world domination
who should rule over the world?

define "world"!

a. the planet earth? (and all humans, animals, plants, minerals ...)
b. the element earth? (someone who incarnates the element earth)

the two definitions of "world" show the base conflict (and misunderstandings)
between material world view (a) and spiritual world view (b).

probably:
the material world view is created by element water, and
the spiritual world view is created by element fire.

misunderstandings are created, when teachers teach their knowledge to the wrong students.
in general:
when messages are delivered to the wrong ears and eyes.

some groups expand their group narcissm (supremacy, our group is better than other groups)
to a global supremacy (our group is better than ALL other groups)
and a greed for "world domination" = global imperialism
and "world peace" (shalom) and return of the "messiah" (benevolent dictator).

they know that all empires are doomed to collapse over time,
and since they are fundamentally biased towards greed,
their solution is "lets make it bigger!"
(collectivism, majority vote, too big to fail, safety in numbers,
security by obscurity, intransparency, confusion, secret politics)

they believe:
"when we control the whole world (by force),
then our empire will last forever."

their answer is always more control, more force,
more brutality, more fanaticism ...
even if this solutions creates the very problem it claims to solve.
-> vicious circle, only suppress problems (and not solve them),
repeat few old solutions over and over (tradition), with more and more energy (radicalization).
always when new problems appear, use the old solutions to "solve" them.
(politically conservative, conservative strategy, element water.)



how does our "map of the 16 types" solve this problem?
who should "rule the world" in our view?

obviously our map is a "spiritual world view",
in this case created by element fire.

so "world" is just another word for "element earth",
which is an abstract personality type (a spiritual thing),
which is incarnated in many many bodies,
all over the planet earth, in humans but also in animals.

our map has four incarnations of element earth:
A2 = earth son -> double opposing
B2 = earth mother -> double congruent
C2 = earth daughter -> age opposing
D2 = earth faterh -> gender opposing

lets look at the mileau of B2 = earth mother
-> inner circle, key of seven

short:

A1   D4   A3
   x
C3   B2   C1
        o
A4   D1   A2

long:

fire-son         water-father     air-son

              x

air-daughter     earth-mother     fire-daughter

                               o

water-son        fire-father      earth-son


we translate "who should rule over the world?"
to "who should be the husband of mother earth?"
(element earth is the spirit of the mother.)

we assume that husband and wife should have the same age.
so we see two solutions:

earth-mother has two fathers next to her:
water-father and fire-father.

short: D4 ( B2 ) D1.
the round braces emphasize the center position of B2.
-> a "geo-centric" world view. (geo = world = earth.)

so here we see a conflict between water-father and fire-father.

water-father is part of the tenscross of earth-mother,
fire-father is part of the flowsquare of earth-mother.

so the bigger conflict is the conflict between tenscross and flowsquare.

but the general rule is: we need both!

in this case:
earth-mother needs both, water-father and fire-father.

if one is missing or removed, then the other one will be lost.
if only one is present, then that relation can never be stable, and must break over time.
similar rule:
if you sacrifice freedom to gain more security, you will lose both.

here we see the base problem of: monogamy vs bigamy.
monogamy says: every man should have only one wife, and every wife should have only one man.
bigamy says: every man should have two wives, and every wife should have two men.

monogamy is a typical "simple but wrong" solution.

lets look at bigamy.
bigamy is more complex than monogamy, so the concept of bigamy is (initially) harder to implement in reality,
but in the long run its much more efficient, so it requires much less energy to stabilize.
-> higher initial cost + lower running costs.
-> a "farsight" solution.

lets keep our focus on: D4 ( B2 ) D1.
long: water-father (earth-mother) fire-father.

who is missing? lets look at our map of 16 types.
again, we look for "same age and diff sex" partners.
we get: B3 ( D4 ( B2 ) D1 ) B3.
long: air-mother ( water-father ( earth-mother ) fire-father ) air-mother.

so we need two more people, who incarnate the type of "air-mother".
now the "million dollar question" is:
do we need two people?
or can we solve this problem with only one air-mother,
who is "somehow" shared between fire-father and water-father.

we would require two people to build a one-dimensional point-symmetric structure.
but when we use a two-dimensional axis-symmetric structure,
then we need only one air-mother.
in short: "lets build a circle!"
we take our map of 16 types, and we "roll it",
so that air-mother and fire-father are connected.

now in the cross-section of that "roll",
we see the circle:

B2 - D1
|     |
D4 - B3

to make easier the "sharing of partners",
we use our concept of "partner exchange".

we let the circle oscillate between two states: long <---> broad

B2--D1


                  B2               D1
          <--->   |                 |
                  D4               B3


D4--B3


all relations need privacy, intimacy.
for example:
the B2--D1 relation only works in absence of D4 and B3, and
the B2--D4 relation only works in absence of D1 and B3.

this absence is much easier to achieve,
if we have all four people,
so no one must be alone,
and there is always one partner available.
(assuming the exchange is synchronized,
which will take some time (and initial resistance) to stabilize this dynamic,
but it will pay off in the long run.)

