THE FOURTHWAY MANHO E-JOURNAL
Volume 83 October 24, 2019
THE HOUSEHOLDER - OBYVATEL OF SOCIOCOSMIC STOPINDERS
By Professor Dr. Tan Man-Ho
(An excerpt from the original work, Real World Views, Book 3 by Professor Dr. Tan Man-Ho entitled "The General Laws of Nature, Real Historical Process and Early Christianity - the Symbolic Mushroom and the Cross&quuot;, November 1974 ~ September 1975 Discourses, Chapter 3, Section G : "The Householder - Obyvatel of the Sociocosmic Stopinders" pp. 59 ~ 63)
G. THE HOUSEHOLDER - OBYVATEL OF SOCIOCOSMIC STOPINDERS
1 Householder = house + holder or holder of a house. Here we are not going to talk about the house as the human body for us to take charge of in the Gurdjieffian sense, which is the first natural house of a three-brained being or an ordinary man or an 'obyvatel' - a potential self-master to be - because the talk will become a very long story.
Everyone practically lives in a house, functions as a component in a house. A householder appreciates the essence-value of a house. He recognizes house stopindering into bigger houses and group of houses as a social function of a house as it expands. He is capable of holding, managing and running a house without being distracted by the forces of other houses and sociocosmic bodies such as the favorite night-club, the bar, etc. Yet, he is objective to these neighboring bodies. When entering another house and to meet his already existing householder, it is necessary to adapt to its piquant vibration. Then he will be acceptable. A householder has the possibility of being in the third line of work (the Fourth Way). I appreciate the laws of a house — it is a good base to start the inner work because its hierarchical structure is least exploitative.
Other entities such as the non-family organizations are not houses. A manager is a householder in a business type of organization. But many contemporary managers are bourgeoistical, egoistic, sadistic and power-crazed. They will not hesitate to punish their subordinates, oppress certain groups and despise other members and non-members.
2 Now concerning the householder again, I must point out that he takes care of his house, maintains and expands it. There are too many houses, never smaller in number than the total number of organizations in the world. The houses are always with householders. Work activities in these natural operational systems which are designed to cater food, rest, sleep, love, sex and bringing up of offsprings, are quite demanding on the householders. A householder can be poor, and a poor one can only own a hut. There are better ones — the flats, the terrace single stories, the double stories, the semi-detacheds, the condominiums and the bungalows. All of them can be badly managed.
The house is therefore a casing for three-brained beings to achieve biological reproduction of beings or as temporary launch pad for coupling trialectics, individual and group resting and to move into business organizations or even monarchy. The house looks like the physical body of a sociocosmic entity. A new paradigm for classifying socio-logics of material concentrations becomes possible.
3 Two types of houses are observable: (1) where the family-house changes into property-form no. 1 (see Marx on the two forms of property) (2) where the property-form no. 1 changes into the property-form no. 2 (the business organizations, the social institutions, the factories, farms, the hospitals, etc.). The first type where it is a simple house without business production or service except reproducing offsprings (one or two or three or four) may be called the human factory whereby work for pay or profit is limited and exploitation is non-existent. The whole asset is a piece of property belonging to being-X, normally the father or the mother as simple sole “proprietors” or “partners”. The total outcome is the family property no. 1. The second type happens when the owner of this property no. 1 adds production and services to other sociocosmic entities to earn a living using the house as the unseparated launch pad. The property-form no. 1 transforms into the property-form no. 2, and business commences. Exploitation transforms into reality where it is previously never experience. A new managing and administrating system has to be set up to enable the house to cross this qualitative node in the dialectics of the family.
4 For a corporate, exorbitant profit, amounting to easy “loot” presents a loophole of excuses for the state and the social caring beings to demand tax increase or corporate contribution to society. So far, the state demands the most for stopinder usage and for paying the cost of social responsibility.
Many pseudo-managers do not care much about the organization they work in and to keep them in, you really have to pay them well. Their organizational responsibility could be at its height if the reward is also at its height. But the pressure for starting their own business is as high as ever. At most, they would pretend to be real householders. Inside them, they could not bother about anything if they are not paid sufficiently. When pay is higher at the top and low at the bottom, the motivation to run the organization is at jeopardy. By manipulating invisible tricks, the masters seek to divert the risk of organizational disintegration and the chronic effect of the common sociocosmic harmonious movement there.
Contemporary life circumstances have caused a clear-cut separation between this family concentration and business concentration. And it is no longer cheap to own a house. Nowadays, even with a high pay you might not be able to buy a house. For a worker, a house is a “room”, an experiment lab suitable for the trialectics of man and woman not amounting to the octaving of members of a family. Life circumstances are as such that the old form of the family must break-up sooner or later from the pressure of business organizations and the state organizations.
5 Don’t say that there are no contradictions within a family; don’t say that a family is holy, unity of genuine human biological love, etc.
The contradiction within the bourgeois societal families arises out from the conflict within productive aspects and the relational aspects which at its height is a downright open opposition ‑ where the “losing side” and the “exploiting side” never seems to yield. This aspect is due to the fact that the family in the course of its development tends to ‘transform’ into production “organization” due to the need for survival. Here love, responsibility and sex are all mixed together with business. The good ones are bound to lose more because they give for no returns because of love, responsibility and sex. Yet one party keeps on growing richer and richer because all the goods and services created “belong” to one party. The process develops until one day a serious quarrel began ….. but sometimes there is no quarrel, and one party just smoothly gets the gain without a thank you. Or giving merely a dubious cheap thank you to console an uncertain “exploited” soul! The loser leaves the family-business tucking his tail between his legs in misery believing this is his unfortunate fate.
The ‘private profit’ or even ownership is the sore which may develop into a conflict or just petty family quarrels. These inner contradictions within the family, this unity of opposites within the shell is the hidden enigmatic characteristics of bourgeois-to-be societal families.
Family is a ‘spongy’ material “cell” the members are the component part of the “cell”. Family is posited on the surface of the earth as if like an animal. Should private property prevails in a given society, it is branded with the name of ‘he who owns this animal’. Private property needs not necessarily remains planar, it will transform into three-dimensional ownership and it has already occurred. He who owns this “animal” is also a “justifier” of this ownership for the property is solely his, it is his social part. His successors are the ones who although gain nothing at the moment, have a “bright” future ahead either as power estrangement which has already occurred or as direct transfer of ownership at later times.