Intequisms: Accounting of ideas
by Marquard Dirk Pienaar
Published from Centurion, South Africa by Africahead.
Moiom cc transacting as Africahead,
25 Crystal Springs,
10 Lemon Wood Street,
Cover page and text copyrights © 2014 Marquard Dirk Pienaar, all rights reserved.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1a] The purpose of this pre-thesis is to give an understanding to readers of where this work originates from according to the philosophy of Vollenhoven1, who wrote that pre-theses make works clearer. Pre-theses influence outputs substantially and stating ones' subjectivities contributes to objectivities. Author's pre-thesis is a view of reality with regard to histories and current circumstances about creativities. The work, which follows author's pre-thesis, is an attempt to support his pre-thesis academically with references. This pre-thesis uses few references because the later work will support the views with references.
1b] Philosophical views
can be categorized in basically two categories; they are honest
and functionalist (instrumentalist) views. Honesties are equated
with prioritized correspondence and instrumentalist
(functionalist) views are equated with prioritized coherence.
Other categories of philosophy can then be tabled as follows:
1: Two categories of philosophy
|Prioritized correspondence||Prioritized coherence|
|Kantian deontology as most influential reference point.||Consequentialism,pragmatism, utilitarianism, instrumentalism, functionalism.|
1c] The top categories are honesties and functional deceits. Deceits are irrational4.1 because generally, when functionalisms are acceptable, deceits become pragmatic issues.
Circumstances with regard to creativities are best understood by viewing a struggle between creators and anti-creators. Creators are honest and anti-creators deceive due to instrumentalist beliefs. Creativities are results of true pre-knowledge in minds, which form new creativities logically as times go on. True pre-knowledge can be regarded as components in minds, which correspond to components of material. New actualities can therefore be created from true pre-knowledge. We are all dependent on creativities and good control depends on controlling creativities. Numbers of people simply overpowered honest creators and appropriated their creativities. The overpowered are referred to generally as 'gods', which author calls theon to make distinctions in time. Theon thus refers to creators of the past, except Jesus of Nazareth and other followers of God who where gods in today's understanding. The circumstances became entrenched in religion. In Christianity for example, phenomena of 'the Creator', who are sacrificed for the benefit of groups, was a progression to a more sustainable world in the sense that more creativities were allowed to support larger populations. Laws as well, started to support individual creators against groups. Creators however, still do not have long lifespans, because "the mob" still makes it very difficult to make a living, when staying honest. Caiaphas syndromes5, which originate partly in functionalist monotheism cause accusations that honest people regard themselves as 'God', 'Son of God', 'Mother of God' or Father of God. Caiaphas syndromes are also results of academic theories, which have functionalist use in medical, religious and intelligence (security) fields. Manic people, for example, are accused of believing they are 'One' by presupposing the existence of the belief at manic people. The false generalised presupposition then cause identifications of threats, which do not exist. False identifications of threats lead to elimination of good creativities, which would have benefitted societies if not eliminated.
1d] Mania is an effect of
the struggle between the honest and deceivers. Children are
formed as deceiving or honest during early childhood. These
formations become parts of families and their cultures. Many
believe mania is a genetic condition. Author postulates however
that mania ('bipolar disorder') is a result of cultures and
upbringings, which emphasize honesties, within other cultures,
and which promote deceits as method of survival. Author's
opinion is based on experience because he has been 'manic' and
experienced, societal reactions to 'mania', as exaggerated and
partly superstitious. Different types of people under the
description 'manic people' are almost as many as under the
description 'normal people', therefore the category 'manic' is
false, because the category relates more to functionalism for
deceivers, than correspondences for all.
The circumstances require that the words "God", "a god", "a goddess", "gods", "goddesses", 'god' and 'goddess' should not be separated totally in meaning. The words "gods" and "goddesses" are therefore not used by author to refer to theon, as is practice currently, because "gods" and "goddesses" are used to refer to honest men and honest dames by author. A god is an honest man and a goddess is an honest dame. It makes not sense to refer with 'god' or 'goddess' and a lower case 'g' in singular form, because singular 'god' or singular 'goddess' exists not, a god, and a goddess, and gods and goddesses, being parts of God, however can exist. God with a capital G is logos, plus all gods and all goddesses. Logos is a metaphysical partly unexplainable concept, because it includes metaphysical powers, which cause miracles, science cannot explain currently. Logos and Kant's noumena are therefore related.
1e] "Ideas" in this work are initial ideas, which are good for all. Ideas in question are creative ideas, because such ideas enlarge pools of wealth and are therefore not destructive in nature, except for replacing older creativities. Accounting of ideas rejects Aristotle's statement in De anima (1986: 140; 406b) that something, which is good for self, cannot be good for another.
Plato, possibly a descendant of Poseidon6 perhaps argued against changes, during his time, because he was descended from theon, who's powers were questioned due to new realizations about realities. Socrates for example did not honour immaterial traditional theon, which was partly the reason he was sentenced to suicide. Socrates did not swear by Zeus's name but in the name of the dog.7 Plato regarded souls, which move things to be immaterial theon and he agreed with Thales that everything was full of theon.8 Plato used the word "θεῶν" ('gods', "theó̱n")9 in the Laws at 899b where Plato might have quoted Thales. The quotation was derived by implication from Aristotle; "A dictum of Thales: Aristot. Soul 411 a 7 ff." 10
1f] Although other authors do not usually distinguish between corporeal and immaterial theon ('gods and/not goddesses'), author included distinctions according to euhemerism11. Wanted not to use "God" for ancients' understandings because they used other words like "neter"12, in Egypt, for example. Parmenides wrote "Περι Φυσις (On Nature)"13 ("About Physis")14. Anaximander15, who was not a vegetarian, and probably other Miletians like Thales and Anaximenes, opined we should not eat fish because fishes were human ancestors. Is there a relation between Anaximander's fish and the Christian fish symbol? According to Wilhelm von Humboldt philology enlightens history.16 Burms wrote involuntary rhyme should be regarded as infelicitous. 17 "Theon", "gods" and "goddesses", "neter", "physis" and "God" refer to very different understandings of times. When using 'gods and goddesses', for example, to refer to entities of ancient times, as well as for entities of current times, differences in time are not acknowledged.
Organizational structures have since ancient times in Egypt and Mesopotamia existed to structure societies around orders of creating. In Egypt it was called "Ma'at" usually translated as "truth" or "justice" and in Mesopotamia same concepts were called "me".18 Wisdom was needed to understand this order.19
Early Greek philosophers for example Xenophanes, the first "real theologian", and Hesiod, Homer and Democritus started to criticize immaterial theon22 in conjunction with new scientific developments and creativities. Critiques however were dangerous. Troost opines early scholars could not directly oppose pantheism and mythology. 23 Socrates's sentences and sentence jump to mind here. Mythological corporeal theon were subject to creating orders, according to Wolters.24 Socrates told about "Ammon" who prohibited creativities of "Theuth" who lived in a Greek harbour in Egypt.25 The ancient towns of Egypt and Greece called Thebes and their mythical kings and priests relevant. According to pantheism all is cosmic "One", therefore pantheism was already an opposition to corporeal theon and priests in mythology. Ancient philosophers for example Xenophanes were logically more in line with pantheism against immaterial theon and their priests during Classic times. If Xenophanes had a true theological opinion, Christianity would have accepted his opinion. The Roman Catholic Church, which uses crosses at the top of obelisks with pharaohs' inscriptions on the obelisks, adamantly opposes pantheism and from Plato onwards, Greek philosophy influenced Christianity significantly. Heraclitus's logos also had significant influence. Troost opines reason or "logos" as defined by Heraclitus started to oppose immaterial theon of mythology.26 Logos must have also opposed priests of immaterial theon then.
1h] Troost further opines, Stoics with their doctrine about "moral natural rights" also referred to logos and this influenced Christianity before the Reformation. Protestantism did something similar with ' "theology of creation orders" ' at the beginning of the 20th century and end of the 19th century. Sophists who disregarded reason (logos), emphasized differences between what nature ["physis"] requires of us and what laws ("nomos", [neter?]) require. 27 Most sophists had democratic28 leanings against aristocrats, for example Plato. At least two human natures exist, leading and misleading. Democrats promoted immaterial theon with icons and statues and partly29 therefore Socrates, who did not swear in Zeus's name, was 'sacrificed'. Critias, Plato's uncle was one of the first who said in Sisyphus, a play, some attribute to Euripides, that politicians invented and use religion to control people.30 Sophists emphasized medical knowledge of the time about necessary actions, which could lead to punishment. Today everyone knows about this but some Christians do not respect that "the will of our Creator God makes itself known and confronts us in normative directives with authority."31
1i] The first principle of stoics was to live according to requirements of laws of "nature" [neter?]. Laws, which opposed individualism, for social order, stood in contrast to stoics.32 It seems thus that lawgivers at the time wrote laws to primarily benefit themselves and not society at large. Creativities of individualism benefit society at large with new resulting free time as result of new creativities. Stoics and sophists had cosmopolitanism in common.33 It seems sophists had belief in "physis" and stoics put their trust in "neter". It seems before democracy took over substantially, stoics, like Cronus, used "nomos" (neter?) to institute their beliefs.
Some stoics for example Seneca and Cicero, who died (not sophist nature) for their beliefs, together with Jesus, helped form the current understanding of Christianity's "God" and current reformation creating orders for physics. Troost wrote the "nature [physis and neter] of man" were used to motivate different kinds of laws. These different laws were represented by different systems for example democracy and imperialism. A few "imperatives" or universal laws were formulated, which most people could agree to, however ' "positivists" ' of the time, of whom many were sophists, opposed laws, which were not universal because "nature of man" was not a universal concept. Sophists wanted positive laws, which could be generalized as good to all people. Problem was, they did not know of criteria or did not respect criteria of universality for laws.34
1j] The "creation order", from which "creating orders" can be abstracted, currently distinguishes not sufficiently between ex nihilo creation and transcendent immanence creating. People in power naturally protect their interests, which are changed by new creativities according to Capra and Toynbee.35 Analytic philosophy of Aristotle and religions are used to monopolize new creativities through development in hands of powerful hegemons and bourgeoisies, hegemons belong to currently, as was done during history. Analytic philosophies relate to the "anomaly of Plato?" and religions to singularity of 'god'.
Histories show functional, instrumental arguments to control the effects of new creativities without considering all races of humans.
Imparting of ideas was motivated in the philosophy of Rousseau who wrote creativities are evil. He wrote: "The simplicity and solitude of man's life in this new condition, the paucity of his wants, and the implements he had invented to satisfy them, left him a great deal of leisure, which he employed to furnish himself with many conveniences unknown to his fathers: and this was the first yoke he inadvertently imposed on himself, and the first source of the evils he prepared for his descendants."36 Rousseau also wrote: ".. how do I know that a verification of titles might not leave me the legitimate king of the human race?"37 Deceiving and sophisticated language uses, referring to singularity of 'god', is instrumentalism to motivate imparting of ideas from creators.
1k] Freud's postulate about phylogenetic causal Oedipal38 effects on Christianity is partly false because sacrificial practices of Christianity relates to actual "sacrifices" of past and current creators as a means of survival due to religious hatred and appropriation of creators' ideas.
The Bill of Rights, Section 16 (1)(b) of The South African Constitution states: "Freedom of expression. 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes. … (b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; .." 39
The South African Labour Relations Act states in section 5: "Protection of employees and persons seeking employment … (2) … no person may do, or threaten to do, any of the following- … (c) prejudice an employee or a person seeking employment because of past, present or anticipated- … (v) disclosure of information that the employee is lawfully entitled or required to give to another person;" 40
Imparting of ideas was motivated in the philosophy of Rousseau and Thomas Aquinas who argued against creativities by humans. Rousseau wrote: "implements he had invented ... the first source of the evils"41 With his background in monotheism and Greek philosophy, Rousseau postulated creativities evil, and therefore creativities should be imparted, without compensation, to be developed for benefits of groups, whilst excluding creators in their childish states of nature. Thomas Aquinas's "God Himself Who cannot lie"42 influenced Europe by the Enlightenment and, at few, enhanced corresponding communication. Descartes's philosophy was primarily arguments to counter scepticism and deceit.43 "God, then is the first entity outside his own mind that Descartes recognizes; and God plays an essential role in the subsequent rebuilding of the edifice of science. Because God has no defects, Descartes argues, he cannot be deceitful, because fraud or deceit always depends on some defect in the deceiver. The principle that God is no deceiver is the thread that will enable Descartes to lead us out of the mazes of scepticism."44
1l] Nietzsche's book, Beyond good and evil, shows many postmodernists do not rationalize45 the necessity of "dogmatic" truths, which only children, according to them, have to comply with. Nietzsche's accusation against society who killed God in his parable, explains the circumstances partly. The state of nihilism, which the Eucharist as theodicy indoctrinated society into is a result of this illogical state of societies. Why kill God? Creative God, that solves problems are good for societies in total. Reasonings are of consequential utilitarian nature for example Caiaphas's reasoning and Aristotle's reasoning in De anima46, that the only way to gain is to disadvantage another. The reasoning can be primarily identified with methodological misleading and psychological religious oppositions to creativities. In some academic institutions priceless credibility does not exist due to deceiving methodologies of Aristotle, which has been accepted as signs of knowledge. In The metaphysics Aristotle argued against47 corresponding language. Whilst defining the word 'false' Aristotle wrote in parenthesis, when quoting a deceptive argument in the Hippias as follows: 'that the man who is able to speak false is false (and this, of course, is the man of knowledge and good sense)'48. Aristotle opposed creativities by opposing Plato's forms, which inspire to create. Aristotle wrote: "So we can do away with the business of Forms Being Established As Templates."49 Kenny wrote Aristotle "had spoken, obscurely," of an intellect, which was responsible for forming of concepts. Alexander of Aphrodisias understood this intellect as "God" and the Arab world was influenced by this belief. Christians of the time however believed that humans form concepts self.50 All philosophers can be divided between those who inspire good creativities and those who argue like Caiaphas and Aristotle against creativities. Aristotle's philosophy was descriptive and he explained well what the results of fallacies are. Aristotle wrote statements are false when statements cannot be used in processes of assembly.51
1m] "It is now commonplace to say that money is information. With the exception of Krugerrands, crumpled cab fare, and the contents of those suitcases that drug lords are refuted to carry, most of the money in the informatized world is in ones and zeros. The global money supply sloshes around the Net, as fluid as weather...However, as we increasingly buy information with money, we begin to see that buying information with other information is simple economic exchange without the necessity of converting the product into and out of currency. This is somewhat challenging for those who like clean accounting, since, information theory aside, informational exchange rates are too squishy to quantify to the decimal point."52
It seems Nietzsche was also against innovation because he wrote innovation was one of the four errors of human kind.53 This places part of Nietzsche in the same category as Rousseau and other anti-creativities philosophers.
Taylor wrote: "The first source of worry is individualism. … And these rights are generally defended by our legal systems. In principle, people are no longer sacrificed to the demands of supposedly sacred orders that transcend them. Very few people want to go back to this achievement."54 Taylor argued in his book The malaise of modernity against creativities probably because he did not realize that the negative effects of developments he argued against, are partly results of imparting of ideas, which are protected as a human right in the South African constitution, for example. Currently ideas are common property in South Africa, which has been institutionalized by the utilitarian Constitution and Labour law. John Perry Barlow, who acknowledged trading with ideas, is an author who wrote lyrics for a USA rock band called Grateful Dead. He graduated in comparative religion from Wesleyan University,55 which is a private liberal arts college56.
1n] “All over the world, university campuses are offering their research facilities, and priceless academic credibility, for brands to use as they please. And in North America today, corporate research partnerships at universities are used for everything: designing new Nike skates, developing more efficient oil extraction techniques for Shell, assessing the Asian market’s stability for Disney” (Klein. 1999: 99).
Phenomena are conscious, and subconscious, for example, some humans, like "bats", think they are Ones, according to Griffiths who claims he established the phenomena in others' minds with "reasonable" certainty.57 Honest people are accused of thinking they are God, like "bats". Partly, creators, or in Griffiths mind, "the creator"58, agents and "God"59 complete Christian accounts. Griffiths wrote a Christian account includes a divine agent who is other than those offering the account. The account is a response to "the creator" who became incarnate.60 Could this be a reference to accounting of ideas, in its current occurrence i.e. the explanations of Barlow61, Griffiths62 and Klein63?
1o] "Radical transcendence as alterity"64 is a countercultural movement relating to authenticities due to notions attached to ulterior motives, identified in authenticities according to Charles Taylor in his book The Malaise of modernity. Westphal emphasized, with reference to Niebuhr65, that the "return of Christ" and by implication creators' activities should be seen as threats, which require restrictions.66 Intelligence agencies during recent times have broken the balances between securities and privacies by using modern technology irresponsibly.67 CCTV News reported that the National Security Agency of the USA accessed computers of civilians with radio wave technology even whilst the computers were not connected to the Internet.68 Aljazeera News reported that text messages were intercepted because the messages were regarded a "goldmine to exploit".69 "Sin, the opposite of trusting obedience, is the desire for autonomy, not merely as being responsible for my own actions, but also as being the one who defines my identity and sets my own agenda. The same is true when the ‘I’ is expanded to the ‘We’, the self to society." 70 From these quotations it can be questioned whether Westphal's views about creativities are dangerous to societies' independence as creative units. Sometimes theodicies are regarded as bureaucratic necessity.71 Westphal's theism acknowledges "God as creator"; God can exist without the world but the world cannot exist without God. He wrote Pantheism and atheism, which are basically the same, postulate interdependence; God cannot exist without the world and vice versa. Atheism and pantheism do not recognize "God, as personal, purposive creator".72
1p] Trakakis quoted Caputo who explained how institutionalization of deceit [consequential utilitarian reasoning] took place. " 'Debates about reason are debates conducted by university professors in journals and books, at symposia and public lectures, by men and women who aspire to tenure, promotion, and support for more research.' " According to Caputo reasoning in academia is a function of power structures, cliques and selfish interests of the people involved. Again said that universities are unduly influenced by the corporate world. 70% - 80% of academics feel this way, which makes sense in the light of power structures. Emphasis is not on quality but on quantity of research outputs.73 Universities get the same subsidy for a paper worth little and for a paper worth a lot. Deceiving methodologies ("leuenstellings") are taught to medical doctors and church ministers from where it spreads into society. A church minister recently said we have to lie to show we believe in the mercy of God. Consequential utilitarian reasoning allows misleading, to force required outcomes in the short term, without considering long-term negative effects, which "dogmatic" duties, for example honesties, aim to prohibit. The best example most of us are aware of is the consequential reasoning of Caiaphas when Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. Such decisions are based on utilitarian methodology. Was the methodology good for Israel? Author doubts it, because Israel did not exist until after the 2nd world war and the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth had an effect on Israel's non-statehood during the crusades for example. Israel was colonized frequently during its history. Without conclusively proving utilitarianism the cause, can the question be raised rhetorically, because prove cannot be gathered empirically? Machiavelly74 and Hobbes motivated consequential utilitarian reasoning in Europe, whilst motivating despotism and deceit. The future will show whether the result will be the same in Europe with loss of its autonomy. Practical issues are relevant with regard to the evils of the world.75 If we want to live honestly, Jesus of Nazareth is a good example of the practical issues which are relevant to honest lives.76
1q] In the quotations and paraphrases above four areas were identified where ideas are being imparted without compensating creators for ideas. The four areas are: (1) Christian communities through "Christian accounts"; (2) educational institutions where students' and qualified academics' ideas enter the economic system without value being ascribed to research; (3) via intelligence agencies due to restrictions on alterities; and (4) in the workplace via disloyal employees who impart employer's ideas and disloyal employers who impart employee's ideas without compensation.
Imparting is motivated by God thoughts about honesties, about being "God himself" and utilitarian consequentialism.
Basically it is today more profitable with modern technology to appropriate ideas than to create ideas. Possibly it has been the case most of the time during history because part of Greek philosophy and religion supported imparting of ideas.
Authentic individuals who Taylor degrades could cause good effects by realizing better ways of doing things. The problem of developments is not necessarily with creators but maybe with developers who impart and copy ideas, which leads to over development.
1r] During the Enlightenment, philosophers motivated that labours cause capital and property rights. Those philosophers did not sufficiently acknowledge capital, which are added with good ideas and which precede labours. Utilitarian philosophy opines that ideas should be free to develop to ensure wide use of utilitities in national or international communities without formal compensation for idea generations. Not referring to creators of ideas as deserving of remunerations during the Enlightenment is understandable because philosophers then motivated enforceable salaries and wages, which were more immediate needs. According to Child (1997:60), John Locke however recognised exponential increases in values of certain land, up to five hundred times the original value, due to "reason". The values of such changes currently falls into the pockets of owners and designers according to contracts. Logically such increases in values are, not only caused by contractual designers and owners, but also caused by creative ideas of others, for example employees, or clients on the land. An ideal is thus to keep record of the originations of such valuable changes in order that people be remunerated intequibly. Entrepreneurship is taught as functionalist belief in South Africa, although entrepreneurial businesses are very rare. (Antonites & Wordsworth, 2009). Because the rarity is not common knowledge, and because the legal system cannot control extortion of ideas, Accounting of ideas is also required to keep balance with regard to entrepreneurship.
Three hypotheses might prove links between generations of ideas and formal remunerations. Honesties; influences, which precede generations of ideas are postulated as a cause and result of efforts because it is difficult to stay honest. The argument follows thus: From wealths of nations ideas are deduced; from ideas honesties are deduced; from honesties efforts are deduced and remunerations can me motivated after efforts according to Enlightenment philosophy.
1s] The following
arguments support causal connections between honesties and
generations of ideas:
2: Causal connection between honesties and creativities
|Argument||Type of proof|
1. Inverse relation between memory and logic.77
|2. If persons deceive a lot logically their memory power will increase and logical powers will decrease, deduced from no. 1.||Deductive reasoning and inductive prediction.|
|3. Something can only be created from actualities. If pre-knowledge (Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993:294,301,314)78 is relevant for an invention only the persons with the pre-knowledge can make the invention. This proves that creativities do not come exclusively from a metaphysical realm. The prerequisite, knowledge, has to be present in a person's brain before something new, which uses the knowledge, can be created. Faiths enhances honesties because faiths give courages to be honest when devils influence against honesties. There is thus logically a correlation between faiths and knowledges.||Deductive reasoning|
4. Bentley study. Statistical study in which he divided mental activity between logic (divergent thinking and evaluative thinking) and cognition (observation and memory). His conclusion was that no correlation between cognition and creativities exists.79
|5. Bentley study. Deduced from no. 4, if creativities are not correlated to cognition (observations and memories) creativities are partly correlated to logic because logic is another mental activity according to the study. Faiths, which precede knowledge, causes honesties (integrities), which cause logical integrated thoughts.||Deductive reasoning and exclusion.|
|6. When groups create together, the transfer of true pre-knowledge is necessary for progress of creative processes. Deceits hamper creative processes and honesties enhances creative processes.||Predicted inductive causality|
|7. Equations between "the Creator" (creators) and truths in religious and philosophical literature.||Actuality|
8. Plato deduced from actualities backwards to the unknown. For example, a question is asked why are there many trees at several locations? Partly because there are rivers at the observed places. Why do many trees grow close to rivers? Because trees need water to grow. Why do they need water etc?80 The deductive process can only work with truths, which reduce noumena by replacing noumena with phenomena as sciences improve.
1t] Utilitarian constitutions and other laws do not motivate original creativities because imparting of ideas allows appropriation of original ideas without compensating creators. Only developments of ideas are motivated with utilitarian consequentialist reasoning and not originating of creative ideas. Developments follow originations of ideas.
"The myth of ingenuity" questions which is more profitable, innovation or imitation, favouring imitation. Societies as wholes benefit from innovations but imitators benefit to the disadvantage of innovators. If everyone start imitating because innovation is not profitable, stagnation will take place.81 Societies are sometimes ignorant of scapegoating, which is mythologized through "political and economic structures", partly due to Caiaphas syndromes, which motivate sacrifices of creators.82
1u] Most useful ideas cannot be generated without corresponding and coherent communications after true pre-knowledge.
Premises of third hypothesis (Linking ideas with honesties)
Deductive reasoning is used retrospectively, starting with wealths of nations:1. Wealths of nations exist. (Fact)
1v] Corresponding and coherent communications imply efforts and endurances.
Premises of second hypothesis (Linking honesties with desert)
reasoning is used retrospectively, starting with opposing
forces of religion:
1. Opposing forces of incorporeal
singularity of 'god' and anthropomorphic plural
corporeality of God (plural form) exist. (Fact)
2. Existentialist philosophies of the post-modern era motivate the existence of anthropomorphic creators. (Fact)
3. Post-modern philosophy has not overcome the indoctrinations of incorporeal singularity of 'god', which were up-scaled from early Christian anthropomorphism during modern philosophy and later Christianity. References to 'God' are usually in singular form. (Opinion)
4. Modern philosophy motivated a perfect 'Creator', which implies incorporeality because no corporeal human is perfect. Incorporeality of 'God' allowed humans to be more honest during the Enlightenment because accusations that they were thinking they are The messiah, were less prominent than during post-modern times. (Opinion)
5. Early and medieval Christian theology motivated a perfect singular incorporeal 'Creator' with up-scaled anthropomorphic attributes of Jesus Christ. (Deterministic fact)
6. Words of an incorporeal virtuous singular 'God' quickened a downscaled true man (creator) who was named Jesus Christ of Nazareth or Immanuel who will return. (Deterministic fact)
7. Dominant antique (classic) Greek philosophy abstracted vices and virtues of theon's beings and included only theon's virtues in an incorporeal representation; 'God', which was up-scaled from anthropomorphisms. (Fact)
8. Pre-Greek antique philosophy and theogony recorded anthropomorphic corporeal theon who broke universal laws. (Opinion)
1w] If honesties are remunerated communications will more coherently correspond with facts. Integrations of thoughts and facts will cause improvements of human conditions.
Premises of first hypothesis
enhanced labours after efforts and endurances due to
Enlightenment philosophy. (Fact)
2. Remunerations for honesties will enhance corresponding and coherent communications after efforts and endurances. (Unproved premise)
If the above premises can be shown to be corresponding and coherent, then, staying honest warrants legal remuneration rights, because of the efforts, which cause good ideas and wealths of nations.
This book focuses on hypotheses 3
and 2 in order to motivate Accounting of ideas. If
Accounting of ideas will be sufficiently motivated
with this book and Pienaar (2012), further
research could be done about hypothesis 1 and
other related matters.
1x] Three ways of communicating—corresponding (objective), mixed (metaphorical sophisticated) and non-corresponding—are especially relevant in a globalized world because the three ways can be connected to different cultures.
Modern Western society discovered the benefits of corresponding objective communication during the Renaissance, when few individuals overcame their psychological barriers against being truthful, and being sacrificed84. Sacrifice of truthful people for example Jesus Christ by existent powers is a natural phenomenon because of the opposition, which truths, through consequential changes cause. The important change of modernism in Protestant eyes was away from metaphorical85 communication, which was the proper way of communicating during the Middle Age.86 The logos-creativities dichotomy was understood in arts of the modern age during the 1900s by accepting logos as force of change87 without undue alliances.
1y] In Gen. 1:26 of the Bible God is quoted as being plural, but at most places in the Bible singular references to God are made, similar to Aquinas's reference above. Prof. Samuelson answered88 how he thinks Gen. 1:26 should be understood. He emphasized the belief that humans are animals, made from earth. Fr. Pascual mentioned discontinuance between different types of humans, which is difficult to show scientifically, but relates to rational matters. The lecture of the gentlemen implies the discontinuance Fr. Pascual mentions, relates to evolutionary matters, which is not clearly understood yet, scientifically. Ronald Cole-Turner said Gen. 1:26, requires further investigation.89 During 1486 CE, Pico's quotation of God implies evolution in different directions90 depending on existentialist philosophical matters. Metaphorical sophisticated communications can be identified, for example metaphors like "Mother of God" and "Son of God" and "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". These 'metaphysical' references have not always a good effect on society currently, due to the singularity of the metaphors. Psychological barriers to honesties and creativities exist, due to superstitions about Almighty Sacrificial Singularity91. Existence of God can be debated, but existence of determinants and effects of God cannot be disputed. Debates about the deterministic, functionalist, instrumentalist effects of metaphoric language are possible. Such debates cannot happen with metaphorical sophisticated language but only about metaphors as objects. Metaphors however cannot be truthful because sophistical reference is made to subjects with Father, Mother and Son in the singular, which is not true, due to the powerlessness of singularity.
Aristotle's 'golden mean'92
was the preferred position of Scholastic Christianity.
Tarnas opines that Aristotle was an ancient empiricist93.
Aristotle was not always objective due to him choosing
as politically correct communication. Some
have the same inclinations with regard to metaphorical
language as during the Middle Age, the time of
Scholastic Christianity. A good example of this
influence is Thomas Aquinas96 via
Aristotle. Thomas Aquinas's "God Himself Who cannot lie"97
influenced Europe by the Enlightenment and caused wide
deceit because of psychological matters relating to
God thoughts and being sacrificed when being
authentic. It is stated that in the middle of Eden
there were two trees, one of "life" and another of "the knowledge of good
God commanded Adam that they should not eat from the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil.99
God, Eve and the devil were quoted100
as follows: the devil asked Eve if God really
commanded that from none of the trees in Eden should
Eve answered that they may not eat from only the tree in the middle of the garden; "the serpent" then answered the reason they may not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, is because then they will be like God when differentiating between good and evil. Eve then decided fruit of the tree was good for food and gaining knowledge; they ate, God disciplined them and Eve put the blame on a devil and his power of deceit.101 It seems however the negative impact of deceit to society as a whole has not been fathomed because prioritizing selves above Others-than-only-selves, with deceit, is a common occurrence. The Other is translated in Greek as anthropos.102 The Greek language can be divided into katharevousa and demotic.103 Some "religious" people even say we have to deceive to show we believe in the grace of God and they accuse honest men of thinking they are each "God Himself Who cannot lie". Logically, if deceiving methodologies are widely spread, creativities will be hampered because fewer correspondences to realities will exist. Something is false when it cannot be used in a process of assembly104. Socrates said: " 'And surely we must value truthfulness highly. For if we were right when we said just now that falsehood is no use to the gods and only useful to men as a kind of medicine, it's clearly a kind of medicine that should be entrusted to doctors and not to laymen. . . It will be for the rulers of our city, then, if anyone, to use falsehood in dealing with citizen or enemy for the good of the State; no one else must do so. And if any citizen lies to our rulers, we shall regard it as a still graver offence than it is for a patient to lie to his doctor, or for any athlete to lie to his trainer about his physical condition, or for a sailor to misrepresent to his captain any matter concerning the ship or crew, or the state of himself or his fellow-sailors.' "105 The way of intentional non-corresponding communication happens when others are misled for selves to attain a specific favourable outcome. This type of communication normally happens when an individual or a whole society106 or a common wealth benefits from deceiving, to the disadvantage of others. A single territory can have many a common wealth, which hamper creativities of the territory as a whole. The divisive influence in a mondialised world, of such communication, is understood. Accounting of ideas rejects Socrates's opinion, like Aristotle's due to the anti-creational effect of deceits, which can spread from influential people to less-influential people.
2a] When identifying causes of the different types of communication during modernity there are two important arguments, which justify actions for different ways of orientation. The arguments are of Kantian deontological107 nature and consequentialist (utilitarian) nature. Kantian deontology argues happiness should be an eventuality of ought, even if consequential happiness cannot be envisaged108. Consequentialism argues that happiness is connected to being voluntarily109 explicitly part of a common wealth with "moral holidays"110 after envisaging consequentialist happiness. The essence of the Kantian deontological argument is faith in creating by self-in-a-group and the essence of the consequentialist argument is faith in appropriating, developing, and imparting of creators' ideas. The Kantian deontological argument causes a creational enlargement of assets in territories or austerity. The consequentialist argument causes a transfer of assets from one common to another common wealth, or development. Imparting of ideas by utilitarians increases the global pool of assets to the disadvantage of creating (responsible change). Imparting of ideas remunerates not creators (creatures). Utilitarianism causes development but inhibits creating. John Stuart Mill did not address the important problem of utilitarian reasoning whereby creators can be sacrificed for the happiness of groups.111 The effect of justifying such sacrificial practices will logically be discouraging of creativities and eventual colonizing by groups who did not sacrifice creators amongst them to the same extent.
Three types of communication—corresponding communication, sophisticated112 communication and intentionally deceiving communication—have been identified.
2b] Modernity, being the time from around 1500 to current can be divided113 into different views, according to the importance of realities, present in communication. During the Enlightenment, corresponding objective communication was emphasized by for example Descartes, as part of the classical modern view, when human labour processes were significant. After the Enlightenment a period followed during which structural changes took place for example the 17th and 18th century revolutions. A period then followed during which much emphasis was placed on cultural issues. Then postmodernisms' 'meanings' continued to specifically de-emphasize realities in communication. At the following discussion section, author viewed the problem of trusting in the classical modern view, the structurally critical modern view, the culturally critical modern view, and the post-modern view.
An honest society or group is an idea, which does not
have one descriptive word in some languages. In
Afrikaans the word 'eerlikes' can refer to a group of
honest people. During Greek114
antique and Egyptian115
ancient times corresponding rationalisms emerged as
creative powers. Honesties were ideas, which spread
from creators (creatures) to the rest of humanity. "Honesty –
granted that this is our virtue, from which we
cannot get free, we free spirits – well, .. may
its brightness one day overspread this ageing
culture and its dull, gloomy seriousness like a
gilded azure mocking evening glow! … It is
probable that we shall be misunderstood and taken
for what we are not: but what of that! People will
say: 'Their “honesty” - is their devilry and
nothing more!' … Have all gods hitherto not been
such devils grown holy and been rebaptized? … they
say in Russia – let us see to it that through
honesty we do not finally become saints and
This quotation shows a side of Nietzsche, which places
his Apollonian side in classical modernity.
With reference to Friedrich von Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom
Popper explained Von Hayek's "enslavement
theorem" as follows: "The
road to serfdom leads to the disappearance of free and
rational discussion; or, if you prefer, of the free market in
ideas. But this has the most devastating effect on everybody,
the so-called leaders included. It leads to a society in which
empty verbiage rules the day; verbiage consisting very largely
of lies issued by the leaders mainly for no purpose other than
self-confirmation and self-glorification. But this marks the
end of their ability to think. They themselves become the
slaves of their lies, like everybody else. It is also the end
of their ability to rule. They disappear even as despots.
Bad living conditions during the early Renaissance inspired oppositions against the ruling forces who became entrapped in their metaphorical sophisticated language use. The trend of being truthful (corresponding) expanded during early modernity with philosophers like Descartes who postulated God that guarantees truths. Descartes had good faith and more freedom than he would have had in the Middle Age, which encouraged his honesties. Protestantism of Martin Luther and John Calvin also brought enhancements of corresponding literal117 communications when Protestants started to transcend directly as part of God. Christians could then identify more directly with the man on the white horse of Revelation 19:11 in the Bible, who has names relating to truths.
2d] Locke's empirical opinion118 that morality and utilitarian pleasures will lead to the same, cannot be accepted with Kantian deontological morals because Kantian deontological morals is based on universal grounds and utilitarian pleasures on personal close neighbourly grounds. Aristotle was also an empiricist according to Tarnas.119 It seems thus that something of empiricism causes non-corresponding communications, possibly due to faith related rational-opposing functionalist, instrumentalist, consequentialist, pragmatism. Kant as rational philosopher questioned sophistical120 communication to enhance faiths in other honest people. Author thinks for example that metaphors like "Son of God" and "Mother of God" did not influence Kant negatively with regards to his communications. Kant did not lose sight of the importance of honesties to society. Empiricists paradoxically seem to tend towards sophisticated language, when using 'golden means'. Ones could expect that empiricists' objective approach, would keep them corresponding, but it seems, lack of good faiths and consequential uncontrollable fears, of being sacrificed, after honesties, plays a role. When empiricists generalize about choosing 'golden means', which do not always exist in words, contradictions become necessary, to express views. Contradictions cause hampering of assembling.
2e] Habermas121 refers to objective correspondence with the words "morality and law grounded on principles" and "rationalization" and "communicative action free from narrowly restricted contexts". There is not opportunity for society to be corresponding enough to solve serious problems because, the-honest ('eerlikes'), are kept from forming groups.122 Utilitarian metaphorical pleasures (for example mimesis), which have been institutionalized, remove creators (creatures) from societies, because of a 'numbers game', which works against honest ones. One honest person only, as part of a group, cannot be Creator or God. It takes more than one honest person to create unique techniques, resulting from corresponding objective communications, by more than one honest person, to solve post-modern problems.
The structural problems of post-modernity, which hamper sufficient solving of problems, can be found in government constitutions, which promote imparting of ideas. Territorial globally transparent patents of secularism are relevant. Patents impart ideas globally but only protect territorially, if at all. Similar structural problems, at a level of hourly enforceable wages and salaries, existed before the 17th and 18th century revolutions. Enlightenment philosophers motivated enforceable salaries, based on labour hours. Remuneration rights to ideas, which were originated self, were not a result of the Enlightenment and are currently part of a structural modernity problem to overcome.
2f] Corresponding language, or in other words, honesties, caused expansions of human knowledge and new products, after being imparted widely. Utilitarian constitutions are found in South Africa and in the United States of America for example. It was reported in the news that the intelligence agencies, which most infringes on citizens' privacies due to 'security' issues are from Isreal, the USA and the UK, countries where utilitarian philosophies are dominant. President Hollande of France stated in his speech in the parliament of Israel that Israel spends "the most" on "research and innovation".123 The constitutions of South Africa and the USA for example enforce imparting of ideas. Ideas are thus spread as widely as possible, internationally, to make utilities available as widely as possible to be used for utilitarian pleasures of humanity. Ideas, which are conceived by poor nations, are developed124 by rich nations, because they have the means to develop ideas more effectively than poor nations.
The difference between generating ideas and developing ideas can confuse, because, part of modernity is the idea of progress125 through utilitarian development. Developments however happen after imparting of ideas worked against creators (creatures) and their immediate surrounds and in favour of developers. A utilitarian argument is to blame 'authenticity'126 of individual creators (creatures) for the problems of Earth. Hannah Arendt identified this philosophy against creators (creatures) as ' "ideological transfer"127 ' of powers to groups or institutions. She philosophized that "human beings"128 will accept such transfers more readily if motivations exist for creatures to benefit more from such transfers. Deceiving and sophisticated language uses, referring to singularity and immateriality of God, are necessary for imparting of ideas. Trusts are affected negatively as well as abilities to solve129 problems.
2g] Members of religious institutions benefitted from utilitarian imparting of ideas and human 'sacrifice'. Patens of religion are relevant and the fear effect it has on societies. Western and Middle-Eastern religions identified honesties correctly as source of creativities. Author does not mean here ex nihilo creation, because the issue is practical creativities. Understanding God that creates ex nihilo has however been mixed into practical creativities. Honest people are accused of thinking they are God that creates ex nihilo. Honest people however, if they stay honest for long enough know that superstitious beliefs about "God Himself Who cannot lie" are false.130 Author postulates currently that due to the deep impressions, which Christianity and the Abrahamic religions have made in the West, about a "Messiah", coupled with thoughts about honesties, relating to God that creates ex nihilo, persons who deceive methodologically to enhance their own positions, believe subconsciously they can be God, who creates ex nihilo, from the Day in the future they could decide to be honest. They subconsciously believe they can be God because their minds contain many fallacies. Their thinking is thus not based on realities and consequentially they do not realize what realities are. A serious problem for society, if author's postulate is true, is those Days could be days of dying, or never, depending on how strong beliefs in redemptions only are. Society as a whole is thus disadvantaged for lifetimes. Beliefs in redemptions oppose good deeds, but not one is perfect, therefore beliefs, which include good deeds and redemption, exist. These circumstances cause significant sociological cultural problems, which hampers problem solving during postmodern times.
Western nations survived up to now by developing creativities of honest individuals without remunerating them officially. The current levels of competition in a globalized world with very large populations are however too high to survive on ideas of just a few131 creators. Creators need to be set free from Rousseau's and utilitarians' philosophies and more creators need to be encouraged to solve current problems. It can however not happen as long as the subconscious presuppositions of the 'One' only, is present. These presuppositions oppose wider honesties.
2h] The bible has thirty-six132 commandments to love (not breaking laws) strangers and just two to love only ones' neighbours. Utilitarians love only people of their common wealth and do not trust Kantian deontologist universal ways. Universal honesties are a danger to utilitarian institutionalized and religious secrets. The utilitarian 'God' is the only 'Creator' and, people, when creating, are infringing on 'His' prerogative, according to utilitarian beliefs. Creatures thus have not rights to remuneration from their ideas. Utilitarians impart valuable ideas to each other, whilst trading the hard earned correspondences of creators.133 Utilitarians blame creatures' (creators') honest communication for 'devilry'134 and Kantian deontologists blame too many utilitarian moral holidays for lack of trust.
Postmodernisms show the human 'sacrifices' groups commit, because of religious hatred towards 'Ones'. Hatreds have origins in the idea of the perfect 'One' only and false religious mimetic rites. Nietzsche signed his last letters as ' "The Crucified" '135. "And let us send to the aid of our honesty136 whatever we have of devilry137 in us – our disgust at the clumsy and casual, our 'nimitur in vetitum', our adventurer's courage, our sharp and fastidious curiosity, our subtlest, most disguised, most spiritual will to power and world-overcoming which wanders avidly through all the realms of the future –"138 Nietzsche's statement that God is dead probably referred to honesties because in the parable he referred to "suns". References to the good sun and truths (Plato, 2007: 231;507a) in rationalist philosophy are prominent. Nietzsche knew of the anti-creational (irrational) effects deceits cause: "What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns?"139
2i] Were gargoyles effectively formed by the struggle between deceivers and the-honest, due to the superstitious societal notion of the 'One only'? How many people have become vagrants due to the societal notion of only One honest person or no honest people at all? Author lost several jobs due to own honesties, ascribed to 'devilry'140, and was explicitly falsely accused of thinking he is Jesus Christ141, during legal proceedings. Societal victimization caused suicidal and violent thoughts of author. When author warned colleagues of the cumulative effect of victimizations, they could not be aware of, due to many isolated incidents of victimization by colleagues; author was dismissed from his university employment, after being falsely found guilty of assault. A verbal warning was falsely presented as verbal threatening. The presentation was false because the risk to all people, except maybe author, decreased after the warning and during the warning. Threatening would have increased risk during the time of 'threatening'. This postmodern heuristic incident, which relates to snapping in utilitarian societies, is still ongoing with legal proceedings. When professors claim that honest people do not exist, it definitely implies something about God thoughts, because not all professors are aware of the endlessness142 of definitions of words for definitions of words. A question can justifiably be asked whether this postmodern condition is more prevalent at academic institutions after previous recorded incidents of 'snapping' at academic institutions, especially in the USA.
Fr. Pascual mentioned in the video of the lecture mentioned in the Background section that evolution is not a science, with certainties, in all respects affirmed with finality. Darwin's last book was called The descent of man. 'Descent' is related to 'descend'. Pico's God implied evolution in different directions, depending on humans' choices and so does Revelation in the Bible. Calvinism generalizes not the direction of evolution from lower to higher forms.143 If objective truths (causing creativities) are a necessity for survival of large populations, do stresses144, caused by cultural honesties, cause descending from generation to generation? Deceits relieve own stresses relating to financial security in some instances, but what is the effect on telepathies? If humans want to know truths by inclination, a deceitful environment will enhance telepathy, according to evolution, because telepathic abilities will reveal truths, hidden, not spoken nor read. Logically, believing everything145, will slow or stop an evolutionary process of developing telepathic abilities, but isn't believing everything an impossibility, due to contradictions in thought, which can only be stopped by not thinking at all? Telepathic abilities imply less talking. Author thus postulates two reasons for descending evolution. First, stresses and, second, deceiving environments. Deceiving environments imply developing telepathic abilities because most people want to know truths. Own honesties in deceiving environments cause stress and maybe more descending evolutionary processes. Logically, but not surely, thus, honesties could cause descending evolution but on the other hand honest people live closer to their realities, due to less fallacies in own memories; less telepathic searching for truths, and therefore telepathic descending of the-honest could be less than those of deceivers. Off course; if humans can146 currently descend into animal form. If all people are descended from one or a few ancestors, the question could be asked whether the-descendants of the others, who lived at the same time as common ancestors, descended into animals, or did they go extinct?
2j] Non-cooperation between common wealths causes lack of trust and lack of coherence in a global economy due to three different ways of communication. The most important problem, causing non-cooperation and lack of trust, is intentional deceits and sophisticated communications as result of utilitarian consequentialist philosophies. The levels of correspondence (honesties) of communications to realities at a philosophical level, during modernity, gradually changed from the most to the least, starting as the most corresponding at the level of objective concrete processes of Descartes for example. Logically labour processes work more efficiently and integrated with more correspondences available inside and outside of our minds. The level of structures and institutions, which was significantly structured during the 17th and 18th century revolutions, related more to processes than to meaning and therefore correspondences were important for functioning, but not as important as at Cartesian processes. The cultural level relates more to arts, sociabilities and pleasures and therefore, political correctness and deceits, become more relevant on the way to subjective societal 'meaningful' metaphors. The second highest degree of non-correspondences is relevant at sophisticated arguments at the level of given and constructed meaning of postmodernism, because logically this level inculcates subjective politically correct communications during difficult times, similar to the final time of the Middle Age. At the level of postmodernisms' 'meaning', superstitions expect that only 'One' knows what 'the truth' is. It implies that much of the communications at the level of meaning is non-corresponding to realities of God because only 'One' knows. The highest level of non-correspondent communication is relevant at outright deceit, which existed always and was first identified at a devil who deceived Eve and partly caused humanities' problems.
The focus, which philosophy put on correspondences to realities of communication during modernity can also be compared in time as follows. Philosophies emphasized objective correspondences during classical modernity because at that time during the new epoch much more human labours were involved than today and thus corresponding communications were more relevant to ensure integrated processes. During current postmodern times less emphasis is placed on corresponding communications because economies are more mechanized and we are less dependent for our daily needs on corresponding communications. Established market mechanisms and machines cause automatic integrations currently, which do not require corresponding communications. Marx prophesized a state like that. The culturally critical time involved more correspondences to realities than during postmodernity but less than during the structurally and institutionally critical revolutionary period of the 17th and 18th centuries because of different levels of dependence on corresponding communications.
2k] Concluded that the level of dependence on corresponding communications cause different levels of trusts, which existed in societies during different times of modernity. The more dependent societies were on correspondences, the more truths existed and the more trusting there were. The more trusting there are, the more real values exist and vice versa. The 'golden mean' of Aristotle works against values when choosing means, as a generalized methodology. When the Western societal psychological barriers of God thoughts relating to 'One', against honesties have lapsed, the logical necessary correlation between honesties, dependence and creativities will be common knowledge. Western society will then enter a new time of responsible creativities as hoped for by Friedrich Nietzsche and others.
The necessity of more truths can only be realized if the plural nature of, many being part of God, is accepted widely. Having God 'in us', metaphorically, did not inspire wide enough honesties. If reference is made to being subject to God, when discussing God, definitions of God should be truthful, not metaphorical and functionalist. References to Daughters of God, Sons of God, Fathers of God and Mothers of God will have a better effect on society. The good determinants and effects of God will then be identified more truthfully.
2l] Plato emphasized truths as a value but according to Karl Popper147, Plato also argued against change. There are different opinions about Plato’s reasoning. According to Tarnas, ambiguities148 exist in the understanding of Plato's work, because Plato identified creativities as good but on the other hand he identified creativities as cause of changes and not important, due to his emphases on constancy of Forms. There could have been anomaly in Plato's reasoning because he did not clearly reconcile divine constancy with changing immanence. He wanted to "arrest all change"149 according to Popper. Author do not agree fully with Popper because of uncertainties about the possible anomaly to be investigated further. Tarnas opines Platonic spirit dismisses physical reality in favour of metaphysical realizations and Hegel accepted knowledge of physical realities as results of metaphysical faith.150 Hegel's faith, influenced by Platonic spirit, countered, uncertainties of modern worlds. Tarnas stated further he is not very sure how Plato's prioritization of metaphysical forms affected natures of corporealities as divine or not.151
Popper classified Plato with
Heraclitus, Comte, Mill, Lamarck and Darwin as
philosophers acknowledging changes and Plato tried
to stop changes.152
Popper's opinion is logical when considering the
oppositions the aristocracy, who Plato was part of,
experienced, due to new creativities. It seems
however that Plato did not realize that immanent
changes are inevitable effects of metaphysical
constant truths. Author doubts Popper's statement
because author thinks it was Plato's family who
wanted to stop changes. Maybe Plato just warned
people like Socrates. Maybe Plato wrote a "christian
account" about Socrates. The uncertainty Tarnas
refers to, counts in favor of Plato, unless Plato
motivated misleading. Taylor and Lee mentioned a
thesis about inability to prove existence of
misleading, because lies do not exist. The thesis
appeared in three of Plato's works.153
Logic implies, the non-existence of what lies
portray, proves lies.
The more correspondent, knowledge and communications are to realities, the more useful and effective, creativities are for all. Instead of fighting change, like Popper opine Plato did, whilst ambiguously supporting transcendent truths, which cause changes, powerful people would do better, by taking part in transcendent truths and resulting changes, without worrying too much about their financial security, or about taking it all. Like a "gereformeerde dominee" said the other day: "Alles gaan na Hom."
2m] ".. but it is clear that what really lies at the basis of Leibniz's response to Malebranche, is his Neoplatonic conviction, drawing support from Genesis, that the human mind is an image or mirror of God, Leibniz cannot endorse any reply to .. that compromises this fundamental doctrine."154
Conceptions of a singular "Creator" in ambivalent realism monopolized remuneration for developments in hands of groups and the wealthy, without remunerating individual creators for valuable ideas. Current human rights are sometimes seen as "basic ethical rule of our time", which were derived from pre-Christian philosophy.155 Frankenberry identified with others the singular male immutable form of 'God' as a problem in popular religion.156 Imparting of ideas can be equated with 'sacrificing' of gods and goddesses, because creatures do not get paid for work they did when 'their' ideas are being systematically imparted and developed. Human rights as opposed to creators' (creatures') rights have to be therefore rights in development, which are expanded or limited, according to the philosophy of timely reconstruction. Atonement after 'sacrificing' others and reparations for 'sacrificing' are relevant. Constitutions of countries can be looked at in analogical religious manner, by accepting importances of constancies without unwanted rigidity, which can exclude necessary change, due to new realized157 realities according to Hart.158 In recent times "humanism" rose, which can be recognized by marginalization of rights to oppose order, which are given by new 'gods'. Alvin Plantinga called this ' "creative antirealism" '.159
Hart states that in ancient times, problems of change due to creating were known. Reformed creating orders and Thomistic eternal law were influenced by Platonic realism. Deconstructed parts of Aquinas's and Calvin's writings, legitimize change, in creation order, like Kuitert did explicitly. Dooyeweerd opined that obstructing change in creation order is pagan.160 Singularity of the "Creator" is presupposed in ambivalent realism and it seems because of that, current creating orders or in another word 'mandates', do not accept realities about creators in plural form, whilst emphasizing development. Hart identifies further reformation in the direction of laws not being final order. Love requires change to new circumstances. Constancy should not be divinized according to Hart.161 Changing for good requires constant or improved truths. Without knowing constant historical realities no change would be possible. Hart162 mentioned many relevant matters under the heading "Change". We are not in agreement about realities due to the singularity and immateriality of Hart's 'God'. He stated the absolute or immutability of God was not taken from the Bible and has its origins in Greek thinking. Hart identified immutability of God as problematic but not the singularity of 'god' as problematic. Singularity of 'god' became the dominant way of referring to his 'God' after the falling into sin in the Bible; therefore ideas are common property currently, which cannot be protected with copyrights. Trade secrets can protect intellectual creativities but not sufficiently, due to imparting of ideas, which has been institutionalized.
2n] Immutability of God, according to Hart, arose due to rejections of the temporal, as not divine. Hart's conception of singular 'god', contradicts his statement about temporal divinity, because temporal singular divinity, implies plural "gods" of times. According to Hart, constancy of the divine: implies a faith, which is "not rooted in trust in God"163. He stated, "What is true, of course, is that in any and all relationships, only Yahweh is truly God"164 and that Malachi in the Bible is often quoted to support Greek ideas of God, but the Bible as a whole shows, that change is sometimes from God. According to Hart's opinion, Greek philosophy ascribes creativities and changes to evil earthly things, and Hart wrote it is not true, because his incorporeal 'God' initiates changes and creativities according to the Bible. Ascribing creativities to "God the Creator" does not solve problems of current creation orders totally. Singularity of Hart's 'God' also monopolizes development, as part of Classic Greek philosophy did when ascribing changes to evil influences. Classic Greek philosophy and Abrahamic religions have the same effect, albeit in different ways. "In fact, one can even find God changing about firm promises" Hart wrote. This truth, which Hart identifies, supports Tarnas's opinion165 that Jesus and his followers were influenced by Greek philosophy, like Malachi was, according to Hart, because, did Jesus not say we should never swear oaths? "If virtually all of the dimensions of God's good creation play a role in our knowing God, why should God's good creature [own bold to emphasize negative influences of singularity in Hart's discourse] known as change not play such a role?"166 Hart contradicts himself here because he implies that creators ("good creature known as change") who cause changes are 'sacrificed' in Abrahamic religion and that it is not only in Classic Greek philosophy that creators are 'sacrificed', like he claims. "But what is god about God cannot be clearly and definitely said in terms of what creatures are or are not. Definitions of God or authoritative and definitive lists of God's perfections or attributes do not occur in the Bible." Author disagrees with Hart here because due to creative effects of truths, honesties make people gods and goddesses and physical parts of God. God should be defined cata- and apophatically, without letting Caiaphas syndromes take hold of societies. Exclusive, which is false, apophatic definitions, apply only after death of divinities but cataphatic definitions make God partly anthropomorphic until gods and goddesses cross boundaries of apophatic definitions. No human can however comply with perfections of some apophatic definitions and therefor such definitions have negative impacts on societies because the definitions remove Good from the world. The seven deadly sins were devised to overcome evil and to stop transgressions of apophatic definitions. All newborn children are gods and goddesses. The Bible inspires not "(theo-)logical" identities of God with the Bible's imagery of God according to Hart. Author postulates the New Testament does, with the human form of Jesus, and the Old Testament does. When Joshua told the sun167 to stop moving he was being enough to be called part of God. The same applies to lesser deeds of many who were and are changing things in the West and East for good. "In creation change is fundamental. Not only life, but even material things cannot exist except on a physical foundation that includes change. Creation's temporality, thorough as it is, makes change pervasive. And, indeed Christians have never thought of the world and anything in it as eternal and unchanging." If ' "God is immutable" ', exclusively, then it could be argued that change is evil. When they at times say ' "God does not change" ', they mean it "creatiomorph"168. Although Hart writes that change can only be recognized in relation to something stable he writes that stabilities in relation to which change is identified, are changing. That makes sense if we consider that the stabilities, he means, are truths, and, correspondences between phenomena in minds and realities in the world are becoming more accurate in time. There is nothing of reality that is absolute except as metaphor for 'God' according to Hart. Author agrees not because metaphysical truths, concepts of honesties, are divine unchanging transcendents and the result, divine immanent change. Metaphysical truths show, via honesties, where improvements in "creation order" are required. This unchanging concept causes changes and requires gods and goddesses who transcend and surpass pragmatist necessities of deceit. Lying is required by Caiaphas syndromes in order to convince others, ones are not thinking ones are "God himself" or "God Himself" or the "Mother of God" or Father of God or "Son of God". Prof. Meynell, a Roman Catholic thinker, believes ' "honest seeker" ' is not necessarily ' "apostate" ' like most Calvinists believe.169
2o] Hart argues against Greek postulates of numbers and stars being constant and therefore against part of Greek religious constancy. Numbers and stars are therefore not part of "religious trust" according to Hart. He confuses changing stars with immutable concepts of numbers. The things, which number units represent, are not constant, therefore, what mathematics represent, is not immutable. Certain characteristics of mathematics are immutable. Stars are changing but that does not mean unchanging characteristics of stars cannot be identified to be part of the transcendent.
It seems thus that although truths were important in Greek philosophy, for example in Plato's philosophy, truths were not divine in Greek thought as it is in the Bible. The problem in the Bible is that truth is there a singular concept or even a singular name. Whether reference is made to Greek plural immutable forms or Christian singular truth is however not that important, effects are the same. Effects are to monopolize the control over benefits of development. Immutability can only be predicated negatively and nothing immutable can be positively identified according to Hart. Author disagrees because concepts of honesties can be positively identified with correspondences between phenomena in minds and realities in the world. Metaphors like ' "immutability" ' and ' "absoluteness" ' can be used in a limited religious sense with regard to relative trust according to Hart. Outside of that it replaces 'god' we project to outside of the cosmos, which is our responsibility according to Hart. Bold emphasis was used to emphasize negative influences, which were identified in a lower case g, of singularity. This "responsibility" Hart postulates is not Christian courage, which contributed to good in the world. Hart had not gods and goddesses of Pre-thesis in mind; he had theon in mind, which he called 'god', mixed up with Jesus of Nazareth. He wrote such projections return via downscaling to the cosmos in "institutions, persons or acts"170 that lay down their own rules but hide their reasons behind claims of divine representation. If only one 'god' is relevant, how can we expect that institutions will be well managed? Here Hart's Caiaphas syndrome manifested. References to 'god' by Hart implies justifying 'sacrifice' of creators in Christianity, therefore a reasonable conclusion can be drawn that Hart justifies human 'sacrifice' until his Authentic One 'shall' be found, similar to notions of Charles Taylor. God have always been sacrificed and probably will be, unless ambivalent realism is acknowledged for what it is. Meddled false ideas are ideas of 'Messiah', which cause human 'sacrificing', like ideas of stability in Classic Greek philosophy seems to have done.
Finally there is something that does not make sense. It is well known that ancient Jewish methods did not emphasize creativities, except perhaps for warfare. Jewish culture was built on trading, warfare and religious blessings. Current circumstances of high debt in Greece, can be understood in the light of beliefs, which limit change and creativities. There has to be thus another philosophical doctrine in Europe and the East on which countries like Germany and Japan built their creative economies. That other doctrine, which is not treated here probably relates to true realism.
What is most important, order or truths? Order
relates primarily not to
creativities, order relates to
damaging sins, for example murder and
theft, partly as result of devils' perception of 'creation order'. It is not mentioned in
discourse about creating orders that constant
honesties cause good creativities and prohibit being
colonized. Acceptance of this reality may end the "anomaly of Plato?",
and singularity of 'God' and consequential ambivalent
realism. Transcendent immutability and immanent
changing can then be
reconciled into an acceptable framework without
contradictions. It is not generally realized that elthaughts171
about "The authentic one", cause Caiaphas syndromes,
due to blinding effects of using human pronouns and
nouns, which refer partly to humans, when referring
to singular 'God' of ambivalent realism. References
to singular divine "creator" in the form of human
pronouns and immanent forms are commonplace in 'creation order' discourse. It seems these
singular references are so deep in societies'
subconscious that it takes years of being honest and
experiencing hardship, with relative dignity, before
the fallacy is realized, and indoctrinated beliefs,
about the return of Christ, are discarded, when ones
grew up in a middle
class. Misleading, which ambivalent realism
requires, seems to enforce ambivalence of realism
because of the dissimilarities between phenomena in
minds and realities in the world, which are caused
by deceiving. Singularity of 'God' cannot be reconciled with
sufficient creativities to sustain current large
world populations and peace, because creativities
are not motivated enough by singularity of the
"creator". Creators make the world a better place
and creators should not
be 'sacrificed' through subconscious Caiaphas
syndromes, which demotivate creativities. Although
Hart motivates more creativity and change he in
effect motivates sacrificing of creators, due to
monopolization of benefits of development at his 'God',
after creatures, who brings forth ideas, have been
'sacrificed', with, for example, imparting of ideas.
Hart's opinion motivated fallacies of Classic Greek philosophy that changes are evil. Author motivated fallacies about Abrahamic incorporeal singularity as perfect and only good. These two ancient fallacies are the same fallacy of ambivalent realism currently. The two fallacies have the same effect of removing benefits of creativities and remuneration from creators in favour of powerful groups. Why not share the benefits with creators? Is it because of superstitious beliefs about taking everything?
2q] Ambivalent realism promotes the false belief that 'God himself' as human can view the totality of the cosmos as datum. 'God himself' cannot exist as one human and totality cannot be viewed with human perceptions. True realism let philosophers view the world coherently, with realizations that, to view totality as a datum is impossible. Correspondences (honesties), due to faiths in Pre-thesis God, are prioritized above coherencies because coherencies of phenomena in minds are subjectively true and correspondences of phenomena in minds are universally true. Further, coherencies are subject to correspondences, which expand coherencies. Similarly "correspondences", which are not true, block coherencies. That is why many benefit from their Caiaphas syndromes against the public they should be serving. True realism is a synthesis between rationalism and empiricism. True realism is an improvement of ambivalent realism, which is a synthesis between ancient Greek and ancient Abrahamic beliefs.
2r] Philosophy of religion is divided into reasonings about the existence of God, with emphasis on traditional and contemporary arguments. Philosophy of religion also focuses on the roles of transcendence, immanence and culture with regard to religion.
Phenomena in minds, "God create(s)", exist. Created things exist therefore deductive reasoning proves God's existence, which precedes created things. Historical events and institutions further prove God exist(s), even if existence of deterministic effects, caused by existing functionalist phenomena in minds, only, explain God.
An important problem is whether God is/are partly human form and if so, is the human form singular or plural?
Using analytic ideas of realism, considering a wide coherent modular view of reality, whilst prioritizing correspondence, views from parts of God are given. Constancy of nature is the most coherent whole, parts know of; therefore, if different parts subscribe to prioritizing corresponding truths, different works by different parts can be combined in the most coherent whole. Beliefs that idealist minds can actually determine realities of nature, by thinking, were excluded, because such circumstances, if existing, are under control of a higher unknown power. The methodology is therefore Kantian correspondence by considering matters under human control during every day life.
God have always been inclusive of most honest men (gods) and most honest dames (goddesses), who therefor can assemble corresponding knowledge with integrated thoughts for good use.
2s] Cosmological arguments are unacceptable because it presupposes perceiving wholes of the universe.172 Teleological arguments are useful because it acknowledges responsibilities of human parts of God, to create "utopias" for Others-than-only-selves on Earth. Human reasonings are thus postulated as important via teleological arguments, to improve our conditions. Values of truths in design arguments are important because like Aristotle stated, fallaciousness is recognized by the inability of being used in processes of assembly.173
Ontological arguments can be important if its postulate human parts of God, as parts of true realism, because then its will have similar effects as teleological arguments. It is however currently subjective174 importance, because people do not agree about their definitions of God. Ontological arguments start with definitions175 of God. Although Hudson postulates that current common empiricisms176, view 'god' as incorporeal, author agrees not with him because many authors refer to God with lower case singular 'g' without 'a' in front of 'god', which implies anthropomorphism. Clouser, used capital letters and small letters in his singular references when he used the words "transcendent Creator", "transcendent creator" and "himself" and "His".177 Swinburne gave a good example of ambivalent realisms, with regard to beliefs in 'God'. "Theism claims that God is a personal being—that is, in some sense a person. By a person I mean an individual with basic powers (to act intentionally), purposes, and beliefs."178 Swinburne stated that God is not human because having eternity is an essential property of God.179 Author posits that psychological phenomena in Swinburne's mind, which relates to singularity of 'god', pushes God away as far as he possibly can, and in effect, his philosophy, like some other realists', are against conceptions of God, which include humans as parts of God.
Van Niekerk (2005:55-61) posited that the Sociological, Freudian and Genetic theories for existence of God are not acceptable. These theories relate to studies of existing phenomena in minds and deterministic factors on humans as part of religious studies. Religious experiences, as explained by Davis (2003), which cause awe in human minds can relate to pantheism and does not always bring us closer to God.
2t] Practical issues are relevant with regard to evils of the world.180 If we want to live honestly, Jesus of Nazareth is a good example of practical issues, which are relevant to honest lives.181 This opinion by Van Niekerk confirms that the Christian definition of God is not correct because of weakness of singularity. Copan's (2007) argumentation about sacking Melians during the Peloponnesian war proves groups, and not only individuals, should fear God, when we become immoral and lazy due to misuse of creativities.
Golding's (2007) explanation of Pascal's proof of God has value because the proof presupposes eternity and afterlives, which we cannot be sure about. The proof motivates us to be good, similar to parallel universes.
That brings us to immanent things to consider with regard to God. Caiaphas syndrome took hold of people who accuse others of thinking they are The-authentic. They sometimes accuse people of suffering from 'God syndrome', which is self referentially incoherent because God is good and syndromes evil. Grote & McGeeney referred to "The God Complex"182 in a more positive sense, with us being part of creativities but the negative connotation of "complex" is still contradicting "God" in the same term. The term "God Complex" is self-referentially incoherent.
References to "transcendence is first and foremost ethical."183 Merold Westphal and Charles Taylor could be classified together with Caiaphas, and other people who belief God is totally 'Other'. "Sin, the opposite of trusting obedience, is the desire for autonomy, not merely as being responsible for my own actions, but also as being the one who defines my identity and sets my own agenda. The same is true when the ‘I’ is expanded to the ‘We’, the self to society."184 Westphal's definition of sin is false. Sins primarily transgress common and criminal law. Barth views the presence of Jesus Christ of Nazareth as an historical event, which shows the utter weakness of humanity. God transcends from beyond and when people are touched by transcendence it leads to disaster. Humans have no influence on 'God' and we live totally at 'God's' mercy. 'God' is thus totally 'Other', which brings alterity into picture. Barth conceived alterity in senses of what is beyond, totally apart from us, and can therefore not be fathomed at all.185 Cooperative thought between Nishitani of the Kyoto School's Buddhist background and post-Kantian European philosophy, especially Heidegger's thought, exists, as acknowledged by Altizer. Purposes are religious convergence between Buddhist philosophy and Christian philosophy, with emphasis on kenosis. Where Western philosophy sometimes emphasizes "Being", the Kyoto School focuses on "Nothingness".186 Transcendence "as alterity" is a condition of individuals and therefore existentialism is relevant. Alterity relates to trauma187 of individuals and notions about the "gift of death"188. Alterity escapes nihilism.189 Theodicies as bureaucratic190 practices exclude creators from societies. Jesus opined love is to follow laws we can follow, honestly, which included the law about honesties.
2u] The word "alterity" in English is not an old word. It has no synonyms in the New Oxford American Thesaurus and was defined as "alterity |ôlˈteritē| - noun formal - the state of being other or different; otherness. ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: from late Latin alteritas, from alter ‘other.’ "191 Other relevant words are "alter" with an e, which means to change and "altar" with an a, which relates to religious sacrifice and informally to marriage. Alter with "e" and altar with "a" are pronounced same, according to dictionaries192 (" |ˈôltər| "193). The Oxford dictionary of philosophy194 lists "otherness", "alienation" and "authenticity" as relevant. "Alterity" can be compared with "otherness" because the two words are adjectival nouns. Adjectival nouns do not normally identify important differences between singularity and plurality, which is a significant part of discourses with regard to alterity. When The-other is postulated as wholly incorporeal 'Other', in combination with singular corporeal "Messias", without identifying realities of plural corporeal Others-than-only-selves, problems with regard to alterities are emphasized through religious superstition.
Some theon of mythology are represented with radical alterabilities of animal and anthropomorphic character. Eventually images of theon changed into incorporeal metaphysical entities currently. In current discourse however anthropomorphic characters of "God" of realism has not disappeared completely because of metaphors like Mother, Father and Son of God, which are equated with humans, being honest according to the Bible and Thomas Aquinas.
Transcendence "as alterity" affects honest
individuals because of the subject-object dichotomy195.
Stoker explains this as rejection of "opposition between
transcendence and immanence." 196
When subjects are honest and their object of study
or belief is postulated with authentic
characteristics for example honest God, then
naturally, authentic subjects will have difficulty
to distinguish between themselves as subjects and
their object of thought, being God. Sources of
"as alterity" thus relate to identifying
objects of thought, we have attributes of, separate
from us, whilst objects are thought of. Phenomena in
minds are accepted and written about as objects in
our minds. Kant identified realities of objects,
being noumena outside of our minds, in forms of
objects themselves, in opposition to phenomena.197
Parts of societies do not rationalize necessities of
with regard to correspondences to forms of
noumena in the world and
correspondences to phenomena in minds.
Unreasonable empiricist beliefs his opinions about
others' phenomena in minds are true.
According to Stoker, studying God is theology.
Studying human being (present participle verb) is
part of anthropology. Different
dichotomies exist between
subject and object when studying God and when
studying human being. Studying God is not studying
other humans' beings.
2v] Transcendence "as alterity" has its origins in difficulties due to marginalization. A metaphor about old God (devilish elders) and Lucifers (the marginalized) are relevant. Socrates who criticized music and musical Socrates are examples.200 ' "Hence since the musical Socrates is another determination from the wise Socrates, Socrates was separated from himself." '201 There are other types of alterabilities, which could cause transcendence to a higher power because of difficulties experienced, in traditions of creators202. When "tracing transcendence"203 and "messianism"204 "God’s transcending towards us resembles the structure of transcendence as alterity in the thought of philosophers such as Levinas and even Irigaray."205 The word ' "trace" ' with regard to ' "a son of God" ' and a second coming were quoted often by Miciks (2009: 108-109) when he quoted Derrida.206 "Radical transcendence as alterity"207 is a countercultural movement relating to authenticities due to notions attached to "ulterior" motives, identified in authenticities and The-authentic, according to Charles Taylor. Epicurus's objective was to remove fears of death caused by theon, which were caused by superstitious religions. Superstitions should be avoided by scientific studies according to Epicurus. Epicureanism was based on Democritus's atomism.208 "Gratitude springs from enjoying and finding beneficial the creatures and creations around you" according to Wolterstorff.209 Weakness of singularity is often disregarded because of superstitions about supernatural alterabilities when creators are sacrificed and "enjoyed" with utilitarian210 motivations via Caiaphas syndromes. Some people transcend immanent effects of theodicies with crime, others with creativities, others by becoming despotic rulers and despotic entrepreneurs, whilst devils feed off consequences of theodicies.
Concepts of alterities act in conjunction with false, functionalist, instrumentalist notions of 'Messias', which are similar to ideas about a 2nd coming of 'Christ'. In Altizer, Spirit is antithesis of Jesus of Nazareth due to a dialectical development of Spirit from being peaceful to having wills to immanent power. The "death of God" implies death of God of beyond to become ones again, immanent in this world.211 It is illogical to call an idea, which is an antithesis of another idea, a 2nd coming. Ideas about "Christ" and 'Messiah' should not be synthesised because the ideas are very different. If the whole world ("all for One") lie functionally and say one man can be 'God', it will not make it true because of lack correspondence to reality, which is weakness of singularity. Similarly, if the whole world lie and say Kilimanjaro is an island in the Ionian Sea, it will not be true, because of non correspondence. Imagine the situation sketched in religion whereby a large number of people say one man is God and that man says he is not God. Who is correct and what is true? The individual's view, who says one man cannot be God, is true. The same applies to thoughts with regard to a "Mother of God". Miracles are isolated incidents, which were ascribed to different humans of different times at different territories, therefore miracles also do not support the idea of 'Messiah' nor the idea of "Christ". Being a majority makes not a majority functional claim true, because truths are primarily correspondences between words and realities. God with a capital "G" is a plural concept because evil cannot be overcome by singularity.
2w] Ideas of 'Messiah' and "Christ" can be annulled because of anti-creational effects it has, in conjunction with Caiaphas syndromes. If singularity of 'god' and superstitious beliefs, about supernatural assistance to good humans are annulled, the world will be a better place. Good humans will then be able to group their efforts together more readily to improve conditions. Overcoming fears of devils, which Epicurus philosophized about, should be logical conclusions for individual creators, due to effective laws, which protect good individuals, one at a time, against group sacrifices. Humans will then, before falling into sin and after being reborn, be parts of plural God. Jesus put his trust partly in laws, but societies' wishes were more important than laws during the time of his crucifixion.
2x] Good ideas and labours have not always origins in the same entity. Accounting of ideas will record remuneration rights of different entities involved at improvements, by identifying ideas (creativities) and labours (developments) separately. Understanding thats partly what contribute to improvements, will contribute in a universal manner to wealths of nations.
Salaries and wages were motivated during the Enlightenment with efforts of labours, which create wealths and therefore labours deserve remunerations. Enlightenment philosophers did not motivate enforceable remuneration for intellectual creations of minds, because at the time lacks of hourly remunerations were large hurdles to overcome. According to Child (1997:60), John Locke however recognised exponential increases in values of certain land, up to five hundred times the original value, due to "reason". Accounting of ideas postulates that generations of ideas are efforts that create wealths and should therefor also be remunerated formally and such remunerations should be enforceable, not only by referring to hours of services but also to qualities. Honesties can be integrated with creativities. Christianity realized this with references to honesties and the "Creator", albeit with unreal emphasis on singularity.
Deceits oppose corresponding communications and vice versa; cause different types of capital, which are interrelated. Capitals, which relate partly to fallacies are called equities and capitals that relate to correspondences are called intequities by transparent Accounting of ideas, which ought to replace opaque accounting of ideas.
The following two figures summarise two high level types of behaviours and environments, identified in readings and experiences.
Figure 2 depicts opposing forces of determinism, existing in the same territories. People can be classified in two groups. Deceivers and The-honest (Eerlikes212). Deceivers are more proficient at developing coherent and corresponding ideas due to their networks, which can raise equities, employ labours and market products. The-honest are more proficient at envisaging coherent and corresponding ideas, due to their clear associations between forms of noumena and phenomena in minds, and literal words. False forms do not hinder associations as at minds, which must remember false forms fabricated.
2y] Figure 3 pictures a view of the two high level groups, which each represents a different type of capital. The groups interact with six production factors. The traditional four production factors are entrepreneurship, natural resources, labours and capital (equity and debt). Entrepreneurships are now divided for ideas and networks. Two new production factors; ideas and networks were identified, which are found as parts of entrepreneurships. Intequities have been traditionally included as part of equity, but have not been abstracted as phenomena and have thus not been investigated sufficiently. This new model relates equities to networks as it relates intequities to ideas. The abstractions from equity and entrepreneurship caused six production factors instead of four. Networks and ideas were entrepreneurships. Intequities and equities were abstracted from equity. Deceivers have bigger networks than The-honest and thus more power to control all six production factors. Although equity controls development of ideas, equity does not motivate idea generations due to untequible remunerations. New ideas are results of coherencies and correspondences. Can be expected thus that coherent and corresponding idea generations seize to exist, after creatures (creators) are sacrificed, which lead to colonisations. Natural conflicts between creators (The-honest creatures) and developers (deceivers) as represented in the social contract theory of Jean-Jacques Rousseau & co. cause untequible remunerations with consequential incoherent development. According to Rousseau's social contract theory creativities are evil. According to Immanuel Kant & co.'s social contract theory conflicts between developers and creators can be overcome with universal laws, which are placed above all. Rousseau & co. postulate inimical human beings in a state of nature with corporeal humans above universal laws. Kant & co. postulate humans in a state of nature who place universal laws above themselves. A good example of the philosophies' differences was the revolutionary changes in Egypt during 2013. President Morsi was democratically elected but he was placed above laws. He could sentence people without trials. Author concluded that partly because of his inhuman powers he was ousted.213 Currencies and debts are used to remunerate during the development process of networks but not used sufficiently during the generation processes of ideas. Transparent Accounting of ideas could change this and enhance sustain abilities.2z]