Praxia's Mission Statement

Illustrating the culmination of philosophy and contextual events that have led to the establishment of the Praxist Society.

It has long been known that certain established trajectories would inevitably lead to the point of a civilizational crisis. To speak of a crisis is to make note of a point upon which these trajectories converge in an upheaval of the essential principles that distinguish the character of the preceding civilizational epoch. Such a crisis indicates a significant stage in the history of a given civilization, at which point begin the alterations in the qualitative and fundamental characteristics that define the civilization and determine its proceeding trajectories. For better or worse, these crises signal a time of imminent change in which the forces at work become indubitably apparent. It is typical of these times for a shift in the definitive civilizational reference points to occur, formalizing new conventions and institutions rooted in newly adopted principles, and procedurally delegitimizing and removing those rooted in the reference points of the preceding era. Were this to occur in a civilization whose fundamental reference point is the holistic and quintessential principle from which it is proper for all formalisms to derive, this change would signify a negative conclusion to the crisis at hand, for the reason that any shift away from this principle is toward one of a subordinate and more conditioned nature. Indeed, though it may be so that these critical points often herald a change for the worse, after which certain pre-established aspects that had once been rooted in something holistic and proper become detached from their source and morph into a confused, heterogeneous distortion of their preceding form, a change is also possible in the opposite direction. If this crisis were to transpire in the context of a civilization that has lost all sight of that which is most fundamental, such a shift could possibly signify a relatively positive outcome, not through a reconstruction of such detached aspects to which that quintessential and universal principle may now be entirely foreign, but in an identification of that principle itself, from which there may be a possible procession towards new proper forms. In order for this to occur, it is necessary for those with the capacity to bring about such a change to take charge at every opportunity, with little allowance for error; without an active effort, it is unlikely that such a change of course will organically come to pass.

As with all concepts of such magnitude, this is applicable to any point on a scale of degrees. Whether the notion of a crisis alludes to that of an isolated society or to the totality of human civilization is entirely contingent upon the specific elements which happen to converge on a critical point. The elements that constitute the former, however, are in most cases determined by a similar constitution of elements, if of a more abstract and universal character, that can be found in the latter. In analogous fashion, the duration of the crises that ensue in localized civilizations is more or less a proportional fraction of the duration of similar crises that would encompass human civilization in its entirety. It must be said that these are broad generalizations that in no way limit the possibilities of alternative occurrences; they rather suggest an invocation of the law of analogical correspondences which, if left on its own, acts as an ordering formula. According to this idea, the qualities possessed by principles of a higher and more universal domain translate, through a process of transposition and sequential integration, into the particulars that constitute a lower and more relative strata; in accordance, the quantitative aspect associated with a universal conception represents a ratio of part to whole, and manifests as precise numerations only when applied to a specific domain. Certain reservations must be made, however, concerning possibilities that contradict the typical iterations of a sequential progression, either through unique elements individually applicable to a given context, or through a qualitative disposition to an alternative. It is therefore possible for the rule of analogical correspondences to be superseded by something that is qualitatively other, something unconditioned and independent from a general order of contingencies, which relates immediately to that which is beyond the confines of any definite domain.

With this in mind, the only way to avoid the effects of such a crisis is to wholly remove oneself from the mundane tidings of the temporal sphere, and to concern oneself entirely with identifying and aligning, according to their corresponding mode, with that which is prior to and beyond the temporal domain, regardless of the civilizational context to which one may be involuntarily confined. The increasing detachment from the proper reference points, and the reorientation of the central focus of a civilization at large towards that which is profane and immediate, is only negative to the individual insofar as they obliviously and carelessly participate within it, or fully and knowingly accept it, without being able to extract from it only what is necessary either to live comfortably for the remainder of one’s life, or to eventually transform it into something proper. One who applies this method can no longer be qualitatively affected by the civilizational conditions that define the era in which one may be living, and is able to participate in a universal and timeless mode of being through which one has direct access to the qualities that typify a proper civilization. As long as the individual maintains a proper orientation, continues to participate in this higher mode of being, and never allows oneself to return to the restricted and illusory dependency on the external aspects of the social conventions which have as their point of reference anything other than the proper principles, the quality maintained by the individual will always remain the same. Such a method is unrestricted to any temporal condition, and can therefore be valued for its quintessential and universal properties alone.

In such cases, there are two positive outcomes. The most obvious one is that the individual has conferred upon themself a quality on which the civilizational consequences of a crisis has no effect; in fact any change in the terrestrial environment whatsoever no longer has any influence over the individual at all. They can therefore participate through this quality in a “civilizational mode” inaccessible through any conventional methods available in any time, other than that in which a proper civilization is already present, in which case all such methods are already ingrained. The second outcome relates to the necessity of such individuals in the time of a crisis, upon whom the responsibility to identify and establish the proper reference points wholly rests. Because a crisis signifies the disassembly of a given social order, it is opportune for such individuals to facilitate a positive change, or, at the very least, to attempt to deviate and reorient the resulting trends towards formulating and instituting a new proper conception. One who has applied oneself thusly is predisposed to a precise interpretation of a conception that relates entirely to the order in which they are individually participating, and a complete implementation that applies such a conception to the civilizational sphere. With a proper identification of the correct priorities, along with direct corresponding action, such an individual is now able to graft onto their immediate sphere a quality similar to that which they themselves embody, and potentially bring forth with it a similar type of civilization to that in which all things are in a proper accordance.

Alternatively, there is a potential for a third outcome. As has been said, the general state of a particular sphere is determined by the qualities transposed onto it through a continuity from the greater sphere in which it is enveloped; the sequential order that procedurally refines that which is more universal into a particular manifestation channels the corresponding attributes from the greater to the lesser mode. In the context of civilization, it can therefore be said that every institution possesses the same general character as that which is associated with the times. Certainly such a statement holds true, at least in part, if great effort is not given to maintaining the connection between an institution and the foundation on which it is established, if it be outside the general reference points which characterize the contemporary attitude. This may be adequate in summarizing the typical trends of broad institutions whose principles may be overturned by popular demand, or those which are inclusive enough to lose their identity as the result of allowing the incorporation of foreign, and even antithetical, elements. Such institutions at most have an indirect link to the quintessential mode, which is contingent itself upon a consecution that possesses a crucial member that is both outside the direct influence of the institution, and still not yet beyond the temporal domain, in a preliminary degree. Therefore, the propriety of the institution is determined almost entirely by conditions over which its members have no control. However, an institution founded with its roots directly in the quintessential mode, established by individuals of the aforementioned predispositions and characteristics, purposed solely for the identification and participation in such a mode, regardless of the civilizational attitude or the aspects that determine the general atmosphere of the times, may avoid all such qualitative alterations, in the same manner as that by which the individual who has renounced and cast off all conditioning and restricting qualities may be unaffected by any worldly influence. It follows that such institutions must only be governed by such individuals, and must not surrender its mission to the demands of popular approval. It must therefore maintain a rigid exclusivity on the basis of preserving the fundamental treatise on which it is established. Such an institution possesses a capacity to survive through the various crises during which an opportunity for a positive change may be obstructed by other yet unforeseen forces. This is the third potential outcome.

It is necessary now to define exactly what it is we refer to when we speak of a method through which the quintessential mode may be accessed and participated in, and exactly what we mean when we refer to this mode in the first place. Such a definition, however, requires an explanatory preface. What we speak of here is a universal and quintessential conception that is applicable to all things, and scalable to all domains. It can therefore be identified in a number of similar conceptions, all of which pertain to a rather specific and individual instance, that all originally trace back to a certain participation in the initial conception. What we are examining is rather more of a pre-established formula, if we were to make an attempt at a proper delineation, similar in character to the law of analogical correspondences, but wider in scope, by which all things are conceptually prearranged and predisposed to their various proclivities. We must therefore make preliminary note of its most fundamental properties, so as to delimit the definitions and clarify, to the best of our abilities, the holistic nature of the conception we wish to define.

Universality indicates that which is unconditioned and unlimited. A thing is universal insofar as it has not yet been applied, which is to say that it has not yet undergone any sort of refinement through which it becomes formatted to a particular set of parameters, and acquires the conditioning properties associated with the provided format. That which is truly universal possesses no distinguishing properties whatsoever, and that which is directly prior to a subset of particulars, which all share in a certain distinguished reality, is only universal in relation to the particulars which it is capable of producing and unifying. Universality signifies the beginning of a sequence, the iterations of which proceed from the universal anterior to every particular posterior, with each member further removed from the primary source. Therefore, the universal exists in a state that is logically prior to any sequential integration, and cannot be applied to individual beings unless they are grouped together from the standpoint of a superior state. That which is universal is wholly discernible only from the position of the universal itself, or, in cases of a more restricted universality, which we will make clear in the proceeding paragraph, it is also discernible from the position of a more holistic logical necessity. From the point of view of the conditioned being, the universal can only be understood through the qualities that typify the manifestations of a given universal principle. It is therefore necessary to examine multiple manifestations as mutual points of reference, as conditioned beings cannot be of themselves a genuinely valuable reference point unless contrasted with others of their same mode, to maximize the potential for a complete and holistic discernment.

In the case of universality, the most fundamental definition is a lack of any discernible quiddity and an ontological priority to any and all successive processes of distinguishment and conditioning. In the case of quintessentiality, however, we are referring to a discernible and identifiable quiddity in a universal state. A thing is quintessential only when it possesses all of the qualities associated with universality, but is particularly discernible through the possibility of its conceptualization. The universal mode signifies that which is applicable to all things and transmissible through all sequences in one way or another; the quintessential mode signifies the individual quiddity of a certain reality which is in its most fundamental state. In other words, there can be no version of a thing that is more fundamental than its quintessential version, as every particular variation of the thing possesses distinguishable attributes and properties that differentiate it from other variations of the same type. Quintessentiality, therefore, denotes a specific and applied universality which is the anterior principle for a particular continuity or succession of principles. That which is quintessential may therefore only be defined abstractly through its potential manifestations and, again, the qualities, and we must take special care in ensuring that we do not mistake them with properties, shared by each of its substantial manifestations and particular conclusions. Through such observations one may arrive at the "perfect" version of a considered conception, which, again, relates to, as it were, a sort of formula that is applicable to all things enveloped in the general domain to which a given quintessentiality is applied. It is also not happenstance that the highest quintessentiality is also that which encompasses total universality.

Proceeding with these indispensable qualities, we may now attempt to elucidate that with which it is both necessary and proper for all principles to align, directly or indirectly. This is the conception to which we refer as Praxism. Because the subject matter at hand is totally universal, it cannot wholly be expressed with a single definition, as to define it with one set of terms and characteristics is to exclusivize it to that definition, and limit it from all other potential definitions that it may be attributed with using different terms and characteristics. Therefore, it is necessary to provide multiple definitions, each of which converging the most important aspect of their own particular determinations in unison to discern that which relates to the totality of all things. An appropriate starting point is the etymology of the word itself. "Praxism" etymologically derives from the combination of the English word "praxis" with the suffix of "-ism," the word denoting a given process by which a principle becomes realized, and the suffix denoting the principle itself which becomes realized through the process. Praxism, therefore, etymologically denotes "the way in which a thing properly operates according to its own design," and "the active proper operation of a thing according to its own design." It designates a holistic conception in which a design, the active fulfillment of that design, and the way in which that fulfillment is achieved, are identified as the same quiddity, and it also designates each of those particular aspects considered individually, insofar as they possess a proper quality. We may therefore observe Praxism in anything from which a continuity towards a more holistic design is evident.

Continuing from this point, we may attribute to the passive design of a given thing the term Essential Truth, since what is being characterized by this term is the holistic, all encompassing, and undeniable essence of the totality of the thing to which the term is being applied. The Essential Truth is the a priori conception of a given thing to which the proceeding application of distinguishable properties gives form. It therefore exists ontologically prior to the thing being considered, insofar as the thing itself is distinct from its essence, and not integrated with it as a singular quiddity, which we will return to later. The Essential Truth corresponds to the totality of the thing in a conceptualized form, prior to the acquisition of the distinguishing properties and particular elements that formalize a manifestation of the thing. The Essential Truth provides the necessary formula through which the design is formatted into a number of distinguished particulars united both in common origin and as parts of a whole; it is therefore the unifying factor because of which the individual parts work in unison in order to perpetuate and substantiate the whole. Therefore, the Essential Truth of a thing is its defining aspect. When considering an individual thing, there is no more holistic consideration one can make than a complete discernment of the totality of its Essential Truth, which is in itself wholly inexpressible because of the indefinite number of potential ways in which this essence may be formatted when applied to any given context. We may therefore say that the Essential Truth of a thing relates to the "quintessential mode" of the immediate being, taking special care not to confuse these ideas, but instead drawing certain similarities. The Essential Truth always, therefore, relates to the non-manifest, insofar as it is sequentially prior to manifestation itself. This does not mean it is impossible for the Essential Truth to be embodied by manifestation, only that it exists regardless of whether or not it is actualized by a given manifestation.

Through the process to which we have referred as sequential integration and proper formatting, the Essential Truth, in order to become fully manifest, must be fulfilled by the faculties of manifestation themselves, created solely for the substantiation of the totality; these are what can be defined as Substantial Truths. They are characterized as such because, on the one hand, they work together in substantiating the thing by which they are possessed, and, on the other hand, because they correspond to the substance of which the manifestation is made, either conceptually or actually. Because the Essential Truth exists before the manifestation, both logically and temporally - logically because it is necessary for the manifestation to correspond to that which is a priori, and temporally because without it there would be no conception to realize in the first place - it remains the same regardless of whether or not the manifestation departs from that design. Such a departure is the case of an improper manifestation and a discontinuity of one or more Substantial Truths with their corresponding Essential Truth. The Substantial Truth can be equated with the principle of manifestation itself, and is therefore subject to the conditions that govern the domain of manifestation, namely temporality and the removal from the domain of pure being; it is therefore almost predestined that all manifestation, regardless of whether or not it was founded with a proper continuity between itself and a higher Essential Truth, will become attuned to the domain in which it exists, transmitting only that within it which is non-manifest through such a proper continuity. A Substantial Truth is only proper insofar as there is an active continuity between itself and its related Essential Truth; once there is a departure, the propriety is lost.

Because the Essential Truth of a given thing incorporates a necessity for certain Substantial Truths to provide for it a form in order to manifest, every Substantial Truth, in accordance with the greater Essential Truth for the operation of which it possesses a certain function, represents, on its own, a more conditioned Essential Truth that is contingent upon the necessitation of a prior, more universal Essential Truth. In other words, greater and more universal designs incorporate lesser and more specific designs, and this incorporation itself is sequential in fashion, beginning with a most fundamental member in which all designs are incorporated. From the position of this most fundamental member, which is the most universal and quintessential source for all Essential Truths, which therefore confirms its synonymity to the source of all things in their entirety, every sequence departs from this point, and each iteration, being further removed from this ultimate source, becomes increasingly subject to the conditions which define the specific sequence in which it is a part. These sequences proceed in incremental formalizations, each of which are a logical necessity for further iterations, and are incorporated in some way by the design of the previous iteration; this is the process through which the universal becomes relative, the unconditioned becomes contingent, the timeless becomes situated, and so on. There is, from this position, multiple observable sequences which branch off in sporadic directions and each conclude independently on a very focused point, after all compossibles associated with a specific sequence have been realized. From the position of the conditioned being, however, which itself is only the result of the given sequence and corresponding plane to which, for the most part, it must remain confined, there is no possible way to holistically conceptualize even its most direct sequential predecessor, because what precedes cannot be confined to the further properties that condition the successor, according to the same principle by which the universal cannot be wholly defined.

We are now equipped to illustrate, at least in a rudimentary fashion, the distinction between our usage of Essence and Substance as terms, the reason for which every Substantial Truth corresponds to an Essential Truth, and why this rule does not apply inversely. What we are attempting to define here is the term "metaphysics," which, in the same case as Praxism, cannot wholly be characterized, but can most certainly be understood at a fundamental level. Metaphysics signifies, by its very etymology, that which is beyond physics, and relates to the notion of causality and function. Metaphysics is to physics what the Essential Truth is to a Substantial Truth; it is therefore a priori, and the latter is incorporated into the former. Considered in their distinction, however, metaphysics corresponds to a domain in which essence and substance are themselves a singular quiddity, not because they have been posthumously unified, but because this domain is prior to a divide in what is holistically "pure being." Therefore, prior to the formalization of a physical domain, which is wholly incorporated into the metaphysical domain, and yet distinct from it, in the same fashion by which a sequential iteration is incorporated by the universal and still yet distinct in its own right, there is no essence/substance distinction. Therefore, in this domain, for a design to be fully realized is simply for the design to exist in the first place, because the design itself is non-manifest, as are all of its potential individual particulars which are only a prerequisite for manifestation. Therefore, the Essential Truth corresponds to the metaphysical domain, and the Substantial Truth corresponds to the physical domain.

We can attribute to the metaphysical domain the term "Quintessential Reality," because it is the reality in which all subsequent realities are incorporated, and, most importantly, because there is no more fundamental reality than the metaphysical reality, and what quintessentiality defines is that which is in its most fundamental state; and because this reality incorporates all other realities, we can attribute to the Essential Truth of this domain, which is the Essential Truth over all things in which they all serve a distinct function, the term "Quintessential Truth," for the reason that there is no Essential Truth that is more fundamental to this truth that corresponds to the totality of Reality. When an Essential Truth becomes translated into the physical domain, it becomes formalized by its corresponding Substantial Truths which all co-operate to create a manifestation. When such a manifestation is created, this is when a proper continuity between a design and its fulfillment is achieved, and insofar as this design is maintained, the metaphysical is transposed, in the best possible way, into the physical. We can therefore say that the manifestation itself, which is a conditioned being by its very nature, is able to participate in the Quintessential Reality through this continuity, insofar as this continuity is maintained and the alignment is not broken. Applied to the human principle, this sort of participation is achieved through the aforementioned process, which cannot be fully detailed in the present work.

Returning to the primary subject matter, we can equate the word Praxism, through its aforementioned definitions, and the relation of such definitions to the attribution of terms just provided, with the idea of the Essential Truth; and because Praxism signifies a holistic conception in which a design, the active adherence to that design, and the process through which that adherence is realized, are all incorporated as a single quiddity, and is also characterized by each of those particular elements in their proper singularity, Praxism, using the given terms, signifies the Essential Truth, the corresponding and properly aligned Substantial Truths, and the method through which such an alignment is maintained. Praxism is a term that is therefore applicable to all things whatsoever, because all things possess an Essential Truth, which is to say that all things possess a corresponding Praxism. Because the nature of Essential Truths is such that they scale from universal to specific, they exist in a hierarchy of degrees that correspond to the extent of their universality. Therefore, Praxism can be applied in a vacuum of sorts, to a thing considered individually, to denote the internal operation of the thing that is being considered, and it can also be applied holistically, to the totality of Reality, to denote the design of Reality itself, and the way in which all things must correspond to fully realize it. The latter denotation equates Praxism with the Quintessential Truth of Reality that we have just outlined. It is also defined, by virtue of association, as "the way in which the Quintessential Truth is realized," and "a participation in the Quintessential Reality," and "the active proper alignment between a Substantial Truth, its Essential Truth, and the Quintessential Truth;" from here, the possible definitions are indefinite, but may all be used to identify this universal conception in its totality.

Any departure from Praxism as the fundamental reference point for any conception is therefore improper, and must be reassessed.

Praxism, as a conception, has many possible manifestations, depending on that to which the term is being applied. Even in the case of one application it may still yet have a number of potential forms depending on certain conditions. Such is the case in the application of this term to the human principle. When applied to humanity, Praxism, in its most basic form, equates to the notion of Tradition; this is Tradition spelled with a capital T, so as not to confuse it with the simple transmission of a routinely performed activity regardless of its metaphysical significance. When we refer to Tradition, we are referring to the humanly manifestation of Praxism, which is to say that we are referring to the way in which the human being may participate in the Quintessential Reality. We may therefore equate all that is properly Traditional to that which is Praxist, which is to say that any traditional lineage that has its source in the Quintessential Reality, and is founded upon the semantics we have outlined here and in our other works, can be considered a Praxist Tradition that we consider proper.

It has become increasingly clear that the period in which we live is enveloped in a crisis of the worst proportions. The warning signs have been evident for quite some time now, and have been rapidly and exponentially intensifying as time goes on: the world, and Western society in particular, has experienced an increasing amount of materialism, secularism, nihilism, and ultimately chaos, primarily due to the increasing attunement of humanity to our temporal and physical domain. We now observe full-fledged conceptions lacking in the most basic of fundamental reference points, everything about which implies a hollow shell of what either was once, or may have been, proper under different conditions. Indeed from these conceptions, the notion of Praxism sees an attack on all fronts: the notion itself is considered unfounded in the face of those which are rooted in things which are more immediate and accessible from the lowest point; there is a lowering of the equilibrium of legitimacy to the level of that which is the least cemented in anything incorporeal; the participation in the Quintessential Reality achieved through the process of Praxism has been popularly discredited in nearly all regards: as a source of legitimacy for institutions and practices, as a reference for purpose and morality, as a guide for sciences and the arts, as a study, and because of this, the proper formalisms and structures which formerly resulted from interpretations of Praxism, and developments of those interpretations, have also undergone the same delegitimization. The Traditional society, and all of the higher forms of knowledge contained therein, has been delegitimized as a result of the establishment and subsequent expansion of a multitude of ideas aimed only at such an opposition, with no real end goal in mind.

The Traditional society is characterized by an orientation towards the Quintessential Reality, which is transposed onto every practice and institution in order to create the various paths to higher modes of being. This type of society possesses a kind of knowledge that can most comprehensively be described as an intuitive conclusion achievable from our mode of being only through a process of reduction and abstraction to a most universal and fundamental source, which indeed translates to ascending the sequences, as it were, in order to reach the Quintessential Truth, which is superior in quality to the material and experiential knowledge which derives from empirical data. This knowledge, more properly defined as gnosis, is at the center of the Traditional society, and is interpreted into the humanistic sphere through analogous processes of translation. The Traditional society can be contrasted with that of the modern period, which can more distinctively be characterized as the Anti-Traditional society, in which all the tenets that we consider to relate to the Praxist worldview see their antitheses, and the gnosis associated with it is absent as a result of the aforementioned involutive process of delegitimization.

All of this goes relatively unopposed; at best, opposition comes in a mere political form, and mirrors only the aforementioned characteristics associated with the modern age. There are a reputable few who understand the Traditional society, however their numbers are minuscule, and many are misled into thinking that it may be "revived" in the forms in which it has existed throughout history. While many sources of knowledge still exist, the elements necessary to revive a proper historic tradition cannot be easily found. The lines are broken, in many cases. What has resulted from this is the emergence of many syncretic traditions built upon the confusion of various customs which historically developed independently and separately, that do not cohere with each other as would practices of a single tradition. While this may suffice in the realm of esoteric study and personal development, efforts to translate these into exoteric formal traditions are obstructed by the incompatibility of certain dogmas that accompany the mingled esoteric practices. Similarly, for as many proper sources still remain, there are even more formal misinterpretations of Tradition that result from attempts to generate an understanding that originates from and aligns with naturalistic and humanistic moral positions. This occurrence usually appears alongside the phrase "spiritual but not religious," which generally amounts only to a secular and humanistic approach to spirituality, and a superficial sanctification of natural phenomenon. These latter traditions have less roots in Praxism or a genuine approach to spirituality than they do in modern political philosophy; many are even the results of individuals who appeal to those with certain political dogmas and successfully sell a false and hollow tradition with which people can easily identify.

In the sphere of spirituality concerned with dogmatic and doctrinal formalisms, there is an evident disconnect between the outer exoteric function and the inner esoteric function concerned with principle and knowledge, of which the external function is a formal manifestation. In most cases, many remaining traditional lineages of an exoteric type retain only minimal traces of an esoteric and fundamental center. What is left in these instances is a lineage for the sake of lineage and practice for the sake of practice, the only positive effects of which are merely social and psychological. The fault of this is primarily attributed to the decay in quality of the leadership of institutions affiliated with such lineages, which results from self-referencing and adherence to form over function. The form is the item of transmission here, not the knowledge or the reason. Where in the past these institutions affiliated with initiatic orders or even themselves had an initiatic characteristic about them, and while they were constituted by a certain caste which intuitively understood the metaphysics and higher ideas behind the form being transmitted, this is no longer the case. What has resulted is a removal of this caste to their own newer and less developed institutions and orders, and a refusal to expound a true and holistic exoterism sourced in the principles revealed through the esoterism.  

This context has severed the connection between the human faculty associated with the Quintessential Reality, and that domain itself, and most attempts to actualize the spiritual function in humanity is usually only a halfhearted attempt at reconnecting with something entirely foreign to the modern individual's way of life. This does not mean that it is impossible to reintegrate this function with its corresponding mode in the modern day, but such an integration absolutely requires a connection to the quintessential mode that is, as we have said, inaccessible through activities associated with modern practices and institutions.

From these occurrences, many conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, wherever the connection is severed between the mundane and the quintessential, and the fundamental reference points shift from metaphysical absolutes to unstable and dependent philosophic conceptions, all qualitative values become subordinated to quantity, and there is an eventual inversion in every regard. The general consequence is at best a prevalent nihilism and a decay in the simple quality of life. Secondly, there are still many preserved sources of Traditional knowledge and continuing proper initiatic traditional lineages, which can be used to maintain and develop the understanding that still remains among individuals dedicated to such activity. Thirdly, for two reasons, the first being that Man is spiritually curious and intellectually intuitive, and has a capacity for a true gnosis, and the second being the fact that a formal tradition, whether or not it retains a proper character, is integral to collective and personal identities, the desire for proper formal traditions, higher states of knowledge and awareness, and participation in the Quintessential Reality, will never cease, especially among people with the disposition to such a path. Fourthly, both a complete understanding of, and adherence to, established and living traditions, and new interpretational developments altogether, are necessary for the continuity of Praxism found in gnosis and proper corresponding practices. Fifthly, it is important for the propriety and longevity of a given formal tradition that all of its tenets correspond directly to a single interpretation or expression, and that the officials of any institution affiliated with that tradition retain a complete awareness and foundational understanding. Sixthly, there is an important relationship between Tradition itself, the historic traditional lineages and their associated mythologies, and the various components of everyday life, which will be explored in the following paragraph. While there are many more implicit conclusions to be drawn from the aforementioned circumstances, we will limit our conversation to the ones stated here.

It can be said that such a crisis corresponds to what in Traditional doctrines is alluded to as a cosmic cycle of decline that results from the increasing attunement of physical beings to the temporal domain, and their further removal from the Quintessential Reality. Certainly all of the similarities are more than enough to confirm, at the very least, a metaphorical correspondence. These traditions, however, also allude to the removal of certain beings, and at times entire institutions, from the conditions that define this context, their capability to participate in a method of being that is associated with a civilization unaffected by such materialization and removal from the Quintessential Reality, and their necessity both in halting the exponential progression of degeneration, and in the consequent period following a crisis in which they must serve as a stable and reliable source of information and a guiding light for the civilization that is to follow. Such traditions correspond to the idea of an individual or group which participates in the Quintessential Reality regardless of the status of the civilizational components through which this Reality is normally accessed. This idea outlines one who, through this participation, represents more of an archetype than an individual, be their faculties still restricted to the temporal domain, whose identity relies entirely on certain positive abstract elements with which, again, through this participation, they maintain a direct connection. One individual, however, can, in this case, do less on his own than with other like individuals who all share in the same goal, who together may establish an institution intended on being totally removed from temporal activity on all but the most basic level of existence. Such an institution, insofar as it is properly maintained, is adequate for any necessity related to the aforementioned conditions.

In all that has been said, we have indicated, both by speaking negatively about impropriety, and by positively identifying the essential elements behind true propriety, the necessary components of a philosophic system that must remain intact at the heart of such an institution. This system we have given the name Praxism, and have rudimentarily defined it in the most holistic and abstract manner. In order for such a goal to be met, that is, in order for the institution in question to remain pure and stable, and in order for the procedural installation of a proper civilization to occur, such an institution must meet certain prerequisites. There must be an identification of, and a maintained alignment with, the conception of Praxism as a pure and essential principle alone, regardless of any formalized variant or expression which may be applicable to a given context. Praxism must be understood, we must stress, as a principle prior to formalism, prior to interpretation, and prior to expression; the devotion of such institutions, and the members thereof, to this conception must manifest as a devotion to a universal principle that supersedes all dogmas. Praxism must be understood as a universal doctrine of propriety which, once it becomes formalized in any way, is limited to such a formalization and stripped of the necessary qualities which require consistent identification. This means that the individuals who maintain this conception must possess the intellectual capacity to see above the dogmas in which such formalizations take form, and not get caught up in certain contradictions which are only illusory inasmuch as they are qualitatively concerned. There must be a commitment to the principle behind the form, behind the practice, behind the aesthetic, behind all of that from which it is very easy to receive a false sense of identity based entirely on fanciful realities. As long as such a principle is identified and adhered to, the institution will not falter.

It is with this in mind that we have established Praxia, The Praxist Society, in order to holistically integrate all components of reality with their corresponding Praxism, through the formulation and identification of proper manifestations and interpretations of Praxism, and a holistic implementation thereof, towards which we work through the espousal, proliferation, preservation, study, and practice of Praxism in all domains.