Resurrection

I made a mistake. I failed to appreciate the consequences of my own theory. For too long had I accepted that the impeti determined the values of the subject, without considering what that actually meant for the one who experienced those values. The values I had discussed previously - those of harmony, and of purpose - can only obtain when the subsidiary impeti are satisfied. When, for example, iEnergy is unsatisfied (or the subject anticipates its dissatisfaction) the values of the subject shift to enable him or her to act in such a manner as to ignore the precepts of iPurpose in the hunt for satisfaction.

This is not a complete swing; the values still remain available to the subject, and indeed can still be chosen. But it explains why my attempts to weaponise the impeti failed. I assumed it would be possible to instigate a holistic empithym shift, to favour new patterns of iPurpose satisfaction. I never created anything that convinced me of its efficacy in this regard. This was because, no matter what avenue I sought or heavenly fire I imagined, shifting iPurpose patterns would not necessarily impact upon the actions of the majority. This something, I suspect, which lies behind the failure of many revolutionary movements: how do you produce a shift in iPurpose when iEnergy is a bigger concern for a society?

What does this mean for my plans? Right now, I aim to work within the political system to prevent conflict and enhance resource sharing. But I fear the present world climate is not conducive to this aim. I need something more, something new, something that will reach past iEnergy considerations and revolutionise a life completely.