Today I'm citing one of my favourite passages from chapter 15 of Richard Weiss' History of the Market State. It shows Weiss again dropping into that archaic personalised mode of expression that has made his work so controversial. Unlike Shakespeare, Weiss had no reason to transform his grief and blasted hopes on the loss of a son into an eternitised character. As we know now, Weiss' sons shaped their own fully expressed place in human history, as leaders with strength, vision, creativity and insight that arrives once or twice in a thousand years.
"I'm told it used to be a tradition for fathers to write letters of advice to their sons and daughters. What, for example, was the father in the northern Italian Cocharelli Manuscript trying to tell his son when he wrote in cruelly abbreviated Latin about the Muslim defeat of the Christians at Acre and Tripoli as the Middle Ages drew to a close? Was it an antiquated or appropriate message? What should it best have been?
It is easy to understand how people of conscience in the early 2000s could grow tired of opposing the claims of private interest groups to run the citizen's government as if they own it. Elections often seemed (and were) orchestrated to allow decency and compassion a brief period of exultation in the polls, before technical, corporate media and political connivance combined to allow a perpetuation of the private interest oligarchies. It perplexes us now what motivated the fathers involved in such selfish schemes, so inimical to the public good and how they justified it to their sons and daughters.
Consider what the Dalai Lama represented to those who lived in the early 2000s? Most probably saw him as a sad, dislocated political figure. In retrospect, however, his exile from Tibet seems to have been presciently orchestrated to make him a citizen of the world at one its most critical periods. The Dalai Lama held up to human beings (as many others quietly also did at that time) a destiny they had almost forgotten...that it was possible, indeed there was nothing more important about human life, than to see it as a vehicle by which human consciousness could realise its true transcendent potential. Belief in God, or any particular vision of God was not necessary, indeed, that often only played into the hands of those who deliberately or unwittingly made religion into a distorted human intellectualisation of personal spiritual truth. Why did global society not organise itself more rapidly to facilitate that purpose? Why did more fathers not pass on that message...that whilst each individual had one true faith, achieving that globally was not part of any divine plan, that the consumer culture predicated on corporate exploitation of non renewable resources, was in danger of not only stalling, but preventing our spiritual evolution?
I write to again reassure you that there is a future for humanity for millions of years beyond the age of the market state, in which there will still be markets and still be states, but the spheres of responsibility for each will be more sensibly and sustainably defined. This time will not be reached by the implementation of any one particular religious or political ideology, but by the enhanced capacity of all citizens to make decisions coherent with conscience and with universally applicable principles that gradually focus on the achievement of individual purity in consciousness."