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.

Weaponry

There is, of course, the necessity of any future economic system being more efficient at producing a net energy increase than the present, but the most pressing problem is how to alter the current one to the state wherein a new system may be realised. This is not possible within representative democracy, as radical change is prevented by the party system, beholden to all the vested interests this implies.

The system I intend to replace it, therefore, is participatory democracy. Installation of such a system by presently existing means requires an enormous harmonic shift across the entire population. Currently the harmonic control mechanisms utilised by the corporate sector, derived as they are from the work of Bernays and thus ultimately from the protopsychological theories of Freud, would seem to prevent this.

What I require, therefore, is a weapon formed by knowledge of the impeti, a shield which will negate the effects of these control mechanisms. Currently, I am studying similar weapons used in that past, in order to identify key features which will allow its construction. This project may take a while.

Formulations

iPower and iHarmony present a seeming paradox: satisfying one will cause problems with the satisfaction of the other. Thus, the society we seek to create must not contain within it the satisfaction of any of these impeti or their relations, merely the potential for its members to choose their satisfaction. This again creates a tension, as our present society exemplifies: the satisfaction of iPower destroys harmonics.
How to counter this? We require a self-regulating system. The market, in theory, is an example of such a system. The impeti of consumers aims them towards the most satisfying product, and the impeti of producers makes them strive to produce that product. This is a continuous cycle of improvement in terms of efficiency of energy, based on the natural regulation of the impeti. However, it 'breaks' when either a producer becomes a monopoly or producers gain some sort of ability to influence the empithym of consumers, and thus determining their choices. In today's world of transnationals and Bernaysian advertising, the market is broken. It is thus apparent that excessive satisfaction of iPower destroys the system. However, if iHarmony is wholly satisfied (i.e. all products are identical) the system again breaks down.
Thus, another regulating system is required alongside the market that guards against similarity and yet also prevents divergence. In current society this role is taken by the Government, who attempts to break up monopolies and encourages competition. To a certain extent this is self-regulating, as a Government that performs this task unsuccessfully will be voted out of office. However, this cannot counter control via advertising. What is required, therefore, is a mechanism that decreases the power of large companies while encouraging a wide range of products. Is there a way of stopping consumers spending when the market begins to lose its effectiveness? Or, indeed a way to prevent either impetus from destroying the mechanism?
Perhaps I am approaching this the wrong way. Perhaps all that is needed is some way of defeating big companies on their own terms.
Consider two approaches to organisation, horizontal and vertical. Vertical organisations are feudal in nature, with the lower ranks being subserviant to the top. Everything that organisation requires to function is, to a certain extent, contained within it. Horizontal organisations, on the other hand, only deal with one specific area within a vertical organisation. They cut across the heirarchy.
If one divides a vertical organisation into its component parts, then it becomes clear that a co-operative of myriad smaller organisations could share the economies of scale of a large one. However, to render this effective, the horizontal organisation would not be able to make a profit. How, then, can it operate? It would be a true co-operative, then, with each minor organisation(say each shop) funding part of the cost. It would certainly bring efficiency savings, without having control over its constituents. But who would control it?
The beginnings of an economic theory present themselves. I shall work more on this.

Criteria

What are the criteria for this proposed new system? Firstly, and most obviously, to be successful it must offer the opportunity for every impeti to be satisfied. 21st century Imperial Capitalism achieves this to a certain degree in the West, whereas the system it defeated, the Command Economy, denied the possibility of the satisfaction of iPower to a great percentage of its members. This denial was written into a system that was intended to satisfy iHarmony above all other impeti, while ignoring the fact that iHarmony is never imposed, but is necessarily chosen. A system cannot provide satisfaction, it can merely provide the potential for it to be achieved. A system that denies potential - into which, sadly, Imperial Capitalism is degrading - will fail in its purpose.
Nothing written into our present system necessitates its failure, it merely makes it more likely if its extension continues to deny the potential of a great part of the world. We thus have our first criteria.
Secondly, it must encourage the production of net worth. To beat capitalism, it must do so as efficiently as possible. The two factors here are time and energy. The maximum of energy in the minimum amount of time is an obvious equation, but the method by which this can be produced is not so. It immediately becomes obvious that we have a potential conflict here: energy production may be more efficient if it decreases potential satisfaction. However, this is a mistake. The most efficient use of energy to achieve our two goals is to have members of the Greater Self producing net worth through whichever method best coheres with their empithym. After all, only the increase in power of the Greater Self can satisfy iPurpose.
This appears to present a dilemma: empithym are not focused in the manner of careers. People may, quite possibly, wish to do many things. How can we accomodate this? I believe I have the beginnings of a solution.

Economics

Something of a change of pace, now. The picture of consciousness I have developed utilises a notion of energy as the medium by which interaction takes place. So far this definition has only consisted in that, nothing more. What else can be derived a priori? Firstly, the conditions placed upon the consciousness outline the potential range of interaction. What limits can there be upon interaction? Any constraints will take the form of a limit to the amount and ways by which the world can be affected by the consciousness. It is necessary that there be conditions, even if they only constitute the manner of interaction. If your every thought changed the world around you, that thought would still be a method of interaction. It is another question as to whether the consciousness is constrained by the amount by which an action affects.
In acting, consciousness has the option of by how much it interacts. If we take a single action, say stamping the foot, then that action has a particular strength determined by consciousness. We thus have two areas of research: the array of actions, and the array of strength. Actions are hetereogenous, and there is no particular a priori reason why any action should be available to a particular consciousness, but since actions are required for the emergence of conciousness, any available actions are so immediately.
Is there an a priori reason why consciousness should not have an infinite amount of strength to carry out interactions? All that is required for consciousness to obtain is an amount of strength, but the quantity of such is not specified. Thus, since humans do not have an infinite amount of strength, the necessity of iEnergy comes into play. Energy is thus the amount by which particular ways of interaction can affect the world.
What implications does this have for economics? The link is quite obscure, but consider that since energy is medium by which we interact, it becomes one of the most vital impeti and an enormous factor in interpersonal relations. However, it cannot be considered in isolation, as energy is the means by which we satisfy the other impeti, even though as an impeti iEnergy can be an end in itself.
The combination of iEnergy, iHarmony and iPurpose with the ability to use language has interesting consequences for the human animal. Language gives a person access to the focus of another, meaning that it becomes possible to recognise shared goals. iEnergy impels the person to satisfy the other impeti while using the least amount of energy possible (note that this is not a manifesto for laziness: empithym can be configured in such a way that taking a route that appears more strenuous is actually more satisfying in terms of other impeti). Recognition of shared goals permits the pooling of energy, which then can be allocated in a more effective manner. To put it another way, tigers do not build houses, but many social animals (chimps, dolphins and so on) can use tools (iEnable) and pass on that knowledge. The additional complexity of human language allows a single goal to be broken down into separate elements which can be performed by individuals with more specialised skills, to a net energy (and time) saving. This net saving is the basis of the human advantage, and is typically taken to be the aim of our economy.
This is not precisely accurate. The aim of our economy is necessarily the satisfaction of the impeti. This is aided by efficient use of energy, but is not achieved by that alone. Magnification of the energy resources of the Greater Self aids in overcoming the universe, so the economy is also vital for iPurpose, alongside the obvious of iEnergy and iPower.
As the above example shows, net saving/ostensible gain is only produced when energy is in action, in some form of combined work. This is why the current consumer-based society is so successful at growth: money (which represents energy/work, although inefficiently in the current system) is encouraged to circulate as much as possible with mutual profit (the manufacturer of a particular product spent less energy producing it then they recieve, and the consumer would have spent more energy producing it than they spend). Therefore, everyone should be happy, from this simple reading.
However, they are not. Although iPurpose can be satisfied by the production of net worth, the net worth thus produced is not channelled towards overcoming the universe for any but a small minority of capitalists. The income disparities produced by this model render iHarmony ineffective; such a wide gap between rich and power precludes harmonic development. The fact that power is intimately linked in this system to income means that iPower for the poor is unsatisfied.
The results, my system predicts, will be that the empithym of the poor will adapt to find new methods of satisfaction outside the common social harmonics, which are no longer effective for them. This is happening. However, as power is concentrated in the hands of those who profit by the system, there is no particular reason why it should not endure forever. Except one. The very thing that makes this system effective - the frequency of shared use of energy - is betrayed by those who control it. Tying up energy in savings and unnecessary property constrains growth. Put simply, the rich are inefficient. For this reason, a system which can defeat it is possible, and in my next post my attention will turn to the possibilities.

Practical Philosophy

The title is typically taken to be an oxymoron, which is somewhat ironic as my research points towards all of us being controlled by one particular philosophy or another. It is therefore the very essence of practice; that which is required by practice itself. But I have a different concern here. My aim is to discuss what implications the theory of Impeti may have for one's ability to use one's own mind.
Firstly, consider empithym. As packets of information connected by a system of association via common elements, they constitute thought. However, this thought, and the learning required for it, is typically used in a 'messy' and inefficient way. To facilitate understanding, which in effect means to bring the common ground between empithym into significance within fSummarise, we can learn to use this system more effectively.
Learning is, in effect, the acquisition of new connections (and thus 'higher-level' empithym, to allow a logical hierarchy). These are rendered more significant - and thus learned more effectively - if those connections are immediately embedded as empithym. The manner in which I visualise it within fShadow is by superimposing images of the connected experiences upon each other, or in the case of non-visual concepts representing them with words connected by lines. This is particularly effective when learning languages: combining the new word with the old empithym aids in embedding that word within the potential patterns of action. Repitition of this action ensures success.
This implies that old-fashioned learning by rote and more contemporary visually- and interactively- aided learning will both be successful, but it is only in their combination that they are most efficient. My own experiences teaching English bear this out.
The second technique is advanced mood alteration. The encounter of something significant in a negative sense has a variety of effects, all of which can be altered by changing the focus upon which empithym are being formed. Why is something significant? What are the impeti in terms of which it has significance? What empithym do you possess that could render it so? If these questions are answered, then a new empithym can begin to form that removes the sense of dissatisfaction that clouds the reflexive consciousness by encountering the world in a different manner. Consciousness is reformed to understand that the world now operates in a different way, and seeks satisfaction in this new pattern.
This is neither a simple or a quick process - the speed of empithym formation and dissolution is not determined a priori, and will therefore change from person to person. It is, however, far more efficient than simply waiting until you feel better. The important thing to note is that in the case of typically strong impei, e.g. iLove and iHarmony, the strongly significant empithym derived from these will always take longer to change than the brief modifications of something like iDisturbance. Conciousness's aim is to overcome the universe, after all, and there is no reason for the universe to be conducive to this process. If you can succeed in reforming your empithym to find a new way to achieve satisfaction despite this adversity, you will always at least be content. This is the part iEnable plays within the impeti, after all.

The State of Play

At present, I can give an outline of a definition of an a priori purpose, given in the form of consciousness itself, that is necessary and thus universal. That meaning, that purpose for existence is to overcome the universe. Is it possible to derive a list of actions from this principle that aid in identifying the path towards its fulfilment? First of all, let us study the impeti it is intended to satisfy. iPurpose is derived from iEnable and iHarmony, along with the nature of the reflexive consciousness. iEnable assigns all objects an extrinsic value based upon how they can be used as a tool to satisfy other impeti. Since the reflexive consciousness also views the self as an object situated within the world, iEnable attempts to assign a particular purpose upon the self in terms of the other impeti. Since the self is, by and large, the impeti, this necessarily fails and leaves an area of dissatisfaction. iHarmony identifies a particular class of objects as being similar to the self (in this case people) and produces the inclination to spend time in their company. This permits iEnable to identify a purpose for objects such as the self based on the actions of others. Although iHarmony is somewhat efficient, we can aid its satisfaction by using an a priori criterion for identifying the similar. This is the broad pattern of impeti that constitutes the human consciousness. With the purpose for this consciousness identified above, we can claim that our purpose is to overcome the universe for the satisfaction of the impeti - not simply for ourselves, but for the satisfaction of all the elements of the Greater Self - all of mankind.