• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!


csps terms

Page history last edited by Kaisiris Tallini 2 years, 9 months ago

Cesidian societal-political science terms — with table




Buddhists take refuge in the Three Jewels, ie the Buddha, his Dharma or teachings, and the Sangha, or the community of ordained monks and nuns.


Maitreya (Sanskrit) or Metteyya (Pali) is a future Buddha in Buddhist eschatology. In some Buddhist literature, such as the Amitabha Sutra and the Lotus Sutra, he is referred to as Ajita Bodhisattva.


Maitreya is a bodhisattva or enlightened person who is to appear on Earth, achieve complete, not partial enlightenment, and teach the pure dharma or law.


According to scriptures, Maitreya will be a successor of the historic Shakyamuni Buddha, 'the Awakened One of the Shakya Clan', and the founder of Buddhism.


Buddhist scriptures also speak of the prostrate status of religion at the time of the Maitreya:


People will no longer have any religion to which they can turn for solace or liberation: the doctrines of materialism will overwhelm their minds and drive them to struggle for their own selfish ends. The lust for power and wealth will prevail over teachings of compassion and truth.

The Prophecy of Shambala, 700 CE


Yet despite all the problems, Maitreya or Metteyya will triumph by his sheer intellectual brilliance and human qualities:


In those days, brethren, there will arise in the World an Exalted One named Metteyya. He will be an Arahant, Fully Awakened, abounding in wisdom and goodness, happy, with knowledge of the worlds, unsurpassed as a guide to mortals willing to be led, a teacher of gods and men, an Exalted One, a Buddha, even as I am now. He, by himself, will thoroughly know and see, as it were face to face, this Universe, with its worlds of the spirits, its Brahmas and its Maras, and its world of recluses and brahmins, of princes and peoples, even as I now, by myself thoroughly know and see them. The Law, lovely in its origin, lovely in its progress, lovely in its consummation, will he proclaim, both in the spirit and in the letter; the higher life will he make known, in all its fullness and in all its purity, even as I do now. He will be accompanied by a congregation of some thousands of brethren, even as I am now accompanied by a congregation of some hundreds of brethren.

— Digha Nikaya iii.76, Cakkavatti-Sihanada Sutanta


What is an "ordained" monk or nun? Buddhists think they know, but if they know, then why are even Buddhist sanghas still dependent on governments, not like a fully pampered and domestic cat (Felis catus), but more like sick stray cats at an animal shelter, rescue, or hospital?


What are the principles on which effective sanghas, or societal and multisocietal communities built?


These questions are answered by Cesidian societal-political science (Csps).



Cesidian societal-political science terms


Maura I. Strassberg, Associate Professor of Drake University Law School, a university which is not accredited by our Paradiplomatic Affairs agency, in an article claims the monogamous family first "contributes" to the modern "liberal" state by reinforcing the individuality of the partners, and providing a nurturing environment for further self-development.


She further elaborates that in comparison, while the pursuit of individual self-development is a prime motivation of many adults entering into polyamorous relationships, a family consisting of a group of adults has considerable potential to suppress individuality, due simply to the nature of group dynamics.


The first thing I would like to ask Strassberg, if she were an actual colleague of mine at my level in both sociological and legal terms, is why the monogamous family must "contribute" to the so-called "liberal" state, while the latter — the Aristotelian state — feels no need to make any contribution even to the monogamous family only.


The state doesn't do a damn thing for families, and one could argue that some non-profit organisations, like the Interfaith Nutrition Network, provide better protections in the cases of family economic hardship than even the state in most cases.


The second thing to ask is this: the modern "liberal" state does not, and never did, protect the rights of the individual, anymore than it currently protects the rights of the family, even of the monogamous family only, which is a legal "institution".


In reality, individuality is protected by individuals exercising their rights within, and outside of marriage, and has always, and shall always be the case, even without the Aristotelian state's "help".


Strassberg also claims that polygamous groups larger than tetrads — four adults — may require a shared ideology to maintain group cohesion, and this ideology can "stifle" individual thinking and action. Of course, she provides no real evidence for these impressions or theories.


This is nothing but academically freeze-dried bullshit, which of course only smells a little less bad than fresh bullshit, straight out of a cow's ass.


Individuality is already stifled sufficiently in dyads or monogamous families, so this is also a very faulty justification for favouring monogamy, and the related Mosaic law.


In fact, almost any union stifles individuality to some degree, especially political unions.


That stifling of individuality, when it is voluntary, so as to favour more than one's egotistical needs only, is called love. Now this may be a completely shocking fact to those creatures primarily living in the 3D world, who consider themselves part of the fake species called Homo sapiens sapiens. A true human species would require two genera or paradigms, not one, according to Cesidian societal-political science.


In a non-toxic union, love can actually be the most beautiful and meaningful thing in any human being's life. If the purpose of life were individuality, in fact, God — or nature — would have made humans only of a single gender, not two. A meaningful human existence also requires two genders.


By criticising polyamorous relationships, even the basic roots of the word, Strassberg also reveals the basic problem with most monogamous relationships: while the romantic love that often sparks polyamorous relationships can be a strong force in maintaining a focus on individual needs and development, the jealousy and negative feelings that arise from sharing sexual partners, can also produce a coercive environment that seeks to exert considerable control over all aspects of "individual" life.


She further elaborates that although triads — unions of three adults — and tetrads — unions of four adults — may offer less cause for concern along these lines, polyamory does not support limiting the expansion of monogamy to just three or four adults.


As polyamory is based on principles of "infinite love" and "love without limits", every triad or quad "must" be free to expand even more — why? This — theoretical only — lack of limits in polyamory turns every triad and tetrad, by themselves the more individuality-friendly forms of polyamory, into a potential cult — I guess these societies begin at five loving members, and up.


Strassberg states that another advantage of monogamous relationships is that they also "nurture" the individuality of children, because children are viewed as the unique product of a unique relationship.


She claims this individuality allows children to grow up to seek romantic private relationships that express and nurture their particular individuality, even as they also view themselves as abstract individuals "requiring" a public realm of "rights" and law to "protect" this individuality, in larger social settings than the family.


The truth, however, is that most children are not firstborns, and/or the sole progeny of a monogamous marriage, so individuality is hardly nurtured at all, and favouritism of one child, compared to another, is fairly common.


Moreover, even when a partner of a monogamous marriage places either their children, their job, or their money first, before the other partner in the relationship on a scale of importance, this is bad, even worse than a polyamorous relationship where the triad or tetrad places all the partners in the relationship above anything and anyone else, including children, and their often unreasonable needs or demands; bad, or even worse than the demands of an employer, who may not even pay well, or offer much job security; bad, or even worse than the financial needs of a partner in the relationship who simply has too much of a carefree spirit as far as spending is concerned.


But the truth is that even the only children of a marriage will face problems if their parents' marriage fails, and divorce, and/or remarriage, become part of life's experiences.


Strassberg also theorises that the second major "contribution" of the monogamous family is that it makes possible the existence of both a private sphere of love and emotion, capable of developing individuals through attention to their particular needs, and a public sphere of "rights" and "reason", in which the common or universal qualities of individuals are both revealed and recognised as the basis of social cohesion.


The monogamous family makes these two spheres possible by limiting its focus to the particular, ie, to the immediate needs of unique family members, and by providing a relatively weak hold on children, allowing grown children to leave the family, enter the public sphere, and eventually return to the private sphere to create new families on their own.


She claims that polyamorous families might have an impact on the continued existence of distinctive public and private spheres, although admitting this is speculation.


However, Strassberg also shows she's an (irrational and pseudoscientific) Aristotelian, as she views (fake) individuality as extremely important, yet views polyamorous families — who view themselves as more than mere private sphere families, but as small communities, or would-be communities or clans — as something more threatening to individual autonomy, threatening even to rights and freedom.


She further shows her Aristotelian, and pseudoscientific bias against the family, clans, and small self-sufficient communities, by actually claiming families are essentially of a despotic nature!


Somehow polyamory, any kind of polyamorous relations, can distort the "egalitarian" and "democratic" procedures to produce hierarchy and coercion, yet Strassberg seems to be oblivious to the very coercion built-in to the student loans she, and other academics like her teaching nonsense at "accredited" educational institutions, make their living on, who are largely producing pseudoscience that would not survive either closer simple rational scrutiny, or the rigours of space travel. Do you think you could survive on Mars with this bullshit, passing for social and societal science?


Strassberg also theorises that the third major "contribution" of monogamous marriage is that it teaches "autonomous" individuals that social unity is the true experience of individuality!


This is, of course, pure academically freeze-dried bullshit, because social unity, especially socialist unity, always undermines individuality.


There is also no transcendent experience in romantic (or physical) love, nor can this transcendence be tied to a legal "institution" of marriage, made possible only by a (police) state, defined by the rule of law.


Finally, how does Strassberg, with a straight face, make all these claims, essentially against a kind of polyamorous marriage, with the need to fully surrender one's individuality to their partner through monogamy?


How can one reconcile any kind of individuality with the "[f]ailure to experience....unity through intimate relationships" in polyamory?


You are either one with your partner(s), or one by yourself.


You can't be an individual both ways.


Strassberg then says that the polyamorous folks often view the practice of sex as a spiritual practice that can produce an immediate experience of cosmic universality — how is that a negative, unless you simplistically think marriage is all, or mainly about sex? By the way, even "holy marriage", in most cases, is truly about sex (and money) only, because in most cases it is nothing but antiphilia (ἀντιφίλια) or eros (ἔρως)? Even astrologers routinely define marriage partners as "open enemies".


Strassberg says that the spiritual transcendence of polyamorous sex is fundamentally anti-political — why is that a negative?


Strassberg also says polyamory offers the cosmos rather than the state — or at least more multisocietalism, and thus less civilisation! Again, why is that a negative?


So basically the problem is that polyamory provides no motivation, or little motivation for individuals to subject themselves to the constraints of organised — religious or national — social life. That's the "problem"!


How is this criticism really a bad thing, knowing the tyranny of the state throughout the centuries, even in America, and without any doubt, all over the world?


How is the failure to achieve all the political functions of monogamy — ie, having nothing to do with the social-societal nature of the union itself — a bad thing in polyamory?


Isn't there supposed to be a (healthy) separation, even a legal separation this legal expert should know about, between private and public spheres?


And how would even legal polyamory — there is no such thing, and probably never will be — fail to promote the state as "essential" to individual existence, when nobody has ever genuinely proven the state is even necessary to protect individuals and families from crime? And does the state protect individuals and families from corporate crime?


In fact, what crime does the state even protect you from? How does the state protect "individuality" and romantic love — ie, a love entirely based on sex (eros), not based on affection (philia) — by providing the legal protection of marriage? Where is this "legal protection", or is this like the "protection" provided by vaccines, which in reality protect neither the individual, nor the larger society, but only the profits of Big Pharma?


Strassberg ends all this absolute pure pseudoscience by calling all forms, even more conservative forms of polyamory as "poaching", and while there may be some danger of this in some extreme forms of polyamory, how does a state protect against this as well, even when the poacher is not even married or engaged with someone else entirely? — this can happen even to monogamously married people, by the way.


Even the term polyamory — which should have been the more Latin-friendly term "multiamory", or the more Greek-friendly "polyeros" — is a problem, because the basic roots of the word mean "many (romantic) loves", and this clearly implies that physical love, even feelings of outright physical possession are the essential, the sine qua non of polyamory, but to be perfectly honest, they are also the sine qua non of most monogamous relationships, unfortunately.


This is, in reality, the real, the even scientific enemy of individuality, or whatever is left of individual freedom after one gets married.


The enemy, in other words, is not the form of the relationship, whether mono or poly, and the state is no protection against these feelings of possession even in most (perfectly legal) monogamous relationships. The enemy is the essential sexual nature of the relationship of marriage itself in most cases.


A better word for the kind of relationship which would be more than just sex and possessiveness, is the Ectoenglish term polyphilia, which besides being perfectly Greek-friendly, has the advantage that its most basic word roots mean "many bonds of friendship".


It should be noted that polus (πολύς) in Greek means many or much, and philia (φιλία) in Greek is the love between friends as close as siblings in strength and duration, but who may not be related by blood at all.


This friendship is the strong bond existing between people who share common values, interests, or daily activities.


Of course, this is great, and even the most natural start for any kind of relationship, but when you start a relationship based on these common religious, educational, health, and/or career values, interests, or activities, rather than on physical attraction alone, and/or on the desire to have children, an even deeper opposite-, or same-sex relationship, can develop between three or more people.


And this is also the kind of relationship where individuality or uniqueness, and/or the absolute need to express it every time, becomes somewhat less important, because there is much more in common between the friends or lovers, than what differs!


It is clear that polyamory, which is not the Cesidian law visionary concept of polyphilia (πολυφίλια), has problems, as well as the so-called community of "infinite love", and "love without limits" associated with it, especially when the partners are actual sex-seeking missiles, and not emotionally mature and stable parents (and partners) at all.


Too much freedom (as promiscuity) can damage even a healthy triad or tetrad when one, or more partners, seeks to exist without any regard/respect for the other partners, and/or the children.


It is also clear that the LGBTQ "community" is no protection for bisexuals who want to keep a real stable and loving triad or tetrad, and despite including them "politically" in the acronym. This is clearly more of the same bullshit Aristotelian paradigm of civilisation at work.


Strassberg does point out the lack of data and research on the children of poly families, and that it is by no means clear that children of monogamous families do not experience similar traumas through adultery, divorce, incest, molestation by step-parents or close relatives, swinging, death and remarriage.


However, Strassberg's uncritical, even irrational support for the fascist, even tyrannical Aristotelian paradigm, and its fake axioms, and in fact her outright essential disapproval, even antipathy of the monogamous family, clearly shows she's mainly defending the state, and the bankers of the student loans her career heavily depends on financially, and she's not at all concerned about the problems any kind of more complex union than monogamy could entail.


In fact, Strassberg is not even concerned about the perils of justice by the state, and the state alone, since she is an associate professor of a law school.


Strassberg also defines polyamory as a "new polygamy", which reflects some of the postmodern critiques of patriarchy, gender, heterosexuality, and genetic parenthood.


Also, Strassberg fails to point out why the LGBTQ community includes bisexuals in their acronym, but without really supporting them, so she is a featherweight as a social critic, and ultimately only concerned with ensuring the state, and/or the more politically popular monogamous gays and lesbians, don't stop supporting her, her flawed or biased research, and her pseudoscience on so many different levels.


Cesidian societal-political science (Csps) distinguishes between adults and people.


An adult is a mature person 21 years old or older under Cesidian law. An adult is also known as a senior adult. A person can be younger than 21 years old.


Adults are persons who can get married in a Cesidian law stirpesation union, through the process of conjugation.


Unlike with common law or Judaeo-Christian marriage, a conjugated couple can become a clan naturally through time by accepting an additional partner or partners. In other words, they can become a polyphilic (or polyphilious) group of three or more adult persons, or a nomipolyphilic (legally polyphilic) clan.


This is neither polygamy, nor polyamory, which like monogamy in most cases, is based on sex, and/or money considerations.


Polyphilic (also polyphilious) means many (different) philicities.


Philicities — a term also used in more exotic chemistry or polymer science — are developed or developing polyphilia types of kinship.


In polyphilic unions, more philicities than simply (new) spouse philicities, or (later) children philicities — diphilicities, which make the relation only polygamous and/or polypaedist at best — are created even by the initial Cesidian law gentilisation legal process.


Even in the beginning of the gentilisation legal process, polyphilic unions are not (new) parent-, sibling-, or cousin-phobic, and the new spouses, with the emotional, spiritual, even economic support of the other started, and developing philicities, can potentially attract sufficient support to start and develop yet other kinds of philicities, such as (new) grandparent, uncle, or children philicities.


Polyphilic unions have the potential to start and develop at least 9 different philicities over a decade, and up to 12 different philicities over many decades. They have the potential, in other words, to jump start the growth of natural societies.


In Cesidian law, there are also junior adults, slightly less mature persons who are persons 14 years old, or older, but under 21. This young adult which is viewed as more grown up, but not completely independent, has gone through a bar/bat mitzvah, or a coming of age ceremony.


Persons younger than 14 are simply called children.


Persons, usually much younger, who are part of a family or clan, are related to these entities by affiliation.


Adults who have become married in a Cesidian law stirpesation union, have joined each other in a lifelong commitment through the process of conjugation.


Three or more adults, who have become a single clan through a Cesidian law gentilisation union, have joined each other in a lifelong commitment through the process of matriculation. Whether they realise it or not, they have formed more a small school than a family, and more a societal (clans and nations) than social entity (families and individuals).


Any full adult can become a representative of his or her clan, and this is treated like a more independent Tallini Sixth World entity, but single full adults (21 years old or older) can also act as representatives of their families, while children (under 14 years old), junior adults (14–20 years old), or non-representive full adults can act as observers — even the opinion of a very wise junior adult may be followed by a family or clan in their decision-making process.


A table of state-of-the-art Cesidian societal-political science (Csps) terms follows below, and while somewhat visible on a mobile phone's screen, is best viewed only on the regular screen of a desktop, laptop, or tablet computer.


Cesidian societal-political science terms (table)



MT Kaisiris Tallini




Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.