, and force...), the limitation for which is your physicality. Some of them (extensions) will look like “bodily” extensions for you as extensions in you (thoughts, feelings, sensations, desires, images, concepts, ideas, states...), while some will look like extensions outside of you: – events, situations , circumstances, people, information (...what you see, hear, touch, smell...,) etc. Both what you see as existing ''outside'' you, and what is ''inside'' you, in fact (as we have said more than once) is not ''located'' anywhere (and not '' 'then'!), but there are only partial limits of your self-consciousness, the main limit for which, in turn, is 'corporeality'. It is according to this limit that your self-consciousness defines everything as being inside and outside ''you'' (as well as any other ''object''), close - far, low - high, heavy - light, visible - invisible, hard - soft, piece - whole... etc. and so on. With all this, for you, bodily, all these “definitions” are the absolute reality of “your” existence; and any attempt to ''violate'' the laws of this reality, or ''bypass'' them for you - ''body'' entails injury, torment (both physical and ''mental''), death... Here is an example: - waking up in the morning, you know for sure that you are this and that and that, you are so and so old, you have such and such a past and such and such today, you owe this and that and you want this and this, if you live there and there, this and that surrounds you; at the same time, your body “functions” according to strictly defined laws, just like the world in which this body “lives”; according to the same laws, it (the body) ''appeared'' in this world, ''exists'' in it now and ''disappears'' in it all according to the same laws... The reality in which you open ''in the morning'' eyes, absolutely complete; you are an integral, integral ‘part’ of it; this reality changes only as a whole - when any “part” of this reality changes, the whole reality changes; a change in all of reality entails a change in absolutely all of its components – ‘parts’. ‘’The opening of the eyes’’ is the ‘’appearance’’ of reality, in which you ‘’appear’’ at once; and the “appearance” of you is the “appearance” of your reality. So every ''morning'' is the appearance of the ''other'' you in the ''other'' world (before this ''appearance'' neither you ''like this'' nor such a ''world'' had ever existed) - this is for you bodily; for an anarchist, any and every “morning” (and “morning” can be any and every moment of your passage through your own “corporality”) can become the True beginning (appearance, birth...) of the True World of HIS – the True Man and the True Birth (appearance) of HIM - the True Man in the True World... So, you today are a “body” that has a certain self-consciousness, one of the manifestations of which is the so-called “mind” and there is a certain self-consciousness, one of the manifestations of which there is a ''body'' (physicality). The primary thing, of course, is self-consciousness, which gives rise to physicality; corporeality, in turn, gives rise to its corresponding self-consciousness, which again gives rise to its corresponding corporeality (embodiment), which in turn gives rise to...; well, etc. and so on. For the “corporeal” the initial moment (as well as the final one) of this action (generation) is inaccessible, since they (the initial and final moments) are outside the physicality itself. For a spiritual being, He himself is both the Beginning and the Completion, therefore, knowing Himself, He knows both the Beginning of Himself and its Completion. Any (any) set is a division of the Whole. The division of the Whole is a set of definitions (restrictions - limits) of this Whole itself (as an extension) by itself, as a limit. Any and every Whole is True if Unity (the One) serves as its measure. Any and every Whole is untrue (and therefore cannot exist, be, continue...) if its measure is itself. In this case, the whole “collapses” into itself (the “black hole” effect); the unified extension disappears, the limits become separate (not belonging to one Unified extension) from each other and within themselves; Having become separate, limits turn into extensions and in turn “collapse” into themselves; then everything is repeated over and over again with increasing force and speed; We call all this, at the suggestion of our learned men, “evolution” and “life” of both the universe itself and everything in it; although in fact this is hell... Man was created by GOD as a Whole, which has freedom of choice. This choice is very simple - to be - or not to be (... so the “Prince of Denmark” decided not just an “eternal” question, but also the only “uniform” question for absolutely all people...). Only by making this choice does a person gain freedom. Freedom, strange as it may sound to some, is the absence of choice. ''Absolutely'' is free who has decided ''not to be'' - no one, never, nowhere and in no way (though I can't imagine how this could be; but theoretically such a possibility exists...)... This ''freedom'' it is precisely “absolute” - that is, it provides, as a condition for itself, “absolute” non-participation in anything (or anyone!). All the “liberators” of humanity are waving this “freedom” like a decoy, without clarifying the truth that by accepting this, you are accepting exactly these ones, nowhere, never, in any way, no, no one, with anyone, from anyone ... and you become an absolute slave of this very “not to be.” ‘’Completely’’ is free when one decides to ‘’BE’’. It is “perfectly”, because only this freedom is actually FREEDOM (well, how can you “be free” if you are NOT!) and is Perfection itself. Each and every person, going through himself and his own, makes his own choice (even if he doesn’t see it, doesn’t know or understand it!), and makes it always and everywhere (well, at least while it always and everywhere exists for him !). Having made a choice, he receives this or that freedom. Having received this or that freedom, he finds himself free in one way or another. Having found himself, he goes through what he has acquired, making his choice (thus confirming or refuting the previous one)... Each and every person, accepting God (as the Measure of Everything) also accepts Man (as the Completeness of Everything). Having accepted a Person, he finds Himself, completely free. Having found Himself free, it passes through itself, confirming or refuting its previous choice... Each and every person who does not accept God does not accept Man either. Without accepting Man, he does not find his True Self. Not having found the True One, one finds oneself in the absence of oneself (in non-existence). Finding himself in non-existence, he receives himself and his “absolutely free” from Everything and goes through this “freedom”, confirming or refuting his previous choice... I remind you that freedom is a complete (or absolute) absence of choice. That is, when it’s just like this, and no other way; when without thinking, without reasoning, everything at once; when not at the level of decision-making, but at the level of an unconditional reflex... ...Without this insertion “about freedom” our further narration would be flawed and insufficient. Now we can continue, without fear that much of what we will talk about further will not be understood and accepted due to a lack of understanding of the very essence of Freedom (freedom)... So, Man, who has God as the Measure of Everything, is a Single Whole; each and every person is a whole, the measure of which is the absence of the One. Each and every person is free to make his own choice; Any and every Person is Completely Free. The division of Man is a manifestation of the entire Completeness of Unity in Man and by Man; division in each of the people (and each of the people) is the “collapse”, the disintegration of the untrue “whole” into a multitude that is “not he”; there is a process of disappearance of Everything in man (for man!) and man in ‘everything’. Division in Man is the normal existence of Man in Everything and Everything in Man. Man is the One of the trinity of Soul, Mind and Flesh; Soul, Mind, Flesh is a division of the One, in which each of the members of the triplicity is the Whole of Man and the Whole Man, and all together they are all the same Whole and all the same Whole... The Soul is the Whole of Mind and Flesh, they are also its natural limits (where there is no Mind and Flesh, there cannot be a Soul...; or in other words, the Soul cannot exist outside and without intelligent Flesh and the embodied Mind!) and there is all the multitude of Its divisions. The mind is the Whole of the Soul and Flesh, they are also its natural limits and there are all the many of its divisions. Flesh is the Whole of Soul and Mind; they are its natural limits and are the whole multitude of its divisions. ///...The Soul is an extension limited on one side by the Mind, on the other by the Flesh; Mind is an extension limited by Soul and Flesh; Flesh is an extension limited by the Soul and Mind.../// The Soul, as the beginning of everything in Man, is primary. From it the Mind is born, as the entire extent of everything in Man, and the Flesh is expelled (throughout the entire extent of the Mind), as the completion (completion) of everything in Man. Man is One Whole; and everything that is in it is One and Whole. One Soul, being a One Whole set of One Whole Souls (...remember the statement that any segment can be ''divided'' into an infinite number of ''other'' segments/segments of a different ''length''/; so on a ''segment'' 'Mind-Flesh, which is a ''multiple'' Soul, an infinite number of Minds corresponds to an infinite number of Flesh, and each embodied Mind and each intelligent Flesh corresponds to an intelligent, embodied Soul!) gives rise to the One Whole Mind, which is an infinite number of One, Whole Minds and brings forth from Himself (through the Mind!) an infinite number of Unity Wholes ''Flesh''... For a person, as one who is not born (dead), and therefore has not accepted (rejected) Unity, everything is Whole, but not One. His soul is a whole (not the One!), divided into many other “wholes”, separate both from each other and from the original whole, which in turn are divided into another set, each member of which is divided into its own many separate parts, etc. The human mind is a whole, but not the One. It, this “whole” is divided into many separate “wholes”, which in turn are divided... The flesh of a person is a whole, which, not being One, is divided... When the One, Whole Man “looks”, He sees everything as One and Whole. This does not mean that divisions disappear for Him and He “sees” (are a reality for Him) only “original” wholes. In his reality, all divisions, without exception, are visible; all extensions and limits, all beginnings and endings... But they are visible as a Single Whole; that is, each remaining itself, inseparably - unmerged (this is when the connected ones cannot be torn away from each other, since in this case they will disappear; but also “push” them into one another so that some of them disappears, too impossible), they are Wholes and constitute any and all Wholes, while themselves being One and making up Unities from Themselves. Example - for you and me, although a tree grows ‘from the earth’, it is not one with the earth; we can tear it out of the ground (uproot it), chop it, burn it; and the earth remains as it was... We can bury a tree in the ground, and it will rot and cease to exist, but the earth remains as it was. The tree seems to be a whole. But then we broke off a branch from it, sawed it into pieces (boards, bars) and its integrity disappeared, and it itself disappeared, it no longer exists; instead of it there is a table, a bench, a window... Moreover, for us, the wind, clouds, animals, cars (which we “make” from the same earth) are separate from both the tree and the earth... For the One Man, both the tree and the wind, both the earth and the animals... are One Whole, in which each of the components is the same One and Whole. A tree doesn't just grow out of the ground; not only is it inseparable from it (the earth) and is One with it; but it is simply impossible to uproot it from the ground, chop it up, burn it or rot by burying it in the ground: - since it exists, then it exists, just as there is earth, air, the sun... The tree is one whole with the earth, the earth is one whole with the air, everything together they are one Whole with the Sun and planets; at the same time, the Sun and planets are one Whole with the entire Universe... As in our body - the eye is an eye, and not a hand or liver, and an ear is an ear, and not a stomach or spine; but at the same time, all together this is a whole body, a human body... And God forbid if any of this disappears, or the bones turn (become) into “meat”, and the meat “hardens”. So, the True (One and Whole) Man sees everything as both One and Whole; at the same time, “seeing” Everything Holistically, “sees” in all even the smallest details both the Entities (Unities) themselves, and all possible connections and combinations of these Entities and in these Unities. He sees everything at once, simultaneously and always. Being All and the Completeness of All, He looks at Himself and His and knows Everything by Himself and His. This is not at all the case with an unborn (dying) person. He serves as a measure for him - separate from God; or rather, his separation from God (after all, that which is separate from God-Existence cannot exist; this means that it cannot be ''separate from God''; there can be separation itself, as a variant of freedom of choice/...to be or not to be.../ and then only until the choice is finally confirmed///(that is, other choice options for this “individual” simply no longer exist, this individual simply no longer has them and cannot have them in due to the fact that she/the individual/ went through all the possible/and impossible/ options for her and confirmed her agreement with this/that/choice option...; it goes without saying that both ''extreme'' options/to be or not to be / are exceptional: - being one ideal / to be /, the other – absolute / not to be / they both serve as the main / main / limits for most people, which means, being present in each of the people, they determine any and all of their choices, while themselves remaining unattainable / ...infinitely attainable.../; one of them/Be/ we know for us (in one form or another and degree) as CHRIST, the other/not to be/ - as the devil, Satan, Antichrist...)///. ... He (any and every person) exists and he does not exist... He exists not as a Man, but as the potency, the possibility of a Man; passes by accepting or denying not Man as such, but his ability to Be a Man; not Being itself, but the possibility of Being. ///...to pass a Man. you need to be a Human; to go through Genesis, you need to have this Genesis...///. He who has accepted the possibility of Existence, acquires Existence (by going through it and confirming (or rejecting) his choice), and acquires not just Existence, but the Existence of Man and Man (although still seeing this Existence for a long time through “glasses” separately). He who has rejected the possibility (of Being) “acquires” the absence of Being, which he knows as the disappearance of everything in him (for him, around him, by him and with him...) and of him in everything... He goes through it, confirming or rejecting his choice. As we have already said, both of these options are extreme; This means that most of us make an “average” choice: - something from “Be”, and something from “not to be”; Having accomplished, both themselves, and the world, and in general everything, everything have an “average”... So, each and every one of the people who are in this “world” is the “possibility” of Man and sees and knows exactly this the possibility (or impossibility) of Being, oneself - as a certain version of this possibility (or impossibility)... The very triplicity of Soul, Mind and Flesh is visible (known) to them only through the prism of ''possibility'' (''possibility'' also provides for invariance( multivariance) - it’s possible this way and that way..., this one is like this, and this one is that way... Moreover, by choosing one of the options, you get (according to the law of separation) not one whole, but many possibilities of a given whole); due to the individuality of choice / it is impossible, while you are not yet a Personality, to have and realize the entirety (Single Integrity) of the Whole World and Everything in the World / each of the people has only one of the options for the possibility of Being, unfolding for him (divided) into a certain set possible states (manifestations) of this option... Due to the lack of Unity, it is possible for us to see (know) only Flesh out of the entire trinity of Soul, Mind and Flesh. Due to the individuality (separateness, separation from each other) of each of us, it is possible for us to see not all of the “full” Flesh of Man, but only a certain “possibility” of the Flesh, the limit of which is our “corporality”. Moreover, we see all the other “possibilities” of the Flesh only as many manifestations of our corporeality (our version of “possibility”), without seeing or knowing either the True Flesh of Man, much less His Unity (in God and with God). We, being corporeal (limited by corporeality), cannot cancel it (corporality) without going through it all and making a final choice. ///...when we chose ‘physicality’, we received ‘freedom’ to be just like that; freedom presupposes the absence of choice; Now we make a choice within the framework of the “body” and among the “corporeal”...///. So, for us bodily, the trinity of Soul, Mind and Flesh is visible (and known) only within the framework (limits) of corporeality and “through” corporeality. Since corporeality “implies” the absence of Unity, both the Soul and the Mind are visible and known only as manifestations of the Flesh (its properties and qualities), while the Flesh itself is just a possibility of the existence of the All (one of many options for many possibilities); Moreover, this possibility is an “impossible possibility” and is the possibility of self-awareness of a person (any person) only for the period of making a choice. At the end of this period (after a person makes and finally approves his choice), the person’s choice is verified by the Truth (as a Measure); everything that was True in a person’s choice becomes a perfect reality for him; everything absolute is absolute ''reality'', that is, the experience of perfect reality as one’s non-existence... Corporality shows us the possibility of the existence of Everything (seeing the Flesh through separateness and separateness - from the Mind and Soul and in itself...) as corporeal (substantial, material ) a world in which each of the people is a very small piece of matter, located among many other, larger or smaller “pieces”, endowed with certain properties and qualities, looking one way or another, located at certain places and distances from each other from each other and consisting (or not!) in certain relationships with each other... This “piece” (person) has a concept about everything, which we call “mind” and feelings, thanks to which he somehow ( somewhere and sometime) feels itself, and at the same time through feelings and somehow realizes... All this physicality teaches us both directly through feelings and through all kinds of “teachers” who fill our “brains” with all sorts of nonsense and in ''educational institutions'', and from TV screens, and from the pages of the ''press'' (and they are ''pressed'', well, simply ''in black''! ), via the Internet and simply through “personal” communication, where we ourselves act as “teachers”... Maybe someone is satisfied with this “state of affairs”; we are writing for those who still want more... LET'S SUM UP...The world is not like this because the Lord God created it this way; but such is because that is how a person sees him... (Antony the Great). Everything is not at all the same and not as you see; although what you see (and how) is your absolute reality... Although for you the absolute reality is that you are a dirty and smelly piece of meat of one shape, size and weight, but in absolute reality you are completely different... You are the Whole World, by the measure of which you can choose either God or his absence. Now you see (know) a world in which there is no God; no, because you still haven’t let Him into yourself - both as a separate individual, and as into everything Everything EVERYTHING... For you “today” the Whole World is seen as a multitude of multitudes, separated from each other and divided within themselves( …''body'' ''consists'' of molecules, molecules ''consist'' of atoms, atoms ''consist'' of elementary particles... etc., etc.); and you also divide them into bad - good, good - evil, necessary - unnecessary; you “love” something, you hate something, you desire something, but you are afraid and avoid something... The job of an anarchist is to learn to look at Everything in a Human way - as the Whole and One, having God and Man as the Measure of Everything. In you, as a Whole, are all people, although you, as one of the people, see them outside of yourself and separately from yourself. You see all people without exception as godless (you don’t see God and Man in them, looking at everything with godless-inhuman eyes...), although you can idolize some of them, and consider some of them to be complete scoundrels and generally the devil’s spawn... The anarchist’s job is to give all people (including yourself!) to God as the Measure of Everything; and to Man as the Perfect Completeness of Everything. You, as a Whole, have all the strength and all the power; no one and nothing can act separately from you and against your will. Today you know everything that acts separately from you, in spite of you, not the way you wanted...; even ''your'' body lives its own ''life'' and you have to ''coexist'' with it... The job of an anarchist is to regain power over oneself, passing through ''yourself'' and ''yours'' and taking this away' 'yourself' and this 'yours' separately. You have the Whole - all extensions and all limits are You and are Yours. You today see and know them as something that is not you and something that is not yours; you have to overcome extensions according to their limits. Extensions for you today are presented in three versions - space, time and thoughts-feelings (images, thoughts, sensations, premonitions...). Space itself is an object, infinitely extended in itself, filled with many other objects, each of which in turn is spatial / has dimensions (length, height, width), weight, volume... / and itself “consists” of sets of sets; you, occupying this or that piece of space, are not space yourself, but are spatial - that is, determined spatially... Time for you is an infinite extension, filled with events, people, objects... (history), in which you occupy an infinitely small area, passing through him, and not yourself... Your feelings and thoughts seem to be “yours”, but are not subject to your control, moreover, you are simply their slave, slavishly and determined by them throughout their entire extent... You have the True – the True knowledge. Yours today is the lie of the absence of Truth, everything is perverted, distorted and corrupted by the deception of inhumanity and godlessness... Your mind today is the absence of the Human Mind; your knowledge today (even the most “brilliant”) is the knowledge of godlessness and inhumanity, posing as an all-perfect knowledge of everything... The job of an anarchist is to go through all the “wisdom” of “...of this century...” and becoming “mad” ' for the world, to find the TRUTH. AFTERWORD This book should not be read as a novel or as a scientific article; and in general it cannot be ‘read’. She is a mirror, and one must peer into it, finding, examining and studying oneself in it. You will have to look for as long as you want and allow yourself to recognize yourself and your... End of the first book

ANARCHY (Greek anarchia - anarchy) is a concept by which the state of society is designated, achievable as a result of the abolition of state power. Anarchism is a socio-political doctrine that aims to liberate the individual from the pressure of all authorities and any forms of economic, political and spiritual power. The desire for A. as a way of thinking is found among the Cynics and in early Christianity, as well as in the chiliastic sects of the Middle Ages. A complete theory of anarchism and anarchism arose in the works of the English writer W. Godwin, who formulated the concept of a “society without a state” in the book “An Inquiry into Political Justice” (1793). The German thinker M. Stirner (essay "The One and His Property", 1845) defended an individualistic version of economic anarchism, reducing the social organization of society to a "union of egoists", the purpose of which would be the exchange of goods between independent producers on the basis of mutual respect for the "uniqueness" of each individual . The French philosopher P. J. Proudhon, trying to theoretically substantiate the anarchist movement (“What is property?”, 1840), put forward the thesis “Property is theft.” Based on the fact that the source of injustice in society is “unequal exchange” (“The System of Economic Contradictions, or the Philosophy of Poverty”, 1846), Proudhon saw it as necessary to organize (without revolutionary violence) a non-monetary, equivalent exchange of labor products (goods) between all members of society (at the same time by autonomous private producers) when financing their activities with the help of a “people's” (and not state) bank at a minimum loan interest rate. This would ensure, according to Proudhon, the achievement of real independence of the individual from the state and the gradual withering away of the latter. Bakunin’s “collectivist” anarchism (“Statehood and Anarchy”, 1873) postulated the idea that any state is an instrument of oppression of the masses and must be destroyed by revolutionary means. Bakunin's social ideal boiled down to the organization of society as a "free federation" of peasant and worker associations, collectively owning land and tools. Production and distribution, according to Bakunin, should have been collective in nature in the context of taking into account the individual labor contribution of each person. In the communist version of anarchism, Russian prince P.A. Kropotkin ("Modern Science and Anarchy", 1920), based on the hypothetical "biosociological law of mutual assistance" formulated by him ("Mutual assistance as a factor of evolution", 1907), envisioned a transition to a federation of free communes with the preliminary destruction of the factors of separation of people: states and the institution of private property. The latest outbreaks of anarchist aspirations can be attributed to some varieties of the “new left” movement in the West.

If the solution does not come immediately, then the problem again becomes a formulated necessity and is again laid out in a diagram. Sometimes a solution can be found immediately, sometimes in several sequential schemes, but independently. Sometimes the help of the commune will be needed, because... there may be comrades in it who are more competent in solving certain problems.

Thinking in schemes, i.e. from the general to the particular, as well as solving problems through schemes, is called anarchistic thinking, and the formulation of problems in the form of schemes is called anarchistic language. This mindset allows you to focus on solving problems rather than creating them. It does not allow you to be distracted from the decision. An ordinary person brought up in an authoritarian society does not know how to think like this, because he does not need it, because his boss will make the decision for him. In an anarchist commune, where there is decentralization and there is no leader making decisions for everyone, consensus can be achieved through anarchist thinking and language.

Of course, thinking in anarchic terms may seem challenging at first. After all, people in an administrative command system do not know how to communicate with each other and do not know how to identify objective problems in order to solve them. Moreover, they are often afraid to communicate as equals in the commune, because... they are not sure that someone will listen to them, much less send them to hell. Statism teaches them to think with selfish needs, to satisfy which they need to either curry favor with their superiors, or sit on the bosses, or shift the problem to their subordinates, if any. In an anarchist commune there are neither superiors nor subordinates. There is no one to curry favor with, no one to trick, no one to order. If the motivation is common, then the problem is common. But there is no motivation, which means there is no interest and no sense in solving unnecessary problems for anyone.

Disorganization and overorganization are the enemies of anarchy

Often, anarchist associations have even worse organization compared to statistic corruption. They are often disorganized.

Any disorganization and over-organization leads to the fact that the commune ceases to perform the functions of mutual assistance and assistance, i.e. symbiosis for the comrades gathered in it. And since the problems are not solved, the commune turns out to be unnecessary. After all, overorganization and disorganization do not allow solving problems, but only create new ones.

Anarchistic thinking prevents both disorganization and overorganization.

For example, one comrade decided to gather other comrades on the issue of commune symbols with a proposal to depict the letter A not in a circle, but in a fiery ellipse. It turns out like in a fable called “Quartet”.

Where is the motivation? Those. What will this give to the commune? Where are the problems?

No matter how you guys sit down, you’re not fit to be anarchists.

Another example of a non-constructive approach and lack of organization is when some “comrade”, taking on the role of priest Gapon, calls on the commune to participate in some kind of rally. Rallies are a non-anarchist method of solving problems. Indeed, in this case, the protesters recognize that they have a boss above them, who must solve their problems through ethical methods. Anarchists can make decisions without any delegation of problems to bosses and officials. There are no bosses in anarchy, or it is not anarchy, but authoritarianism.

Now let's move on to a constructive approach to problem solving.

Another example is when a comrade argues anarchically. For example, there is a sharpener with which you can quickly and effectively grind off rivets to separate non-ferrous metals from ferrous ones. This will increase labor efficiency (motivation) compared to cutting rivets with a hammer and chisel. But to run the sharpener you need electricity (a problem), and there is none in the squat. A friend walked around the area and noticed a traverse with electricity nearby. He immediately begins to reason according to the following scheme: we need electricity (motivation), but how to unnoticed it from the traverse to the squat (problem) so that the electricians do not notice. The solution to this problem is unknown to my friend, because... He is not an electrician by qualification. And he convenes a commune to discuss the issue. Since the question is formulated anarchically, the commune begins to discuss it constructively. For example, one of my comrades recently discovered another source of electricity a little further from the squat, which would be easier to connect to. Or a friend more competent in matters of camouflage initiates a proposal on how to connect unnoticed. Or maybe someone will suggest moving business activities to another squat, where electricity has already been supplied.

Again, each comrade, before giving an answer in the form of a potential solution to the problem raised, must act constructively, i.e. pre-think your answer in the form of options for and against. For example, a friend wants to suggest moving the activity to another squat with electricity already connected (For). But that squat is located far from the reception centers (Cons). Again, in the new proposal, a new scheme arises, where on the one hand one problem is solved (connection to electricity), but another problem arises in the form of distance from receiving points. Therefore, the comrade needs to try to think through his own response to how he can try to solve the new problem that has arisen before giving an answer to the commune or initiating a new problem.

With a non-anarchist way of thinking, constructive discussion cannot be achieved. Indeed, in this case, some “comrade” can easily blather with a smart face on his face that he is “FOR” or “AGAINST”, trying to express his personal opinion. Those. he thereby decided and decreed for all those present what they needed to do. Attempts to impose a personal opinion on a commune without constructiveness are a clear manifestation of selfishness, when a “comrade” puts his opinion above the decisions of the collective, which is unacceptable in a commune, because the commune is intended to solve common problems, and not to listen to the personal opinions of unscrupulous “comrades.” No anarchist is interested in anyone's personal opinions. It’s better to keep personal things to yourself. Either a comrade will independently and constructively think through all the “FOR” or “AGAINST” before giving a ready-made solution to the problem or constructively formulating solutions to newly arisen problems, or it is better for him to refrain from self-made opinions and ad-libs if he understands the issue on the agenda like a pig in oranges. Expressing personal opinions with a smart face on your face is another fable called “The Swan, the Crayfish and the Pike,” because in this case, there is a departure in the direction opposite to the achievement of consensus, from the symbiosis of anarchy to the antagonism of statism.

The problems that have arisen are not a reason for anarchists to refuse to solve them. This is an occasion for a constructive search for solutions, supported by collective motivation. Because refusal to search for solutions is another type of disorganization, when a problem seems insoluble only because a comrade or several comrades cannot find a solution to it. When something seems to happen, you need to be baptized, and this is a non-anarchic method. A solution to the problem can be found by more competent comrades, or a ready-made solution may already be presented somewhere, for example, on the Internet or in some encyclopedia. Therefore, to give up on any problem because of its imaginary intractability, to be afraid and avoid solving problems, to give in to them is unconstructive and non-anarchic.

Infrastructure

Every anarchist commune is, first of all, a solution to the problems of the comrades united in the community. The main initial problem of anarchists is the need to maintain the vital needs of the body: nutrition, fluid intake, hygiene, shelter from atmospheric and natural phenomena, such as precipitation, cold or heat, hygiene, the need for clothing, etc. Additional problems are the arrangement of cultural leisure.

In order to solve the problems of life support in the commune, economic activity is necessary. To carry out economic activities, means of production, transport, communications, means of payment, etc. are needed. And carrying out economic activity in the middle of a wasteland is not only impossible, but also dangerous: the police are not sleeping and all sorts of marginalized people are a reason for them to intervene. It is quite clear that there will be a need for squats in which one can engage in economic activities, live and relax, hold cultural events, gather and make decisions.

Homeless comrades know best where to find squats. You can also learn from them ways to earn money to carry out initial business activities. Often, these types of activities of anarchist communes include the extraction and processing of recyclable materials and their subsequent delivery to collection points. But before handing over, for example, non-ferrous metal, it must be separated from plastic or ferrous metals. For this you will need workshops with work stations and tools.

Under the capitalist system, economic activity is risky, because... the capitalist needs to predict supply and demand for the products he plans to produce. Moreover, even if the bourgeois guesses the demand, his entrepreneurial activity may be brought down to the ground by his competitors. As a result, an entrepreneur often invests his capital in real estate, production, warehouse space, etc., but having miscalculated, he ends up with all this stuff he doesn’t need, leaving it in an ownerless state in the hope of selling or renting it out to someone. Moreover, the infrastructure formed around the bankrupt objects of bourgeois activity, in the form of residential areas, also gradually ceases to function and falls into disrepair, due to the fact that the population tries to move to areas more suitable for life in search of work. As a result, sometimes individual houses, businesses, or entire areas, or even settlements and land plots, are abandoned.

All these abandoned objects may well be suitable for anarchist communes and the creation of an anarchist infrastructure for conducting economic activities. For some, squats located far from big cities are more suitable, since even policemen are unlikely to consider it necessary to get there. For some, squats in big cities are more suitable. But the point is that the bourgeoisie, through its mediocrity, creates the conditions for the formation of anarchist communes. And one must not be lazy in order to appropriate for the needs of the commune what turned out to be useless for others. Naturally, everything expropriated will have to be put in order and communications installed, restored utilities, repairs, etc., but working together to solve such problems is much easier than alone.

What's the benefit?

It is quite obvious that decentralized communes have all the benefits of the shadow economy compared to legal entrepreneurship:

• Lack of bureaucratic procedures
• No taxation
• No costs for corruption: bribes, alms to “inspection authorities”
• No expenses for renting premises, because the squat is free

It is no less obvious that decentralized communes are also more profitable compared to shadow entrepreneurship:

• No roof costs
• No costs for supervisors
• All income is distributed among comrades, and does not go into the pockets of shadow bourgeoisie

For the above reasons, decentralized communes are more competitive both in comparison with legal entrepreneurship and in comparison with shadow ones.

Ownership

Ownership rights to the means of production in decentralized communes belong to those who directly work on these very means of production. Those. a welding machine must belong to a welder, a lathe to a turner, a workbench along with a metalworking tool to a mechanic, etc.

The reason for this ownership is explained by motivation. After all, if the means of production belongs to the person who directly works on it, then:

• There is no operation. Indeed, in the case when a means of production belongs to one person, and another works on it, then there is exploitation of man by man. If the means of production are collectively owned, then there is exploitation of man by the collective.
• The owner of the means of production is interested in the efficient use of the funds belonging to him. In this case, theft is excluded, because the worker will not steal from himself and will take all measures to prevent someone from stealing the means of production from him. The misuse of means of production is also excluded, when public property was used by the employee not for the team to which it belongs, but for unintended work, which led to increased wear and tear of the means and depreciation costs fell on the team, and not on the employee.

Protection

Unfortunately, there are not always cloudless skies over anarchists. Their communes are attacked from time to time, both by the police and by xenophobes and other radicals. Sometimes the initiators of attacks on anarchists can also be ordinary people who, enviously observing how outcasts of the state can live and provide for themselves much more efficiently compared to taxpayers.

Therefore, as the saying goes, if you want peace, then prepare for war. This does not mean at all that anarchists will have to fight with weapons in their hands, repelling the attacks of supporters of statism from the squats. But basic defense techniques, such as camouflage, martial arts, the use of smoke screens, keeping dogs, forethought in terms of emergency exits from squats, the presence of caches, etc. and so on. anarchists need.

After all, with regard to the use of weapons, it is necessary to understand that guerilla is not very adequate in modern conditions. As Newton said, the force of action is equal to the force of reaction. If the anarchist is armed, then weapons will also be used against him. Numerous alarm systems, video surveillance, wiretapping, the ability to introduce bugs to track the movements of armed groups and other technical means such as helicopters and drones will not allow armed operations to be carried out unexpectedly and with impunity. But surprise is the main trump card of guerilla. If earlier it was possible to attack a bank or collectors in order to expropriate finances, then the current virtualization of means of payment negates the possibility of solving financial problems for modern armed revolutionaries. And the supply, transportation and storage of small arms and explosives is not such an easy and safe task. Shooting is not just pulling the trigger, but also the ability to aim, observe the actions of the enemy, quickly find cover, save ammunition, change positions under bullets and other wisdom of military life. Where there is armed struggle, there will certainly be casualties, and not always among opponents of anarchy, but also among anarchists and among the civilian population. Comrades lost in battle will weaken the anarchist communes, and the wounded will become a heaviest burden. Even worse, inept handling of weapons or explosives will inevitably lead to self-inflicted gunshots and unintentional explosions.

Armed uprisings, small wars and guerrilla violence are losing their relevance every day. Supporters of democracy have long adopted velvet revolutions, through which great results can be achieved even with little blood. Statism spares no expense in its defense. The state will make any sacrifice, turning both its supporters and civilians into cannon fodder in order to get rid of armed rebels. So, taking up arms in order to get rid of statism is not the best way. Moreover, this path may be the last for many anarchists.

Aikido - libertarian martial art

It is advisable that every healthy anarchist master the yellow belt of Aikido, which includes 8 self-defense techniques.

Why is Aikido necessary and why is this martial art best suited for anarchists?

Aikido is not a struggle, but a way of life. There are no offensive techniques in this martial art. Therefore, anarchists know that an attempt to resolve the issue by force will not yield anything except that the aggressor will find himself in an unfortunate position, from which it is not only difficult to attack, but even to defend himself. Those. the mastery of aikido by anarchists is another reason to prevent any potential attempts at violent aggression within the commune. It is quite clear that not only within, but also on the part of the statists.

The advantage of aikido is its accessibility to everyone. The fact is that in this martial art there is no need for physical strength, because... The aikidoist either makes no physical effort at all or uses the physical force of his attackers.

Outwardly, a person proficient in aikido techniques looks defenseless. He will not grab objects that come to hand, because... they will only get in the way. He won't panic. He is not pumped up with muscles and often does not have a decent weight category necessary for other types of wrestling. This misinforms potential aggressors into thinking they can use force with impunity. But when a policeman or Nazi, armed with a club or rebar, tries to attack an anarchist and ends up lying on the ground, it makes a sobering impression on his allies.

Moreover, the mindset of an aikido fighter is similar to that of a libertarian anarchist. Responding to aggression with aggression is ineffective. The goal of an aikidoist is not battle, but avoidance of aggression. Those. An aikidoist never engages in combat with a potential aggressor. And if the aggressor does not calm down, he soon becomes convinced that his efforts are in vain. Aggression in Aikido philosophy is the cause of disharmony. An aikidoist must remain calm regardless of external circumstances and maintain a harmonious state of mind. Any aggressive manifestation on the part of an aikidoist is recognized as a defeat. There are no victories in Aikido, i.e. they are not counted, because Aikido is not a fight for the sake of victory over anyone, but a state of spiritual harmony.

In order to understand why an aikidoist acts more effectively than his potential opponents, one need only quote K. Tohei:

“Let your opponent go where he wants to go; let it turn where it wants to turn and lean in the direction it wants to lean as you lead it, and then let it fall where it wants to fall. And don’t strain yourself under any circumstances.”

Virtual decentralized communes

In addition to the fact that decentralized communes can be created to organize everyday life and production relations in real life, their organization is also effective in virtual reality.

With the advent of the Internet, virtual communications unite people located at a great distance from each other.

Creative teams of creative individuals united in anarchic virtual decentralized communes, on the basis of consensus, are able to create works of art, such as music, films, cartoons, websites, computer games, as well as software and other digital content where combined the efforts of various competent specialists: artists, playwrights, programmers, animators, musicians, etc.

An excellent example of virtual communes is the creation of the Linux operating system by various programmers, each of whom developed or modified individual components of the system, but together they created a single software: the kernel, the file system, the graphical interface, etc.

To create digital works, there is no need to have a squat space, because... For this purpose, a topic on some Internet forum or an interest group on a social network is quite suitable.

The anarchic principle of decentralization makes it possible to get rid of completely useless capitalist authoritarianism, according to which, at the head of creative associations, a bourgeois producer is supposedly “necessary”, exploiting the labor of other people, distributing income and appropriating the lion’s share of the profits for the demonstrated “organizational” abilities.

Conclusion

Probably for some all of the above will be a surprise, because... ideas about anarchists read in books by theorists like Stirner or Kropotkin and so on. clearly do not correspond to this material. After all, the anarchist turns out to be not at all a romantic volunteer and fighter for high ideals, but a marginal outcast. Moreover, egoism, glorified by Stirner as an ideal, is not inherent in an anarchist, because It will not be possible to force the commune to solve personal problems at the expense of its comrades. The anarchist does not look like Kropotkin's schoolgirl from the corresponding institution for noble maidens. After all, he does not need any moral justification, because... the outcast has nothing to justify himself with, nor ethical instructions on the “true” path, because Having come to the commune, he will no longer change the anarchist ideas, since outside the commune he is an outcast, but in anarchy he is an equal comrade. Anarchists have their own way of life and way of thinking. They have their own motivation. Instead of a romantic struggle for the liberation of anyone from statism, anarchists prefer the organization of communes. Instead of armed struggle against the exploiters through expropriation, anarchists are engaged in economic activities.

All this does not fit into the usual image formed by the average person in relation to the anarchist movement.

What then about statism? Who will fight the state?

Why do anarchists care about the problems of the state? And the less the state cares about its citizens, the more it withdraws from solving the problems of the population, the more corrupt its power structure is, the more significant and attractive the role of anarchist communes will be. Statism will die out like a mammoth. After all, the state is an anachronism. Administratively, the command management system is just a bad habit that some people cannot, or even do not want to get rid of. Therefore, there is no need to worry about the victory of the anarchist revolution against the backdrop of the spread of decentralized anarchist communes.

After all, when the USSR collapsed, where were the fans of Stirner, Kropotkin, Konkin III and other pseudo-anarchist demagogues and nerdy theorists? Why didn’t the anarchist revolution take place, and instead of one totalitarian state, many no less totalitarian states appeared? Why did the anarchists of that time chew snot instead of being active, and now they blow snot in a bubble, cry into their vests and lament with good obscenities about the supposedly low activity of the anarchist movement?

Yes, because theories are often created in isolation from practice. Pseudo-anarchism is just trying to copy the most successful methods of propaganda and organizational activities from Marxists, Nazis and other authoritarian and dogmatic teachings, embellishing the newly-minted “anarchy” with only a sham in the form of anarchist symbols. But this does not make pseudo-anarchist theories any less authoritarian and dogmatic. Theorists don’t even think about motivation, when confidence can replace faith. They are unaware of the problems that their followers will face and do not think or calculate the consequences. All these pseudo-teachings and concepts are just a set of slogans, mottos and appeals, with an emphasis on moralism and demagoguery, more suitable for political parties than for an anarchist way of life.

But now, when decentralized anarchist communes are becoming a reality, when yesterday’s outcasts of society today become masters of their own lives, when former dogmatic teachings are being supplanted by anarchist thinking, squeals and screams are heard from all sides in the form of accusations of “inconsistency”, of apostasy from the cause of “true anarchists” “ideals and principles, various criticisms, and even attempts to get rid of “sedition,” “freethinking” and “apostasy” through censorship and removal of “heretical literature” from controlled resources. Authoritarian pseudo-anarchist organizations felt that the ground was slipping from under their feet. Yesterday's outcasts of society, without any propaganda and external and internal leadership, independently solve their problems. The pseudo-anarchists now have a clear enemy, that is, a chance to unite their previously amorphous efforts to fight him. But bad luck, no one even listens to their demagogic calls anymore. An anarchist who can now see and use the results of his activities and the activities of the commune hardly dreams of returning to his former life as an outcast.

After all, no one is forbidden to be called an anarchist, but only someone who does not invite others to call, but who himself leads an anarchist lifestyle, setting a good example for others, can be one.

In modern society, not everyone knows what anarchy is and how to distinguish it from other trends. For most of us, this trend seems to be some form of protest, rebellion and permissiveness. However, in reality it has a broader meaning and often carries spiritual ideas.

Anarchy - what is it?

Not many of us definitely know what anarchy means. It is understood as the idea of ​​the absence of any power both over society and over an individual. It is not an ideology, but a philosophy and even a worldview. This concept is often used to describe complete chaos, disorder and lawlessness. Supporters of the movement speak of it as a political system in which everyone cooperates on equal terms. They are confident that without power the state has the right to exist, and they assure that there are many advantages in such a life.

Anarchy symbol

This movement has several symbolisms:

However, the most popular is the anarchy icon in the form of an A in a circle. In the initial version, the letter was inscribed in a circle, but after a while this symbol slightly changed its appearance. In the modern version, the letter extends beyond the circle. Whatever movement the anarchist belongs to, he knows the interpretation of this sign. Here A represents anarchy and O represents order.

Philosophy of Anarchy

In the modern world, this term is commonly understood as a state of chaos and disorder in society. However, supporters of the form of government known throughout the world argue that this is not true, since the word itself, translated from Greek, means absence and anarchy, but not opposition or opposition.

They were interested in it as a way of thinking in ancient Greek and ancient Chinese philosophies, in Christianity and in some medieval sects. Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Antiphon, Aristinus and Zeno criticized the alienating role of the state. The French politician Pierre-Joseph Proudhon understood this term as a measure of freedom that recognizes exclusively the rule of law. He owns a self-explanatory statement: anarchy is the mother of order.

Anarchy - signs

Determining this direction is not so difficult. Modern anarchy has the following characteristics:

1. There is no power over human consciousness. This form of slavery is considered the most insidious.
2. There is no power in the state.
3. Society has no power over the individual.
4. There is no power of man over man that can be exercised through coercion.

Types of anarchy

There are certain types of anarchy in society:

1. Anarcho-individualism– preaches the right of every person to dispose of himself, which every person has from birth and does not depend on gender and social characteristics. The founder of this trend is the nihilist Max Stirner.
2. Christian (Orthodox) anarchy– develops the philosophical ideas inherent in the teachings of Jesus Christ about the need to strive for the spiritual and social liberation of a person from any relationships based on violence and oppression.
3. Anarcho-communism– preaches the establishment of an order that will be based on mutual assistance and solidarity of all people. Among the ideas in this direction are freedom, decentralization, equality and mutual assistance.

Anarchy - pros and cons

If we talk about this movement, we should not say that it is definitely negative or exclusively beneficial for society. There are both pros of anarchy and cons of anarchy. The desire to remain free and harmoniously develop as a person, to be an individual and not to experience oppression from the outside is desired by every supporter of this movement. However, the danger of the direction is that by such actions people are able to destroy elements of the system, personal attitudes, principles, norms of behavior, religion and culture.

The difference between anarchy and anarchism

The question often becomes relevant: what is anarchy and what are the differences between anarchy and anarchism. The latter is a set of general principles and fundamental concepts that involve the elimination of political, economic, moral and spiritual power from public life. The concept of anarchy of power is usually understood as the idea of ​​the absence of power over society and the individual. Translated from Greek, this term means without power, domination and violence over society.

Consequences of anarchy

You can often hear that anarchy is a form of government. This is a political system where there is no government and everyone can do as they see fit. This type of relationship is observed in the Garden of Eden. After the Fall of man, the desire to belong was replaced by the desire to have, to possess, and unselfish intentions were replaced by egoism. From that time on, God established a hierarchy of power for a husband over his wife. This was the first form of human government. Later, humanity learned what anarchy means, living during the period of the judges of Ikhrail.

A state can be defined as an organization that claims the supreme right to make decisions in a specific territory and protect this monopoly by force. Statists are people who either recognize this right of the state or believe in the desirability of the state. Anarchy assumes the absence of a state; Anarchists believe that states are undesirable and ethically unsound. 1

Misconceptions about Anarchy

Anarchy is not chaos or barbarism: although anarchists are a very diverse group, and there are certainly some who support violent solutions to problems, the vast majority of anarchists believe that anarchy promotes peace and cooperation, while statism does not. Most anarchists would agree that Hobbes was mistaken in describing the state of nature of society as a “war of all against all.” 2 Why did these hypothetical “natural” people ignore the security problem for so long that they ended up in a war of all against all? Surely, at the dawn of time, people lived far enough from each other, and they had enough land, that they might not need such harsh methods of maintaining security and resolving disagreements.

Hobbes's formula does not fit well with a society that never had a state, but it does plausibly describe a society that experienced the collapse of the early state along with the “services” it had previously monopolized. This fallacy has been around since Hobbes first popularized it: statists simply do not take a critical look at it and ignore the anarchists' appeals to reason. 3 However, such a vacuum in place of the previous social structures could only arise due to the previous monopolization of courts and security services by the state: if these services were provided by several organizations that did not have a territorial monopoly, the collapse of one of them would not entail a lack of power or an outbreak of violence . The remaining organizations would simply expand their sphere of influence, taking over the powers of the disappeared one.

We are convinced that the natural state of society is terrible, but no one has the opportunity to verify whether this is so by creating an independent country on their land. 4 This is very suspicious, because if there was anarchy so bad, the state would be extremely interested in allowing people to experience its horrors first hand.

All instructive examples like Somalia, which supposedly demonstrate the horrors of anarchy, can easily be explained as exacerbations of the problems of statism: if the monopoly of the state is destroyed, the resulting chaos should not be seen as a consequence of freedom, because no one has had the opportunity to create alternative institutions. At least as well, the problems can be interpreted as an inherent weakness of the monopoly itself. 5 It seems that the “natural state of society” argument is so tenacious because when people are afraid, they stop thinking. However, due to device features State collapse almost inevitably leads to chaos, does not mean that the problem is the absence of a state in itself.

An anarchist society should be thought of as a society created gradually, in which no individuals or organizations can demand special rules for themselves. If we imagine the formation of society as a gradual build-up of its structures, the problem is solved, because at no stage does a power vacuum arise. Once two people live close enough to force them to formalize the relationship, they can do so without becoming master and servant and without forming an everlasting covenant. As a society grows, informal structures may become more formal, but even so there seems to be no reason for a violent territorial monopoly to arise.

State injustice

It is impossible to rationally justify the existence of a state. All attempts to do this include references to violence, special demands or manipulation of historical facts. These are the main mistakes of statists.

It is said that early states were instituted by the gods, and it was the privilege of the king to perform the rituals necessary to appease them. 6 Medieval kings based their superiority on a sacred right received from God and descent from the aristocrats of ancient Rome. The same absurd arguments are given to justify the existence of modern states. For example, we are told about a “social contract”, which is based on “tacit consent” and applies to everyone who just happens to be born in a certain territory, although in fact no one signed it. This imaginary contract was drawn up in a supposed “natural” society that also never existed. 7 Even if the gods are not mentioned in this story, in essence it is no less mythological than Athena expressing her devotion to Zeus.

Hardly anyone believes that there once was a natural society in which a social contract was drawn up, but the main lie of this myth is how it presents the consent of people to the establishment of the state. This is not at all the agreement that we usually mean when we pronounce this word. Social contract theory portrays the alternatives to statism as so unattractive that no one in their right mind would like them, and then proclaims that for this very reason people consent to the authority of the state. Under consent What is meant here is something like passive submission. Following similar logic, we can talk about consent to rape if the victim did not actively resist for fear of worse consequences. This reaction is learned helplessness. Even if all alternatives to statism could be proven to be worse, this has nothing to do with people's consent to the state.

“You can always leave,” sooner or later the statists say in a dispute. Well, first of all, this not always true, besides, this argument also returns us to the problem of justifying the state. If the state cannot justify its rights to power, then it is the state that is abusing my trust and must “leave.” Claiming the possibility of escaping government oppression is like telling a person whose house has been occupied by soldiers that it was done with his consent because He may move to another house (which, as you might guess, is already occupied by another group of soldiers). The myth of the social contract simply masks the problem.

The lie that the people agree to the state is related to the lie that the state expresses the will of the people. All modern states claim this. If a state is headed by a dictator, he expresses the will of the people. If a state has a functioning electoral system, it is assumed that the will is expressed through a set of procedural rules. However, one entity can represent the interests of another only to the extent that their benefits are interrelated. Organization can not express the will of the people from whom it unilaterally receives funding in the form of taxes. The government would certainly suffer if all the taxpayers died or became so poor that they could not support it. Thus, it can be argued that the government represents the interests of the people only to the extent that it is not able to completely rob them everyone.

What can we say about special requirements (special pleading) ? Special requirements are spoken of when two entities are empirically indistinguishable, but one of them, under one pretext or another, requires a special treatment - for example, if in some situations people are ordered to take the word of authorities, and in others to rely on evidence. Juggling special claims is one of the favorite games of statists because they judge rights and actions by their names, even if there is no empirical difference between them.

Residents of such states are taught from an early age not to question the nature of the regime under which they were born, whether dictatorship or democracy, and to condemn those who unsuccessfully rebelled against it. However, it is not difficult to imagine alternative versions of history in which one of the unsuccessful uprisings succeeded or one of the successful ones failed. We have to admit that in this case other actions, if not diametrically opposed ones, would be considered heroic and treacherous. For example, if the American Revolution had failed, the members of the Continental Congress would today be considered small-minded conspirators. If the Confederacy had been able to defend itself, we would have celebrated Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee as heroes and denounced Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant.

The only objective assessment of attempts to create states is their success. This criterion is only applicable in retrospect, so from the point of view of the actual participants in history it is entirely relative. All other justifications for a particular state situational and initially adjusted to the desired conclusions.

Even if abstract social contract arguments could justify legislative, judicial, and police monopolies, it would not follow that every modern state is legitimate. It is far from a fact that one nation and one people need a single ruling organization. It is quite possible to imagine a nation with two democratic governments, each of which collects the votes of the entire population, simultaneously holds elections, independently makes laws and considers itself authentic. According to standard state theory, this problem can only be resolved through war, but then the winner would gain legitimacy a posteriori. You might as well argue that the monopoly should be the Boy Scouts of America or Berkshire Hathaway and that the current ruling organization is an impostor. The fact that modern governments correspond most closely to the idea of ​​the state does not in any way justify their existence ethically. This is similar to how supporters of various religions use abstract arguments to try to prove the existence of God, and then claim that only theirs own religion is correct.

The emergence of organizations providing security and judicial decision-making is not enough to be justified as a response to a corresponding need - it must also be shown that they arose and developed according to the same rules as all human organizations. Society cannot rely on rules that apply only retrospectively, but this is precisely what all statist concepts require. Actions to create a state are empirically indistinguishable from the process of organizing a mafia group. If the attempt succeeds, it will be hailed as a great revolution, but if it fails, it will be branded as sedition, terrorism, or criminal conspiracy.

Imagine that the mafia has covered the area with a network of racketeers. The mafia is directly interested in protecting its “wards” from other criminals, because it does not need competition. She needs successful companies in her territory so that she has someone to receive money from. Thus, apparently, the mafia will provide some kind of security services to the population. It would be rational for people living in mafia-controlled territory to say that the current situation is preferable to the uncertainty that may follow change, but this does not mean that they are not oppressed. Now suppose that the mafia is holding elections for the next leader. Of course, none of the candidates will say that they plan to put an end to racketeering or disband the group. It would be rational for people to vote for the candidate who seems least tough, but this would still not justify the existence of a mafia organization; it would only allow people to slightly improve their situation by taking advantage of the minimal freedom of choice given to them.

Now suppose that the mafia began to spend part of the income from the racketeering on charity: building schools, homeless shelters, etc. After this, getting rid of the mafia would cause quite serious inconvenience for some time. Even if people recognize this trick, it will be difficult for them not to follow the mafia's lead. And indeed: if they are already built into the system, why not try to get the most out of it?

How does this situation differ from a modern democratic state? Only in words: just change mafia on state, leader on president, A racket- on taxes, and everything will fall into place. The systematic use of specific terminology is the very special requirements. All the measures taken by this hypothetical mafia group can be explained by its desire to gain a foothold in society, so why should we consider democracy and social programs to be beneficial and beneficial? Just because the state is behind them? These are special requirements, and nothing more.

With private organizations such as businesses, clubs or communes this problem does not arise. Each of these organizations operates by its own rules because each member makes a conscious decision to follow these rules for his own benefit. If the rules become disadvantageous to the members of the organization, they may refuse to participate in its work, and the organization will shrink and, at the limit, be disbanded.

The only honest solution to the problem of special requirements is to recognize the fact that modern states won, and alternatives to them lost. In other words, “the winner is always right.” A government organization is different from others in that it has power over them and that it has successfully defeated its competitors. However, the formula “might is right” is considered too unsightly and immoral, so statists use intellectual tricks to hide the fact that this is the very essence of their theory.

All modern states exist because a small group declared a then-new order to be law and used existing power structures to impose that order on others. Even if many voted for this order, they themselves elections were imposed on them. It is impossible to imagine that anyone would voluntarily want to submit forever to order introduced from the outside. And what about the people who didn't vote? Why on earth are they forced to submit to a long-standing decision that they have nothing to do with?

Why is it necessary to deal with this long-standing crime? Because, if it is true that the state has no justification and is based on the criminal actions of an old group of robbers, then this crime continues. If the state does not have the right to own territory, its every action is an invasion of our lives. Taxes and regulation are extortion. Deprivation of liberty and imprisonment are slavery. War is mass murder.

In response to our natural aversion to violence and our intuitive understanding that it is harmful to society, statists appeal to guilt and fear. Without bothering to prove it, they insist that we should fear all alternatives to statism because they are cruel and violent. Following some perverted logic, we are convinced of the inevitability of this violence by the fact that people are supposedly evil by nature. State violence is forced, they say, because people need charismatic overlords to keep them in line. They say that the state is retribution for original sin. All this is nonsense, because the state is ruled by people, not angels, and the roots of the evil that is found in man should be sought in the state itself and its attitude towards its subjects.

By turning to the discourse of violence, the state declares that its power is inevitable, that even if it were not there, some other gang would rule in its place. That we might as well leave everything “as is.” As has already been said, submission to the oppressor is rational if one fears something more than the established order, but it is irrational to say that the oppressor is just and agree with his power. Instead, one should honestly admit that the state is cruel, unfair and, despite all the handouts and privileges, is an enemy and invader.

Without making one of the three main mistakes of statists, it is impossible to protect the state. Violence and threats of violence are the historical reasons why some states exist and others have disappeared. If someone does not want to justify violence at all, he should at a minimum provide empirical historical actions to create states that could be made a universal example for all humanity. However, there are no such examples. There is no empirical difference between a successful state founder, a traitorous rebel, and a mafia boss. If you don’t try to justify the existence of some states arbitrarily, all that remains is to distort history.

Voluntary Society

I want to discuss another statist argument. Any claim that statism has no realistic alternative is due to a lack of imagination. It is impossible to imagine every alternative model of justice and crime prevention, but to say that there are no other models is dogma, not rational argument.

Proof of the insincerity of statism can be seen in the fact that no theories of the state even include the possibility of individual separatism. If statism is so important, why not test anarchy under controlled conditions? Surely there must be someone who can convince everyone that he will not become a serial killer without the threat of police violence hanging over him, and who is willing to give up taxes and government services in order to test the theory of the necessity of the state. The fact that no one has ever allowed this confirms that the state cannot allow its dogmas to be tested.

I don't claim to know exactly how the services that government currently provides should be structured, but there are already some very compelling business models in place. 8 The point is that institutions that curb rampant crime may not be monopolists. In fact, they should not be monopolists, because otherwise there will be nothing to restrain the monopolists themselves. If instead of a hierarchy, society was organized like a network, everyone would have some power over the others from time to time.

Anarchism is a rejection of a certain idea, which does not imply the imposition of any worldview or ideology. Anarchy is quite open to experimenting with many different ways of life, whereas statism necessarily entails forcing certain groups to adhere to certain rules. There are anarchists who like worker cooperatives, and anarchists who emphasize individual initiative. There are religious anarchists and anarchists who do not believe in God. There are hippie anarchists and yuppie anarchists.

Unfortunately, the reality of power is more compelling to most people than the logical conclusions of ethical arguments. People become anarchists because they trust the abstract idea of ​​justice more than the performances of those who claim to realize it, and their own skills of independent thinking about justice more than the ideology imposed by the authorities. They become anarchists when they realize that All actions and even the very existence of the state are based on logical errors and fraud. To become an anarchist it is enough to reject lies, delusions and violence as legitimate justifications for the status quo. Anarchism is not extremism, it is simply correct attitude to reality.

Daniel Krawisz