Freedom Within Castes

(by Dlanorrenrag*)
APPRECIATING FREEDOM EVEN WITHIN CASTE ASSIGNMENTS:

Does it mean anything to appreciate that nothing is as constant as change? Regarding every system, pattern, or form that emerges out of chaos: Consider the course of random-evolution and willed-morphology, conjoined in respect of three fundamentals of I Ching: (1) Simplicity (interpenetrating pervasiveness), (2) Variability (flexibility in strategies for surviving change --- or, “Hegelian becoming’ness”), and (3) Persistency (permanence and enduring survivability in constancy --- or, “Kierkegaardian being’ness”).

Regardless of presently appreciated form for any evolving system, such system must be constant and must persist long enough (in being’ness) in order for it to be considered as a system. Yet, to be appreciated, such system must also be changing enough (in becoming’ness) in order for it to be sensed as a system.

Because our very sensing of a system changes it, we do not sense a system as it remains appreciable, but only as it was appreciable. That is, our sensed reality is not contemporaneous, but is only experienced as rationalized --- one step behind. We forever meet each next challenge by relying on past sensed information in order to try to make a best intuitive guess about what may next challenge us.

Even as we seek to preserve systems (being’ness) we consider to be meaningful, our wider holography demands constant change (becoming’ness).

For conservators to preserve a system of social order, they may find it helpful that various kinds and degrees of perspectives of consciousness should be molded, led, indoctrinated, and assigned to fill or fulfill either “this or that” among necessary functions. Conservators will sense advantage in some rigid assignments of caste or trade.

Eventually, conservators will sense advantage in intentionally and artificially designing inferior bodies and minds in order to fulfill necessarily menial or repetitive tasks and functions. To compete with other systems, conservators will also find it necessary to try to design loyal forms for expressing imaginative libertines of superior intellect.

Thus may arise a design of social systems for arraying forms of consciousness, some to be rigidly and constantly confined to menial tasks (which may be changed only upon design and permission of others), versus others (who are to be allowed parameters of freedom and creative self-expression).

Should any mortal adjudge morality of such a system? How may or should each such system be changed, preserved, or respected? To considerable extent, must it be enough: to appreciate that every such system must eventually surpass and replace itself; to hope that each perspective of consciousness may be availed opportunity to experience creative self fulfillment appropriate to its capacity of appreciation; to intuit that all perspectives serve God; to hope that each perspective of consciousness, in some sense of enlightened empathy, may respect all others?

Indeed, may just such a system be in place --- even at a meta-level --- among Elohim fluxing and competing within a meta-system of hierarchical functions and parameters? Perhaps, consciousness of each of us is meta-tied to such Elohim.