Wheels within wheels

[petrushka.googol]

What is the driver of social activity? Is it the upper sub-stratum of the elite, or as we go down the "economic food-chain",those denizens who have to bear the brunt of nature's ire and yet perform at their chosen workplace. eg)janitors and the like. Think of what would happen if their tire of society went on an impromptu agitation? What would be the impact on the economic system?

 

What then is the right approach? Top-down or bottom-up.

 

Please express your opinion.

[wanabe]

The driver of social activity is war. "Generals" are the elite.

 

In reality brutes, warriors, mercenaries rule all classes, however sophisticated or indirect their methods. In theory the brutes can't function without a support system, however without the support system all suffer, and brutes emerge from "perfect" unbrutish systems seemingly regardless. Noncompliance with bruits results ultimately in death, and often times so does compliance. Economic systems in modern terms are irrelevant. All that matters is that the brutes are cared for to standards at or above what they are accustomed to, and the brutes make sure of that.

 

The simple approach is a two part class system, predator and prey. Top and bottom don't even begin to stress the complexity of the system, because it's not a linear hierarchy in any way.

 

Also important to note, there likely isn't one driver of social activity. Though human systems attempt to defy nature -- chaos or incomprehensibility -- attempting to always work the same way, we are still influenced and challenged by nature.

 

Even the most advanced science-fiction aliens of our human imagination require ships, nature presents a challenge that the alien ships are designed to overcome. Only "god" can best the aliens, requiring no ship.

 

In theory if any part of the system fails (ex janitors) to perform its task the system fails.

 

In reality when parts of the system "fail," [ex by agitation (or protest?)] there are many other systems capable of continuing where the "failure" left off.

 

Might makes right for humans. Reality however states that luck makes right.

 

~~~end of short answer~~~

 

"Failure" is every systems fate, it's how the system copes that decides if it can continue; even if altered. It could also be said that it's not failure, simply change then. Failure indicates that we know what direction we should go with absolute certainty, and we don't, we exist in a state of trial and error "experimentation".

 

One proposed "formula" for "correcting" common system "failure" of a "class": If all people are in solidarity in a "class" the group will be herd, and reacted to as a large group, then as smaller groups. Reaction in favor of the "class" change is rare historically. Division is commonly encouraged within the "failure-class" by outsiders or simply a group that at some point developed a different agenda then when this "failure" originally occurred.

 

Generally, be it willed or not, divisions within the class form. It is from one of these divisions, or a reaction to one of these divisions by another class; that dominance even in the most passive-unintentional-statistical sense comes to be. This social reality is analogous to the biological reality. The divisions we designate simply for communication don't exist in any real sense though, we don’t remind our selves of that enough. In reality there is simply a "soup" of "individuals" dissolving within eachother and sometimes the soup creates or releases new energy.

 

"What then is the right approach?" Certainly not any system with a top or bottom those things don't actually exist. Top and bottom are something that we agree to believe in, or more likely, are coerced into believing.

 

The "right" approach I think logically is to live in reality.

Reality is "chaotic," accept "anarchy." Accept that the only order is the one we imagine and believe in as a group.

This view that I'm saying is reality, ultimately yields, what its critics would call destruction. This reality would take us back to the stone age, meaning the majority would die. Even though we know we couldn’t actually go back-in-time, and that the world is overpopulated – since people are still starving to death despite “progress” – so therefore destruction is inevitable anyway. The reality is, we don't really know if were going to be on the "winning team" and we all want to be on the "winning team," we "deserve" to live. Only something we comprehend as "luck" is the true origin of “deservedness.”

This is what stifles us: We typically assume that whoever can kill should be yielded to, because killing is wrong, especially if it's oneself. The human position at "the top" changed where its power originates from. Changing from numerical superiority, to instead, the ability shrink the numerical superiority of others. Until weapons are destroyed, or somehow made irrelevant, the human condition will be dictated by what generally is described as war. To eliminate weapons we have to understand or at least believe that the ideas of true-self and individuality are worth the dying, sacrificing, and martyrdom. Free speech should not end with words. Everything should be free.

-We don't know reality from a dream though... A metaphor is a fractal of ideas put into words.

[petrushka.googol]

"Everything should be free"

 

-We don't know reality from a dream though... A metaphor is a fractal of ideas put into words.

 

 

 

 

Sadly the scenario you have projected occurs only in a Utopia...and we are far from that as of now...may be another couple of centuries of "evolution" (or should i say revolution - as per your assessment) or may be even a Renaissance (in old parlance) may be what the doctor asked for?

Your view on this...?? .

[cladking]

The driver has always been the exact same thing but we've lost sight of it in

the last 4000 years. We've lost sight because of confusion and the propensity

of individuals to jump in front of the crowds and pretend to lead while often lead-

ing to wars and catastrophy.

 

It is the average Joe who weilds the real power and can always take it back at

will. It manifests as demand and must be fullfilled by the system in place. This

demand becomes virtually an entity that drives events through its own expression

and blind chance.

 

The real economic and political power lies almost solely in the common people

who are usually content to allow the "powers that be" to do the grunt work. When

their work gets too shoddy or justice is forgotten there will be a new order.

[Dekan]

That sounds like a Marxist view of history. But history seems to show that Marxism leads to tyrants, such as Stalin.

 

Isn't it bound to, because the average Joe doesn't have the supernormal drive to become Uncle Joe, the Great Father of the Soviet People?

[cladking]

That sounds like a Marxist view of history. But history seems to show that Marxism leads to tyrants, such as Stalin.

 

Isn't it bound to, because the average Joe doesn't have the supernormal drive to become Uncle Joe, the Great Father of the Soviet People?

 

Government always destroys far more than it creates. A government with unlimited

power will express that power through unlimited destruction. All systems derive their

power from the people and the people can withdraw their support at will. Oppressors

can remain in power only so long as they have this general support.

[petrushka.googol]

That sounds like a Marxist view of history. But history seems to show that Marxism leads to tyrants, such as Stalin.

 

Isn't it bound to, because the average Joe doesn't have the supernormal drive to become Uncle Joe, the Great Father of the Soviet People?

 

Dosen't this allude to Adlerian Thoery of Personality ?