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 to 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 your 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.