— a simple definition, painstakingly clarified
Sovereignty is the effectiveness of action which arises from the refinement of perception and raising of the will such that the two become increasingly indistinct from each other.
So, sovereignty is a unified process of witnessing and acting without hinderance.
The Three Variables of Sovereignty:
- fidelity of perception
- strength of will
- the unification of both
There are three variables here, the two principles which govern sovereignty and the mechanism which unites them. The fruit of their congress — to be unhindered.
My observations on the principles which govern these variables and facilitate their cultivation is the subject of the chapters in this part of the book.
Critically, it cannot be stressed enough, that this is a book of method and not truth, that these thoughts on methodology are path notes and not scripture, and that where formulae are given each is context dependent. Even the most straightforward and efficacious techniques in this book are not for everyone, not for all times and places and problems.
I believe it useful to paint some broad brush strokes around these components of sovereignty.
In the design section there’s that whole bit about how correct answers are antithetical to design. That is orders of magnitude more true for perception. Valid and effective answers may exist in great quantity for many situations, but one eventually has to settle on one if one ever wants to act. This is not so regarding perception. Perspective can be manifold, and only in special cases does it benefit from singularity.
Will is something more sublime than a prerogative. One’s prerogative may be composed many details: preferences, aversions, sequences, conditioned responses, triggers, attachments, et cetera. The will has a vector of intention. That is all. And the trajectory of that vector has no connection to space, time, matter, or circumstance. Like our experience of the wind, we know the vector through its effects in the concrete world, but will is not ontologically of the concrete world. Strength of will is nothing more than the grip that a person maintains to the comet tail of their will. Are you attending. Are you present to the alignment between what you most deeply understand and what you are doing. Are you being the person you mean to be — without desire of result.
When I describe sovereignty as I have above, it raises the question of whether this definition could relate to a political definition of sovereignty. Some directly assert that I must be talking about something spiritual and esoteric which is entirely removed from matters of political power and social structure.
Consider the power of tech and social media giants. Does the power of tech companies in the lives of their users increasingly fit the definition of sovereignty given above? If the algorithm “knows” what your are attending to better than you do, where is your sovereignty?
As I understand it, in Switzerland candidates for citizenship — including the native born — must spend some years in active duty in their military. I have been told that this military training includes extensive orienteering, such that many citizens of Switzerland are capable of determining their location from more or less any wilderness area in the country and navigating on foot to secure areas. This is accomplished through learning the topography of different regions and what resources may be found there. They know their country well enough that the contours of any horizon will show them the path home.
Going down some levels, into our inner communities, how many physical and psychological disorders are typified by some form of inability to perceive, act, or even intend as the subject means to?
At each level of human systems, within the mind and body of the individual, within the home environment, regarding an organization, a municipality, or a nation, sovereignty is a matter of perceiving actionable, acting with clarity, and doing so without hinderance from problems in the internal systems involved.
This chapter is in active development. What follows is a discussion of the Vijñāna Bhairava Tantra and some musings on the epistemic demands of sovereignty. It contains some direct assertions, a few open questions, and a singular central theme: There is a strength in the still mind that unites the individual with all of creation, the subjective experiencer with the objective world, the microcosm with the macrocosm.
Because the strength belongs to the still mind, it defies description. Articulation, deliberation, and reason are strengths of the active mind. How do the strengths of the still mind and the strengths of the active mind relate? What integrations between them may be developed? How do we navigate these questions as individuals, families, and communities for collective benefit?