Betwixt the Sea and Sky

Important Announcement

The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More

The Paradigms of Power

Society is Based on morality.

Morality rests on consensus and requires the use of power to remove those who will not accept that consensus.

The continued existence of a shared morality rests on the forebearance of every single individual within a society from claiming the entire fruits of his or her labor.

A society's ability to achieve consensus is inversely proportional to the size and complexity of society, to the degree of technological advancement, and to the speed of internal communications.

The more complex a society's framework, the shorter the existence of that incarnation of a society.

Power cannot be maintained and effectively exercised without a moral structure accepted and practiced by all because power attracts the corruptible and because corruption destroys consensus.

Certain individuals are born incapable of forebearance; so are certain cultures.

Thus, continuation of society rests on; the willingness of each individual to accept the shared values of the society; the willingness and ability of those in power to remove those who do not support the morality of the society; and the willingness of all to limit the complexity of society to the scope of the consensus required.

Mutual individual respect and self-respect must be maintained, since the greater the mutual respect between individuals and the respect for the role of each individual within society, the more stable the society.

Because society is based on trust, trust cannot be withheld on unfounded suspicion.

Threats are a form of mistrust; so are unprovoked violence,use of physical force, and manipulation of another. Failure to be untrustworthy requires removal from society.

Attempts to redefine principles into written rules of conduct reflect mistrust and are doomed to failure.

Direct statements of individual desires are not forms of mistrust, but no individual or group of individuals is bound or required to fulfill another's desire.

Society may agree upon mutual restrictive and/or coercive measures, but only so long as such measures have commensurate impacts upon those who develop and impose such measures.

From the book "Adiamante" Written by L.E. Modesitt, Jr.

I decided to share this from one of my favorite books by my favorite author. In all his books I have read he is very thought provoking and the ideas are well thought out and developed. Quite a few people have asked me what the solution in society. I think this illustrates my feelings on the subject very aptly. I also feel this is also worthy of discussion. So share your thoughts.

First, responding to the post at hand...I'm not absolutely sure I'm getting it completely, so please bear with me if I am misunderstanding or misinterpreting any of the points...

"Society is Based on morality.

Morality rests on consensus and requires the use of power to remove those who will not accept that consensus.

The continued existence of a shared morality rests on the forebearance of every single individual within a society from claiming the entire fruits of his or her labor."

Okay so far...but this really illustrates two things: Society is a fluent thing that is constantly changing, with sub-societies and overlapping societies, and the society that one belongs to may change as one's views change over time, or even depending on what issue is being discussed.

"A society's ability to achieve consensus is inversely proportional to the size and complexity of society, to the degree of technological advancement, and to the speed of internal communications."

I agree with the size and complexity of society being a bar to the achievement of consensus, but what is the reasoning behind the other two things? Seems to me that speed of internal communications would help a society achieve consensus, since communication is the backbone of real consensus...unless "consensus" means "rules handed down by authority that everyone agrees to follow, despite their personal feelings."

"The more complex a society's framework, the shorter the existence of that incarnation of a society."

Right...the more complex society gets (the more the things that consensus needs to be reached on multiply), the more fluid it will necessarily be.

"Power cannot be maintained and effectively exercised without a moral structure accepted and practiced by all because power attracts the corruptible and because corruption destroys consensus.

Certain individuals are born incapable of forebearance; so are certain cultures.

The terms under which society is defined here, it definitely sounds like an unimportant things to me...in the descriptive sense, it seems to mean "who you agree with on a certain issue", and in a procriptive sense, it seems to be saying "the people must conform, or society is doomed." Since I believe society is a fluid thing, I think non-consenters are necessary for the progress of society...there was a pretty wide consensus among a certain society that slavery was okay, and in that case it was only non-consensus that allowed society to get beyond that stage. Is the author arguing something here, or simply describing the hallmarks of "static society"?

"Mutual individual respect and self-respect must be maintained, since the greater the mutual respect between individuals and the respect for the role of each individual within society, the more stable the society.

Because society is based on trust, trust cannot be withheld on unfounded suspicion.

Threats are a form of mistrust; so are unprovoked violence,use of physical force, and manipulation of another. Failure to be untrustworthy requires removal from society."

So far, so good...although the author should perhaps include a provision for re-entry into society at a later date...

"Attempts to redefine principles into written rules of conduct reflect mistrust and are doomed to failure."

Hee hee...I like this one alot...it might be added that such attepts necessarily lead to loopholes that may be exploited by untrustworthy persons (look at the American legal system...).

"Direct statements of individual desires are not forms of mistrust, but no individual or group of individuals is bound or required to fulfill another's desire.

Society may agree upon mutual restrictive and/or coercive measures, but only so long as such measures have commensurate impacts upon those who develop and impose such measures."

Right, this is something that I actually planned to bring up in the "When is Violence Justified" thread...authority is only legitimate as far as it is subject to its own rules.

And now, moving on...

This doesn't actually seem to address what individuals should be doing in order to advance society. Should they never try to change society because as a non-consenter they are necessarily working toward its ruin, or is it that they actually form a new society with like-minded people, and can work to expand that society? My original post asking what your "solution" was was based directly on the fact that it seemed you were attacking people for trying to make changes for the better, based on the logic that trying to make "little fixes" like that doesn't fix the big problem. There are many instances, though, where a "starting small" "divide and conquer" approach is the only way to solve a problem, especially as large and complex a problem as many people percieve in our Western societies. It wasn't meant to be a personal attack (though maybe the "Dr. Wanduring" thing was going a bit far...)

But, as it is, the question still remains...if working on the "little" problems in society is useless because the root of the problem still remains, how do we get at that root, and fix society with a more top-down approach? While Modesitt's stuff above is good, and definitely worth discussion, it doesn't seem to actually give any advice to real people on how they should act in order to make the world a better place.

The way of it is this; it both illustrates the problem and the solution within society. It points out that shifts from one society to another occur due to specific reasons. It also shows that in order to create a stable society what some of the steps are for creating a stable society. It shows in my eyes the paradox in what we term society. Without consensus within a society of what is "right", doing your "little fixes" is counterproductive. Why? The reason is because you have one set of people thinking one way is right while another group thinks the complete opposite is right. Which results in no change, or the stronger side dominating the other. That is not consensus, but "might makes right".

I don't mean to show that L.E. Modesitt Jr.'s stuff is the endall be all of anything, just that it outlines the problem and solution to creating a stable society, with most ideals it is hard to put into practice. Anyhow, <shrugs> take what you will...

"Without consensus within a society of what is "right", doing your "little fixes" is counterproductive. Why? The reason is because you have one set of people thinking one way is right while another group thinks the complete opposite is right."

But perhaps part of the "little fixes" is also trying to persuade others to your point of view, which is a way of building consensus. It may be, though, that you are right in that simply getting angry about things and trying to legislate it away is not helpful in the way that dealing directly with the purpetrators and showing them why what they are doing is wrong would be. In that case, I absolutely agree with you...contacting congressmen, etc., to try to get legislation in place may be a laudable effort, but a much more useful effort might be to get in contact with the people whose behaviour you are trying to change and persuade them to change it of their own volition...instead of bringing the might of the government to bear against them. Although from what I've read, it seems that Modesitt might agree with a precept of "might for right" and make a distinction between that and "might makes right", which isn't a distinction you seem to make...although I may be wrong on both counts. Plus I'm pretty tired, it being 1:46 am and me having just playing NWN for the last four hours or so...gummy eyes...<mumbles his way to bed>...

The more complex a society's framework, the shorter the existence of that incarnation of a society.

This statement is very true imo. When a society becomes too complex it becomes fragile. Complex societies lose their core concepts and become vulnerable to attack and subversion by simpler and more robust cultures. A great example of this was Rome being sacked at it's end by Celts, Germans, etc. --L.B.

Important Announcement The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
Betwixt the Sea and Sky	[email protected]