IL COMMUNIONISMO

(A Treatise About New Kind Of Communes)

By Ivancho Jotata, known also as Ochnavi Atatoj, Ivan Bugarow, Jotabash Giaurgi, Nostradamus Buladamus, and other cloning names

[ Remark: I wanted so much to write this material in Italian, because they are believers, Catholics, and not deny the communism, and my idea is a blend of communism and communion of communes and so on, but, regretfully, my Italian, even with the help of computerized translators, is not so good at the moment for to write something in it. Maybe after a pair of years, if I will live long enough. ]

Abstract: This is a paper about one of my many ideas for bettering of the society, namely for building of voluntarily chosen families, by the simple reason that the families came down from historical scene but they are necessary, we are social animals, some kind of communes are always needed. So that I begin firstly with the motivation of this process, and what will happen if we will not realize this idea. Then I explain it in rough strokes, then come to other, higher, levels of communization, then to the changes in our social life that will appear with the introduction of this idea as collateral effects, then to some discussion (here with myself) about the need of religions and how they have to look in the age of space flights and cell phones. But if you are convinced anti-communist you better skip this paper.

[ The idea for illustration is in placing of one picture in a frame under the title and the author, which has to be square and probably 450 x 450 pixels (because I use usually 525 x 725 for the cover and then multiply by 3, when necessary). The picture is as follows: simple ink-drawing in one colour (light green or blue) and in thick strokes (nothing specially detailed, just a sketch), where is drawn a round table with one soup tureen in the center of it and cups with cutlery (say 5 pieces) around it. This is all, and the same picture is used for the variants in all languages. ]

0. Introduction

There are some necessary processes in every historical moment, which, if will not arise smoothly, with centralized measures, will … arise again, yet with more bloodshed and social disturbances. I am not sucking this from my fingers, there were similar moments in the ancient times when the social orders changed, when religions were accepted or not, when the democracy was introduced, or the abolishment of serfdom or slavery, or the present days communization of social life, or the appearing of emancipation, and so on. They far away from always happen peacefully, or by reasonable arguments, yet they happen and in many cases is taken not the right decision (like with the emancipation, leading to swiftly disappearing of the families), so that some profound thinking is necessary, and because I have no other occupation in my old years, except to think about the silly people, I often make propositions; they are not followed by the masses, but the social processes are very slow and I have not "Pisistratuses"-tyrants backing me. Yet the point is that if I will not express them somebody else will do this and why should I lose the palm of the championship, right? So that let me tell my story and leave you to ignore or reject it.

Now, I am a convinced defender of the thesis that the intelligent person has to contradict, as much as possible, to the commonly accepted truths and beliefs, or to question them, because the masses tend to stick to one of the opposite poles and the truth is not on the poles but somewhere in the middle, and the more capable is bound to do this because if this begin to do the (silly) masses they never choose a peaceful solution, they like actions & thrillers. And, as you already see, I like to give long explanations, but this is because I usually don't think like the masses and if I will not explain myself they just don't understand me. (To give as example, that I state that morality has to be preached yet not out of moral motives, but from the standpoint of reason, that the moral is reasonable, not morale, and do this sometimes under my usual pseudonym, but the people just don't accept this approach.) I tell this in the beginning with the intention that if some reader does not like long explanations then he better exits faster from this material, because I am afraid that it will turn to be long.

So that, after more profound motivation of the necessity to do what I propose, i.e. to built a new kind of families or communes or patrons or the like, I will show how, not at all difficultly, it will be to build such non-profit organizations, which will substitute the missing (patriarchal) families, somewhere after the age of 12. This will be met with a wish by the young children, as well also by the old people, who will want to leave something behind themselves (I know this by personal feelings), because one is usually not very glad with his (ah, well, surely also her) own offsprings (because they rarely come in his steps, they prefer to follow their inner inclinations). These communes I call (here) Phylas or Comphylas, where the basic element is to pass whatever one owns to the posterity, like according with the laws for members of the kin, i.e. this will be building of a new kinship, in the phylas. One will easily enter in them but leave them more difficultly, because it is not supposed that one will leave them, this will happen naturally with his demise.

Then here will be explained that there have to exist some hierarchy of phylas, and if the lowest will be of about 5-10 members, just like one big family of before a century or two, then have to be some town-level phylas, then for the region, then for the state (or Commonwealth). These families will be also professional divisions, something like guilds, and they can and must have some "caps" or "holdings", yet, still, as non-profit organizations. On the other hand the phylas, especially on the higher level, will be also a kind of … insurance organizations, to offer some services cheaper to their members, but requiring for this some monthly payments by the people, or also similar with some clubs! Yet, mark, that these are, still, social or communist or just for the commune organizations, and if one has no income in the moment he /she can continue to use the services as before.

Also have to be calculated for each member his years of service in the given phyla, this will be the most important characteristic, similarly with the pensioning, yeah, my proposition shows similar elements with many existing things, I am not pulling something down from the blue, I propose utopias, but they are realistic! There can be some small coefficient for this length, yet on the average they will be around 1 for 1 year, and the payment has to be about 10% of personal income. Then there are to be set the rules for building of these companies, for accepting of new members, and for exiting the given phyla. Id est, there have to be found ways for converting of money to service and vice versa, and I think that the simplest thing is to convert the money to service while entering in the phyla, and eventually in the reverse direction when exiting it, if at all.

Then there will arise many new elements in the social life of the people when such entities will exist, like people will buy cars and homes not exactly for themselves, but for the phylas, they will not throw away good appliances, will use them better. The very homes will be necessary to be made a bit different, somehow similar to … dormitories, or communal homes, with separate personal rooms and cabinets, yet with one (or just a pair) of eating, washing, etc. places. This will teach people to be more collective, to think not only for themselves, but for the others around. In a way, this will contradict with the contemporary model of personal ownership of everything, but I think that this contradiction is necessary, living for (or at least thinking about) the others will — and must — show its favourable impact over the whole society (because nowadays we live in some aspects more disunited even than the animals). And if you give a thought to the question: why this egoistic usage of everything is propagandized on such wide scale, then you have to come to the conclusion that this is because of better … exploitation, to be sure! I personally don't insist that the exploitation is something bad, I think it is unavoidable in a society, but everything in its proper dimensions, not overdone. And so on, and this is necessary related with the religion, with some new religious behavior — not of prayers and burning of candles, but of giving a thought to the harmony of live on Earth, to the spirit of the things, how people have done from times immemorial.

1. What is the necessity for this change?

Let us start here with the statement that the right thing is what has settled itself for a long time, and that there can be changes, but the bigger they are, the rare they have to occur. This is not my idea, this is old Eastern view to the world, that what existed is right. But families existed for millenniums, they were not exactly families in the old times, say by the cavemen, or between the animals, they were rather tribes (what means that the sexual relations were of the type 1 : n, or n : m) yet they existed; then come the people living in some place and speaking one dialect, then the nations, then the empires, and the humankind. I would like to squeeze here the nice Italian word — each Italian word sounds nice, they are often childishly naive (like, say, bibbia for bible), but they are nice — paese, that has given the piece, paesage-landscape, etc. (the old pazar /bazaar, e.g.), which has very fuzzy meaning of nearly every piece of land, a village, town, area, district, country, or community. And all these middle variants of tribes-families have now almost disappeared, really!

For about half of century, or even before the big mess, if I can call in this way the 1st and 2nd World Wars, the families began to disappear, and now in a poor country like Bulgaria (not in USA or Germany etc.) more than half of the newborn children (55%, to be more precise) were extramarital (what was called, and I think still is, bastards). But there are no more small paesi, too, there are only big towns (eventually also settlements with fading structure), and this again for about a century. And there are nowadays even no countries, there are big Blocks, like NATO countries, North America countries, CIS-countries (what is a pretty funny name, 'kis-kis' in Bulgarian is to giggle), the Arab lands, and from the turn of the century also the Common Europe, and one can move freely in the borders of these practically unlimited countries. So that as if the remaining steps are: the individuals, and then the humankind! Do you think this is right? Because I don't think so.

You see, somewhere under my real pseudonym I have classified the acquaintances dividing them chiefly in 3 classes: the 1st one is with close relatives, with which one is emotionally tied, and these are of the order of 10 (or between 5 and at most 50), then is the 2nd class with number of members centered around 100 (in logarithmic sense), with which persons one competes, makes career, knows them more or less, but is not emotionally united, and the 3rd class is around 1,000 persons, where are all pop or football etc. stars and politicians. These classes continue to exist, but they are not properly filled, especially the lower level, which was tied usually by the use of force (you know, the old patriarchal families, the headman of the tribe, such things), what was necessary because of the danger of extinction and the difficulty of finding of food and shelter. But now it is not so, generally, and there is not enough discipline in these groups and this is bad for the society as a whole. This was when I said to myself: what if people would be allowed alone to choose this group, instead of participation in it to be compulsive to make it voluntary (like the main democratic principle — allow the people to choose their rulers, and they will, more or less, listen to them). So that I am just combining known methods in varied conditions (this is what the geniuses do, ah?, because there is nothing new under the sun).

And I am not much in favour of the family ties because — you alone feel this — they are not seriously grounded, the intellect, or whatever qualities, are not passed really in the posterity, there are many mutations, much arbitrariness; the colour of the eyes, still, can be passed, or body structure, but not characteristics of the soul or intellect (this is the reason why, otherwise good planned, caste system was abandoned even before the new era, though not entirely, the aristocratic system existed till before a century). But not only this, there are often the bad feelings stronger in the families, because of this compulsive relations, and because of the nearness of many characteristics, and — if you have not thought about this, I have though it through — the more one is similar to somebody else, the more he /she wants to differ more than necessary, no matter with what and for good or for bad, but just to differ. Exactly this nearness makes the exact repeating of the character in generations impossible, because everything in this world is in the details, in the exact relation of the components. And what I propose is also freedom, people, why should we be deprived of this possibility — to choose, so to say, one own parents, not in the biological sense, but in emotional, in features, in likeness?

And I would add also one psychological reason, which is not much recognized but it exists — the fact that we like much chiefly the small children, until their teens, when they are helpless and dependent and obey, but when they begin to show their real character and we see that they have taken everything worse from us (or, rather, from the other parent) and not this, with what we are proud, we begin not to care much for them. Yet, as I said in the beginning, the children want to have some older confessors and teachers, and the grown people want to protect and teach somebody, but if this desire is mutual. To put in bluntly, to have posterity or parents by compulsion and not such as we all want is like to have chosen in advance marriage partner, and not such one who we like to have; in old times this system worked, but nowadays it is outmoded! Am I clear enough?

And just a pair of words about what will happen if this proposition of mine will not be somehow adopted by the people. Well, as I hinted in the beginning, the discontent of the people will continue to rise, children will not honour the parents, and v.v. (and more often the old people will not like the young than v.v., for the subconscious feeling that, the young will sometime, later, become old and be put in similar situation as now are the old people, but the old ones are unquestionably convinced that they will never-never become young — mark this, because this is also misunderstood). So that it is like usually happens: people are not bad, they just don't know how to become better (and don't listen to some wise men because they are not convinced that have to believe those sages — like myself, surely).

2. How to organize the comphylas?

Here I can't be very precise because I am not a lawyer, but, after all, I think that, a priori, such persons all around the world have to be like … my whole Bulgaria, about 7 mln, what means about 1 out of a 1,000. The simplest way will be to make special law for such cases, say, Comphyla Law Codex, that will treat these things. Yet the point is this to be a non-profit organization, where the shares are divided between all full members of the phyla, say, to the beginning of each calendar year, in proportion with their length of phyla-service, eventually using some coefficients for type of the member (like junior, full member, honourable member, something of the kind). And when one member dies his /her shares are automatically inherited by the others, i.e. the assets are divided now by a less sum of service years. This can be somehow explained in some contracts, but this must be unnecessary and there have to be established some values and rules by default. The dividing of ones personal property from the phyla-property is already done by the fact that the latter is not legally ownership of the person, it is ownership of the phyla institution; it must be allowed to transfer one property into another but they are different.

It is another thing how this property of the phyla will be managed. For this purpose have to be some authorized members of the phyla, but they are not allowed to sell the very phyla even partially. Only that this must not be new situation for the lawyers, I have read that something of the kind existed and was applied in some cases with the property of some aristocratic families, i.e. exist division of the really personal property and the property of the shire or earldom, which is only given in some hands in order to be maintained and passed further. Yet these data have to be required to be actualized each year because new members can be included in the phyla, or old excluded. Also can be some method for assessment of the property, but these are traditional problems, they are managed in some way. A thing, about which I thought — but as draft, I am not a lawyer, as I said —, is the conversion of money to years of service, will there be some "market" for service years, selling and buying of something in order to get controlling stake, ways for speculations, such things. And I have come to the (temporary) conclusion to allow only once turning of money to years of service, when the phyla is built, or, respectively, when a new member is accepted; and in the reverse direction only when one wants to quit the phyla, and this under not very favourable for the member conditions. This is necessary because these are special problems, they may and will require educated lawyers, and why (i.e. I don't want this to happen) have ordinary people to be given in the hands of the lawyers?

By the building of the phyla the money and /or property (in monetary equivalent) of the grounders are summed and counted for 100, say (by default) years of service, and, hence, each one of them receives some number of years of service proportionally with his /her invested money. The idea is the common number of years to be made about 50, but 100 is more suitable (especially if there are from 2 to 4-5 grounders). The same approach has to be applied when a new member is added, only then is taken the whole amount of the money equivalent of the property (according to some actual for the year assessment), it is added with the money or property of the new member, and everything is divided by the same number (here 100), and is calculated what will be the number of years for the new member, but for the old members everything remains the same! (E.g., there is a property of entirely 75,000 MU, i.e. money units, and the new person gives another 5,000, this makes in total 80,000, and 5,000 / 80,000 = 0.0625, hence he will receive 6.25 years length of service in this phyla. The first one of the grounders may have had 40 years service, but it will remain the same, although if recalculated now the things may look a bit different, but so is simpler, and, anyway, this is not a property to change hands every pair of years. If by the grounding was used the number 50, it has to be applied also now, but these are details.)

In this way, as you see, the things look quite similar with the labour book, and each phyla has to maintain some phyla-books for its members, the data for which have to be sent also to some institution — national Phyla Central, or then to the law court, these entities being non-profit organizations. Surely that there will happen some changes in the balance of the phylas with the years, but the point is that this is not important, this is just additional support for the person, this is money given like in the pension insurance, one gives and some other may use, so is it with the common things. But so it has also to be, there is no other way, otherwise we are coming to the beloved — by the exploiters, mark this! — model of personal ownership of everything, and collecting of murderous fees by the lawyers and for the state; and there are no reasons to suppose that the state has to be remunerated when somebody has died, am I right?

There can be several types of members, but usually: junior (who pays nothing because is young and has no income, studies something), half member (if one wants, this has to be allowed; even some other coefficient, but in the limits of 0 to 1.5 as an exception), full member (the usual case), honoured member (say, after 70, or pension age, having full rights but paying nothing). And the usual payment fees have to be, by default, by 10% of the salary, respectively 5% for half members. But each phyla can have some slightly increased coefficients if one works in a responsible post in this organization, say in management, financing, education, or how it will be established, yet they must not exceed 1.2, I suppose, and if they work really in it (say, there is a common canteen in the phyla, or a gardener, a cleaner, etc)., then such people will simply receive salaries, and pay fees to the phyla, if they are members of it (because the latter must not be required). Ah, and the juniors pay nothing but their years in the phyla have also to be counted somehow, so that I propose to count them as half (if these are children, before say, 20). And if one has been a full member but for various reasons receives no payment in the moment he has to be counted temporary as junior member and not be deprived of the privileges of the membership (only his length of service increases twice slower than in the normal case).

Now some words about the building of such organization. I suppose that this has to begin with some living quarters, some flat, because a family without a chimney, so to say, is not real family, not nowadays. But there can be also some private car, motorbike, if you like, a pair of bikes, there can be some piece of land somewhere, some holiday home, everything you like. People who live on the premises of the phyla have to pay something for this, but on reduced prices, or even to pay nothing, if this was so decided on a common assembly of the phyla, so that we come to the ways for voting. Here I also propose nothing extraordinary: when in the phyla everything is compared according with the years of service that the members have, then the vote of each member has the corresponding weight and these weights-years are summed, and if, for example, it is clear that some 3 or 4 persons make about 70% of the votes-years, they can vote alone each time and just inform the others for the taken decisions.

Yet mark that when there are not 2, to say nothing about 1, grown persons in a family, then, surely, can be taken better decisions than otherwise, can be applied some democratic voting, while by 2 persons with equal votes in the half of the cases can't be taken (binary) decision; only in the cases yes & yes or not & not everything is clear, but then it is just the same whether the voting will be performed or not. In the old times there were persons with decisive votes, or with the right of veto, in the contemporary, and now already disappearing, family of father and mother, the management of family was made very difficult, and this is another reason for the extinguishing of families. In this way the phylas not only take place of the families, but are better families, better even than the proposed by Platon state's form of families, i.e. the parents only make the children and then give them to the state to bring up.

And as to the entering in a given comphyla — this is supposed that will happen in young teenager age, yet not only. There can be people who will enter in a phyla at, say, 40, with or without giving some money to "buy" some additional service. And this for the lowest level of phylas, of about 5-10 persons, but there can be bigger, where one is not supposed to live there, but can have some additional benefits when paying some 10 % fees. And one can be member of more than one phyla, as an exception. Or one can just give something in his last will to some phyla, this is also not a bad choice. The point is to be provided some alternative way to the natural families, not to be looked at this as at some extraordinary exception, because one does not like his parents, or vice versa. One more choice is always better to have; without this we live in, so to say, totalitarian families, because the only way to make a family is to give birth of a child, or to adopt one, now I allow the children to chose their parents, I deserve a Nobel prize, I suppose. I have invented families without obligatory sex, I have made one step higher to the God almighty, in the incessant process of increasing of our moral features, surely. But let us move to the next point.

3. How to build hierarchy of phylas?

Here my ideas are a bit raw, and the phylas of higher level probably must not be non-profit institutions, yet they are necessary, otherwise we will not have monolithic system, something will be lacking. They have to be a kind of higher level insurance organizations, have to stay above the primary comphylas, be a hat to them, so that I will use the working name Capphylas. One can be a member of such phyla but this is not exactly substitute of the family, it is rather a joining security institution, like the state has to be taken for the highest level in this sense, because I said that the monthly fees of 10 % usually are similar to the insurance payments. Still, the great part of their financing has to be done with some small payments from the comphylas, say 1 or 2 percent, not more (but from many phylas). So that one can decide to become even half member if this will allow him after probably 5 years to use some reduced prices — be it of bus tickets, be it for pop groups or symphony concerts, or for some libraries, football matches, holiday homes, whatever. In addition to this the paid there sums will be already turned to years of service, so that there will be possible in some moment, say after 50, to choose some comphyla and enter it with some length of service. Or in the reverse way, one may have been for 10 years in some phyla, but then he does not want to live more there, or changes the town, or something else, and he transfers his membership from the concrete phyla to one or two levels higher capphyla, and later does some other transfer, but years are exactly equal to years, here everything is easier.

The built in this way hierarchy of phylas will form, in some sense, state in the state, it duplicates the labour insurance, but what of it, there are differences, the phylas are much more social or communal institutions, more personal, I can say, because who dies and leaves something there will be known by the others, it is not like in the insurance for pension, where nobody knows how much has left unused from the person, or vice versa, there all people are anonymous, while here we have a new family, not based on the sex, but with close relations. And, as perspective, if the built in this way system turns to be better than the pension insurance, then the phylas can gulp the pension system, I mean that the membership in the phylas can be recognized also as membership in the pension fund, this may not be additional subtraction for the individual, but just better directed. Yet I think that even some additional 10% payments in these lower level phylas will not be big load for the people, for two reasons, for one thing because when one works he receives normally nearly twice more than he needed — providing he will lead reasonable life and not throw the money away buying things that he will soon carry to the garbage —, and for another thing because commonly used products, appliances, food, if you want, etc., turn always to be cheaper (you know that 2 people can live on a 1.5 salaries as good and even better that separately on 2 different salaries — only the living quarters for 2 persons cost normally about and less than 1.5 of the costs for a single small flat).

As I said, this is an alternative, it is supposed that the phylas will be built on professional principle, yet this is not obligatory; as also one can choose on purpose a phyla not in his profession — say, for change. Or more intelligent person will want to live in phylas of common workers, or vice versa — because everywhere are needed people of all kinds (you probably know that in the big cities, in the capitals, there are not less, proportionally, common workers, even more, the capitals are in no case intellectual centers, they are just capitals, while big brains usually live in separated small towns or villages). And this communization is also necessary nowadays because somehow must be opposed the individualism that is good for the business yet not enough good for the people, because I am convinced that people not so much want to boast with new sparkling things as they want to be valued well by the others (I am convinced in this because even the home animals want this, providing they are kept well satiated, they want company). Yet I will dwell a bit more on this in the next point.

4. How to live more socially?

Now, I feel that I begin to repeat myself but the questions are important for all of us. As I said, the clever person has to try to move the people in the opposite direction of this in which they like to move, because they tend very often to act like a herd of animals (and usually sheep). The egoistic way of life might have been necessary in the primitive societies, or between animals, in order to have better selection, but after about hundred millions dead and severely wounded only in the first half of the last century — and exactly in the name of better selection of one or the other nation, mark this (because the economic reasons existed, I don't deny them, but we simply wanted, and still want, to fight) — I think that it is high time to say: stop with the selection of nations or individuals, let us live peacefully for a while (say, a pair of millenniums)! And it is even not exactly so, we have lived not more disunited in the primitive societies than nowadays, because were forced to unite, but today, when we are not forced to do this, we think that must live alone practically in everything, where the point is not in not building of communes, but in building of the necessary, voluntarily chosen communes! We just must always, I repeat, always, try to lead more social life, if not for other reasons, because it is more interesting — providing, of course, that we are not forced to change drastically our nature. And this must be done always for the simple reason that our egoism is unavoidable (though motivated), but we, as always, lose the sense of proportion and go to the other extreme pole.

What means that we must just try to live in some groups, bands, kibutzes (how the Hebrews say), not everyone for himself, we are not in the jungle, we are in a society. For example, we can, unquestionably, unite us and buy one car, say, on 2, 3, up to 5 persons, we can do this but we just do not do it. It would have been a good statistic to know in each moment, or at least on the average, how many people sit in the cars, or rather up to what percent they are used; we don't know this, but I suppose that in the towns this is about 1/3, maybe even 1/4, only between towns we load the cars with more people, but here also not more than the half, I suppose. Where the situation with the cars is not exactly like with the … lift, but I think that it is quite similar — I mean, that the lift works best of all, most economically, when is loaded to the half, and even a bit above this (because there is counter weigh that balanced it, so that when it is empty it must have the heaviest load for the motor). Or also to have one washing machine on 2-3 families, on one floor of the big homes; or else a pair of machines in the basement, how it is in the student's dormitories. And many, many similar examples — take the single cup of coffee, where we are used to pay on the street normally as if about 6-7 times higher (from 5 to 10, in broader limits). But if we live in comphylas, we will have this possibility.

More generally said, I think that we have to begin to return to various communal forms of using of whatever, how it was before, in poorer times. To using of city transport, e.g., instead of personal cars, of communal flats (how it was in the former communist countries, Russia, and others, after the World Wars, because of not enough living space), common greenhouses (say, on the roofs) or pieces of land (somewhere between the homes), even common coffee machines, if you want. I don't see what is so bad if in one entrance, let it be with 5 storeys and by 4 two-room apartments, instead of this we have had: on the 1st floor something like nursery, or rooms for babies, then on the 2nd — rooms for 2-3 families, on the 3rd and 4th — by half a dozen single rooms with small working area and sanitary units, and on the 5th — some cooking place, small restaurant for private use, a pair of rooms for watching of TV, something like this; and even in the basement — washing appliances, billiards or ping-pong rooms, a pair of workshops, such things. Yeah, but we haven't, we simply don't want this, we want to be separated and do what we want there, even to have apartments as second and not live there, say, 11 months out of 12.

While I personally have generated before probably 25 years the idea of homes for 2 and 4 families, meant as separate 2 to 3 storey homes in the suburbs, with everything necessary. I had in mind the form of our Bulgarian old, but not only, homes with small yard and surrounded by stone fence, only here had to be had in the basement garage for a pair of cars, some workshops, washing premises, local or centralized heating room, etc. (even mushroom house if one wants), then on the first floor — 2 small apartments (if for 2 families), and on the second — something like guest rooms, cabinets, attics, and then the roof. But the point was all this to be built on the periphery, while in the middle has to be had some little inner garden on the level of the 1st floor (about 5 x 5, for 2 family homes, and a bit bigger for the 4 family ones), yet enough to have there an orange tree, or fish pond, and to grow some spices, and above this the roof is transparent in the middle and can be opened in the summer or closed when it is cold. And around the home grow 2 vine plants, or in the middle about the 2nd storey like a terrace can be put strawberries, yeah, a nice place to live in, but for one family is not worth to build it. If the dimensions for 2 family variant are only 10 x 10 and in the middle is cut out 5 x 5 square for the garden, there, still, remain 75 sq. m., and on the 2nd the same, what gives by 75 sq. m. for a family, what is quite enough. For the 4 families dimensions of 10 x 20 or 15 x 15 are also very suitable, and a 3rd or attic floor can also be had. Only that I have only ideas, not money for their realization, and that the people will simply not want such homes when not for single use.

But, as I said, we have to teach us to live collectively, when we do not want this by ourselves. We can easier agree to have one girl on two boys, or v.v., but can't agree to have one car on 2 families. We are afraid that we will cheat one another, what we will, I almost don't doubt about this, but exactly because we will try to deceive us mutually we have to try to build collectives, because everything is a matter of habit. We, in the former communist countries, have not accepted such common behaviour, although were taught to accept it, but maybe we were not properly taught. Maybe in the religious countries this will be easier, but the Bulgarians are not church goers; I am afraid, though, that the situation is not pretty different in the majority of other countries, because today we have become all bigger unbelievers than have ever been — due to our naive ideas about God, and knowing good that, at least around our planet, there can hardly hide some such divine being. But this is silly, people, I am convinced atheist, and I know pretty well that the existence of God can be neither proved nor disproved! Then why must people who are easy to be lulled with everything — say, with ads —, begin to think that God must not exist when we have not seen Him till the moment? Yet I will discuss this (with myself, in my usual manner) in the following point.

5. What about the religion?

So I think that some religion is necessary for at least 95 % of the people, but it depends what kind of religion. Till now, and for millenniums, people have taken the religion of their parents and neighbours and this in very young age, what maybe is right, but then they have to have the right and obligation to think this matter through some time later, after 20, and, say, each 5 or ten years again, because everyone changes, this is unavoidable. Yet this must not be taken as some kind of betrayal by the people around, but as normal right of everybody, what is not an easy point. And also, I stress on this, the atheism has to be accepted as believing, too, what is the most difficult part of the business, and I can't see why! Let me dwell a bit more here.

This about the betrayal or duty is a strange thing, because we as if all agree that the human beings have a free will, what is maintained by each religion, yet we are afraid to allow this right to them, prefer to state this only on words. In a more or less similar way how we deny the right of everybody to commit suicide, what for me is a blunt hypocrisy, but in Old Greece this was taken for self-evident, so that we have worsened our moral in the current days! And don't think that I exaggerate, because with the toleration of beliefs of the others the situation stays in the same way, in the old times, about 6th century, when the Islam has arisen, in the so called Levant, where now live the Turks and the Arabs, is said that teemed with different religions, and this posed no problems for peaceful coexistence of the people. But later, chiefly under the influence of Christianity, although also the Islam has begun to apply the same tactics, the situation changed radically. Now the Roman Pope may say in 50 or so languages, Laudetur Jesus Christus, but he praises only our Christ, he says not that Allah, for example, has also to be glorified. Id est we may allow the existence of something different, but don't accept that this different thing can also be right, no, in no case, and this is not tolerant enough, methinks.

Then about the atheism. This very term is also old Greek and means that the existence of God can not be proved (well, exactly the proving is meant by the agnosticism, but the difference is not important for the moment), so that everybody can believe in what he or she wants, it is basic right of everybody, hence, everybody has the same right also not to believe in God, or, rather, to believe in No-God, in the not-existence of God! In a bit funny way this thought can be expressed as: if the existence of God could have been proved, then there is no God! Have you got is? Well, this is rather aphoristically, but the idea is that if we have proved one such thing then we have made some error somewhere, because this is impossible by definition. And also, have in mind that it is one thing to prove that something exists, but it is quite another thing to prove that it does not exist (in this case we in Bulgaria have the saying: try to prove that you are not a camel). If some god exists, then he can show himself to somebody, can find, probably (being a god), a way to prove that he exists, but if he does not exist how (the Hell, as it is usually said) he, or somebody else, can prove that he does not exist? In this case must be searched the whole Universe and in all possible times, and this simultaneously (because the clever god may change his habitation), could you imagine such thing? What I explain in order to show that the atheists, usually called unbelievers — what is not much correct —, are bigger believers than the usual believers, because they believe in something what principally can never be proved — and I suppose you will not object that what can be proved it is proved, people believe exactly in thinks that cannot be proved, what is old Latin proverb.

So that, all in all, the atheists, like me, are also believers, and their No-God is as good as Allah or Krishna, or Christ, or any other. And in such case the children can already in the primary schools be taught to tolerate all this possible gods, and to choose their religious affiliation, as well the right to change it later, if they feel such need. Because the religion is good for its moral, and the morals of all religions, including the atheists, are basically the same: do not do to the others things that you do not want to be done to yourself, or love your neighbour like yourself, or try to put yourself in the navel of creation, or be always afraid that will be punished for your misbehaviour, et cetera. I will not indulge in more reflections here, but the communes are directed exactly to teaching us how to do this, and the voluntarily chosen phylas are the best communes, up to my mind.

6. Conclusion

Well, in conclusion I want to say what will happen if we, all the people, will not make something that will increase our relations with the others, beginning from the lower level of some family-like structures, and up all the way to the humankind, in order to return to some moral values, which we lose leading egoistical life, to which we are shoved by the (generally) inhuman capitalism, in pursuit of bigger win and higher exploitation. Ah, if we will not come to bigger disorder and destruction (than at least the Second world war) — what we will try to do, surely, look just at the prophetic beginning of the 3rd millennium with the "good guys" of Bin Laden —, then we will try to find something similar, we will search for religions that put us in the middle of Creation, that teach us to live with the others, set goals before us, make us to think, not just to repeat some (unprovable) fables from some holy books. (And what I mean by the good guys here is that the word 'laden /ladniy' in Russian means nice, sweet, what is not only Slavonic, here is, e.g., Latin laudanum, so that his name in all probability is an alias, or else he has used it for to attract the attention of his followers.)

And let me give some explanations about the thinking and the middle of Creation. You see, I have the opinion that the Muslims ('musjulman' in Bulgarian) are very thoughtful or thinking men, because the beginning musl- /misl- is a thought in Slavonic, and this is sound imitation of some murmuring, so that it has to have wider circulation; and the syllable man- is related with the man and his hand and has older Eastern roots (I don't want to fall in more profound explanations here, I have explained nearly everything in one big book, and in other places, under my usual pseudonym). And not only this, you know, or have heard, that the Muslims have their prophet Mohamed, who has gone in the desert to think about the holy bible, he has not seen God, he has come to Him via his thoughts, more or less like Baruch Spinoza; and you know also that they do not picture Him, this is pretty naive for them, they decorate their mosques with ornaments from the flora and fauna, they don't believe in icons. And the meditation also teaches us something, because the center is related with everything around it from Sanskrit times, and in German exist the interesting relation — obvious for me — between Nabel as navel and Nebel as Latin nebula or Slavonic 'nebe' as sky; i.e. the meditation means to try to put yourself in the middle of the things. So, and the Christian religion is pretty perfumed, there everything is overdone, it is improbable, it is good only for children, and this is the reason for the increasing number of believers in the Eastern religions nowadays.

And if we will return to the Islam or the Buddhism this will be good, I think, the worse scenario will be if after the third World war will come some Apocalypse, and the world will be forced to wait some millions of years, until some civilization of … insects will take the place of human beings. But the proposed by me comphylas and capphylas may shift this black prognosis of mine with some centuries.

Ah, let me add at the end one interesting relation between words, which is in this sphere of ideas and is surely unknown by 999 out of 1,000 persons, namely that between cosmos and … cosmetics! Because this can't be otherwise, right, but why is so, with what idea? And have in mind that if on the West the hair is called otherwise, then by the Slavs it is exactly 'kosam /kosmi', and that there was some time back one Council of rulers on Crete island, where those persons were called 'Kosmi'. Did you get it? Hmm, for one thing because the hairs, especially on a woman with fine haircut, are something beautiful, like the cosmos-universe is, this has to be so, we may think that our God is dear, but His Creation is also beautiful. But for other thing also because — if you on the West, and now already we on the "East", in Bulgaria, don't study dialectics on whatever educational level, then in the old times the educated people have studied it — so, because in the universe everything is tied with some invisible threads, with some "hairs"! So is it also in the society, or has to be, and these invisible ties are what is taught in the families, which now disappear, so that there are all chances to spoil this beautiful Creation with our silly egoistic behaviour. That's it, bye, bye.

May, 2018

Сконвертировано и опубликовано на http://SamoLit.com/

Сконвертировано и опубликовано на https://SamoLit.com/