There
has always been a tendency to disorder and decay
of a society. This is mainly due to the myriad of
interacting factors of such which all cannot be  co-existent.
Leading from this mismatched interplay is
societal entropy. And the loftiest agendas cannot
sustain the constant compromise of negating
forces for the long duration of any
civilization’s history. For the insidious
constants will have their cumulative effects.
Bringing forth the downfall from which a people
can only borrow against time. However, since
the dawn of man, the individual as a singularly
interested party has been a constant that has
ever been conserved. An absolute as it were
(Absolute defined here as an objective standard
not beholden to the whims or desires of a people.
Rather a measure all must weigh in with). But one
must first define absolutism by contrasting it
with subjectivism; as exemplified by the current
academia trend of cultural relativism. Relativism
being a rationalization of a value system
regardless of its merits or the lack thereof.
An appalling example is given
in the textbook Evolutionary Anthropology,
co-authored by an Edward Statski and a Jonathan
Marks. (To quote) "We are certainly better
than Nazi Germany if our standard is the value
placed on individual human lives. By that
criterion we rank above them, but why should that
be the only criterion"?
Other words, the choice to
murder millions, or not. Equates to a cultural
criterion of clay pots and stiletto heels.
Of course the authors of the
above wrote in the context of a detached
scientific observer. However their reasoning is
at fault if the means is not or separate from the
end results e.g. one could hammer open a tuna
can, but a conventional can opener would work
much better.
To give as explanation, the
(even horrendous) flaw in the argument of what is
generally known as subjectivism is summed up in
an aphorism of my old high school crowd,
"The baddest man whoever was is
six-feet-under." History is littered with
the ‘Hero for the Day’. By further
extension, if one granted a culture relativistic
values, one could grant such to any given
individual. However if a value system was in
contradiction with surrounding circumstances it
would be negating even to the life of said
person. "Able to leap tall buildings in a
single bound" might be ones prerogative, but
gravity would get in the way (One might take in
to account an individual’s values a result
of conscience at odds with a society).
Nazi Germany did not prevail
for the Allies for whom the Nazis were not viable
as a Geo-political force. Communism runs counter
to economic man, hence goes bankrupt the system.
Native-Americans, though having admirable facets
to their composite way of life, unfortunately
they could not withstand the onslaughter (as
opposed to the word onslaught) of European
immigrants. Also to have work so in the past does
not take into account factors that may have been
negligible in a different era but come into full
bloom with a new generation. Moreover a complex
of factors could uproot a structure of
illusionary foundations and entire societies
might be destroyed; needing the collective
deception without such would founder on a sandbar
of clarity.
It may be "Only the strong
survive" or "The meek shall inherit the
earth" or perhaps the equivalent of a lotto
winner. What remains will endure by way of its
constituent; one thinks of Buddhism, its Nirvana
achieved in the eventuality. If in one lifetime
or a thousand, yet still the karmic cycle is
surmounted anyhow.
The case for absolutism by the
Christian apologist C. S. Lewis went along the
line of a moral law equating to a natural law.
That given a variation in mores and customs was
fairly consistent through out all cultures
(Though people singularly and collectively more
often than not failed to pass muster). An
underlying code of conduct as right as the
multiplication tables(1). He was however
depending on an if design, then designer, for
this part of his faith based on reason.
Emile Durkheim, the Twentieth
Century sociologist, gave the better explanation
of the necessity of social cohesion for an
aggregation of people to function(2). And what
worked for one group would probably work for
another. Therein lies the viewpoint of people as
a mass somewhat able to be quantified (That is
the bread and butter of statisticians). Hence the
common cord of different cultures.
Whether by default or design,
like the Platonic Mindscape discovered rather
than invented by mathematicians, a standard
benchmark rather than the happenstance of
subjectivism. For if a mechanical component is
not to specifications, its destination is the
scrap heap. That is the world is that which is
sustained, and was not transitory in its
fundamental composition.
With some thoughts concerning
social deviants from the norm. Society can well
withstand those who are criminal or merely cheats
from civil obligation and still function as a
whole. However these individuals (or nations from
a global perspective) can only deviate in a niche
in relation to the larger number. For most must
work a steady job for a few to thieve. "Work
may be for suckers", but the straight world
is depended on never the less.
But what constitutes the
deviant? To paraphrase the sociologist in Stephen
King’s novel The Stand, one is the number of
a saint; evil is increased by arithmetic. In this
context the hermit must remain solitary to be
holy. Or if not holy, at least in a state of
aloneness he can do no harm to others, or have
harm done to him.
In the Selfish Gene, Richard
Dawkins postulates self-interested replicators
furthering their propagation through ruthlessness
and same serving self-sacrifice. A selfless
"Conspiracy of doves" as such would not
arise in a gene pool for genuine altruism. Due to
the selfish competition who would exploit the
goodwill of his comrades and dominate in time.
Yet Dr. Dawkins holds out for
humans a chance for an altruistic society, with
thought based "memes" (units of
cultural transmissions) tied with conscious
foresight "We alone on Earth can rebel
against the tyranny of our selfish
replicators."
However as with a genome, a
deviant memeplex could exploit the potential
sucker population, if only for short-term
advantage, till they all once again looked out
for number one.
Of course, "Survival of
the Fittest" can be misleading, since a
local population will often die out as victims of
their own success. Oak trees grow to shut out the
sunlight needed for their own seedlings to grow
themselves for example(3).
On a different tack, to breed
or not, there is always safety in numbers.
Extinction is assured below a level of individual
members of many species. The Alpha-breeders,
despite the perks,often incur more responsibility
than the carefree subordinates do. One could say
the ‘dominate’ members are manipulated
into doing the grunt work of perpetuation of the
species. The non-breeders, spared the task, wile
away the hours eating and sleeping. In fact for
the organism in toto, kin-altruism could be
regarded as folly. When one's individual welfare
is at stake, why care about the
next generation? For Homo
sapien in the modern society, the decision by the
bread winner to marry and raise a family is often
due in part because a girlfriend got pregnant.
Turning to the butterfly factor
of chaos theory, "For the want of the
nail" as taught me by my father,
demonstrates how even miniscule factors have
cumulative effects magnifying into complex
systems. Concentrating on Aristotelian thought
how philosophical misconceptions, small in the
beginning, expand as errors of greater scope.
That a belief in something as a truth is merely a
self-perpetuating pathology that’s origin,
being a falsehood, is never the less a standard
of civilization(4). Perhaps "The greatest
good for the greatest number" is such a
fallacy. Maybe only there is required to go along
is to get along. For paradoxically, while the
relative society constitutes the deviant, the
entirety is beholden to objective standards which
determine its validity; or at least to make
viable the society.
But what is the reasonable
relationship between the individual and the
society? For a starting discourse, with the
diffusion of literacy there arose the power-dream
of disenfranchised intellectuals. Yet the epitome
of central planning –the Marxists-Leninists,
were by and large the children of privilege. As
the liberal cadres of this country are and have
been.
Nathaniel Branden, a one-time
follower and personal friend of the philosopher
Ayn Rand, would give an explanation for this.
Briefly, a loss in profit from taxation and
governmental regulation can be absorbed by vested
interests but not the up and coming competition
as easily(5). That being Socialism is the
ultimate in monopolistic control of the market.
Also there is the Orwellian
concept of sacrifice of material wealth for total
power i.e. War is Peace. And governments ruling
by force rather than the ideal of the role of
arbitration have wasted more lives and property
than all the bandits of history could ever hope
to destroy.
For like randomized droplets
forming a steady flow of water, people singularly
interested do seem to sort out a system of give
and take without overarchial directives more
often counterproductive when not catastrophic.
Individual concerns coinciding
with the state apparatus or not, there has always
been a dichotomy between the self and the common
interest. Case in point, is the need of the few
outweighed by the many. Especially in a
democratic country, the need of the many may call
for in times of warfare the forfeiture of the
very lives of the few; who would prefer to go on
living their natural span.
The only tentative resolution
to this problem is that one acts for ones
self-worthiness; to suffer on principle, even
life itself, from oppression too intolerable
otherwise. But one cannot be assured a battle
cry. For everyone roots for the underdog, meager
in number are those who will stand with him.
Taking note as we move on, if
only in the inner part of the heart and mind, the
conformity of necessity is worn down and away by
one who stands uncompromised in a compromised
world.
Regarding the individual and
society as natural phenomena. Much often is made
of the the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the
eventual heat-death of the cosmos. Perhaps under
appreciated is. the First Law of Conservation.
Entropy will attain its equilibrium, however
singular particles remain. An ash cannot
practically be re-ignited, but the ash remains an
ash for the duration.
Civilizations of past faced the
problem of the more and more expenditure of
limited energy needed to maintain against
increasing disorder. Maybe though there is some
exception for the modern era with current and
future technology. Its economic output based on
not as much physical fuel Replaced rather by the
(renewable) office workers. Yet technology has
its own perils; the weapons are faster, cheaper,
and better.
But whatever the case may be,
Joe Blow abides. And the Everyman has toiled in
the fields, ate, got drunk around the hearth, and
procreated with his significant other always. Of
course, as prominent in Medieval Europe, Everyman
was tied to his (likely birthplace) parcel of
land, paid burdensome taxes (as from Time
Immortal to the present day), and the lord of the
manor got first crack at his bride. In exchange
the lord gave protection to his serfs and dealt
with his ‘no rest for the wicked’
intrigues pleasing and plotting with and against
the rest of the aristocracy (An example today is
the editorial cartoon. Imagine being President of
the United States, having both your policies and
even slightly noticeable physical features
exaggerated into deformities. Not all sound bites
come in the form of audio).
Continuing this line of
discourse, there are trade-offs in anyone’s
standing in the hierarchy. But what most often is
gained is a release of individual accountability.
Even to the point of (literal) self-sacrifice,
one is absolved of the responsibility for ones
own being. Instead the state, tribe, family, God,
brotherhood of man, or even looking out for the
peasants bears the obligation. And release of
responsibility gives way to acts which would be
considered atrocities for individuals; yet for
societies madness is to be accommodated.
The problem with a collective;
its members a committee of such, think in terms
of the common good as the best of all possible
outcomes of any group endeavor. However the
collective exists only as an abstraction (Humans
at least are not joined to a communal stomach),
and a collective identity does not necessarily
reflect the best interests, or highest
motivation, of any given member. The chain after
all is both the symbology of unity and
oppression.
And now we come to the
individual. Though nourished in our mother’s
womb, our departure at the terminus of our life
is one going out alone, even with loved ones
gathered around the death bed. In the end, we can
only know what we have integrated into ourselves.
Galileo was condemned as a
heretic, not believing the Earth as the center of
the Universe. However, according to cosmological
relativity, Earth, or any point billions of
light-years hence is an exact center. Keeping in
mind this relative universal bearing; there are
among first class physicists a view of a
compartmental world as a seamless wholism.
Everyone to the person is the center of all there
is and likely contains the All therein. Coming
back to the Laws of Thermodynamics; compound
structures, whether societies or substances,
inherently decay over time. The mechanisms of the
world operate as subtraction as well as addition.
Yet there remains a minute part indivisible. As
the Individual (capital I) is defined as not to
be divided.
Solipsism would be the belief
system of a madman. Perhaps a uniform solipsism
dispersed over every living creature; a life at
times necessitating the detriment of another,
something must die for another to grow. We can
only as an organism, human to protozoa, muddle
along a day at a time. Taking the best,
forestalling the worst, and if a tolerable medium
is reached; maybe by way of increasing returns
the good will add and multiply to all that we
singularly know. And that is the best that can be
done.
|
