# [Of Passionary and Subpassionary Individuals, & How They Relate to Systems](https://twitter.com/LegitDefinitely/status/1216921918776832000)

Recommended reading : [My Thread on Ethnogenesis](https://github.com/nazrinrat/veda-warez/blob/master/ethnogenesis.md) 

First, let's review what we know by stating their driving imperatives. 

- **Passionary** : Creation. Destruction. Conquest. High abstraction. Intuition. Proactive and reactive. 
- **Subpassionary** : Security. Comfort. Self-sufficiency. Low abstraction. Structure. Proactive or reactive.

Now how are these imperatives expressed in a system? Simply by the above recap you should have a few suspicions. Let us unpack it further. Passionaries are the source, the genesis of systems and, in fitting poetic irony, their destroyers.

Consider first no system. It offers none of its certainties, processes, or outcomes. You are left with a chaotic spread of elements that individuals interact with without restrictions, but also without efficiency. Every process is carried out by an individual from top to bottom.

In this the individual must have mastery of each step and each element of the process to guarantee a favorable outcome. A mistake on one element of the process may lead to the collapse of said process. Making it insecure and, by this, uncomfortable.

Its reliance on a spread of elements makes it a highly unstructured process, which forces an individual to show intuition and proactivity, not react to the established steps of a structure.  By all this, we can surmise that no system implies no subpassionaries.

While passionaries can and do thrive in a systemless situation, they are proactive and seek to elevate their processes and by making them efficient. Thus the system is created. Born out of the passionary's desire for efficiency and proactive approach.

Once passionaries have established a system, there now exists a more stable and predictable environment within which a subpassionary may thrive. Not only thrive, but often outclass the passionary in the system that he has created.

Why is that? To the passionary a system is a means to an end. A tool. It is thus treated as such. Certainly the passionary may find himself capable of high prowess and be capable of impressive outcomes, but never will he fully dedicate himself to that system.

To the subpassionary the system is everything. It is his world for he can only operate within its bounds. What lies beyond the system is either never truly given much thought, or is violently rejected as being out of the bounds of the system.

This is due to the subpassionary's deep fear of self-agency. He must have a system with a floor, walls, and a ceiling, lest he be frozen in terror at the idea that he is entirely responsible for himself. Without a system's comforting illusion he is lost.

By this we can conclude that the passionary establishes the system, while the subpassionary masters its every aspect and religiously dedicates himself to the system's minutiae. For such are their driving imperatives. Now what happens once the system is complete?

Do the passionaries cease to be? Does they abandon their driving imperatives and become subpassionaries? Do the subpassionaries, having mastered the system, innovate and expand it beyond its initial bounds? Do they lose their fear of self-agency and become a passionaries?

No. Driving imperatives are deeply rooted within these two castes of individuals, and by this they will never go against them for more than a brief instant, or in overwhelming circumstances. They will always be drawn back to what makes them who they are.

What does that entail for a system? Stasis, while the perfect environment for a subpassionary individual, is seen as stagnation and is by this unnacceptable to the passionary individual. In that moment, his perceived role is switched.

The system in its current form has been taken to completion so he follows his imperative, from agent of creation, to agent of destruction. This can also be interpreted as change. Regarldess, the situation is now dynamic, this is where the passionary thrives.

Often passionaries are driven by a desire to innovate and improve systems, which is something subpassionaries frown upon for it involves change and degrees of destruction. These things very often go against the subpassionary's own imperatives.

Other times passionaries are driven by the desire to forge something new, something unseen. This requires more extreme change and higher degrees of destruction. This is why in the late phases of a system, passionaries often yearn for its collapse.

They will also sometimes be driven purely by the desire to destroy the system, returning to a primordial systemless state. They often arise out of need for balance if the exchange between destruction and creation has been unfair. By this they all align with dharma and the yugas.

In this the subpassionary will cling to the system for, if it is lost and he is not offered an alternative, he too will be lost. By this you could say that the passionary stokes the fire while the subpassionary worships its ashes, fearing a fire different from the one he knows.

Often passionaries will offer subpassionaries alternative systems that align with the passioary's designs. Thus subpassionaries are rarely utterly destroyed with the systems that spawned them. They are repurposed, and this aligns with their imperatives.

But what of subpassionaries involved in the destruction of a system? Does their participation not make them passionaries? No, for they are still operating within a system. By this, subpassionary hands may be used, but it is by passionary will alone that the system is destroyed.

Thus a passionary individual may operate within and without a system while a subpassionary individual is bound to its workings.  
Each has his place.

Points I forgot to add this thread:  

- -Some passionaries align themselves with a system to preserve it in response to other passionaries wanting to destroy it. Passionaries often clash this way. 
- -Subpassionaries may push passionaries out of a system to preserve its stability.