General order is an image that man in his life perceives as a set of rules by which he lives. These are the rules that are given intrinsically by human emotions, instincts and intuition (human nature); rules that arisei from operational social order (situational commands from superior people) and traditional (dogma and traditional rules enshrined in education), then as per the natural principles generally determined by the need to earn one’s living and existential pressure of the environment in general. That means everything what can be considered naturally or unnaturally involuntary. Individual sources of human adaptation often cannot be separated. General order is a set of normative information of various origins and various ontic substancee which coordinate activities of man. It is also necessary to point out that man is part of nature and thus nature also has to be timeless. Therefore we understand the general order so far that it also contains rules for dealing with natural objects.
General order is a set of structures (see 66), of which each then regulates human actions. General order creates human roles; and whenever it changes new roles morph, disappear and appear. The whole general order, its structures and role precedes human behavior whi on the other hand also changes and new innovated version appears. Change of rules caused by human behavior I call transposition. Even though the character of a structure is real, character of its internal rules is ideal. New rules created on the basis of transposition create new roles for man or modifies the old ones. Cosmos does not examine internal structure of the general order. It has certain requirements on the whole, which I call “cosmic criteria” which only relate to an image of general order. Internal modifications to the general order therefore must not interfere with its resulting external effects, internal transposition of rules (e.g. replacement of the natural principle with the rule of traditional order); must be of such nature that general order outwardly acts toward superior cosmic principles consistently and had the same effects.
The law of natural selection has more layers. The lowest one relates to living creatures individually and selects individuals best adapted to the environment (for people this selection is now in unnatural word seriously limited). Superior layers pick for a given environment the best suited communities and thus performs selection of their general rules those which are best adapted to the environment. The law of natural selection (providing it still applies to the communities) therefore forces the community to transposition of general rules in accordance with changing environment. Cosmic criteria define such requirement of such forms of life and human behavior that are consistent with permanent existence. Man reproduced naturaly, not overpopulating, with vitality that did not result in psycho-somatic degeneration over generations, maintaining healthy environment, etc., as it is recognized and as I described elsewhere, simply maintained natural life.
General order internally transforms through development, and only partly it follows the rules of an ideal character. Rules of ana ideal character can thus be removed or introduced, but their inner essence can not be changed. Rules of real nature can be changed. Structures contain rules from both sources; transposition is achieved by change of real rules and removal or replacement of ideal rules. The structure therefore has outwardly real character (and varies in time and space). In essence, individual structures of the order transform and thus alter the general order, which gets this way apparently real nature. Mutations of rules of the order come with human ideas, which they take as a rule. These are either of episodic duration, or stand up to natural selection and become part of the traditional order while other rules are removed. If the new rules were chosen under the control of natural principles (as per the law of natural selection) their character will be ideal. This way they affect natural order, and then man becomes “co-creator of the Universe”. This was captured very well by David Bohm in his Theory of implicate order (see 65). Implicate order is an ideal being, natural principles, what I call natural (cosmic) order. For him, the human community “expands” (accepts certain image) for its own use part called explicate order. This is first of all traditional order and natural principles used by a man, that means ideal part of the general order. But a man uses in his life rules that he himself invented (real existence), which is also part of the general order. These are either of operational nature (commands) or somewhat long-term rules of a social order. These pass natural selection; some will become part of the traditional order, and others will manifest as episodic and usually disappear. All ideal rules, those originally “expanded” as well as the new ones, usually materialized dogmas (see 79) which passed through the sieve of natural selection, will be “wrapped” again, and their image will join implicate order. This way man cooperates with cosmos by adding existences of an ideal being (examples are mentioned in the section on dogma). There is only one condition: cosmos does not accept episodic rules, because their character is real.
From the point of unnaturalness man stopped providing ideal rules to cosmos. This way man became insignificant to cosmos; dissociated himself from cosmos in belief that he can create his own order, his own universe, and his own implicate order. Rules that man creates in an unnatural world, are not selected by natural principles, their character is now real and episodic just like the existence of man.
Before the point of unnaturalness the removal of natural principles from human life caused transposition of traditional rules, and therefore it included replacement of the following traditional rule for the formation of families by original natural spontaneous sex and common education of children in a tight-knit community. External expression of general order and its projection was not compromised by this. Berger and Luckmann (see 79) say that a person has poor instincts and therefore requires institutions. These institutions were represented by traditional order which substituted the function of instincts. Only separation of communities from traditional rules the external structure of the general order begun crumbling, as I will explain gradually; today’s man has neither instincts, nor order.
Comparing general order with the spontaneous order of FA Hayek (see 13, 23, and 24) I would argue that in fact the interpretation of spontaneous order (see 24) except for some its very specific parts is applicable to the interpretation of the general order and applies more to historical ways of its transpositions. I present general order as a set of rules ideal and real, which are turned directly toward man, and man follows them in his practical life. The internal mechanism of changes, which are partly spontaneous, is carried out by people either aimlessly or with purpose, I call transposition mechanism. I feel that the term spontaneous order, as cited by FA Hayek, in my interpretation would be somewhat misleading, because from entirely general point of view transposition is often done by people in purpose; often rulers, often revolutionary mobs, thus resulting product is not just spontaneously created on the basis of some mechanism. Most transpositions indicating direction of development is designed and spontaneous are just its natural principles.
Man in his life does not distinguish between different parts of the general order: in the morning he starts his car which is a product of advanced technology based on ideal principles applied to a real product, and goes after his business in which he adapts to the market mechanism which is subject to ideal control component but which gives him large degree of freedom nevertheless. When driving, man is governed by traffic regulations – rules of an operative nature that limit freedom to a certain extent yet still allow enough room. Then, guided by culturally modified instincts, he recalls his wife and children and goes to the store to buy gifts for them; however, these instincts are partially superceded by a principle of free market. Purchase is ultimately a compromise between price (market principle) and the desire for quality gift (instincts). Education of children is determined by cultural rules, which man influences himself, and its quality is highly dependent on how much is he aware of the future, whether only as hedonistic and consumerist affair or having the future in general in mind, that means from the viewpoint of society on which he is ultimately dependent. This depends on his beliefs acquired during upbringing and by influence of the environment.
Traditional rule is such that affects the continuity of society and thus has long-term effect; and a set of such rules is part of general order called traditional order. The rules are tested by long practice within human society, which has been successful in the process social-cultural evolution, thus passed through the sieve of natural selection. This competition was not through warfare, but also in the speed of conquer of unpopulated areas, and creating patterns for imitation, while successful order was becoming a model. Because the social order was developing in natural competitive environment while failing social order ceased to exist (this did not necessarily mean extinction of society as long as it adopted successful model), and the successful one outlasted historical events, we can say that historically proven part of social order the traditional order contains characteristics of an ideal being (natural principles), since it did pass through the sieve of natural selection, so we can say that at least some of its segments are part of the ideal principles. Since not all the features of natural laws can be recognized by man and since he does not understand some of them, man usually makes grave errors when intervening with traditional order based on his imperfect wisdom.
For example the traditional rule for starting families which expected the young couple not to start sexual life before marriage, which once used to be required, seemed to be an unnecessary restriction. In fact, it prevented promiscuity and constant changing of partners. Young people led by natural instincts had to get married so that they could sexually live together; free sexual relationships with no commitments were not accepted by the society and were ostracized. Families established at a young age gave room to sufficient natality. Based on this and other related rules the society had plenty of offspring and the community had to adjust to this state; and consequent mechanisms had to enable the young families to earn their living and survive. Now we see how this rule with follow-up measures was functional and gave human instincts in line with the needs of society. Now this rule no longer applies, and young people cohabitate for a long time without children, change partners, and we see that the past age of first-time mothers increased from 21 to 29 years, which is already considerably beyond biologically optimal period and unfavorable for the formation and health of other children. The worst thing of all is that the society does not have to help young families, because there are none, and the means are then used for something else. Social problems are solved by limiting the existence of offspring.
General order with rules ensuring the future was evolutionary prospective and the community had a greater chance of survival. The core of this rule can be considered as part of the natural principles, because it follows immutable human nature (emotional relationship, sex). Some marginal parts of this rule can be altered, so they become part of the real world; however, the core interacts with immutable human nature. The desire for sex and romantic relationships among young people is part of human nature. The core consequent rule directs sex in marriage, by prohibiting it for young people or by somehow rejecting it. We know that the rule outlined above was part of all monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam) and it was understood by all socially committed leaders and prophets. It has become dogma, a kind of non-verifiable and non-justifiable rule practiced by generations, however problematically proven. Dogma contains rules that children learn without being able to explain them, what is often impossible at a given educational level.
Communities that had promiscuous social order did not survive in competition with others. As demonstrated on exemple of Native Hawaiians, ancient Roman aristocrats, etc. among other troubles they not only suffered more from communicable diseases, they also a had birth rate and their children were poorly educated. This does not exclude occasional polygamy even tough not to a large extent.
Dogma often replaces defunct natural principles as part of transposition. The above rule was given became part of dogma because social conditions have changed. Previous spontaneous sex begun working discontinuously and therefore it was necessary to introduce a rule for the formation of families. Transposition was saving the community during life changes. Agriculture could only be performed successfully under the influence of many dogmas which had to be followed because human still did not know the laws of nature such as photosynthesis. Many of them were associated with rituals proving link with the cosmic order through requests not show its „tough face“. Man, who originally lived in nature, was using its self-cleaning mechanisms. Once he migrated to the cities, he had to implement certain technical measures and connect dogmas with it because he knew nothing about bacteria and viruses. For example the Romans introduced aqueducts and sewers and related laws, as directed by experience, without knowing anything about the nature of disease.
Human behavior in an unnatural world, which eliminated traditional rule for starting families (and others related to it), got the society in a state which is disadvantageous to sufficient natality. This threatens the future. Yet it was not done for other reasons than to meet human demand to increase his hedonistic consumeristic welfare. No other alternative was adopted rules, and no transposition occurred. Therefore, replacing rules obsolete due to evolution by another, functionally at least identical, did not happen. This resulted in degradation of general order.
Traditional order contains many more rules, some of which survived all modernistic attacks and the society can only operate due to them. One of them is to punish criminal conduct. Very dangerous behavior used to be punishable by death. Society disposed off a criminal individual who could repeat their actions. However, ever increasing pressure for greater and greater extremisation of individual liberty against the interests of society leads to the removal of even more rules. These rules still protect the society. Individualism and relativism are the enemies of traditional order and their prioritization signals decommissioning by rules which were proven by natural evolution arising earlier under the influence of natural principles.
Social order is usually a substantial part of societal culture. It consists of two components: legal and moral. The rules can be either written or unwritten. Those written down are enforced by social institutions; those unwritten are adhered to through social conformity. The rules could be traditional, proven by previous generations, or new, created at will of contemporaries. Ability to innovate the rules meant the ability to mutate and test them in an existential environment. Traditional order is part of social order, which also contains rules of operational nature, i.e. kind of temporary orders for certain situations such as traffic rules.
Social order is then part of the general order. Social order has to define and label evils which are known in advance, and, if possible, eliminate evil coming from outside (diseases, natural disasters, coincidences) and human imperfection (crime, offenses, etc.). Order shall strive for security. That’s why some laws which create traps for citizens introduce chaos rather than order, such as excessive penalties for any unpaid payments which are not repeatedly and exhaustively demanded; heavy fines for forgotten cards and in general penalties for minor failures, which did not cause great anguish to anyone.
Traditional schedules were developing for thousands of years and imposed many restrictions on people which they did not enjoy. Mutations of order that emerged in society were tested in an existential environment. However here I do not ant to prefer any mutations based on human reason which accepts experience or voluntarism or metaphysical statements usually of some prophets or in case of ancient Greece philosophers. Each of these mutations was tested under social-cultural evolution. This way a false prophet would be usually easily revealed. Free environment allowed more mutations and therefore the likelihood that the law of natural selection will ensure selection of the right one was greater.
Insisting on the original rules in a changed environment is just as foolish as making unnecessary changes in an environment that has not changed; or over-reacting triggered by only minor changes of the environment. Abrupt development of the order caused by revolutions and wars usually resulted from lack of respect to changes in environmental. Nazi and Communist regimes were an over-reaction to poverty which was caused by rapid population growth. Previous regimes were unable to cope with this misery resulting from surplus population because they were not able to gradually and rationally reflect changing situation. Therefore, the problem was in the behavior of previous regimes which were unable to respond to environmental changes, and then exaggerated reactions which followed. These arbitrarily separated completely from traditional order, trying to solve things by imperfect human notions about social development. At that time the most appropriate example would be the English and American conservative regime with commensurate solutions which were addressing changes of environmental.
Dogma, part of the traditional order, is that part of societal rules, which are offered for acceptance without providing explanation. They are the rules which were established empirically and historically verified and can not be explained. That’s how it is and that’s it. Prejudice can also be dogma, like an old operating rule. The origin of the dogma may be various, although its character is determined by long-term functionality without any immediate logical explanation. Dogmas are taught to children who often have to memorize them because they are necessary for life and their explanation either does not exist or is too difficult to comprehend at their level of education. Still, young man is obliged to follow. Rules materialize and are considered considered a matter from „outside“ despite originating in fact from human activities (see 79). Civilization built on dogmas. Man reached certain level through mastering proven rules and then he built his future life using them as cornerstones. Then he could experimentally or through his own logical reasoning create more „extensions“ to a higher level. This way civilization was developing forward and the traditional order was received more dogmas. Older ones may have been explained logically and lose character of dogma, but some would continue. The only productive way of removal of an old dogma was through loss of functionality and not just because it was unexplainable. I do not have to remind anyone that dogmas are likely to be misused by enriching the rules by the ruling elite for their own benefit. However, this is a question of public scrutiny and democracy.
In unnatural way of thinking which questions faith in traditional rules, based only on free creativity, problem of loss of energy, low performance, and mental chaos arises, just like fights and mutual persuasion about quite primitive matters that could include dogma and only extension of this dogma would be free. Removal of functional dogma just because reason can not explain them is a „symptom of pride“ and stupidity of modernity. It is also very important to teach children and youth to dogmas as well as other rules that can be explained. It would probably waste of time to teach only the rules of dogma, if it was not followed by teaching them faith that the dogmas they are taught are true and useful. This in the first place includes support of abstract thinking, which makes it clear that there are things that just do not know, but they still work.
Still, if there is a rational explanation it has to be stressed that it replaces faith by truth. With regards to changes of order it is necessary to eliminate the conflict between faith and truth. Both terms are methods for applying values; however, both are often materialized. Truth can not be permanently replaced by faith, as is it sometimes happens in purpose when faith is required in matters which were already refuted by the truth. Truth is productive and leads to correct behavior. Truth wins even over belief; false communist dogma promoted by fanatical belief eventually succumbed in struggle with the truth. If something is false, typically, when old dogmas gradually are becoming untrue, it is necessary to prove the truth. False pretentions have to be removed from old dogmas and make it clear that only true cases can be subject to faith. It is usually difficult, but critical reason has to be fostered, and the truth has to be respected above all if that is really proven and not just superficial and demagogically disseminated. Dogmas of individual organizations, typically churches, when these are away from the recognized truth (usually in old fundamental documents), do not address people when presented to them. Faith is then required in things completely inconsistent with reality like i.e. geocentric cosmological model. Current egalitarian belief in unnatural equality of people is in conflict with reality, but compliance with this idea is required. Belief in the existence of spiritual forces, however, facilitates the understanding of many phenomena and is closer to holistic and true understanding of the world and its principles. Truth can not be reduced to only to matters directly provable by senses, but has to be augmented by what was empirically (historically) verified. Truth is „humility of reason“, i.e. belief in dogma until disproved as false, not disposal of dogmas just because imperfect reason can not explain them.
The term general concept leaves the door open to matters that go beyond us, and allow holistic thinking. Understanding of general concept is a way of thinking that allows us to see things in a timeless perspective; predict on the basis of truth about the past, present and future vision with preliminary precaution while sticking to natural principles. A simple example is building of a house or raising children. But the general has a spatial dimension, too, for the whole society. An example would be concern for health and working ability of the people. The general includes timeless thinking; that is why conformal idea is usually not a general one. The pursuit of the good in general concept space and time is the maximization of goodness and morality. The general truth is truer than a concrete one; the truer it is the more general is the way of thinking. Such ideas just like belonging have to be general in nature. Those who think in abstract terms identify themselves with the general order, and can only produce timelessly oriented internal changes of the order. That is why those who would like to pose as prophets tried to change the rules of human behavior and society, have to be tested for their universality and timelessness. General knowledge including polar values creates conditions for a harmonious decision. Of course, Common purpose-driven life decisions will be of course reduced and specific.
The opposite of general is the factual, the fragmentary, and the reduced. E.g. conformist ideas are reduced because they do not take into account the future. Some argue that Asian civilizations have natural religion, which, although falling apart into different cults, carries a general idea, while European civilization is fragmented. It could not, however, be completely without abstract direction, otherwise it would fail. Conversely Eastern civilizations do have clear general ideas, while there is no connection to the specific. Hence we see that fragmentation is needed to achieve productivity, but the management by the abstract is also required. The current crisis is given by separation from the general, not fragmentation as such.
From here also comes the correct and historically proven method used by Western civilization: method of analysis and synthesis. To solve the problem it is necessary to isolate individual components, and fragment the problem (analysis). Let’s not forget, however, the general idea, that is repeated inclusion of solved problems in general ideas (synthesis).