Self-sufficiency, in a city this means integral food production, beyond water and minerals -as in the plant- the city turns in upon itself -forming boundaries by virtue of its existence- a plant made of individual cells, it must be fully independent, thus farming may merge with the idea of natural reserves.
Creating compact farming by use of elevations, turning the farm into the market, branching into crafts as restaurant/pottery/woodworking (the farmers market branches out, into residential and industrial fractals) integrating nature through the farm (cutting out transportation, one increases food profits, without increasing client prices) integrating production by fractal immersion.
This is the next cycle of the fractal city, the plan exists as each cycle builds, but the form alters dramatically, the final form may even bear no resemblance, the core integrity gains complexity, it becomes more itself.
Within the fractal city arise modular forms (the rooms of infrastructure are the cells of the plant, the vehicles that move through land/sea/air/space, these are the animal cells) they stem from the plant, living off of the fruits of those plants, a fractal mimicry that is rhyming -not absolute- in whatever legitimate form it truly would assume (the animal extending beyond the soil, as the plant roots within it).
The ranger is one form that arises -rather than the term warrior to morph soldier- a multi-purpose label, they vary from the soldier by inherent liberty, for the soldier is bound, they may be charged for following atrocious orders, yet the battlefield demands cohesion or failure (the stupidity and atrocity of Nuremberg, opposition is treason in any country, what justice when Russian/Turkish/Chinese/British/French/Congolese go free?) the soldier faces a most terrible half and half, they are forced to make a decision amidst action -this is already a failure- error must become the norm; relying upon the good of their ruler -this must become their moral compass- if they follow their entrained instinct.
Liberty arises to choose function and roles (the warrior may fight for family -for personal glory and wealth- or for the spirit of life itself -regardless of the why- they fight for their reason a priori allegiance) they choose the range of their roles (creating the first limitation of the general, thus cultivating the talent and originality of that general, for unlimited choice kills originality.).
The citizens also have choice, even if an emergency were to be declared, giving the portion of tax demanded to medical aid or arms (creating a further limit on the general -with many construction aid kits and little ammunition- one who has 30% of their army as emergency support personnel -or just 5% willing to take riot duty- is their own fool to assault a city) before any choice of the general, their actions have been limited by integral liberty (some privileged ones may scoff, at the idea of an assault on a city, others would not see it as so impossible) to show others democracy, one must have integrity when they speak of democracy, citizens determine the military by their tax.
The ranks in this army are subject to election: the lieutenant is elected, from among the rangers of the platoon; the chief rangers as sergeants, are appointed by the lieutenant, majority vetoed by the individual squad; the captains are appointed by majors, the appointment may be vetoed by lieutenants, if they do not believe in the captain; majors are selected from lieutenants or captains, to be trained by serving as aides, to the general flag staff; lieutenant generals command the individual regiments of a city-state, as the major is the final link into direct military action; captain generals are elected among lieutenants, serving as overall commanders of a city-state; major generals are elected among all flag staff, a purely military term resulting in loss of all command, along with all ability to run for office.
The election demands active participation, removing the total obedience of the soldier, the moral compass may not define the character.
Minimal individual prestige exists, but as the whole unit -as the Stanley cup goes to each member- there are no heroes or cowards -any confirmed desertion or failure would mean removal- even the man who dies bleeding and weeping for comfort, the dead cannot stand for personal honor in victory, neither then can the living.
No difference of wage exists in the individual categories (rangers/officers/flagstaff, chief rangers and rangers earn equally, as do lieutenants earn the same as majors) in cutting out wealth and prestige, one maximizes selection of the best, over the most ambitious -only responsibility and accountability increase- with increasing sacrifice for increasing promotion, the positions of greatest power must be those most unwanted, this fact being held in common knowledge, balancing any control of multiple city-states military (an emperor leads to Troy -every man who fights in Troy carries home his demons- one who links multiple city-states, must become sacrificial in aggressive action) how can many independent cities co-exist?
The ranger moves about a wide front, creating connections within multiple cities -if conflict comes- peace must have voice within the army, this may only occur with personal liberty and deep life (the many connections of family and friends, mean personal impact of defeat, but also of victory) supplied by mutual aid in peace (not to create absolute rejection of conflict -but as the beginning of a search- only to find the voice of reason, in the sliver between action and reaction) no voice means no action by good men, which must occur within the army (Vietnam and other wars have shown, the voice of citizens does not stop the army) then love may arise for the other side within.
Ties of love are created in global trade, in the initiation of the journeyman (demanding one travel to become a fully-fledged citizen, gradual immersion into rooted culture, from rooted culture) the interconnection of the peacekeeping military -when dealing with natural disaster- the interconnection of the republic to which a city-state belongs, in the integral liberty of election, determining the purpose of the military before it acts (no military may be formed, purely as an offensive force, when each ranger is no slave but at liberty) integral liberty/mutual dependence and understanding create peace.
Emphasized by trial through combat, along with universally recognized individuality of city-states, if the liberty of a city-state is universal, then the capture of one becomes a global outrage (every bit as much, as the assault of an individual within a small town -not eliminating all conflict- seeking to maximize harmonious motion) countries are the legalization of empires (their limits were made by nothing other than war -there is nothing integral in borders- a country without the elected presence of cities, this is legitimization of war) liberty and election must be integral.
This is simply trying to find, how one might make liberty integral, decide for yourself if the ideas have any merit, as I will return to them many times, to judge for myself (each idea is a leaping off point, further deepened by the thought of others -plunging deeply- a pattern begins to coalesce) I hope my ignorance will not overwhelm the idea, that which I circle around continually -trying to discern its essence- that idea is never fully recognized -it develops in each epoch- from ball to wheel to torus.
Then let me turn to character for a moment, how does one create equal right -for entry into universities?- is this a matter of sex/race/age -is it none or all of these?- consider the legitimacy of specialized action, for but a moment.
University is specialized schooling of the highest degree -and it should be- but the purpose of limitation exists (as it regards civil and social development, financial concerns are another aspect -along with others- to which my present view is too narrow to encompass) one creates respect, for the difficulty of truly intensive exploration, capability must be demanded (yet not all have equal access, for material/equipment/depth training, to develop equal skill) equal access may not rely on haphazard ruling.
One judge claims total impartiality, but must make character judgments, temperance may affect -a legitimate desire for certain facets may exist- without being the sole factor of success, can one judge -purely objectively- subjective qualities of character; and yet standardized tests judge little more than memorization -mimicry.-.
Fundamental drive and originality -creativity- are required above all else -to achieve success- particular skills may be trained, what is required is access to that training (for any individual who may prove drive and originality, originality that may be shown in making a buggy, as much as a mathematical proof) training may have no barrier, in age/sex or race, any such demand is precisely discrimination.
One need only have access, to material and manuals, to develop a modicum of skill in a field -if they possess drive and originality- any individual who shows this basic skill, through an entry level project -it may be of diverse form- may gain access to assessment/placement courses.
Entry level projects do not show mere ability, they show characteristics of the individual, as the primary facet (a project of length reveals many things, whether attention to detail, or creative problem resolution) an interviewer screens the applicant, while a tester reviews the project (a double blind, ensuring fair and objective treatment, while questioning helps determine authenticity) this testing goes through phases (first determining quality, then testing for authenticity, finally testing for rigidity or willingness to learn) it is the characteristics of each that are primary.
To be truly equal, every individual might go through this process, but when should one enter university, and how many (can that question be anything other than integral, if it is not to be haphazard, or prejudiced?) but having said project, do you clearly understand what I mean?
To move to another topic of fractality, let us consider racism, for racism began as a pseudo-science, looking at racial qualities (in a slave mentality the same idea arises, my group must exist -in conflict- it quickly becomes a search for dominance) any honest exploration was quickly diluted, in a world in conflict -giving rise to modern racism- I however believe in racism!
In my school were several Asian students, some middle eastern students, and two or three African students (the rest were white -racism!- hypocrisy!) the one Asian student in my class, he grew up without any rooted culture -limiting internal definition- can an individual without integrity in culture, deeply understand their culture -without the purely personal drive to do so?- can their respect move deeper than the understanding?
If an Irish child grow up in a significantly Irish neighborhood, they are immersed in that tradition, the food/festivals/language, moving beyond the immediate community, they enter into school and encounter several nationalities -beyond the smattering in the community- deepening immersion as a rainbow has defined color.
Entering into high school in the township, here they find a dozen nationalities, and again break their ideas -how people should be- the shock of sudden immersion is an initiation, coming in waves (it is not merely the presence of difference, it is the continual construction of ideas -followed by their annihilation- that rids the mind of its absolute right) the modern diversity is ignorant racism, as refusal of racial difference -a message to science!-.
I believe in racism -even more than I believe in sexism!- because racism is the simple focus on race -as an important facet- the diversity of race is an aspect to be cherished, it is one of the most important aspects to maintain, to ensure it extends through eternity, it deepens the value of life.
The ignorant rejection of racial difference -for corporate equality as much as anything!- it is merely the forced integration, in a complete sense (if it held true integrity, every human would have equal parts of every race, should things change absolutely from human to city?) if you place a good Islamic fundamentalist, into a society that espouses nude beaches, you are forcing conflict (there has been no time or effort to incorporate, how has the mental view been shaken -direct confrontation- that is only developing an enemy) how many individuals have only rejected, despite those who are open minded, what evil is ingrained in the perceived good?
Furthermore, has that good eliminated the evil, to which it was a response, can it be expected to do this, if one does not destroy the evil, while creating a new evil, that is fractally deepening the evil and suffering (but whites deserve to suffer, when did two wrongs make a right -one wrong does not demand silence to another- I believe that is called common sense!).
The result has been mass suffering, if ignorance of race and sex was successful, then why has racism persisted for two centuries, while sexism has persisted for one (the failure of blindly accepting all as one -in an absolute sense- this has been shown in countless mass killings, as well as mass rapes through history) unified complexity demands individuality, that remains individuality but increasingly interconnects, it deepens by the diversity of its interconnections (individual racial and cultural entities, these must maintain integrity -from this integrity- they extend into complex interrelation) racial diversity means depth in the individual.
Passion – performing a work, in which your sense deepens your experience, whether singing or making good bread, perhaps building finely crafted models -if you do not have a passion develop it- it comes from, that brings the sense to a super-ordinary level, in which the ears hear as they are capable of, or the tongue tastes as it can.
“Her name is Maryjane ‘do you like that name? what is important in that question (in a tribal sense, the question was born in utter simplicity)
Would one use stale bread in hunting (in the same way, that people feed birds today?) how can one create the environment, to utilize various hunting birds in farms? :groves of non-fruiting trees -further firewood/erosion/wind- color of flowers, bodies of water and fruits left untouched?)
In ancient languages connecting lines are utilized -as in Sanskrit- a line may slope left or right, one may also place above or below and invert odd letters -what meaning may this simple change create?- may it be used to show changing pitch/note -how would it interact with vowels- the use of 33 in language, must leave open all skill levels, each must understand it basically even if unable to utilize.
Language is one determination of underlying environment, in what ways may one create the focus, seeking greater harmony -fundamentally seeing beyond the gross?- modulation of sentences creates an inherent limit similar to that of the haiku, the work called meditation being referred to as poetry (it is merely the first attempt, to see the result of a module, in its developed form).
If I use a vowel, for each of the six cardinal directions -are there only six or fewer than 4?- how does this create the meaning behind vowels, but how would one write a mind-map essay?
Diversity is the core of limitation, not rigid control.
Please understand -I am simply trying to create an integral view- if one line of thought seems to possess merit, I extend it through the whole entity, in this way building up all facets of the reality (though the form was whole from the beginning -firstly I_am, therefore I act- it shifts radically within that full form -I say this because I have seen it- I don’t have any idea what the final form will be) the form mutates as it extends -I like the character of the joker- despite all my planning there is no defined plan; the most oppositional of the shifts resulting, this comes from the idea of family -sexual prejudice/communism/lateral family- I hope these ideas may shed some light, on new solutions to old problems in the noos, even if they prove untenable in themselves.
Final outgoing until completion of act 3.