← Back to lettersThank you, it might help you understand the functionality of this social primacy by subject using your XANMOO. I admit that in a society as advanced as yours (as you present it to us), where respect and balance in the couple must be extreme, this way of resolving disagreements between partners could indeed be 'functional' for you.
My questions would be:
- Don't you think that establishing a similar rule in our societies (where equality of rights by gender is still a mere idea and where the macho imbalance in couples remains very prevalent) would be an extremely regressive act?
- Is this TAOU (now in OUAA) or its equivalent common in those other morally advanced societies that you know?
The link from the tweet leads to a page discussing game theory, especially the strategy to adopt for a non-zero-sum game for two people.
Transcript of the response: Even if I cannot understand why this primacy in decision-making would not be assigned to the member of the couple most skilled in the topic under discussion (you have the means to establish this profile of primacy by subject using your XANMOO), I admit that in a society as evolved as yours (as you present it), where respect and balance in the couple must be extreme, this way of resolving disagreements between partners could indeed be 'functional' for you.
Women on OOMO being responsible for attuning their home and couple, this rule acts as a good cooperative strategy when no consensus exists. Given that women on OUMMO are responsible for the harmony of their household and couple, this rule serves as a good cooperative strategy when there is no consensus.
My questions would be:
- Don’t you think that implementing a similar rule in our societies (where equality of rights by gender is still a mere idea and where the macho imbalance in couples remains very prevalent) would indeed be regressive? This would indeed be the case, exaggeratedly, in most parts of the Earth.
- Is this TAOU (now in OUAA) or its equivalent common in those other morally advanced societies that you know?
Often, even without the existence of a social guidance, the overall hierarchical primacy of a sex is noted, alternating male or female. The female sex is not always, according to a civilization or a specific couple, the one having the highest level of refinement.
Transcript of the first tweet from @Gardenteapot4: @oomo_toa many opinions on IGIAYOUYISSAA Here to respond to your inquiries. In French, 'premier-né' refers to the first child of a family, that is to say the firstborn. I'll confide in you my little unacceptable personal analysis regarding OUAA… without certainty.
See attached image. Last communication on this subject. Please do not insist. If the terms 'requisition of the firstborn' applied to the old society (the original society that we want to correct), it would concern the firstborn. This would make no sense within the IGIAYOUYISSAA program which aimed to separate all newborns (and not just the firstborn whose upbringing was already 'tainted') from the old society so they could be educated without the 'harmful' interference of their parents.
The term 'firstborn' only makes sense if it refers to the first generation of a society. Thus, 'requisition of the firstborn' necessarily applies to the second society (S2). I summarize what I understand from the phrase: Despotic scientism. Societal division: S1)|(S2 (We see that the order is indeed S1, then S2)
S1: imposed eugenics. S2: programmed extinction through confiscation of the firstborn. The old society (S1) practiced 'despotic scientism', probably a remnant of the horrifying dictatorships of IEE 456 and its daughter WIE 1. The 'scientific dogma' of the time probably stated that the only way to improve a society was to impose scientific eugenics.
But the Oummans find that, despite this scientific eugenics, the individuals of their society are not happy. Which seems normal, because eugenics has a high chance of being contradictory to the natural actions of B.B. Allow me, friend @Gardenteapot4, to express my opinion by way of the attached image.
The problem stemmed from the fact that new generations (from the original society @oomo_toa pls. S1) were still under the educational contact of parents with 'tainted' behaviors, and that eugenics failed to correct the ills of this tainted education. Let us not forget that the Oummans tell us that behaviors, repeated from generation to generation, eventually become ingrained in the DNA. Hence the inefficacy of eugenics without action on education.
As the Oumman society is 'unhappy' despite eugenics, the leaders decide (after scientific study) on IGIAYOUYISSAA. (note: I always knew that the fact that the dark night of Oummo begins about 15 years (Earth time) after IGIAYOUYISSAA, that is to say when the first generation of the new society (S2) becomes able to procreate, was not a coincidence.)
Let's see the problem:
The original society S1 decides on the IGIAYOUYISSAA. About 15 years later (historical beginning of the dark night), the new society (S2) is of reproductive age. It should be noted that for the IGIAYOUYISSAA to be effective, all newborns born after IGIAYOUYISSAA from the old society (S1) must also be separated from their parents and educated by S2.
This means that the original flawed society (S1):
- is doomed to disappear
- that the parents of S1 are sterilized (but I don’t really believe that) or that they must consent to every newborn (post IGIAYOUYISSAA) being also taken away from them to be raised in S2.
Reference to the attached image as well, Your Excellency @manuelOtroMundo. In my opinion, these two factors will provoke a reversal in S1, because a society, like our sensitive-fingered friends, behaves like a living being; it has a kind of survival instinct.
This survival instinct, augmented by the frustration caused by the mandatory separation of every newborn in S1 (or worse, sterilization), causes a change in S1’s attitude. Hence the phrase "no conflict at the beginning." Note the term "at the beginning" which supports my analysis.
Also noteworthy is the phrase "the separation plan was accepted by almost the entire population." Here, the ALMOST is important because it is possible that the leaders in power 15 years after IGIAYOUYISSAA were among those who did not agree with this plan. Therefore, society S1 does not want to disappear (survival reflex) and can no longer bear to see its children torn from their parents and... it changes its mind.
Society S1 thus decides to requisition the firstborns of the new society S2. Here, the term "firstborn" is valid. In doing so, it condemns the new society S2 to disappear, because there is no reason for this requisition to stop. This explains the phrase: S2: programmed extinction by confiscation of firstborns. (I remind you that logically, “firstborn” cannot apply to the original flawed society S1).
If this is indeed the case, we understand well that this reversal can only cause conflict because: either S2 (new society) disappears (since its new generations will logically be requisitioned again by S1), or S1 disappears, since all its newborns will be educated by S2.
I believe this struggle for the survival of the two societies led to a fratricidal war. A war that caused a collapse of civilization that lasted nearly 6000 Oummo years. For me, the Oummains present on Earth are those who “won” this war and are probably from S2.
I also note that the end of Oummo’s dark night (historical date set after the events) coincides with the arrival of the Dookaians. This is probably not a coincidence either.
A kiss to all,
GTP
Transcript of the tweet from @manuelOtroMundo:
Towards the end of the Second Time and seeing that the Oummains observed the psychoviruses inevitably infecting new generations, they decided to implement the great IGIAYOUYISAA plan (new society).
D47-4: "As it was undeniable that a new generation put in contact with society would end up being corrupted, 30% of the Continent was marked out so that the first germ of a future society without contamination by its progenitors could develop there. In the year 5902 of the Second Time, the gigantic plan called IGIAYOUYISAA began to be implemented. The entire education plan was based on the reform of reflexes, from the moment the UUYIE (girl) or UUGEE (boy) was separated from their mother by the instant cauterization of the umbilical cord. By going through the educational period OUTSIDE THE INFLUENCE AND CONTACTS OF PARENTS, this youth began its social experience “away from that other society” with which it maintained only contact through cultural exchanges by qualified persons."
The term Dark Night for this period will logically be due to a historical judgment made retrospectively. The starting date (end of the Second Time) would be conventional and take advantage (as historians do) of this end of the Second Time as a landmark boundary. The same for the end of the Dark Night some XEE before the first ET contact (DOOKAAIA).
- At the beginning, almost the entire society would have committed to this plan. Almost all newborns would have gone to the “New Society.”
Tweet OT: "The separation plan was accepted by almost the entire population. No conflict, at first."
- After years, the NS (New Society) would produce its own newborns, but also it seems there was a kind of contract commitment from the AS (Old Society) to take the firstborn of each couple (over time) to bring them to the NS in formation. Under this social commitment, the authorities would have the right (and obligation, since there was a constitutive agreement) to “confiscate” the firstborn of each couple over time until the disappearance of this AS and bring them to the new society.
Lettre Ummite#1365