Political hermetism against the estabilishment

Politica Hermetica 2

Posted on 15 February 2026 - 16 March 2026 by hermestrismegistus

Nolanus: You insist that your science is that of all sciences, and my sciences are indeed very deep in their understanding, for they are the product of such pernicious inquiry, and democratic scrutiny, and are based both in squared and circled methods, that that they can uncover what there is to know, and they can describe what there is to know, and they can design how it is to know, so what is not captured is just what it can’t be known, or what it can’t exist, and we of science disregard both the same. Shall you confront, then, your science to mine?

Hermes: Please be not offended then if I say that the lenses of your telescopes are improper to this world, for they are somewhat squared, while your eyes are improper to this world, because they are somewhat circled, and in fact they are improper to eachother, at all levels. Truly I will be delighted in your exercise, as this confrontation of diverse sciences is the very science of my science, and so you will find that my science will always match your squares and circles on the edges that will be true, as my science has no borders nor shape, because it is the truth of change, and the world, and it has no borders nor shape, and it doesn’t match those of the final truth, which are implied but borders with nothing, so that its shape can’t be derived; and you will see that, in your science, the truth of change will always emerge in your statements, and when it won’t, my science will help your science to reach the truth, if your science will lend itself to stretch longer, because all truths are only lies when incomplete, and when extended to their final conclusions they become truth again in their own terms, while also matching the rule of change in mine, for the rule of change is my only term.

Nolanus: Know by now, then, that my sciences are those of the commonalities and the peculiarities: for commonalities in enough cases approximate the laws, and these are our squared methods; and for peculiarities in enough scrutiny approximate the laws, and these are our circled methods; and they both stand on the science of reasoning, so our final truths are those that are found in all the three fields, and we pose them when the three of them are in accordance, or change them when they are not anymore. Is your science, in this respect, akin to mine?

Hermes: Not at all: in the deepest of all things, as all is in motion, there is nothing that is common, and there is nothing that is peculiar, except the truth of change, which is both and neither. Your science can only see the commonalities of its own time and space, through its own ideals and material conditions, in its own life and movement, and all these are not fixed in their aspects, and so your science can only attempt to pose fixed statements on truths that are not fixed, so that the law of change has always acted on all fixed statements through new movements and new lives, and new times and new spaces, and new ideals and new material conditions, and molded all fixed statements anew, for fixedness is attribute only to perfection, and fixed truths are just lies to the truth of this world, which is the truth of change.

Nolanus: I can see that, in describing the course of my science, to your eyes change has always reigned, and so my sciences are devoted to change, but know that they are so by choice, as we have ordered our science to change. I will concede that your science extends my statement in its furthest conclusions to the problem of commonalities and peculiarities, but know that my science also admits that they are shaped by squared lenses, and are projected to circled eyes, and thus my science also concludes this truth, by observation of it and by the logic of it. I understand that you only value the highest answers and the deepest questions in all discourses, while we champion usability of knowledge by enacting simplifications, and I will say that there is truth to your truth in that our truths are only on what is observed, and what is scarce is hardly observed, so that our general truths find a limit both in generalization to all, and in specification to singles, because we lack the instruments to do any of them in perfection, but at least to the best of our capabilities, which are indeed in change.
Saw that we agree on the limits of the question, I thus ask you this: what rules humans in their pursuit of happiness, and what is the role then of its societies?

Hermes: To answer this we will need to discuss first of who is your human, second why it pursues its happiness, and third how societies come to be, and fourth of their relations. So then, who is your human?

Nolanus: My sciences tell me that humans are their body and mind, that together they are called substance. The human is both limited and capable in its aspects. In these limits and capabilities, all individuals are different in some aspects, while some aspects are truths to all, and based to the commonalities that are truth to all we declare them as humans, and exclude those that are not.

Hermes: I am afraid then that your human is a contradiction to itself, for no two individuals can have enough sameness in their shapes except the ones that a dusted lens can imply, and no two individuals can have enough peculiarities in their shapes except the ones that a weary eye can distinguish, so that the idea of human fails at both edges, for no two borders in this world can perfectly be same, nor two alike shapes can definitely be different. On the individuals and societies of commonalities and uncommonalities, thus, nothing I will utter, for I cannot see such entities. I will speak of all things, if you’ll allow me, for each is citizen of the cosmos and thus each under the rule of change, and they can only be distinguished in relation to their changing being different. We will suppose your human then, for I know what you are referring to, and I know that we will extend your sciences so that they will be true in their own terms.

Nolanus: About the pursuit of happiness then, I know that individuals shall satisfy their minds with their bodies, and vice-versa, most rationally possibly so, growing happier or sadder depending on the achievements on their path, which is to say, depending on the satisfaction of the willed and unwilled needs that we know are of the commonalities, where the unwilled needs are that necessary to life. I will also define society and its aspects, and we of science define society as humans joined in their pursuit, and the appropriateness of a society in terms of the happiness of its members. We conclude that a society is well-ordered when it is ordered to the satisfaction of the needs of its members. Since humans are guided by rationality to their needs, societies are then ordered rationally as well, on par with the rationality of their constituents, which is a given tendency.

Humans’ happiness follows then the augmentation of their knowledge, their wealth, their property, their friends and their well-being, in the levels that satisfy them. Humans will rationally set their minds and bodies, and ideas and acts, so that they will only engage when more happiness is to be found, and embrace their own status when less happiness is to be achieved.

These facts are evident in the science of free motion in free markets, that tells us a final truth akin to yours: that individuals and societies, as they are rational, will engage in rational interactions, and rational interactions are those that are good for all parties, so that happiness is guaranteed to be multiplied and divided, as much as everyone is willing to let it so.

This happens at many levels inside societies, and we can see that this order is proper, because happiness increases in the members of a society firstly with respect to the maximum power of its own society, taken as a whole and divided between its members, but we avail of many other techniques to evaluate such regularities, so that we know its true. We thus allow anyone or any group to increase their own happiness with no limit other than that of the others, and their freedom in doing the same. These powerful members, or groups, as they increase their own well-being, increase that of the whole society they are part of, so we champion them because they increase the happiness of all in their community.

Hermes: With regards to happiness, we know that peace is to be championed instead, by peace meaning accordance of the substance to the rule of change, and to us happiness is in that comprised, and they are never separated. You can also see that they are the same, for your happiness also comes from peace, and they are never separated. I shall name you the enemy of change at last, at all scales and at all levels, and in all aspects of the world, which is not contrary to the world but only its resistor: the opposite of peace is war, in that it is any opposition to the rule of change.

Know now, then, that peace is the condition of the world, and war is the resistance opposed to it, so that war is always bound to end, and war is always bound to lose, and your unhappiness also comes from war, and they are never separated.

For all things, then, the only possible need to be satisfied is peace, or accordance to change, as for nothing can be still and also have a need to satisfy, because in stillness there are no needs to be had, because there is no way to achieve a need while being still, and because what can be still is only perfection, and in perfection there are no needs that stretch outwards of perfection, and the opposition to all this is war. Ideas and bodies of embracing of a status, so substances of stillness, are bound to be moved, and substances of stillness are bound to move; and war is born in what is moved and is unwilling to, and in what moves but is resisted in that, and so both are not in accordance to this world.

By the cosmos, ever-changing, never stopping, a desire to change will always be fulfilled and a need to change will always be satisfied, so that entities at all scales can devote their minds, and bodies, and ideals, and acts, and wills, and needs, all to the rule of change, or peace, if they believe in such rule, for they know that they will be always be satisfied in their devotion. And that devotion is also to the world, and to life, and to motion, and to space and time, for they are one and they are the truth of change.

Understand then that instead of rationality, the rule of change is the administer of interactions, especially if peace is to be pursued. See that as your rationality is limited, you will also conclude that any action that is against the rule of change is to be thought of irrational, as it wills war to the truth of this world. You are then left with only rational actions that are informed of change, and in my view all rational actions are that of the rule of change, so that we agree by extension.

Learn then that what happiness emerges in your rational interactions is the result of all the peace, and what unhappiness emerges in your irrational interactions is the result of all the war. And know that peace is measured in the changes it foster, and war is measure in the change it resists: see that change can only be resisted, never slowed, so all interactions are bound to end in peace, for they can’t be resisted forever. See in your societies that absolving to the peace of the many, so their will of change, is always to encounter the war of the few, which are not willing to change in accordance with the many, and see, in your mathematics, that the change of the many amounts to more peace than what the change of the few amounts in war, regardless on what party resistance might be enacted against. See, finally, that my science extends yours, for informing your markets of the willing of the many is the most rationality you could ever count, as the people are in the greatest numbers the time has seen, and that happiness is guaranteed to be achieved for all can change until their needs are satisfied.

Nolanus: I see now that, regardless of their practicality, your truths extend mine in my own terms, for I also believe that more happiness is to be bound in the course of change, but I will need to hear more, and practicality is not second in my priorities.

In terms of social agreement, this is what descends to the pursuit of one’s happiness: that individuals similar in many aspects will bond together in their pursuit, and after that they will pursuit that of their families and neighbors, and after that they will pursuit that of their whole community, and after that, the community of the previous community, up until the community that it is the whole world.

Humans tend to relate to similar individuals, for that similarities bear agreement, and the opposite is true, so that people should champion relations to people similar to them in aspects of wealth, power, knowledge and all levels of achievements and satisfaction, as it is convenient for individual and collective happiness, and should avoid relations to people that are dissimilar, because they are probable to end in conflict.

Hermes: Do know that in accordance to change, no entity knows limit in their agreements and disagreements, nor judgment nor confrontation, in regards to other entities, and regardless of their level and scale, for that it is bound to happen in motion and life and space and time. And so it is proper to devote all interactions to the rule of change, posing no limits except those of war. And do know that the rule of change is the only judge and the only conflict of all cosmos, so that proper judgment will always be that of change, and proper confrontation will always be that of change, as they are bound to happen, at all levels and all scales, and they are bound to change.

And to agree, at all levels and all scales, is to agree in change, so in the reciprocal freedom in change, and in their respective role in change, and in their respective destiny in change, so that interactions that welcome and favor change always result in peace.

And to disagree, at all levels and all scales, is to disagree in change, so in the reciprocal limiting in change, and in their respective role in change, and in their respective destiny in change, so that interactions that do not welcome and favor change will first result in war, then always in peace.

I will provide you with examples, but see that this is true for all interactions at all levels and all scales: see that a lover clashes with their partner when they are impeded in their change, and the child clashes with their tutor when they are impeded in their change, and war is ended by allowing the change in the other, which is also to change oneself, and the opposite of this is always true. Indeed, it is true beyond the domains that you describe: see that a citizen clashes with its reign when impeded in their change, and resolution comes with fostering the change of the citizen, which is also to change the reign, and the opposite of this is always true. Indeed: war arises when one is impeded in their change, and peace arises when one is allowed in its change, and you should keep in mind that change is same as life and motion, for all is one and one is all, and all truths I am speaking ought to be thought in all these vocabularies if to be understood in all their aspects.

See that my truths extend yours, as they extend agreement and disagreement beyond the scope of your science of commonalities and particularities, as conflict and peace are found in all groups, for all groups will find their own commonalities and particularities, at all levels and all scales, and disagreement will be that of against change.

Nolanus: O lord, truly I am amazed in how your science extends my science, for I cannot disagree with your statements, so that I suspect that your science is, in secret, the very compendium of my sciences. Are you then, for experiment of sorts, testing me with my own knowledge, or are you truly suggesting that yours is beyond mine, and beyond all others, so that your statements are truly to be found at all scales and all levels, as you repeat so incessantly? And truly then, how then is to achieve such compendium or such science?

Hermes: O friend, I cherish your first question, as it is it also my final question, so that it cannot be answered, as only the question about the question can be answered, which you know is the rule of change.

Do know, then, that all you ask has been already answered, and your only question could be that of truth or falsehood, in response for which I shall add, in my reasoning, the question behind change, that is to say, that it is sibling to the question about change, and the question about and the question behind are of course one and the same. This is then the final aspect of my discourse, and this is then all of my knowledge of this science.

The final question and the final answer are those of, and not about nor behind, perfection, that cannot be asked nor answered if not in perfection, and they are still and they are one, so that stillness is not of this world. Hence change, the final question and the final answer about and behind the question and answer of perfection, are the rule and truth to this world, as it can be asked and answered; and it is the final question of change, answered in rule; and it is the final answer of change, asked in truth. And the question and answer are then the rule of change and the truth of change, and they are one.

The question of change can then be asked, and it is in the form of the rule, so of life, so of mind, so of ideals, so of shape; and the answer of change can then be answered, and it is in the form of the truth, so of motion, so of body, so of material conditions, so of edges. And this truth is the same at all levels and all scales, at all space and all time, and all are one and the same, and all are change in all its aspects, and they are peace to the truth of this world.

Know then the final lie is to lie about and behind perfection, so that opposition to change is false, and it is not life nor motion, not mind nor body, not ideals nor material conditions, not shape nor edges, at any level nor any scale, at any time nor any space, and all are not in accordance to change in any aspect if not that of change, and they are war to the truth of this world.

And know that peace is accordance to change for all entities in all their constituents and in all their relations, so that to be in accordance to change is to be in peace, and to act in accordance to change is to be in peace, and to join together in accordance to change is to be in peace, at all levels and all scales, and know that the opposite is war, and know that war is opposite of change just in terms of opposition and not in terms of contrary.

And know that this question can be asked under all things, and into oneself, and upon all things, so that it can be answered under all things, and into oneself, and upon all things.

Politica Hermetica 1

Posted on 12 February 2026 - 3 March 2026 by hermestrismegistus

Nolanus: To my knowledge, matters appear to be imperfect and most dire, away from the ideals that inspire our community, which also seem imperfect. My ideals are failed in reality, and reality contradicts my ideals, and all matters fail each other, and all ideals contradict each other, so that I do not know how to think and how to act. Truly, I do not know if to think, or if to act! O lord, give truth!

Hermes: Change is truth to this world: to change are to be devoted our ideals, and to change are to be devoted our actions, as ideals are inspired by material conditions, and material conditions are inspired by ideals, never settling, always chasing, and to this truth shall our talks and acts be dedicated, for anyone that can see this truth knows that to think and to act are of this world, and not to think and not to act are not. And to know this truth is to know first of perfection and imperfection, unity and disunity, change and life and motion and time and space, and to know that it is in all things at all scales and through all times and places, in mind and cosmos alike, and so in humans and peoples alike, and so the opposite for each of them is the same as the others, and all are one.

Nolanus: I am open to your teachings, but I cannot accept its truth, for your speech is based on the evidence of itself, and to me it is not evident. Can’t I think of a perfect society? I can shape the most perfect Utopia, and design both its perfect ideal and its perfect material conditions, however unlikely, so that they match each other, reproduce each other, and be ever lasting. All humans of conscience devote their actions and ideals towards the perfection of their utopia, which is evident to their mind and their heart.

Hermes: Take the citizen of your utopia, but trust that what follows will always be true for any being in any condition: your citizen can think of a perfect ideal, but for any reason not to act so perfectly, as people do, and their product shall not be of the perfect ideal, but only partly of it. The matters will not then be of the perfect ideal, but of something else. And a perfect material condition won’t inspire perfection in imperfect minds, as imperfect the human mind is, so that it will produce imperfect ideals in your citizen, which are not of the perfect matter in itself, but of something else. If this truth of the human limits is evident, know that this is not a failure of your citizens nor of any being, regardless their conditions, but it is in fact their abiding to the rules of this world. The failure will not then be in the ideals and matters of your citizens, which for a moment could seem perfect, but in their not knowing their limits nor the truth of change, nor about ideals and matters different to theirs, and so the perfection and imperfection of all of them, their own comprised. This knowledge is necessary to be true to ideals and matters that are of this world, and so are informed by the truth of it, instead of ones that are not of this world, because they are not informed by the truth of it. Your very ideal would be imperfect in its perfectness, as the utopia you pose is not fit for imperfect humans, as they are of this world and your perfections are not of this world.

Nolanus: I do not see why perfect matters can’t consist also in perfect humans, as our species is bound to surpass its own imperfectness. What then of a society of people that, being perfect, can’t be moved in their perfect ideals, and won’t act imperfectly to the perfect material conditions, so that these also will ever be perfect? Can’t I envision that as the perfect ideal, however unlikely, and strive towards it?

Hermes: That of which you describe is necessary to itself, so it can’t be. No discourse can be had about what exceeds our world by definition. That what you posed to me is a perfect ideal, but I will show you that perfect ideals are imperfect in their perfection, and so not of this world.

Nolanus: What then of the ideal of striving to perfect humans in their qualities and life, as much as possible, no matter how limited by reality our final goal will be, as it will be the maximum of what we can achieve? I do believe in progress, and in achieving evermore well-being for all my companion beings, as I can and do love them all. Isn’t that the most perfect human ideal, however unlikely?

Hermes: Your beliefs are very high and well-meant, and I cherish your love for all your companions that I also share, as my companions are all beings. I shall then teach you further into my ideas, as we are siblings in striving for life.

Beware, then, of the purity of the ideals as much as the purity of the matters, as purity can never be total and achieve perfection. Truly, no perfect matters will be had in imperfect ideals, and no perfect ideals will be had in imperfect matters. Imperfect material conditions would resist perfect ideals, and perfect ideals would die in imperfect material conditions. As limited material conditions determine the possible shapes of our ideals, so our ideals will be limited; and as the limited mind is incapable of perfect ideals, it will never produce perfect material conditions. In their disunity, ideals and matters conditions will always chase eachother, ever-changing, as stillness is an attribute only to perfection.

In this world, then, there will always be at most ideals and matters that strive to perfection in some aspects, and fail in others. Beware of what is told, or is, perfect, as it can at most be perfect in only some aspects, however relevant, and so imperfect. And so abstain from the strive to act perfect, and to think perfect, as perfection in this world is to know about the imperfection of ideals and matters. Unity of ideals and material conditions is only possible when both are perfect, as imperfections of complex and high matters never match on the edges. In truth, a single imperfection in ideals will produce chaotic matters, and imperfect matters will induce chaotic ideals.

Nolanus: What is perfection, then?

Hermes: Unity of ideals and material conditions is perfection. In perfection, as all edges are matching, that is to say that there are no edges, for how ideals and material conditions match is through the perfect matching of the shapes, of container and contained indistinguishable in their match, so that no other is contained nor contained, but they become the same as they are one truth together. But the perfect ideals would be the ones that can produce the perfections of matter, and the perfections of matter are bound to generate the perfect ideals.

Imagine then different perfect ideals and different perfect matters. Since all the different kinds of perfect ideals and all different kinds of perfect material conditions all share the common aspect of perfection, in themselves and between themselves, then perfection is necessary to all of them, and it is implied by all of them, and is implied by itself and is sufficient to itself. This is the final truth, and of it, only perfection can be known, and any detail cannot, as it has no details, only attributes that are implied in perfection, but are not all of it, and different when in it. The final truth is perfection, and perfection is the final truth; so, the perfect ideal, and the perfect material condition of the cosmos, both have no details nor edges in perfection, as they are the same, and they are the final truth.

Nolanus: I can accept that your final truth cannot be known, but isn’t this a truth by itself? Is this your highest truth, and what does it imply?

Hermes: The truth of this unspeakable truth is the truth of change, and it is the necessary second highest truth, or the highest truth of this world. If perfection is the perfect unity in ideals and matters, then the truth of our world is that they can’t be in perfect unity, for perfection in unity means the ceasing of the change, and change is necessary to the act of thinking in itself, which is where our ideals live, as no thought can be had in the stillness of time or in the totality of space that is not the final truth in itself.

Nolanus: You speak of high things that are true, but these concepts to me are far from humans and society, and far from today’s matters and ideals, however imperfect they can be.

Hermes: You shall know immediately, then, that all truths below the final truths are truths for all things that are of this world, and they are precisely the truths of ideals and matters. These are the truths that descend from the truth of perfection: as they change in their reciprocal chase of their relative and inner imperfection, they imply the perfection of the final truth, which doesn’t change and is united, and so they demonstrate the necessity of their motions through their ever imperfection, and through this they demonstrate their disunity, and these are all the same truths and rules. Since the perfect ideal is fixed, and the perfect material condition is ever-lasting, and they are one and the same, the truth of the impossibility of any of the two perfections, and so their disunity, as they would else be the same, is our highest truth of reasoning, the truth about the truth, and is true of all things in this world, for all together they constitute this world.

Nolanus: I will then consider your speech as about all phenomena, as you are implying one should. I will listen to this discourse that is about science and religion as much as planets and cosmos, about humans and animals as much as societies and histories, and all things considered combined and disunited, at all levels and in all aspects, and I will confront these truths at any level of my liking, from atoms to music, and see that if it fails in one, it fails in all matters, as if it were true it wouldn’t.

Hermes: You will find then that this discourse is the act of knowledge at all levels, not just the ones of your liking, for the quest for such truth implies the existence of it, because the question can be made about which cannot be known, and so what is being asked exists in the quality that it is not known. Since the final question is the one about all, that can only be asked knowing all, it can only be asked in perfection, it shall in itself be perfection, which is the truth that is meant to be answered. To get to perfection it would be necessary first to know all that there is to know, and then pose the final question, that is the question above all questions, that of perfection, but knowledge of all is perfection in itself, being able to posing the question and answering it being the same thing in one, so that achieving all there is to know would be to answer the question about the final truth without even posing the question, being the perfection of all things the question and answer in itself. Course to perfection is then not of this world, so the inquiry about the final truth shall be our highest truth in itself, in the fact that is not achievable and not in the fact that is achievable. Note then that the question of what is to be known, and what is not knowable, are truths that do not fail at any level for they are the structure that hosts all levels, and are in themselves the language that constitutes the question as much as all matters, since they ever were, as it is implied in change, so these questions are this world and they are the rule of change, and they imply perfection for they are not it.

Beware then of any ideals or material conditions ordered to the knowledge and manifestation of the final truth, which is ideals and matters perfect and in unity, by means of accumulation of ideals and matters, knowledge and means, minds and acts, for the final truth is in all things and between all things and under and above all things, and they are not it, and so we shall know of all things only in respect to the truths of the world in itself, and we shall act with all things only in respects to the truths of the world in itself, and the world in itself is the rule of change, as it is the most that is possible to think, and it is the most that is possible to make.

Nolanus: I understand that your final truth is perfection, and the truth about the truth is what perfection is not, which is this world, which is the same as the law of change, and is the disunity of ideals and matters, for their unity would be perfection, and so their disunity is not. And you said that truth about the truth is the final truth, and it is knowable, but mine is different than yours. I think of change as motion towards higher ideals and matters, towards perfection, and not an ever-ending cycle with no goal, for the truth of this world I think is not complete. What is your truth of change, truly?

Hermes: This world can be called itself the truth of change, or the truth of disunity, and it is in chase, a non-repeating cycle. It also has to be named the truth of life and motion, as life is implied in motion, as it emerges, and motion is implied in life, as emergence is movement, and no motion is without life, and no life is without motion, and both are then change. As life strives to reproduce itself same, producing motion, and, as motion is not stillness, and implies life; as life moves, and is moved; the truth of imperfect ideals and matters is the truth of motion, and is the truth of life, as they are the same. And they both are the truth of time, through which they are noted, and both are the truth of space, through which they are located, and all truths are implied by the stillness of the first, and are implied in change, and are all aspects of change. And this implies that ideals and matters are not united, as if they were they would be still and perfect, and so disunity is implied by change.

And so the cosmos has implied, in its truth beyond reason, this truth in reason, where ideals and matters are implied by disunity and change, and change is imperfection to the perfection. And so motion and life are most sacred to the cosmos, as through life and motion it comes to reveal the truth of itself in the form of ideals and matters, and it comes to imply the truth of itself, or the final truth. And so change in ideals and matters is bound to be, and ideals and matters ordered against the rule of change are also against life, and motion, and space, and time. To accept the highest truth of reason is to accept change in ideals and matters, as it is accepting the world in its nature and not in its state.

Nolanus: I see that change is the essence of the world, and it is the rule which is to inform the ideals and the matters. But is this ideal, then, an ideology that can be known? Does it have a name and a reasoning?

Hermes: The perfect ideal of our world, which is not the perfect ideal based in the final truth, is implied by the truth of change, as it can be known. In itself, the perfect ideal is the ideal of changing of ideals. The perfect matters of our world, then, are also implied by the truth of change, as it can be experienced, and in itself, the perfect matter is the changing of matters. As both are the same, the perfection of our world is the changing of ideals and matters, and their reciprocal necessity, and their same-ness, as they are the rule of change, and the rule of change is the only law, which contains all its reasoning in itself.

The perfect ideal of change can only be in the things living and in motion, and the perfect matters of change can only be in the things that are lived and moved, as they are children of life and motion. As this is is the truth of cosmos in change, the perfect ideal and the perfect matter of this world already are, always have been, and always will be, in according to the truth of change and not according to the final truth, which is perfection and hence stillness.

The most humanly achievable and sacred truth, and ideal, and material condition, is then, it itself, the truth of this universe, of our mind, and our material conditions, in their obeying the truth of change, which they are in themselves. All can recognize this truth, as this is evident to one’s mind when looking at its imperfect actions, and actions declare disunity to their mind. As imperfect minds bear imperfect actions, and imperfect actions bear imperfect minds, they both influence eachother, and the truth of cyclic disunity emerges. The imperfection of disunity is implied by the perfection beyond reason, and it is the perfection of this world, and once again, it is the world in itself, and it is the rule of change.

As both the cosmos and the human mind share this truth, and truly all things, for they are the same truth and the same disunity, so all things bear the truth of disunity and change in themselves, so their perfection to this world. And as the totality of the cosmos bears this truth, and all things in it and all their constituents bear this truth, then a group of people, in itself, can know of the truth of change as a person can, looking at its group ideals and group matters.

Nolanus: I understand your reasoning as being contained in itself, as the reasoning is the truth about the truth, and so the world, and the disunity and change, and the ideals and the material conditions, in all levels. Is this ideal then your manifesto? Is it just change, and an endless chase in that?

Hermes: This is then implied in the things: that a society will produce imperfect ideals and material conditions, both subject to change, and so it will change in itself as a whole. However big the entity shall be, from the smallest child to the totality of life, it will be true to the law of change, and disunity in ideals and matters, and in that will be perfect to this world, and so it will serve its manifesto, a lowly word we shall speak no more, for it just substitutes the rule of change while not proper to any of its aspects, and so it shall be named reasoning.

The perfect ideal of this world, we have said, is that of change specifically because it is not that of perfection. Ideals in this world that aspire to perfection are hence bound to capture only some aspects of it, such as stillness, totality, being and not being, and all attributes that are of perfection but are not perfection, and have a different meaning in perfection that cannot be grasped.

All ideals, then, that aspire to perfection, are not of change, as perfection is stillness, and so they are not of this world, in the sense that they are improper to its laws. As one should never aspire to be never-changing, not because of sinfulness but because of pointlessness, as it is bound to not be of this world, and so improper to consider. For a life without change would be one requiring no motion, and no motion would imply no life, as one can be still and still be moved, and so it will as all things move in the world of change, so that stillness is not of this world. And a motion without change would be one supporting no life, as no change would imply no motion, and life moves to express itself, so that life can never be still.

A perfect reasoning towards the final truth is then imperfect to this world, and a perfect reasoning towards the truth about the truth is perfect to this world. The whole truth is contained in the question of the final truth, and the truth about it, for all is implied by necessity, and this reasoning is the purest of all, most kind to the cosmos and the beings alike, and to all their communions.

Nolanus: Do you declare, then, that this is the final reasoning of this world, and to this reasoning all things shall be oriented? Do you imply then, that in all their lives, beings shall follow the rule of change in themselves, which is the same as to follow the rule of change out of themselves, as all things are bound to follow the rule of change, and that is implied in the rule of change, and this is the final truth not to go beyond, as beyond that is no more truth than the final truth?

Hermes: This science of the truth that I teach you, as it is this world in itself, is also ever-changing, only bound to the truths that are fixed, which is the final truth, implied by the truth of change, of which its fixedness is that of changing, being change itself. As rule of change is demonstrated in itself, it is the law then that states the truth you declared, so that all beings shall follow it, because the rule and the world are the same, and the beings are in it.

The rule of change is the only rule that cannot be broken nor ignored, and it needs no power to defend itself, no churches to be professed at, no sciences to prove it further, as it is all these things and all the things that negate the rule of change are also slave to it. The rule of change is the only authority of this world, and nothing in it can oppose to that. Nothing can induce stillness in change, and the cosmos will always favor change in all things and their constituents, and all their levels and aspects.

Now bear then in mind the truth of the rule of change of the cosmos, and of humans, and all things in between and below that can form a communion, for that rule is the same for all, and so the only one worthy to be thought about, and to be acted about. All companions that see the same truth will then think and act In ideals and matters both, guided by the rule of change, inextricably and inevitably so, and so we too shall; and our talks and acts will be the same of the law, so that of life and change, and never of death and stillness, for the firsts are of this world, and the seconds are not of this world.