To Table of Contents


How Do We Build a Society

How do we build a society based on the principle of universal order? If Habeas Mentem is a definition of the individual as a free mind in the universe, and if the Law of Agreement is the application of this definition in our social reality; then, how do we build a society based on the principle of Habeas Mentem and its corresponding Law of Agreement?

First, let us examine some existing conditions that will affect the method of our construction. Then, let us examine the principles with which we may work and allow us to act in ways consistent with our definition as a free mind in the universe. Based on these, we can then judge which recommendations for change will be in accordance with these principles and which changes will be contrary to our human being. From these we can draw conclusions and examine which structure of society will best suit the needs of a novel, emerging conscious mind of man.

One condition of which we must remain conscious is that already existing societies are natural phenomena of our planet. These societies, whether they be European or Asian or African or American, and whether they be more tribal or mercantile or whether they are individualistic or communal, are all indicative of the social mind as it has materialized in that society through time. Each society is of necessity indigenous to its people and its environment. In response to the existing reality and to how the mind perceives its reality, how it understands its universe, the society formed around that mind will reflect the collective perception of reality. Each society will exhibit traits peculiar to its people and their immediate environment. If they are benevolent or cruel, wealthy or poor, liberal or regimented, these are all characteristics that have become manifest around that people in response to how the mind had accepted itself as a social reality. In each instance of life, the mind either chooses to respond and act, it chooses willfully, or it chooses not to respond, not accept responsibility and instead be acted upon. Through these conscious or unconscious choices the mind materializes its environment in proportion to its judgments in reality. The personality of a society is then a reflection of its collective mind and the persons who had learned to coexist within that mind have, in effect collectively, come to terms and agreement with the limits and benefits of their society. The mind has accepted, or submitted to, the resulting social order. To not do so would either put it at odds with its society, in which case it would either have to act to change it or to withdraw from it; or it could agree to coexist within its reality. To do otherwise would, historically, cause it to die. As long as society reflects, predominantly, its consenting and surviving individuals, then it must represent the personality of is people.

A society in agreement with its personality is in agreement with itself. Provided there is no outside influence, such as conquest or
subversiveness, then the behavior of its citizens would be a self centered activity. Each person responds to his or her circumstances
within the conditions that govern their community such as to benefit them individually. These responses are acted out according to their mind in a way that results in the social character of their individual world attuned increasingly to how they are. As each person
contributes to and is contributed to within his community, he or she gains a stronger sense of unity within that society and the community takes on definable traits that are peculiar to the people. In reality, the social order becomes more as are its people unified into an increasing sense of community in agreement with itself. Thus, to an outside observer of this self agreement, whether or not it meets with our approval, because it is a real definition of that social reality in relation to the definitions of the mind of its people, we must accept it prima facie. So, if it is not judge, that society is as it should be.

Therefore, our first principle must be that we do not force change in society; entering it as an outsider and seeking to improve its sense of order with the universe, because that society is a real representation of its people. It is special and a real definition from reality; we may not change it. What transpires in each social order may or may not agree with our principles but, unless invited to do so, we may not enter it to change it to suit our sense of correct order. We may have the right to communicate with it, to trade, to introduce our ideas, but we may not change it from within. That change is the responsibility of the people native to it.

Thus, to build a social order based on Habeas Mentem is not to change the world. It is not a missionary task nor one of conquest.
Change, to be such that would be consistent with our philosophy of order, must be indigenous and desired from within. The purpose of this philosophy is to offer an alternative and to offer direction and solidarity of thought to the mind ready to reach for it; it is not to be imposed on anyone against one's will. To do otherwise would be more damaging than helpful. It would be destructive to the delicate balances that had already established themselves within the social order, which would precipitate economic chaos and political instability. Change can be brought about without the need for revolution, without destroying the old order to rebuild anew from the rubble, since that is a very wasteful method and one which can require generations for society to once again reestablish itself in its reality. Forceful change is harmful to social change and destroys the delicate balance between a people's collective mind and its established social reality. But there are other dangers.

If revolution is insensitive because the change is so abrupt, change advocated over time by a manifesto can be equally harmful to a
people. A manifesto is an artificial demand on reality because it demands that man suit the designed social order rather than to design the social order to suit man. If a decree defines that man is or should be a certain way, then that definition is man made, artificial, and to demand that the mind of man adjust itself to that artificial definition can be damaging to that mind's identity. We do not know what is the definition of man, since each individual has a separate and unique identity that is defined only to the self by that self's definition in reality. Under Habeas Mentem, it is defined by that self's interrelationship-definition in the universe, not by our judgement. Thus, person's natural definition of his or her identity is first, entirely personal, second, entirely as defined by the universe. Without a general definition, we must then work within that context and accept our individuality and universality and design our social system accordingly. A person, provided he or she does not trespass on the reality of another, is defined entirely by his or her reality. That is the difference between the concept of Habeas Mentem and one of a socialist manifesto: In a dictated program for social change, a person must be trespassed against for the benefit of the prejudged beneficial social order; instead, change according to Habeas Mentem would be where society changes to not trespass against the individual. Under Habeas Mentem, the change of society would be to suit the individual not as defined by man, since an identity is beyond general human definition, but as defined by the universe. That definition is apparent in the materialization of the human reality. Then, the purpose of change is to bring that reality and its apparent materialization into a sharper focus of itself.

Now we can have direction for social change. We do not advocate change to societies how they should become. Rather, we would
advocate change to have societies become more as they are, in effect, to magnify their social definition and as it affects each individual within it. Then, with the aid of this better self observation, each society can identify where lies its weaknesses and its strengths in relation to itself as it wishes to be. The purpose of this change is to create a more realistic materialization of existing conditions from which can be gained social data that would be meaningful to a social scientist. Same as a scientist seeks reliable data from which to draw conclusions, so does a society need to expose those facets of itself that camouflage its activities in relation to the activities of the individuals who live and act within it. Then, human action becomes more evident and the mind can judge whether what it does in reality is materializing in its environment those results that are desirable to it.

The question that follows naturally is that, if the various social masks that camouflage the real consequences of human action in society are removed, can society function? If so, can it function well, or at least better than if these masks were left untouched? To answer these we must, first, know what these masks are and, second, we must know what it is that makes a society function.

These social masks exist wherever there is a restriction on human agreements that are beneficial to the individuals involved. These may be controls that restrict the flow of information, rules that inhibit the formation of agreements, and those that force individuals to break the Law of Agreement. When individuals are unable to easily form agreements between themselves, agreements that are non-coercive to third parties, then the advantages of mutually beneficial exchange between individuals cannot as easily be realized. When individuals are unable to form agreements between themselves, are not protected from being forced against agreement into disagreement, then society is handicapped by being unable to materialize in itself what it is that individuals desire most, which is most their identity, and that which is most advantageous to them. Then, individuals are forced to act according to how someone else wishes them to be rather than how they would wish to act themselves. They become done to rather than being encouraged to do, consciously. Done to, society then becomes other than itself. To a conscious mind, to be done to becomes an unbearable state of affairs that gradually degenerates into covert activity. Ultimately, it would regress to social activity that seeks to negate the results that had been judged beneficial by those who had imposed the various rules and controls. With constrictions on agreement, society is forced to become other than itself and it becomes difficult to judge realistically whether what we do is what we materialize in our reality. We are as we do, unless we are done to. As conscious minds, it is our responsibility to do and not be done to. Thus, as conscious minds, it is our responsibility to identify those masks that prevent human agreement from materializing naturally and advantageously.

The question remains: Will society so unmasked, stripped of those inhibitions to human agreement, work as well if not better than the present state of affairs? The answer lies in what it is the citizens of that society desire. If the social masks, in effect, social myths, afford them a sense of comfort, then they need not abandon them. If these myths are recognized as such and are accepted, willed, then they are the image that is materializing in response to the social mind. However, it is also then the responsibility of the conscious minds of that society to recognize that these myths do exist and that they tend to distort the resulting reality. If, for example, the general public wishes to be granted a certain favor by the government that would lower their cost for some particular service, they must be prepared to face the eventual consequence of either the diminution of that service or of their payment for it through rising costs in some other quarter, possibly taxed to some portion of the population that gets no benefit from this favor. A conscious mind can see this easily, whereas an unconscious one may not; but it is the responsibility of the conscious mind to know these things and understand how these myths may distort the social reality. Until this myth is unmasked, society as a whole may have difficult understanding why a certain action on their part would yield results entirely contrary to expectations, such as inflation or economic depression. Unmasked, then the public can better decide whether it wishes to continue in its myths or discard them. Then, whether society will work better will be based on that decision.

A society unmasked will materialize what the social mind is really like. It then has no facade behind which to hide and with which to take little advantages at others' expense, because no agreement had been established which would entitle a person to that advantage. A society based on reality is unforgiving in how it materializes our actions around us. As we do, so is it done to us by reality; as we form our agreements with our fellow man, so we must live within the materializations of those agreements; if we are insincere in these agreements, then what will materialize will be other than what had been expected. If we seek to hide behind myths, then we must accept that we will have to confront the consequences of our actions indirectly, probably unexpectedly, and ultimately unpleasantly. In a real society, the mind must be mature and conscious; it is the mark of a free mind. A free mind must be aware of its actions and their consequences, responsibly and sincerely; irresponsibly, it is then forced to suffer the consequences of its action and ultimately lose more than it had gained. However, if it is our choice to be irresponsible in our actions, insincere, then it must be our choice, by default, that we would rather materialize in our environment immediate benefits at the expense of more permanent ones. If this is then recognized as a myth and so accepted, then it ceases to be a myth because it had been unmasked and becomes a conscious, free choice. What materializes from such choice is then fully accountable and the resulting unpleasantness of surprise to no one.

So now, having established some background conditions, we can seek an answer to the question: Which society will work better, masked or unmasked? The answer lies in whether or not that society is ready to seek change. In general terms, the specifics of which we will examine later, we can now see that some societies would perhaps work better unchanged, whereas others would be enhanced by seeking to make their society more directly responsive to their human action. Not all societies would be comfortable in the stark nakedness of real materialization of their actions. Sometimes, it is beneficial to experience things indirectly, shrouded by some fantasy, social comforts that would rather be paid for at a future time, in a different way. The conscious mind understands these things and acts accordingly; the unconscious mind must yet learn their meaning.

So, in conclusion, whether a society elects to materialize its reality directly or indirectly is a decision left to its social mind. If it is more comfortable with its myths, then it must accept as part of its reality the consequential handicaps; change cannot be forced upon it. Ultimately, as the need for the support of social myths dissolve, that society will also grow and change itself to be more directly responsive to its actions. Change cannot be forced; it must come from within. If, however, a society remains unchanged, it is the responsibility of a conscious mind to understand the meaning and disposition of that society and to act with it accordingly. Same as we would not impose social change on another by manifesto, nor would we allow that society to dictate to a society already free.

* * *

To Table of Contents