- ORI -

FATJON KOSTA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

1. ORI IS BEING
2. ORI IS MEMORY AND BODY
3. LANGUAGE
4. ECONOMY
5. ETHICS
6. JUSTICE
7. BEAUTY

LAST THOUGHTS
Terms:

ORI - the total memory of human being, the genetic memory, literary device.
BIOSOPHIA- (bios - life; sophia - knowledge) knowledge of life, literary device.

DEDICATED TO FAMILY FOR THEIR SUPORT.

 INTRODUCTION

Dear Reader, look around, what do you see? First you will see this book that you hold in hand. How long have books that are in circulation? If
you are in your house while reading this text you can see furniture, table, seats, glasses, plates, spoons, forks. We can say that for several
thousand of years the above objects are circulating in human society. If you are at the beach you will see the sea, the sand, the sun, people naked
or almost-naked. How long has the sun, sea, sand, people, exist? We can say hundreds of millions of years. How long have these people walked
on the earth? We can say hundreds of thousands of years.

Think for a moment about mankind, as if you were an eternal witness from inception until today. Think for a moment about those people who lived
in caves. Do not they see the same sun that makes the same cycles as now, or the same sea, or the same moon? You are now the eternal witness
of what happens on earth, can you remember that moment when was invented the concept of the atom, democracy, money? There are at least two
thousand years that such concepts exist. Think a moment about the bees. It’s a fact of life that the bees are born with the knowledge to build the
hive. Now is the moment of truth Dear readers, think seriously for a moment, that we, the people, just like the bees build their hive, we are born
together with our knowledge. We are born to know and our knowledge is immense. Above we had mention some items that have circulated for
thousands of years, or complex concepts such as democracy and the atom. To me it is not a coincidence that we are able to understand this
concepts while we are still kids.

If we are struggling to prove our existence or the existence of the universe through philosophy or science we are facing the problem in the wrong
way, unless we accept that our mind is capable, intuitively, to capture the existence of thought and existence of universe, to separate them and to
make an evaluation, that is the effective way of a sound theory.

Do not ask for logic in this text, there is no logic in truth(empirical truth). The truth for us is as it is, sensory through perception but linguistic through
communication, thats why we face problems in philosophy. But other problems arise when we introduce all the time logic in philosophical theories,
and for the first time we are going to put aside logic for the sake of philosophical enquiry and use it when appropriate. Given that, human logic is
part of humans, can not be true outside the human brain, even when we use it within the system - logic is incomplete. We will talk about logic and
its problems in another text. This text it is an inquiry about human knowledge and its limits, although understanding of the world, truth and social
problems will find solution quite casually, in this first part or other parts of Ori.

In this theory, knowledge and cognition, are not logical, they are a biological statement, unilateral, unrestrained by logic but that creates logic. It is
important that we make that distinction.

If we decide to investigate the truth about thought we will see that some of the ideas collide, but this is not the case to disqualify main theses. Ideas
that contradict other ideas are definitely true and that each of them prevail in certain moments.

In the following chapters we will talk about Ori and biosophia(philosophical concepts, literary devices). We can understand ourselves through a
medium which is Ori. So Ori is a literary device, to describe the phenomenon of born knowledge within us humans.
 ORI IS TO BE.

In this philosophical inquiry we are going to find the unknowns by available knowns that we have at our disposal. The only known phenomena that
we have available at the moment is our thoughts, with all its dimensions, which we will fragment and will reunite at a later stage. To understand
what is “known” we are aid with a series of philosophical instruments. The first two instruments are doubt and speculation. Speculate for a moment
that we have two large sets - the known and unknown. How we understand what is known or unknown? Ability to doubt and speculated, in each
case, tests knowledge that we have accumulated up to a certain point. But doubting and speculating is a way we choose to think differently. So in
essence the doubt and speculation remains - as a choice - as an act of thought.

I'm Ori and everything begins with thinking. I choose not to think but I find it impossible. I became aware that thinking is inevitable part of mine. I
choose not to think in space and time but I find it impossible. Thinking has dimensions. I choose not to compare but I find it impossible. Thinking
compares. I choose not to cause-effect but I find it impossible. Thinking cause-effect. I choose not to imagine but I find it impossible. Thinking is
symbolic. Where these symbols, causality, comparisons, dimensions, choice, exist except in memory? The thought itself is a memory. The
phenomenon of memory can be understood through a medium, the body. My thoughts inevitably are connected with my body, with the sensory
and genetic information that my body provides. - Thinking can be understood through a medium such as symbols, dimensions, comparisons,
causality. Thinking can also be understood through a medium which is memory. Memory can be understood through a medium which is the body.
The body can be understood through a medium which is existence.

And what is "to be"? Being, existence, to be, is never to be understood detached from the rest of the universe. If for any reason being is to be
considered a mental act, a concept, then the act of thinking should not be viewed as separate from the totality of other phenomena, which are
memory and body. Perhaps someone might ask and wonder why to exists here and not there, why we exist now and not one time or another?
True, that this person, who considers his/her being accidental, and detaches his being from the universe, and takes no account of other factors,
creates itself flawed reasoning. The fact that we are us can be connected with the rest of the phenomena, some phenomena have contributed little
and others have contributed more to create our being. To understand our existence we must look deep within ourselves. Our thinking does not
produce existence, our thinking understand existence through a medium, through Ori.
 ORI IS MEMORY AND BODY

Think of Ori as hundred million years old, that is born billions of times, in different bodies. To Ori, all the events that have occurred in these millions
of years is like to have happened yesterday. Ori is the essence of human beings, is all experiences through their lives which is inherited throughout
descendants. Ori is divided into billions of bodies but has not lost the essence of this division at all, on the contrary, Ori maintains its essence even if
it’s infinitely divided. Ori, in these bodies, inherited experiences accumulated throughout its existence. Globalization is not a new phenomena, it is
old as it is mankind, that’s why Ori is the same in every body, because the knowledge has circulated throughout the world. Ori could not leave the
body, it dies together with the body in which it lives. Ori is the memory of living human beings, is the experience of their eternal existence. Said that,
Ori is responsible for knowledge and cognition, for that priceless information that we, human beings, need to live, to communicate and to exist in
prosperity.

For example, if we build a super-computer, no matter how sophisticated, and we turn it on, it cannot perform any function. If we install a simple
program to this computer it can perform some simple mathematical processes. If we install a more complex software then it will perform complex
processes. This is an example to show what is Ori. Suppose that humans are like a super-computer with fantastic skills and, Ori, is a software - so
that this super-computer works at full speed.

LANGUAGE

Everyone can answer the question of what language is, what is language function. It seems quite clear that language is intended to transmit ideas
through the act of communication. Obviously, the purpose of language is communication of ideas and here remain everything connected with
language. Since language is the embodiment of thought then the substance that language communicate is seven-dimensional; therefore the idea that
is caught by the receiver will be in space and time, symbolic, comparative, causal. Without these elements a word or phrase or an act of
communication that transmits ideas through language does not exist. Lets take for example the keywo rd wheel, wheel transmits the idea of​the
word wheel. Wheels exists in a certain space and time, the idea of wheel we can pick it through the symbolic imagination, the moment you imagine
imagine a wheel we imagine it big or small, or normal(along with the idea of the wheel is the comparison); the idea of​the wheel itself also contains
implications that this object or phenomenon in its function (i.e cause effect). So the word is not just a symbol is more than that, perhaps even more
than we can define here.

Language contains that medium that allows the receiver to understand the sender ideas clearly, as been conceived by the sender, unequivocally and
with greater clarity. Previously we concluded that language is seven-dimensional and allow to send an idea. But the thought itself can not be seven-
dimensional, language is such, thought might be more than seven-dimensional because if we add other mental tools then thought is more than seven
dimensional. When we assign seven or eight dimensional the numbers are not important because the dimensions are in relation to each other and
inseparable, dimensions of thought are a division to clarify the idea we want to understand.

The concept in this regard stems from the word (act of communication) and the knowledge. If for the word wheel we agree to relate it with the
knowledge of wheel then we have formed a part of the language. So, origin of language is the agreement to equalize acts of communication with
knowledge, provided that knowledge can be equal in all subjects of communication, and it is. This contract has two elements, acts of language
(words, sentences, sounds) and knowledge. For knowledge, we understand, that it is clear where it comes from. It comes from Orit and is equal
for all people. Since the syntax is the same for all people we can deduce that the syntax is part of Ori. Ori is our born knowledge and syntax being
part of Ori takes the role to transmit the ideas. It is understood that syntax is cannot transmit the word in more than seven-dimensions but the
thought of the sender about that word is more than seven-dimensional. Syntax is limited to transmit the idea of and idea through only seven-
dimensions which is more than sufficient. When we read the word wheel, then our minds grasp the idea of​the wheel, but at the same time Ori
simultaneously recall all the learned and inborn knowledge that we have about the wheel. And to think then syntax is inborn and is part of Orit is to
think right. The syntax is like Ori, universal among people, syntax is that part of Ori that the other Ori-s use to understand linguistic communication.
Even if we discuss about the language its nature is not created to be understood, but we grasp the nature of language accidentally while discussing
about Ori, and if could be a medium in which the language can be understood that would be inborn knowledge, Ori. Knowledge is transmitted
through language but it also exists separated from it.

The dimensions of language should not be understood same as the dimensions of thought. Thinking is not spatial and is not limited by borders such
as language. The line of thought can also be irrational, inconsistent, abstract.

If we human beings are to be separated away from the ocean of information that unites us and we take through the genes, then we will not even
understand the language. That fact that interests us right now is common knowledge, Ori, and it is the reason why there is language.

But what are the facts that language communicates? Is a fact part of the subjective reality of each of us, which strangely looks the same for all of
us? We all can agree that the color of the sky is blue but at this point we have not told the all story. Again, the idea is that for us does not matter
how nature is made possible through the evolution that we see the color blue. For us it is important that we are born with knowledge that the color
of the sky which is blue, we are looking the same color, blu, and we can distinguish it from other colors. And, in the time that we face this
experience we recognize the sky in its entirety as fact but at the same time we recognize blue as fact notwithstanding our subjectivity. So the fact
includes object or phenomenon known trough Ori. Fact can also be beauty or art, these are facts notwithstanding our subjectivity. Notwithstanding
that we like the ninth symphony, it is still art, and that is Ori that understands it, and categorizes it like fact.

Even if the language transmits meaning obviously that meaning is caught from Ori. Its Ori and by means of our thought recognizes and understands
the language. This approach appears that the process of recognition is similar to that of meaning but we should not confuse it because
understanding is a new conclusion which I obtained from the communication of some previous knowledge.

The information is recorded in such a way, to be transmissible through language, through syntax. Even mathematics is recorded to be transmitted
through language(thats why mathematics is not far from an ideology - we will talk in part 2). All the mental apparatus is in unity, and, if would not
be so, then, that information should not be useful and transmissible. But no need to confuse knowledge with language, where the language is usable
only for information transmissible and is limited through its dimensions. In this regard biosophia is beyond knowledge, it contains knowledge which
is not accessible linguistically. Linguistics is the materialization of this knowledge - is the middle way of knowing, metaphysical knowledge is not
biosophia. Indeed we mention the keyword wheel and it is precisely what language is - phonetics, speech, writing, sound, etc. - and not knowing
(knowing exists within us), it is the substance, the language is simply the transmission of this form of knowledge, its the physical way of transmitting
knowledge and thats all language is.

It is language that creates abstraction and not knowledge. Knowing can not be abstract because it has come through experience and is refined
through the senses, but language by separating physical reality from metaphysical reality and combined later, abstraction arises. Knowledge is linear
and full, undivided, uninterrupted, but when we need to communicate this information through language we start to divide it and present it as
categories. All these processes, sensory information, fragmentation and reconstruction are made in the context of language but knowledge itself is a
module in the human mind, undivided, as eye has seen, or ear has heard.

If we choose to talk about the importance of the word in sentences and syntax rules etc. etc., for which everybody has argued nothing new will
come to light. But if face the problem by the way how language is formed and how it is derived from non-biological construct (for which is taken
care from nature) but as an intellectual construct (for even this is taken care from nature), then we are the right way to understanding the deep
processes difficult to deduce before, but easy to be deduced now that our knowledge, our intuition is expanding.

I will accept with great enthusiasm if syntax could be inherited without Ori, but it is not so. Before the ability to communicate there should be the
ability to understand phenomena in their entirety and that the following items usually described by the language. I strongly disagree with the
statement that the limit of the human goes to the limit of our language, being the language only transmits part of our vast knowledge that lie within
ourselves(only the transmissible part). The future of the language will be a common language, a universal phonetics, universal among people as it is
knowledge, as is Ori.
The fact that language is seven-dimensional also explains that the word wheel is to be understood equally by all of us, we also understand the
sentence "the car has four wheels" in the same sense for everyone because there are these dimension of language that condition the meaning of the
sentence. Therefore, language through its physical form, through the “contract” of sounds we make with each other transmits precisely these
dimensions of knowledge. The phonetic contract has seven points respectively space and time, comparison, causation and symbolic ---- often we
confuse limits of our knowledge with the limits of language, when the language itself is reduced in knowledge that it transmits. Recognition of the
need to release the tongue for a moment and tekthellohemi that recognition is not language.

An idea may be long one word or can even be 1000 pages long. A word or phrase really evoke an idea, but knowledge, as we said, is not long a
word or a sentence or a book, but can be infinitely long - expressed in linguistic terms. So the meaning of a word, sentence or text depends on the
idea (knowledge) that we want to convey.

There should confuse language with knowledge because when we say keyword wheel we transmit these seven dimensions, the mind is a minimal
design, efficient and tested by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. So language does not transmits the qualities of the object, it forwards
the above seven dimensions and is Ori that recognizes language and then decodes the qualities of the object. When we say keyword wheel, then
this item is in space and in time, and we can compare with different kind of wheels; we cause-efect its qualities; we simbolize it in our head; and if
we say “car wheel” our language has elements of space and time, but it was different this time is the set of comparison and symbolic and cause-
efect. So it is clear how the words their receive meaning and innate mechanism that makes this possible. These seven dimensine of language are
more like musical notes, we can make noise with them we can also create a symphony. There should not confuse these concepts with simple
concepts of logic. The logical reasoning is to be extracted from this equation because of the way how we communicate with language is beyond
logic. It has to be understood in order to exist these dimensions of language; these dimensions must firs exist in our inborn knowledge. But the
question arises how many dimensions has the contract of the idea(not contract of language). That is to be discovered!

So language is not knowledge, because language condition knowledge in seven-dimensions limit in order to be transmitted to any other individual.
Therefore sensory information is recorded in that way that can also be accessible digitaly.

When we talk about language, of course, meaning is also an important element. But what is the meaning, maybe is knowledge?

Language is not related to the attributes of an object or phenomenon, because no object or phenomenon in itself does have attributes, but it is
language that gives attributes these objects or phenomena. Language by its dimensions limiting it gives the object or phenomenon attributes
converting it latter in an idea. Objects and phenomena are converted into ideas due to the attributes that language associates to these objects and
phenomena. So its an immense set of knowledge related to these attributes that the language associate to the object or phenomenon. And given
that this knowledge is inborn, so is ORI, ORI then is the source of the attributes of an object or phenomenon.

We should mention the fact that the attributes of objects or phenomena is very large and these attributes are inborn, they part of Ori. But Ori is
more than that because if these attributes are transmitted through language and communication in this case is strictly for the transmission of ideas,
and for the creation of new ideas, then the responsible is Ori throughout its mental instruments. During the communication process, give and take
we could not create new ideas, creation occurs during the innovation phase and then transmits new ideas simply by communication, language
center in the brain is excluded from the act of innovation; other instruments are responsible for creating new ideas.

In language, sentence seems to take meaning of sum total of its parts - this is a bilateral process because on one hand we aim to transmit a certain
idea and on the other hand we have used language to do this. It is true that the meaning of a sentence comes from the meaning of its separate parts
but if you give 100 people to transmit an idea they would use 100 different linguistic ways to transmit the same idea, thats why the idea and the
language used are a bilateral process and we look at them inseparable. They may use the metaphor, allusion, comparisons etc etc, they may use
100 rhetorical figures to say the same thing. So in this case is the idea that gives special meaning to the sentence parts and the parts to sustain the
idea. This is a inevitable binomial, because we deduct the meaning because of the parts of the sentence, but we can understand an idea from 100
different sentences. Notwithstanding that the two things are opposites in terms of classical logic and are seen as separate, conclusion is the same,
communication of an idea. Here we are dealing not with a general medium of meaning but of a general medium of ideas that we transmit, and again
we turn back to the important thing where the goal is communication of ideas, and the whole theory of the meaning of the sentences or meaning of
the specific parts of the sentence generally falls, because the idea is that the creation of meanings is oriented by the idea that we want to
communicate - so we need another system to describe this phenomenon. It is ORI and biosophia that orients the words along with seven
dimensions of language, to receive the meaning that we want to transmit, and it is the idea that the sender wishes to transmit what guides the
process.

We use logic for granted, if the logic could be an universal law in nature, and through logic we try to decode everything starting from language,
knowledge and so on. Just using logic as predicate we make a logical error, and we are deceived by our geniality. Logic is not before humans, it
exists together with humans so that the process of creation or of innovation is intuitive. It is Ori that is responsible for innovation, for this difficult
work and not logic.

The idea that folks learn different languages​and even translate them is because we share the same Ori altogether, the same knowledge for the
world, for objects and for phenomena.
 ECONOMY

Economic sciences fail to perceive man as it is, but focus exclusively on his desires to have wealth and economic resources and how to maximize
these resources. Economic basis in Ori model starts from the food. Since prehistoric periods the knowledge of animals for food has been to eat
and to reserve, somehow to have more energy. Food in this case is converted to energy that would serve to the animal to perform its daily
activities, so to find food again. The food reserve that the animal was attempting to collect, was needed at a later moment for lack of food. Exactly
this is the primordial economic law that is inherited in all animals and people, which serves to cope with these daily energy needs. During a day
people make a series of actions to fulfill their need for food, to work and to rest, and this is a typical economic behavior for they have limited time
and are limited ability of to exploit resources, so people are forced to economize time and resources to be as efficient as possible. Biosophia can
also explain the basis of economic behavior.

We give value to those phenomena which Ori assessed as valid for a specific purpose, in this case it gives value phenomena related to food as a
source of existence. And precisely this is what marketing also try to achieve, to advertise items or services and to try to make them look valuable,
making people believe they are valuable and beneficial for their activity.

So Biosophia and Ori estimates that something is more valuable than something else. Food in this case is valid because without it we can not assure
the energy needed to survive, but, for example, on the other side the nets to catch fish or bow for hunt are more valuable than food because with
them people can find food. Based on this reasoning we deduct a pyramid of values that is strange. Although this pyramid is not valid for ethical
values,​it exist as innate knowledge, as biosophia. It exists together with Ori.

At the end of this pyramid of economic values, animal and natural world stands as less valuable and exploitable. Ori see no limit to these
exploitable resources because Ori existence depends on them. Animal and natural world are at the bottom of this pyramid because due to the
knowledge that Ori has.
In the second place of the pyramid stand humans, humans have no special economic significance for Orin, humans can serve to perform work and
to provide food resources and thats because he has a higher value than natural resources.

The third econimic values are technological items and property, above mentioned, such as bow or fishing net, because even in the absence of the
work force but through individual acts themselves these can provide abundant food.

The fourth source of values​are ideas, an idea like democracy or monarchy, are very valuable because it enables people to organize themselves in
such a way as to ensure continuous food and can live in peace with one another. Through ideas, people form the state and institutions, and through
these institutions join forces so they may reach and exploit natural resources, build technologies and these are preconditions for a continued
existence of themselves.

In this context the economy when an item is accompanied by an idea of ​it’s value is added automatically. If an item is designed simply to
communicate(cellphone), then its value is consistent with it’s function, but if we add the ability to make pictures and filming or even to other
options, then the value of this object will rise notwithstanding costs because this item carries in itself the idea of​communication between people and
communication in this case gives those who use this (cellphone) access to the resources, which means greater access to food, which means more
stable existence and quality of life.

Although it is regrettable that man is not at the top of the pyramid of values(in my opinion there is nothing more valuable than humans and
humanity), but towards the end, it is all the biosophia merit, but somehow Ori when put on top of the pyramid ideas, corrects this devalued status
of human beings, and these ideas that stand together with humans make it possible of his status not to be violated, no matter its economic value.
This is not about morality, or what is good and what is bad. We humans are the source of this pyramid. This pyramid of economic values derives
exclusively from biosophia, our inborn knowledge,​but since at the top of the pyramid are ideas(like democracy) somewhat the human rights are to
be respected.

Economic values in this context are not relative but clearly determined through evolution. Money in this case has no relative value, it is absolutely
valuable, and for all systems because Ori recognize money as valid through biosophia. On top of the pyramid stays the ideas because according to
these established ideas Ori determines what source is valid and exploitable, and which will be the cost of using this source. Notwithstanding that
the goods, resources and ownership can grow, the worker is not impaired by any relational or growing or the reduction of these goods. The Origin
of human economic value lies exclusively in biosophia and take into account its economic value associated exclusively with this and no resources or
property. The small economic value that we atribute to the human resources is not that we could take anyone and transform them into a skilled
worker, and that the fruits of his labor will create an product that will takes a value greater than the worker. In this case the worker would have a
value higher than the product because you can create a product again from the beginning, but a measure of the value that carries biosophia is not
worker but the product itself. So if we take money as economic value, can be greater than the economic value of the worker, even if the worker is
specialized, because Ori recognizes money as a value and not the worker, which is replaceable.

We should be careful in the pyramid of values​and not to equal this economic pyramid of values with social or legal pyramid of values. These
pyramids​are separated from each other and in the case of decision-taking, the subjects that make decisions, may apply separately these pyramids,
belonging to respective fields. We do not apply the same principles if we judge from a social perspective and an economic perspective, we apply
different principles which are relevant to the respective areas. If a person steals some bread for his children morally this person may have done the
right thing but if the person is judged from a legal point of view then the first thought that comes to us is legal punishment.

Economic thought can not be seen as separate from the humans and our inborn knowledge. This occurs mostly when the economy science tries to
make predictions and generalizations. These predictions and generalizations are nothing except our economic common knowledge that we find in
biosophia(universal rules of thinking among humans), the way we think in front of economic situations, the way we attribute economic value to
phenomena. Before (for example) “demand and supply” relation exist, value must exist first. Value is accompanied by the demand and is the value
that is offered. If a good or service has no value, it has neither demand nor offer, thus substantially the economic relations lies on value, and of
course is determinable by biosophia. The economic value remains isolated from the external factors, it is absolute for every system, but a good or
service can artificially take value without having value in terms of biosophia. By mimicking elements that give value to a good or service we create a
habitat that Ori recognizes as valuable even when the good or service is not so in term of biosophia.

Since everything goes around these primary values, all the economic activity of economic entities is in function to maximize these values. This
behavior of economic entities lies not only in the individual behavior of each of them but seen also in macroeconomic trends, and precisely these
values​represent real objectives why these macro factors are addressed in one or another area of​investment. Since microeconomics deals
exclusively with economic activities of one of the parties, it is worth mentioning that macroeconomics deals with the economic activities of all
entities individual economic, and given that these share the same values,​certainly we can discover the impact of these values​in the macroeconomics.

Economic theories, here we take those theories that are tested and predict relatively good economic results should not be seen as finite, as failed or
expected to be rejected. I emphasize that economic thought of Ori is in a continuous flow, changing constantly, and consequently values change
over time. what is a value today may not be a value tomorrow, even some old values may take centuries to change. It may be true that if these
values​are to be devalued through time, some theory somehow will fall of their validity but they are forecast cornerstone of economic thought in a
certain period.

Why ideas lies at the top of this pyramid of economic values? - is because the correct economic policies or economic ideologies include the
welfare of billion. The economic structure of the country, is such and is going in direction of democracy even in the most dictatorial systems,
because ideology for this structure is shared by all humans and comes naturally, just as Ori model predicts. Even there are other economic
structures, except those democratic structures, are designed to fail because the ideological structure of the economy, is inborn, is not separated
from the rest of the population and economic transactions are difficult to be fulfilled forcefully. All above economic systems that does not comply
with Ori evolutionary system, does not take into account human economic values, are destined to fail because they do not own deep-
routed(genetically) ideological structures. For example such has happened with komunism. Economics as a science can not be seen as an
intellectual discipline, apart from the evolutionary terms of knowledge, also, should not be seen as unaffected from the rest of knowledge.

Another aspect of the economy is that it deals more with policy implementing, or ideas for an economic system, and not exclusively with the
distribution of resources. So resources are distributed as a result of the policy that governs economic tools at the same time. And if we are able to
agree that this distribution is done because everyone should be happy, the whole society should feel better about the economic system that is
applied, although there is no equality in the distribution, again, we come to the conclusion that the economic system is derivative of the political will,
and more than that - an idea which people support no matter the level of distribution they receive. Overall satisfaction, which is the inborn idea for
the economic system - variable based on needs, there is a criterion for the distribution, it is itself the reason why economic sciences exist. The
whole economic science accomplishes exactly this purpose the distribution of resources, based on the ideas and principles of distribution that come
naturally to us.

No mater how hard they try, philosophers and economists, never going to take away from an economic theory its ideological content. There is not
an economic theory without ideological content, especially when trying to divide the ideology from the distribution system. No mater how hard we
try to focus more on economic conclusions or economic processes again it has to do with ideology governing processes or conclusions, and has
nothing to do with processes or conclusions, individually or taken together. At the moment we say distribution of resources, at the same moment
we have also established an ideology as to handle distribution. In this case does not matter what ideology we will apply to the distribution, the
important thing here is the ideology that is being used takes into account the genetic perspective of humans, our inborn knowledge.

People have personal interests that are alike, we start with nutrition interests and then we share the same interests about capital, resources.
Interests for food to come first, but when Ori understood that capital is equivalent with, food, a house and a number of other good things of value it
immediately change biological pyramid with the actual pyramid of economic values.

No economic theory, theory of markets, or any other theory can not be correct without inserting in its essence the human factor. There are no
markets without people, without desires, ambitions and values. I'll also add here a certain pluralism of values, where the individual chooses with his
own will a certain value. For example he chose to become an artist or a lawyer. The individual achieve it’s value and it brings a certain economic
benefit. For this reason classes are defined precisely by the above principles. Individual according to their aspirations and values​that he considers
important works and achieve what he wants, and is this system that form economic classes. No matter what an economic class can not create
value - the values​are the individual choices and values​create economic classes. If the individual's is happy with the acquisition of values​they have
worked for, it is more than important, and this is a consistent economic class.

META-ETHICS

Once I asked a friend about what was ethical for him and his answer was peculiar to me. “I wish that we were like aliens” told me, “because they
have morality integrated in themselves, they can not act against their morals and virtues”. For him, the answer was very clear. I realized something
very important from my friend's answer. He believed that morality can be part of the individual, integral part of his genetics, part of the construction
of the individual. The individual in his mind may also have a moral brain, the brain separately from analytical. From his response I also realized that
this was possible with us, humans, but before he could arrive at this opportunity to speculate about our morality the doubt that have to be proven
in this case is: Are we humans, built the same as those "aliens" who have integrated ethics and virtue in their existence? Perhaps no, perhaps yes.

Different cultures have different customs and different social rules, definitely for a culture a phenomenon might be more important than of another
culture, but also between these separated cultures, however we see that there are norms that are common to all cultures, universal norms. We can
agree that the laws cover a large part of human activities and orient us in our everyday activity. But the laws cannot cover every aspect of our lives,
in this case we enters ethics and virtue.
It is worth to note that each of us enjoys a moral authority. Classical theories say that moral authority does not exist, at least it does not enjoy any
particular individual and it does not have to be heard on moral issues. Unlike what classical theories claim, the moral authority of each of us is a
common norm in every culture. Individuals are moral judges of that culture. I am not talking here about public opinion, but for each of the people
who judge a act of another person whether the other person is away or close them, if the other person is known or unknown to them. Each of us
judges all the time if the other is in compliance with social norms, and we communicate our judgment to the other person. The individual moral
authority goes so far as he questions the system itself. Ethics and virtues do not separate what is right or wrong, but along with the man they are
equally as exact sciences and function as a system of knowledge. Each of us gains moral authority because is Ori that gives us moral knowledge,
and each of us is an expert in the field of morality, understood that for the general moral norms and not for those rates which vary according to
culture. So the authority that comes from ORI, from inborn moral knowledge, makes entities to be morally responsible. Putting moral subjects,
people, before moral responsibility, can morally influence their actions simultaneously. The influence on moral behavior is because these subjects
and moral authority have the same universal moral norms. The second element related to morality and moral authority is moral punishment and self-
punishment(guilt) coming for violation of these norms. In the event that equates morality with legal norms punishment will come from the law but
also from moral subjects. So subjects that are simultaneously moral authorities are obliged to apply basic moral norms accurately.

Since all individuals are moral authorities, moral institutions, then they have moral burden to enforce moral norms, while also respecting the norms
of others. We should not confuse texts or state institutions with moral authority because many of the texts and institutions are political.

Generally subjects should try to respect the moral norms but situations in which the individual must apply morality are numerous, and the element of
moral purpose seems uneven because in every step of his individual activity, the individual cannot but to judge morally. Moral evaluation of an act
must, of course have always two steps, the first is the feeling that creates and the second is the feeling that it creates to others. So morality of an act
is in control throughout moral authorities in every step, since the conception of the act until its different parts.

Moral authority derives exclusively from Ori, and it is the same for all people just as inborn knowledge. Moral authority is not affected by external
factors or Internal either, because it is a biological statement, is biosophia. With external factors I mean all factors of influence from others and
internal factors mean the reason, logic, desires, needs, etc.. We say this not because man is insusceptible of factors of influence both internal or
external but also because these norms exist in the presence of influence and moral authority takes action.

I can not say that we have a system of universal morality, but in this case universality between cultures derives from the measures taken against
violators of the moral hierarchy of norms. Violation of these rules of the same hierarchy, is accompanied from the same reaction in different
cultures. If a moral norm is important in a culture and in a different culture is another moral norm, then if someone violates these norms the reaction
would be the same. This shows an important aspect related to the cultures, of course, but also with the individual himself, because the reaction of
the violation of norms unifies the hierarchy of norms and gives us an essential information about the universality of certain basic rules that we find in
all societies. Here we do not appreciate the similarities of whole systems, because systems differ among themselves, but some essential basic
norms that are common to every culture.

We can also think of another option: that of a society without moral norms. This will fully justify the belief that different systems have different
morality but however note that societies are not far apart from the values​and moral norms of each other. Notwithstanding changes amongst
societies we see some uniformity in moral behavior.

Definitely if an individual will act a that will be needed certain motifs to do this, perhaps moral reasons. It'll take a number of conditions be met
morality that would authorize this individual to pursue on a particular act. This is another aspect of importance for justification of moral behavior.
But there are also behaviors, no mater our search for a moral motivation that are impossible to find. So it depends on human nature, morality is
part of being human.

The moral truth is an empty concept. The moral truth, is true only for human beings. The moral truth takes sense only in human coexistence and if
would not be morality would be very difficult to imagine how it would be in human societies. The moral truth actually only represents our
evaluation, which is the same for every individual. The moral truth is not subjective, and interpreted according to the wishes and needs of the
moment, it is true for all systems.

There should not confuse ethics, virtue and morality, with pleasure, happiness or fulfillment. Morality is not a personal issue or a delightful affair. A
person can feel good with himself or herself and with acts that he performs, but there are moral authorities that control the activity. There are those
who judge whether the actions are in line with moral norms.

Personally I reject the identification of moral attributes with real attributes. I think of this conclusion because we are judges in this case. I would
not suspect such an implication on the nature with morality if moral authority will be other than the individual. While we are the authorities that value
morally aspects of reality then the outcome of moral observation of nature means that it will be easily accompanied with a dose of moralism. Not
even universe itself is unaffected from moral human evaluation. (As we shall deem that an asteroid approaching earth and risks humanity, will have
take a moral decision, whether it is the right that all people die from a natural phenomenon? Are we valuing it as a corrigible natural phenomenon?,
and whether that justified the change of the course of this natural phenomenon?) Well the answer to this is that the qualities of the world that we live
in, create reasons to act. So as moral action in this case arises from the real factors, the facts of the real world. One other explanation is that moral
norms are not universal even for unreal world (or at least we can believe so for the moment) but they depend on the values ​that we consider moral
and based on these values​we initiates also acts taking into consideration the natural phenomena.
 JUSTICE

What is state power except social organization for resource management? The real road to power is not deciding upon majority will, but to guide
all the governed to express their will, so they can do no wrong to one another, to protect them from themselves, to protect the governed from
abuse, to join forces for the challenges ahead, to help the governed when they face difficulties. We don't have to give a part of our freedom to
receive in exchange for freedom that guarantees the state. No. Ori forces us to create the state and obey it. This does not mean that we give up on
our freedoms, but this means that our freedom is to form the state and our Ori-s run the process. We meet our freedom by forming the state, and
can not go against this freedom.

State power - but however our assistance is needed to govern and be governed, or can we live in a world without humans? Our Ori-s lead us to
have relations with each other, form the society and the state. The state that we created emanate exclusively from our Ori-s. The sense of justice,
stems from Ori, that which is subdivided into our bodies. We are complex beings constantly changing. Imagination and our desires can not be
limited, but we should learn the law, the law that is create by our Ori-s, and we all obey.

It is Ori who teaches us all the time that we are not better than somebody else and that everyone has equal opportunities before the law. It is naive
to think that it's right to be equal before the law stemming from the agreement, of the Constitution which has no basis to be mandatory for the
descendants of those who have agreed.

Responsibility to build the state and respecting the laws is personal and can not be inherited, if our parents sign an agreement it is mandatory for
them and not for us, but what is the real basis that agreement it is binding for the descendants of those who agree to form the state? Agreement
itself, just like communication, just like language, requires a prior basis, requires common values that is build upon and be acceptable to all parties.
This basis is our inborn knowledge to be equal before the law. Ori is what drives us to believe that everyone has equal opportunities before the law
- on this principle and other inherited principles we create the law.

A person is not born free. First, it is physiologically restricted. It is restricted in his desires because it is living in society, restricted by its norms. All
legal ideas that have come to us originate from Ori, because basic concepts such as property, state, law are formed in the human society and they
are not found elsewhere in nature. What is the logic of people's property, maybe interest but they protect it with their lives? Absolutely no logic
behind this, is just a memory. But along with the idea of​justice we are born with some ideas about justice that are different from each other.

People are not born free and not for the fact that they are always conditioned by Ori and their actions oriented because of their inborn knowledge.
This is not a matter of rationality or morality more than innate knowledge.

From antiquity until now, no matter its quality, knowledge comes growing in its content, and it is this that forms the idea of​law, the rule of law.
From the wide knowledge and discussion of various topics, new ideas that arise from thinking - that we collect along thousands of years, and we
adapt this idea so can allow us to prosper. In this respect, humans is a positive being that collects knowledge and continuous testing alternatives to
the road that leads to freedom. So freedom is not a destination but is a process - man is not born free - through knowledge and law (through Ori),
it creates freedom.

The common will, is exactly the idea that we inherit and has a powerful influence on our thinking. It is the idea that people impose and teach to
other individuals in society. This idea becomes inheritable and is generally accepted by all people. This is not an idea that is good for one or for all
but for an idea of​forcing people to accept the general will for themselves as well as for another. After this mechanism has no logic, but these ideas
are needed that people can live together. If we say that people are social beings, after this lies a genetic mechanism, also when we say that people
have a common sense again this is explained by a genetic mechanism which is forming the basis of common sense.

Justice can not be measured morally positive or negative value, or the actions that justify one's interest. The right stems from a memory we have, a
memory that defines the issue of right or wrong. A memory that defines us as human beings.

BEAUTY IN ART AND NATURE

Through art and natural beauty, Ori perceives pleasure, pain, happiness, sadness, joy, grief, courage, fear, hate, love - and whatever feeling that art
and nature can transmit. Notwithstanding my approval for an artistic act or natural phenomenon, everything that causes a feeling is judged by Ori
and it reacts, can not sit back in silence. Ori has come out from the state of tranquility and has received artistic energy. To return to the previous
situation he must expend energy, it can not cope with this surplus energy, in one form or another Ori will have to do work, this received energy has
to be released. Ori is exactly the one who recognize the beauty of art and nature and not me. I can not understand the beauty of art and of nature
without Ori, and for that I am grateful. And what is beauty to me when Ori inside of me translates the magic of beauty. And if art would be the
pleasure accompanying the beauty, that can only understood by Ori. I'm just a witness in this process, I am in the hands of Ori, he leads me, with
Ori I travel unimagined worlds, it lifts me in the air between the clouds, and then we dive deep in sea, Ori makes me breathles and precisely in
those moments of magic that leaves me with the most splendid little memories and it is enough to understand that I am alive. To say that beauty is
related to satisfaction is to say very little. Satisfaction is one of the feelings that Ori understands by beauty and then it passes on to us. The
attributes of art and nature activate those aspects of biosophia that can later be translated like beauty.

It’s Ori of the author through the artwork that creates these feelings can be captured by our Ori. It is this communication of our Ori-s that through
the artwork they transmit those feelings that can not be transmitted in other ways. There may be a lot of sources of pleasure, but is Ori of the
author who feels the need to communicate his existential experience with our Ori-s, and no mater how pleasure may bring other sources of
satisfaction, they do not transmit any existential experience like the author conceived it. In all cases an object or phenomenon separated from our
perception can not be neither beautiful nor ugly, it does not in itself, but it is these qualities of the object that our Ori values as beautiful or ugly.
Although the beauty could be subjective for each of us, it is not exclusive of each of us. All we, more or less, can distinguish beauty and this thanks
to Ori that shares the same biosophia with all of our Ori-s. The art represents the beauty in its most perfect form, or at least goes near perfect. The
only factor that decides what is perfect of beauty is definitely Ori. To recognize the artwork Ori needs biosophia, that for what it knows. There can
be no art for what we don't know, the unknown can not constitute art, it remains just speculation.

But there is another context that the unknown can be treated in an artwork. This context has to do with a message that we catch from the artwork
the same way as we solve an arithmetic equation. The author gives us some known attributes and we recognize the unknown experience, not
knowing before but that has been there all the time, in front of us, and this new knowledge we recognize is independent of external factors, created
only with substance that is served through the artwork. Again, in this case, the self-revelation of the Ori of the author is forwarded to us, not
directly, but through the knowns that the author selects and communicates us. This judgement excludes art to be simply a perception of what we
know, and gives the dimension of the transmission of a previously unknown substance. In this context the work of artist takes personal character
because does not identifies the substance of the artwork that what "we know" or what "we feel" or biosophian, but what the author discover and
wishes to share with the audience. In this way the artist feels what the spectator feels when facing the artwork. Only in this case the unknown takes
value in art, but simultaneously, without removing other values.

Would it be better that Babylon autocrats could face a treatise on human rights or Epic of Gilgamesh, which speculate that from the unjust
punishment of autocratic actions, could come the punishment of gods? Epic through form, form that philosophical treatise on human rights was not
convincing for abusive autocrat actions and that the latter will lead to loss of power, communicates the substance, that human rights should not be
violated no mater what.

From works of art comes an incomplete information, presented in a way that Ori recognizes it and rebuilt it on the basis of his previous knowledge.
Art deals exclusively with form, and it is worth to mention that the form has no connection whatsoever with substance except Ori that connects
those two based on biosophia. The artist creates, but by this form Ori capture substance, and it is worth mentioning the fact that Ori knows both
form and substance. The process of creativity and finished artwork, together, have little value in itself, given that Ori leads this process.

Reasons why a piece of art is created are a mystery for the spectator but origin of this artwork can be easily understood by the Ori of the author,
which is the source of the form and substance of the artwork, and this knowledge is transmitted to spectators. The artist does not have the physical
opportunity to live the characters life and find the causes and reasons why these characters act as act. But meanwhile the artist has Ori who knows
almost all human experiences and Ori leads the author to create the artwork, according to biosophia, based on previous experience, inherited
experiences, these reflected the actions that the characters undertake and easily understandable by Ori-s of spectators, which share the same
experiences with Ori of the artist. For this reason, the artist is prepared to describe the feelings of the characters and their action without having to
live himself or herself situations that cause emotions. The artist can not remain loyal to the feelings of the characters, but remaining loyal to his
feelings, that Ori can reproduce based on the context in which the events are taking place, the artist can reproduce perfectly the feelings of the
characters. In an artwork the author(Ori) makes possible that his or her feelings can accompany the tabloid or the characters, in the absence of
feelings of the characters or tabloid.

In our permanent effort to find beauty, beauty only exists within us, never outside of us, we realize more and more every time that we think about it
- we can also add the dimension of truth that art transmits. But art has other dimensions, and communicates not only the true, the subject of
philosophy. Some artwork communicate a reality that approximates to the truth but not necessarily the truth of art connected with philosophical
truths and their hierarchy is not like the pyramid but they are equal in terms of importance and stay in the same horizontal plane. Art and philosophy
are two sets that have some points of contact with each other and language. The meeting point between these three disciplines is precisely the use
of a medium way to understand the truth. No matter how long will exist science as a discipline it will necessarily accompanied by art and
philosophy, not because these are an integral part of science, but these are the sources of science, doubt, abstraction, speculation, imagination. If
art and philosophy deal more with human nature and science with empirical truth that did not separate these disciplines from each other, on the
contrary, this fact coordinates them as if they were a single discipline.
LAST THOUGHTS

As I set out to write Ori in my heart I was confident I had found a new way seeing at things. My perspective of the world changed. Every idea,
every concept, every perception that I carry now contains the confidence of change. This time we talked about seven concepts but there are so
many new things to explore and discover and I look forward to talk in the future.

God bless you.