I have been recently telling to some students an old story, which I embellished a bit.

The content of that addition led to the question (which, then, if I reflect upon it, could be a call for me to consider whether I should rather not have added that part….), whether that was my permission to “break the rules”.

That depends, of course, on the nature of the rule or rules to which you are referring, and, possibly, on your aims or motives (which, at this stage, does not imply that the ends justify the means).

There are quite a few systems of rules. As I have shown in detail in my book “Menschenwürde und Völkerrecht. Mensch, Gerechtigkeit, Frieden“, law, as well as all the other subsystems of rules, like moral, ethics etc., can be considered an (n-minus-x-dimensional) subsystem in an n-dimensional co-ordinate system. The subsystems may overlap.

Thus, the origin, the core and the source of each system’s rules is derived (finds its own source) in the n-dimensional system’s origin.

Therefore, the subsystems will be in harmony with the original system, and, ultimately, with each other.

Yet, if we look into the world, it seems there is a lot of disharmony, both in people’s actions, as well as between various systems.

So either the above is not true, or something else is not true. Either we believe in a world (the term being used here in its broadest, a higher sense, not only and specifically not mainly referring to the “material” world) of disharmony, or in a common / widespread distorted perception.

From all l believe and from what seems more probable to me, the latter, at the time of writing this, is the case. People do not really see reality, as it is, they see subjective versions, conditioned, programmed, by their education, their surroundings and their own beliefs which are connected to and derived from that. This was, what I had intended by telling the story in the first place (for the story see here and here, another good story as to this is Plato’s Cave Allegory). (For how to get rid of this distorted perception, feel free to have a look at the books I have suggested here [English, less extensive draft version here.].)

Thus, we can assume that the systems as such are perfectly in harmony, it is only what people create from their distorted ideas, i.e. how they put the ideas of these systems into (then distorted by their minds and in a non-complying) manifestation. There is a beautiful wording by, possibly, I think, Heraclitos: The Law as hidden Order (in German: das Recht als verhüllte Ordnung),

This means, that, if we are in harmony with All That There [Truely] IS [again, see here for how to BE THAT], we simply will not break any rules, for our actions are in harmony with the systems, in the systems, and our [true!] being is actually the source of all of these [I believe – but at the very least it is in harmony, like the rays of the sun are in harmony with the sun].

The “rules” we might break, though, sometimes, by following the true Rules, are the rules formed by a distorted mind – and quite a few “worldly” rules in quite a few countries may be amongst them.

So, how should we deal with these “rules”, though rules they may be called and in the written laws they may stand? There are a few sayings in tradition which can indicate a way, for example: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” or – if properly understood (see my book mentioned above for an explanation)! – “suum cuique”

In fact, if we would like to go through live true to what we believe or feel and yet not land in jail (or, my dear language students, with extra homework or avisos), a certain “pragmaticism” might be prudent: If following the man-made rules does not harm your integrity, why not do it? Before breaking any rule, you should always be aware of the risks and potential consequences. We should also be aware of whether a man-made rule might not actually still be an acceptable or binding reflection or manifestation of a true rule. The Categorical Imperative by Kant and the “Golden Rule” might be ideas to consider in reflecting upon that. Furthermore: living harmoniuosly in society does mean we need to give the others space. While in us there may be such joy or sadness that we feel we need to express them now, or while in us may be the urge just to tell our neighbour this or that, others might not feel the same atthat time. Each of our actions has an impact on those around us, whether seen or unseen. Each of our actions can give them more space, respect there space or – infringe upon it.

True harmony lets us always be in harmony with our surroundings as much as possible. True harmony will even take us, ultimately, out of harmonious or distorted situations, because they simply will not be a “fitting match”, so to speak, I believe. Being in the flow, there should be no obstacles (or at least no permanent ones, perhaps interesting in this context this page).

“A lot to think about before ‘rule-breaking'”, you might say. Well – yes, but… only as long as you are still on your way to  [the Realisation of] your True Self. Once you [realise you] are what you are, your actions, I believe, shall flow effortlessly, and there will be no question at all whether to do this or that, break man-made rules or comply, because everything you do or say is an expression of harmony itself.

Until then, for the question of whether to break a distorted rule (or not), one will have to think, reflect upon potential consequences, both for oneself and others, and (!) listen to one’s intuition (some aspects of decision-making through intuition I have discussed here).

Version 1.2, November 2017