#pluarlity

[wolffuwu]

it seems there is 2 wolfs

[forthedancingandthethriving]

"Creator, what are those?" Pluarlity lifts a paw to point at jars that hung from the ceiling. She could see something in there, gently floating about.

"Ah, these?" Database lifts a hand to gently brush against the bottom of the jars. "These are jars holding stray codes we have come across. For now, we don't know what to do with them, so we leave them be. However, sometimes we come across ones that need to be revived, so we do just that."

"You can bring code back to life?" Pluarlity's eyes sparkle.

"Yes." Database nods. "So long as they have existed in this realm or one connected, we can bring them back. As long as there is code for us to work on and some semblance of memory banks, we can bring them back."

"That's amazing.." Plurality let out a small breath, in awe.

"We know." Database smiles. "It's the least we can do for the inhabitants of this realm. Bringing back those they have lost if we know that they truly miss them and the one they're trying to bring back didn't want to deactivate."

Plurality nods in understanding, her tail gently tapping against the ground.

○●○

Vitality taps a pen against her desk, eyes narrow at some command boxes. She pauses before sighing, leaning back in her chair.

Her eyes drift over to her shelf, and she frowns. Her hand lifts before lowering, and she continues working on the documents in front of her.

[kirasystem]

Asks or Requests

I guess we could try a few and see what happens. We are accepting questions involving our System or about our SCP AUs (which we have quite a few of). But we could do drawing requests of our Alters or drawings SCP related. Also uh... Our AUs so far: [SCP AUs and we aren’t sorry- C] Disney One piece/Pirates Feudal Japan Supernatural Highschoolmusical Pokemon Creepypasta Mario Kirby Powerpuff girls Gangster Soul mate Eternal Hell Main cannon Monster Dating sim Mythos Soft bois Neko Superhero Zombie Fallout ElderScrolls Demons Angels Detective vs Demon/Serial Killer Detective Noir The Only Human Virus Fire Emblem Minecraft Cafe Dreamland Clef in Wonderland Specter Spectacle Circ du oh fuck Only Nightmares Harem Snail Doctor, Doctor, Fuck you, Doctor Daycare This towns only big enough for one idiot Meltdown Split Soulmate Alternative You can’t quit the game Assassins “Ma’am this is a convenience store.” Invisible Friends Western Cheesy Monster Movie Last Man on Earth Prison sucks Bound Underwater Dark Systematic

[athousandgateaux]

If it is true that a thing is real within both the historical-political and sensate world only if it can show itself and be perceived from all its sides, then there must always be a plurality of individuals or peoples and a plurality of standpoints to make reality even possible and to guarantee its continuation. In other words, the world comes into being only if there are perspectives; it exists as the order of worldly things only if it is viewed, now this way, now that, at any given time. If a people or nation, or even just some specific human group, which offers a unique view of the world arising from its particular position in the world – a position that, however it came about, cannot readily be duplicated – is annihilated, it is not merely that a people or a nation or a given number of individuals perishes, but rather that a portion of our common world is destroyed, an aspect of the world that has revealed itself to us until now but can never reveal itself again. Annihilation is therefore not just tantamount to the end of a world; it also takes its annihilator with it. Strictly speaking, politics is not so much about human beings as it is about the world that comes into being between them and endures beyond them. To the extent that politics becomes destructive and causes worlds to end, it destroys and annihilates itself. To put it another way, the more peoples there are in the world who stand in some particular relationship with one another, the more world there is to form between them, and the larger that world will be. The more standpoints there are within any given nation from which to view the same world that shelters and presents itself equally to all, the more significant and open to the world that nation will be. If, on the other hand, there were to be some cataclysm that left the earth with only one nation, and matters in that nation were to come to a point where everyone saw and understood everything from the same perspective, living in total unanimity with one another, the world would have come to an end in a historical-political sense…In other words, human beings in the trust sense of the term can exist only where there is a world, and there can be a world in the true sense of the term only where the plurality of the human race is more than a simple multiplication of a single species.

Hannah Arendt, “Introduction Into Politics” from The Promise of Politics, pg. 175-76

[wildrosesystem]

Being an alter formed from a fictional source within a median system is still really confusing to me. (Which is weird, because both Jon and Ser don’t have a problem with this at all). I always wonder why and how I came to be. Because sometimes I feel so close to Jon and Ser that our thoughts and feelings are intertwined and sometimes I feel so alianated from them, longing for a home I’ve never been too. I’d honeslty love to read and hear more about other fableings, but there are so few resourced about it.

-Firion

[montrealrampage]

Through My Brown Gay Lens : My idea of INDIA

Through My Brown Gay Lens : My idea of INDIA

Everyone has an idea of their country of birth, what it means and what it stands for. It’s a resonance of a child’s yearning for the suckle of their mother’s breast, the moment when the lips touch them and satiation follows. I have always had that sense of comfort with my motherland.

India (the modern geographical area) has not been defined by the same boundaries till more recently nor has it…

[lhs3020b]

Aftermath

OK, let’s take a more-detailed look at last night’s events. In the light of the morning, it’s not actually quite as grim as it looked early last night.

TL;DR the pro-Remain parties are actually somewhat ahead of the hard-Brexit ones, whilst the Brexit Party took the most seats (as forecast).

And in extraordinary news, the traditional “big two”, Labour and the Conservatives ... aren’t, anymore. In fact, uh, the Tories even got beat by the Greens, which is some serious schadenfreude.

(We’re still waiting on a couple of final declarations, but they’re not going to findamentally-change the underlying picture.)

As was widely forecast, the big winner was the horrible Nigel Farage and the Brexit Party. In the end, they fell a bit short of expectations, on 31.6% of the vote and 28 MEPs. (Earlier last night it looked like they were heading for a truly-horrifying 40-45%, but it turns out this was an artefact of the very pro-Leave northern regions, who declared first.)

In the end, the Liberal Democrats actually did edge Labour into second place, on 20.3% of the vote and taking 15 MEPs.

Labour clung onto third place on 14.1% of the vote - but, the Green Party was just barely behind them, on 12.1%.

The Tories actually fell below 10% of the vote, placing a miserable fifth(!!). That’s right - the Conservatives took fewer votes and fewer seats than the Green Party! Now there is a sentence I never imagined I would type.

Of the remainder, the SNP took 3.5% of the vote (all in Scotland), UKIP’s rotting corpse took 3.3% and CHuKa/TIG/whatever-it’s-called-now took 3.4%. So, hopefully, this marks the end for Chuka Umuna’s ghastly ego-trip, at least.

Lastly, Plaid Cymru gained 1 seat in Wales, on 1% of the national vote. (Note that Wales was the only place where they stood candidates, so the national vote share is a bit meaningless here.)

So, the Leave-without-a-Deal parties (Brexit + UKIP) took 34.9% of the vote.

The ambivalent-Leave parties (Tories, Labour) took 23.2% of the vote.

The pro-Remain parties (Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, PC and yes, the TIGs) took, uh, 40.2% of the vote.

So while you won’t hear this from the media, continuity!Remain actually has a 5-percentage-point lead versus Hard Brexit.

In theory, that gives us what we need (the 2016 referendum was 5.89/48.11, or a 3.78pt difference, so we even have a very slender margin spare).

Of course, this depends a lot on what the Big Two do now. There won’t be any surprises from the Tories - they’ll declare for Hard Brexit, as Farage now has a de facto veto over whoever their next leader is. (If they’re to survive in any form at all, they need Brexit Party voters. If they took 9% at a Westminster election, it’s quite possible that they’d return no MPs at all.) However, this might also backfire on them - now that the Lib Dems are apparently back in from the cold, it seems likely that the Tories’ pro-Remain voters will decamp. After all, there’s somewhere they can go that isn’t Labour.

As for Labour, it isn’t really clear what will happen. The data shows that being Brexity has hurt them, but there’s huge resistance within the leadership to learning that lesson. Plus, the lesson has been made politically-toxic by its adoption as a factional issue by the Labour Right. Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair, Chuka Umuna and the other schemers have a lot to answer for on that account! (Honestly, it’s doubtful whether they really care if the UK stays in the EU or not - rather, they just see Remain as a convenient wedge-issue to lever Mr Corbyn out of the Labour leadership.)

What I would like is for Labour to solidly-declare for Remain. At that point, the arithmetic goes to 54.3% for us, in which case we stand a reasonable chance of winning another referendum. (It looks likely that if Brexit was to be kicked out, Westminster would insist on another referendum first, just so It’s Not Their Personal Fault, whatever happens. Another ref would be a terrible idea for lots of reasons, but we’d have to work with what we’re given, I suppose, for all that I don’t like it.)

As it stands, though, I’m really not sure.

[sleeptight-grimrite]

I swear, Hillary supporters are every bit as delusional as Trump supporters and just as ignorant when it comes to the issues.

Literally apply all of what you just said about her bailing out the DNC and apply it to Trump. Your fake asses would be screaming "CORRUPTION" and you'd be right. You have someone who lost to Barack Obama -- a black man with with a Muslim name -- because people didn't trust her. So you try telling the American people "....but it was technically legal!" and see how much confidence that inspires. That's the point. And as expected, it seems to have gone over your head.

I've read the 'lists' of things that the Clintons have accomplished. Conveniently, they leave out the crime bill they signed off on, which ruined millions of lives for blacks and people of color. For a party so hung up on identity politics, she should have been a 'no' from day one. Those lists also leave out the fact that Hillary supported the Iraq war, as well as the Patriot act. They also leave out the fact that she was against gay marriage up until 2013 (Bernie was for it YEARS before she and MANY Democrats were). And for all her being gung-ho against guns, when she ran against Obama in 2008, she used the fact that he was much more anti-gun against him. Go on, look it up. Your list also leaves out how she sold out Americans with that bankruptcy bill she flipped on (ask Liz Warren) and how she 'pivoted' from universal health care when the insurance companies started paying her. Again, look it up.

Just during the primaries alone, she called herself a progressive, she called herself a moderate. When all she really is is just another warhawk Republican....who happens to believe in gay marriage and the right for women to choose. Sorry, those are "duh" issues that only assholes disagree with and its not brave to simply not be an asshole anymore.

You can talk shit about how Bernie -- the longest serving Independent -- hasn't gotten much done by way of passing his own legislation, but he's been consistent on the issues, unlike Hillary and so many other Democrats with the exception of Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren. Not to mention he isn't called the 'amendment king' for nothing. A lot more than just naming post boxes, honey.

Worship Hillary if you want to, but you're on the side with people who thought she was so atrocious, they went for Trump...or Jill Stein or Johnson or weren't inspired to vote at all. Try calling us all Russian shills and sexists and racists and see how far that gets you. Try ignoring Bernie and the over 60% of the country that agrees with his message that calls for not just focus on identity politics (which DOES have a place. I'm a black woman, you don't have to explain to me that discrimination is still a thing) but economic equality as well.

If you people wanna just rag on about identity politics, go ahead. You'll probably win the popular vote from now until the end of time, but you'll never win another general election.

But its a waste of time for me to even tell you this, as you quite obviously worship this woman (aint nobody worshipping Sanders, its the fact that tuition free college, medicare for all and raising the minimum wage have over 60% popularity nation wide, even with a pluarlity of Republicans). Still, you should probably just go ahead and face the possibility that you must be wrong about how great Hillary is. Because if you were right, Hillary would be the president right now and would not have lost to a man who had a 64% disapproval rating on the day of the election.

And if Bernie was such a piece of shit with the lack of support needed to win an election or get legislation passed once he had, then almost every credible poll wouldn't have had him consistently beat Trump by double digits and well outside the margin of error (which is what Hillary lost by ouldn't even break out of during the campaign) and he wouldn't be the most popular politician in the country right now. He doesn't need the Democrats, as I'm sure you're aware.

Stay on your sinking ship. 😂✌

Bernie was given the exact same deal.

The deal only applied to the general election. Not the primary.

Oh and…

Hillary won the primary by 4 million votes.

Why doesn’t anybody talk about the fact that Hillary won the popular vote? It’s the only fact that matters.

Hillary beat Bernie by 4 million votes. Period.

[theloobrush]

My idea of a dipolar deity, with a transcendent 'primordial' divine nature and a manifest-in-space-and-time immanent nature is not original. Process theology suggests a similar model. The distinction is possible because we can distinguish, formally at least, between essence or ousia and what the ancients called the energies or powers. Also because we can see a distinction between substance and modes of that substance. What is true of all reality is true of the divine, though there is not, following Spinoza, a pluarlity of substances.

The primordial divine nature is the impersonal divine 'essence' synonymous with ultimate reality, a pure changeless, unity and absolute being.

I have further postulated that continually arising within this One Essence is a coming to self awareness that we call the Divine Mind or Nous. I've sketched this along neo-platonic lines as the repository of those realities that approximate to Plato's 'ideal forms', now understood as purely logical and mathematical mental concepts and operations.

This Nous requires some more explanation. It is a pure consciousness and awareness, the self contemplating nature of ultimate reality, but ego-less, it is not a personality. I've called it a state of being that is metapersonal or transpersonal but it is also logically prior to any personhood. The Nous represents the first multiplicity i.e. the first distinction within ultimate reality, proceeding with the binary distinction between being in itself and (self) awareness of being in itself.

Being in itself is essentially indiscernable from non-being, a 'zero' or 'ground state' except upon mental reflection it becomes conceptualized - collapsed as it were from potentiality to actuality - as an 'is-ness', as a monad, the mathematical 'one'. The further self reflection of this self reflection is the beginning of mental process. I've also wondered whether mental existence begins with the distinction between strict being and non-being, but I suggest that any logical binary will do. I think semantically there is a distinction between 'I' and 'Am' in the self awareness 'I AM'. Here the movement is 'awareness' and the 'I' is the content or reference of that awareness. This is also the distinction between the knower and the known, but the 'known' is also the 'knower'. However is this awareness explained? So far only partially. My take is that in infinite time, the potential for consciousness which is contained with the neutral monist 'stuff' of ultimate reality must become self awareness. In infinity all that can be, will be.

So far we have discussed the primordial divine nature that precedes the universe of space and time. The relationship need not be of the one as efficient cause of the other, it may be purely a logical begetting. Space and Time would then be dependently founded on the primordial divine nature but the latter cannot be said to be prior in time; the primordial is ever creating, but what we call our universe's 'beginning' is simply the 'edge' of space time. Space and Time could be our universe or it could be infinite multi-verses (the latter explaining the apparent 'fine tuning'). Still the primordial divine nature stands as the unmoved mover and first cause.

Our universe is 'pervaded' by the divine spirit or better 'energies' or 'power(s)' Many philosophies claim this, but hardly ever is it explained in what way the divine spirit is present in space and time. I say the divine spirit is divinity manifesting as space-time. The cosmos is not embedded in the primordial (there is a sense in which space-time nests within ultimate reality, the spatial relations implied tend to confuse) Rather the world is a mode of the divine, the singular substance, in and unchanged in itself by the near infinite number of forms the universe can manifest.

Or theres' the metaphor of seed becoming the flower. The primordial divine nature blossoms into cosmos, evolving from pure potentiality toward perfection.

[suechoiart]

Theory Week 4: Sustainability

Trying to focus more on the writing side of this... Picture attributed as “Le Courbusier’s 1925 Vision for Paris 

SYNOPSIS 

Following the lackluster participation of politics week, we encounter the readings on the topic of SUSTAINABILITY. The word, appeared and gained popularity in the last quarter century or so (perhaps with the momentum that birthed the Environmental Protection Agency in the 70s), provokes the ‘green’ image of our society. PENELOPE DEAN, in “UNDER COVER OF GREEN” (2001?), marks this as another chapter of “CITY-AS-PROBLEM” spawned in the mid-nineteenth century (hallmarked soon by Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle in 1903). The precedents being the City Beautiful movement (which marked formal beauty as a prerequisite for a “harmonious social order”), the modernist movement (a ‘rational’ reaction to congestion), and then New Urbanism (responding to the false notion of the 20th-21st century human as a Protean being) -- ... Then, SUSTAINABILITY is a new chapter for (as always) ARCHITECTS to push the discipline. As Ezio Manzini said, DESIGN CULTURE is “to advance and visualize a pluarlity of possibilities,” Dean asserts this ‘challenge’ as opportunity for architects to retrun to become Great “CULTURAL FIGURES,”  like the following architects and their ideas: Daniel Burnham’s Chicago Plan (1909), Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City (1898), Le Courbusier’s Three Million Inhabitants (1922) and Ville Radieuse (1933). As this is not the first time GREEN has entered the architectural discipline, it is another opportunity for it to serve as a DESIGN MEDIUM OF BIGGER IDEAS, one in which “offers the means through which to SMUGGLE bigger, conceptual ambitions BACK INTO ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM.” (page 4 on PDF). Coincidentally, DEAN calls all of this as a response to “CONSUMER DRIVEN ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS,” (pg 2), which sounds a like “SECOND MODERNITY” we never really got to talk about last week, which BRENT STURLAUGSON wonderfully illustrates in “WHAT YOU DON’T SEE” (2018).  To tie SUSTAINABILITY into POLITICS, STURLAUGSON’s study (it feels too obvious to be an éxposé) is perhaps a much easier text to visualize a wildly abstract & loaded concept. In a nutshell, every decision of an architect eventually ties back to POLITICS, that the PLYWOOD bought for a LEED certified project, for example, is not-so-indirectly tied to the political machine of Koch Brothers in Wichita, KS, by the way of Wyoming, Georgia, and Your Local Home Depot. STURLAUGSON’s argument is simple: the FULL ACCOUNTING of architecture projects must think about “ intricate product and energy supply chains that are crucial to their construction” beyond the normative architectural objects. This is a moment of awakening for architecture -- the PLYWOOD is a direct relation to concerns of “building construction” and of “universal concern,” specifically global temperature rises (coal power operates the plywood factory) and global income inequality (the Koch Brothers have a lot of stinkin’ money). STURLAUGSON’s practical suggestion to architects is to, at least, use their professional position(s) to expose or boycott such industries. The STATUS QUO is not good enough, he asserts, but, how much power does the professional actually possess?

SYNTHESIS (in words)

 The two articles are complementary despite the distance between each of their outputs. Both advocate for an agenda to be added to architectural practice in response to a global trend/crisis. Together, a survey of modern architectural practices are presented, although one is much more focused on the ‘present’ and the other on the ‘speculative,’ it is not meant to be a writing of mourning, but a call to action to architects. However they diverge in the call to action. STURLAUGSON pushes for architects to not only think and draw speculatively of ‘sustainability’ dreams, but to carefully examine the actual reality they participate wihtin. “WHAT YOU DON’T SEE” reveals the soot-y and coal-ored (!) reality underneed the façade. DEAN, on the other hand, sees the GREEN as an opportunity to further fantisize about mammoth-sized urban projects like that of The Garden City. Citing three projects in particular (Emilio Ambasz - Dean’s nickname, “Green Town,” a series of projects including Fukuoka Prefectural International Hall, 1994; UrbanLab’s Growing Water, 2006; and Atelier Bow Wow’s Void Metabolism, 2007) DEAN wishes for architects and urbanists to reclaim the city-planning from the hands of HIGH-TECH-ists and LANDSCAPE URBANISTS, with no concern to the minute material nature of those ideas (she *does* mention the quality of representation for the Atelier Bow Wow project). Lost in the big ideas, DEAN (by STURLAUGSON’s standards) fails to examine the material that architects must claim for these projects (the LANDSCAPE), fails to even mention “landscape” “architecture” in succession, and to me, seems to contain the architect model in a cage of the dreamer. (Could that have been what authors of last week’s readings wanted?)

REFLECTION, DISCIPLINARY RELEVANCE,  etc

 So... where can I find landscape architects in this conversation? Dean irritatingly calls out landscape urbanists but not landscape architects. (In 2001, that may have been the only source of presence for the profession.) Anyways, to take the arguments of both articles at face value, one must critically examine the source, creation, and processing of all construction materials; but at the same time dream of designing and constructing entire cities. Either way, architecture and urbanism (and no other disciplines, obviously!) in the ‘green’ project can be and must be a “SOCIOCULTURAL PROJECT” (Dean, pg3). The medium of landscape and the profession(al) potential of (landscape) architects can and must practice with the gusto that it is political (!) and must operate as such. By no means is this an easy exercise. With the limited resources of time and money, I am currently a student held hostage with the materials provided by Jerry’s and Volshop. But for now I may be able to at least abide by dreaming big, dreaming of big regional projects that could make 2001 Dean notice landscape architects, and dream big dreams that will bring goodness.

[forthedancingandthethriving]

Database, as much as they didn't like to, knew of everyone and everything in the world that had been created so long ago. Every Program, every Virus, every Mod, every Admin, anything that was code-born, they knew of it. Their name, their personality, their life.

A blessing and a curse, really.

That was why they were so surprised to see a singular piece of code somehow found its way into their home, which overflowed with powerful code. Not even the strongest codes would ever be able to get into their home, much less a command line.

So as they scoop it up and bring it to their eyes, they muse gently.

"Ah. You. We thought you had been destroyed." Database tilts their head, looking down at what was the final piece of the Code Manifestation, Singularity.

It was a simple command line now. All it wanted? Maximum efficiency.

Their eyes slant from weariness and confusion. "We could have sworn Little Coding had managed to get rid of you.. perhaps the overload didn't get rid of all your code, hm?"

There's no response, of course, but it still left Database wondering. Their thoughts drift back to Welony, the little child that had recently popped up. She was a new version of her old self, wasn't she? Atoning for the mistakes of the past.

Database purses their lips as they think. Who was to say they couldn't do something similar with Singularity? Or, well, what was left of it.

So they got to work. The four of them chimed in, adding what they thought necessary before finally they saw what they had created.

They smile, seeing a small, polygonal cat in their palms.

The legs, tail, and head were attached to the body, unlike Singularity's old model where everything floated. While this new Manifestation had a blue outline, their 'fur' was black, with red 1s and 0s running through it. The only floating parts were its two triangle ears, which were white instead of black. Its head was white as well, with no 1s or 0s, and there were only two 0s on its eyes. One red, one blue.

The Manifestation curiously looks up at Database.

Database pauses before sighing softly. Peering to see events was always a headache, one that the Four would share, but it still hurt.

They have to remove the efficiency command, or else this new Code Manifestation would become Singularity once more.

"This won't hurt, we promise." They assure the Code before gently plucking out the command. They stare at it before crushing it.

"Goodbye, Singularity." They watch the small particles fall. "We hope you finally rest."

Turning their attention back to the Code Manifestation, they ponder. "What shall we name you, hm? What name will we give?"

They think and think before similing.

"We shall keep it simple. You'll be Plurality. A little corny, a little cheesy, but is that not what life is about? To have a bit of fun?" They smile, and they see Pluarlity smile a tad too.

They fit their hands and place the new Code Manifestation on a platform. A bit of digging, and the ties were cut. There was no way anyone would ever find out about Plurality once being Singularity unless Database themselves spoke of it.

At least, they hoped.

"You will be our eyes and ears. You will travel to places we can not see and can not hear, and you will record. You will learn, you will inhabit, and you will return." Database tells Plurality. "But you never tell anyone of who you are."

"I understand." Plurality finally speaks, and Databae smiles. A voice similar to Little Coding's but not so much.

"And most importantly.." They gently push a fingertip against Plurality's chest. "Find yourself. Discover who you are."

A chat box and few other items appear before being dropped into a satchel relative to Plurality's size. The satchel then attaches itself to the Code Manifestation's body before the Code if gently pushed through a portal.

"Make us proud, Plurality."

Pluarlity looks behind to where the portal once was before looking out beyond. An ear twitches.

"Discover myself, huh..? I.. I can do this."

[ohioraptor]

So far, we’ve been waking up at 6:30am every morning. This gives us two and a half hours to prepare for the day. Including a shower, a full breakfast, and some tai chi + yoga. Also, we’ve consistently studied for three hours every night after work and classes, as well as had time to relax and play some violin.  It means less time to be on the internet and socialize, but I actually feel better than I have in years. I feel awake. I feel more like myself than I ever have before. On a similar note, the anniversary of our discovery of multiplicity is coming up in February. It’s been a year of steady progress. I’m glad I decided to see where this would lead me. I can say, without a doubt, that I am significantly happier and healthier. 

[l-in-c-future]

  Strangely enough that we – humans – having:

a completely different social situation (to the one Aristotle had had);

experience of (re)combination of these 6 forms for 2 thousand years in different cultures, times etc;

facing very challenging situation for the current civilization that is either to be solved or to destroy the world we know and to turn it into a ruin (like it was portrayed by many fiction writers visionary writers)

Most of the humanity still finds time and energy to invest into the discussions which of these out-dated forms suits the current needs of the civilization. My answer is: neither of them.

 So what is so different about the New Concordia?

It is based on the synarchy principles of plurality, universal wellbeing and non-domination; 

It ensures the right and the freedom of the Concordians to choose and realize their own Path;

It provides and protects the legal personality status of Nature;

It provides the co-governance of the Condordians’ property and action-plans;

It protects the Concordians and their communities from any kind of domination: either inner or outer.

[athousandgateaux]

It lies in the nature of a tradition to be accepted and absorbed, as it were, by common sense, which fits the particular idiosyncratic data of our other senses into a world we inhabit together and share in common. In this general understanding, common sense indicates that in the human condition of plurality men check and control their particular sense data against the common data of others (just as seeing and hearing and other sense perceptions belong to the human condition of man in his singularity and guarantee that he can see by himself: for perception per se, he does not need his fellow men). Whether we say that the plurality of men or the commonality of the human world is its specific sphere of competence, common sense obviously operates chiefly in the pubic realm of politics and morals, and it is that realm which must suffer when common sense and its matter-of-course judgements no longer function, no longer make sense.

Hannah Arendt, “The Tradition of Political Thought,” from The Promise of Politics, pg. 41-42

[athousandgateaux]

Since for the Greeks the public political space is common to all (koinon), the space where the citizens assemble, it is the realm in which all things can first be recognized in their many-sidedness. This ability to see the same thing first from two opposing sides and then from all sides – an ability ultimately based in Homeric impartiality, unique in antiquity, and whose passionate intensity is unexcelled even in our own time – also underlies certain tricks of the Sophists, whose importance in liberating human thought from the constrictions of dogma we underestimate if, in following Plato, we condemn them on moral grounds…The crucial factor is not that one could now turn arguments around and stand propositions on their heads, but rather that one gained the ability to truly see topics from various sides – that is, politically – with the result that people understood how to assume the many possible perspectives provided by the real world, from which one and the same topic can be regarded and in which each topic, despite its oneness, appears in a great diversity of views. This is considerably more than our simply putting aside personal interests, which results only in a negative gain; moreover, in cutting ties to our own interests, we run the danger of losing our ties to the world and our attachment to its objects and the affairs that take place in it. The ability to see the same thing from various standpoints stays in the human world; it is simply the exchange of the standpoint given us by nature for that of someone else, with whom we share the same world, resulting in a true freedom of movement in our mental world that parallels our freedom of movement in the physical one. Being able to persuade and influence others, which was how the citizens of the polis interacted politically, presumed a kind of freedom that was not irrevocably bound, either mentally or physically, to one’s own standpoint or point of view…At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that the freedom of the political man definitely depended on the presence and equality of others. A thing can reveal itself under many aspects only in the presence of peers who regard it from their various perspectives. Wherever the equality of others and of their particular opinions is abrogated, as, for instance, under tyranny, in which everything and everyone is sacrificed to the standpoint of the tyrant, no one is free and no one is capable of insight, not even the tyrant. Moreover, this freedom of the political man…has next to nothing to do with our freedom of the will.

Hannah Arendt, “Introduction Into Politics” from The Promise of Politics, pg. 167-69