The presence in our species of a 'need' to exploit, a presence of exploitation
as a species 'law', manifests itself in all areas and reflects what I call the transcendence function.
The act of exploitation, when it moves into extremes, leads to the emergence of another species 'need', that of
protection, a concept derived from the transformation
function.
The 'law' nature is seen in that if I exploit A and protection emerges for A then other than fight the protection
the better 'choice' seems to be to exploit the protection. In other words any barrier put up to block the exploitation
only redirects the exploitation. As Charles Peirce emphasised:
An example of this is in the exploitation of children. In Western civilisation the
emergence of formal, state-sourced laws to protect children from abuse developed out of the extremes in abuse brought-on
by the industrial revolution where the use of child labour in mines, cotton mills etc etc lead to the emergence
of laws to protect children. (Note that religious laws can be ignored; state laws are more threatening to the exploiters,
more 'local')
Children are still exploited today by industry but in the form that exploits the protection, IOW the child market
forms around the 'rights' of a child, laws developed to protect the child have led to an exploitation focus on
those laws where the social value applied to the children is exploited in the form of excessive emphasis on that
value. (Which at times can seem extreme - discernment is required).
This emphasis serves the 'I want it now' nature in children such that a culture as a whole commits large amounts
of energy not just to make the children 'safe' but to profit from that safety emphasis possibly to a level where
delusion can take-over, the culture can develop a sense of the 'magical' introduced by the exploitation process;
the fun of childhood is maintained in adulthood which means that properties of childmindedness can be maintained
into adulthood and so delusions can emerge which can act to constrain the 'growing up' of the collective as a whole.
The dynamics of the exploit/protection system as a whole seems to be:
etc
As a culture goes through this process (where exploitation is high energy, 'dot'
oriented *when compared* to the protection emphasis that emerges out of a more 'field' perspective ['we are all
linked together']) so the protection/exploitations get more sophisticated and more dynamic, law introduction comes
down to monthly/quarterly levels and lawyers abound due to the litigations that become part of the culture.
This dynamic between exploitation and protection can become limiting in that it prohibits further development especially
due to the emphasis on precedence. (Note that religious laws are usually more absolute. IOW the emphasis is on
NEVER doing X such that you NEVER get caught and if you are caught there is no consideration of precedence, punishment
is 'absolute'. Relaxation of these absolutes in a greater/secular collective introduces context awareness where
in some circumstances it is 'ok' to do X or else the attitude of the collective does not strongly emphasise not
doing X.
What we see here is the protection against 'excessive' laws emerge, reflected in the use of precedence, the influences
of context.)
Interestingly, when we view other collectives outside of our species, the more 'sophisticated' collectives put
a lot of energy into child-protection in that the focus of value shifts from what is to what will/could be. IOW
the culture recognises the value of the children not in their child nature but more as their future, the species
future, which the children represent.(this approach is strongly emphasised in sociobiology but this could stem
from observations of the exploit/protect dichotomy at work IOW the protection of the genes emphasis emerges at
a particular level of collective development prior to which the emphasis is more on self-survival (IOW exploitation
of the context to the individual's benefit) rather than others-survival).
With the increase in protection so there can be a decrease in the number of offspring produced which means an increase
in value of a particular child.
What is implied here is that sophistication in cultural development is identifiable by the formal, state-sourced
laws existing in that culture relating to children *and the active application of those laws*.
Since all of the above points to exploit/protect dichotomy being a species fundamental, so the dichotomy is applicable
in analysis BETWEEN collectives besides analysis of development WITHIN a collective. (Note that this also reflects
introduction of consideration of TRI-chotomies where the third element reflects mediation in stimulus/response
processes)
In this collectives-analysis the ethical/moral elements of a collective can be measured by the attitude towards
the children of the collective. Since adults are themselves always 'children' in the eyes of their parents, so
the support systems supplied at the adult level continue to reflect these attitudes where the support emphasis
is on maintaining the life of a single individual regardless of cost, social status etc., life is no longer considered
'cheap'. (Note that a collective that sees itself as a 'child' can contain abuse since the focus is still at the
group level.)
The exploit/protect dichotomy is applicable across collectives such that we have:
(1) exploitation of collective X by collective Y
(2) X protects against (1)
(3) Y exploit (2)
and so on. (note that the exploitation emphasis stems from a self-bias and is high energy focused. Explicit exploitation
requires energy when compared to what/who is being exploited. This energy acts to motivate the exploited through
promises, indication of potentials ('be' like us) etc).
The zig-zap development, the oscillations across exploit/protect, increases litigation processes within/across
collectives (Note how most of our more precise collectives now emphasise "attacks against humanity" rather
than naming a particular collective in that the development process increases a need for precision in the litigations
and so distorts the context to that of a universal rather than local. 'Sophisticated' Western culture now has 'World'
Courts etc. These can be illusions in that those who feel they are still exploited dont recognise them)
The increase in litigation acts to suppress the dynamics of a collective(s), there is a demand for more discernment
in actions, protection takes over as a whole from exploitation.
At this high level of development we see emerge a possibly too protective attitude out of which emerges exploitations
of the protection - if allowed. Too much 'static' protection can lead to smothering of all 'light' where the emphasis
is on opposition/eradication rather than the redirecting of energy to maintain the development pattern, the dynamic,
that is part of our species-nature. IOW just as exploitation is met by static protection (a 'brick' wall etc) that
is in turn exploited so in reverse dynamic protection can act by exploiting the exploiters or more so the foundations
of the exploiters in that it is from that support that the exploiters draw their energy. (e.g. exploitation of
financial markets of the perceived exploiters etc to limit the amount of energy they can express at any one time).
In general the exploiters wish to draw on the energy of others for as little cost as possible - minimise costs,
maximise profits. The protectors aim to achieve the same goal in the form of protecting potentials by charging
the exploiters 'interest' on the investement of personal energy etc. (IOW you can use children or 'third world
labour' but you must pay them a 'fair' wage etc) This charge envalues the exploited and turns them into a market
as well as a labour force; the exploiters are forced to realise that exploiting the resources without ensuring
renewal will lead to disaster. That renewal process in turn becomes a market for exploitation, IOW the exploitation
has shifted focus from gaining from the 'raw' materials to gaining from their protection and so on.
At a cultural level, the exploited can develop in confidence so they form a collective that can introduce laws
to further control the exploitation at the general level (Native Title laws etc)but the nature of the exploiters
also act to influence the overall nature of the collective, the collective becomes an exploiter of either its own
people or of some 'less developed' collective.
Overall what we are witnessing in current times is the development of our species based on the use of the in-built
senses of exploitation/protection which gets transformed from a static A/~A form to a dynamic and more trichotomous
A/M/~A form where M emphasises the dynamic mediation element where once a 'solution' to a problem is reached so
M can withdraw into the background.
Since we seem to be at a level of development where we can identify these processes there is nothing stopping us
from pre-empting these processes, from skipping the opposition emphasis of A/~A to an emphasis on A/M/~A, HOWEVER
this process includes within it the 'raising' of the standards of the 'less' sophisticated as reflected in the
attitudes of these collectives to their children as determined from a STATE perspective. Without this 'raising'
process extreme conflicts will continue to a degree of threatening the species as a whole since the emerging shift
in focus from children as directly exploitable to children as the future of the species is a shift that only comes
with social sophistication. This does not necessarily mean financial sophistication but moral sophistication as
expressed in STATE laws, secular laws, rather than religious ones, and in particular a sophisticated set of laws
that shift the exploitation away from the 'raw' material of our species - the children.
To refine the points made so far I wish to point out the following:
The development process discussed 'maps' to what we witness in life. The use of feedback acts to layer events such
that exploitation of A by B leads to the introduction of laws protect/guide/control the exploitation which in turn
are exploited etc.
The 'drive' to exploit never stops, it is part of our nature, it is part of life, in the process of developing
the species, collectives, and individual. The feeling of exploitation is always 'positive', self-oriented, with
as few considerations re consequence of actions as is possible. Once a 'law' is developed to protect B from A there
is nothing stopping the continued exploitation other than the consequences. This level of exploitation thus continues
but in an implicit, underground, form.
The pragmatic choice on the other hand is based on considering the consequences of:
(1) keep trying to exploit B and hope not to get caught. (element of the negative)
(2) shift the focus of the exploitation from B to (B+law). (element of the positive)
(2) is the more pragmatic choice and seems to dominate 'natural' processes where a feedback loop operates in development
and that feedback process favours 'singleminded' focusing of energy. Since there are still those who choose (1)
there is also an underground process at work e.g. Sexual exploitation of children being the most commonly reported
in the more sophisticated cultures, followed by reports on attempts to bypass labour laws. The difference between
the two choices is in the form of the
distinctions of an implicit approach vs an explicit approach. The latter does not require energy to be withdrawn
from the exploitation process to be used to 'hide' the exploitation - a requirement in the former - and so the
latter is the 'easier' path where we maximise profits, minimise costs (which includes minimising a potential loss
of life).
The pragmatic choice of (2) will inevitably lead to the idealism, the moral emphasis, in (B+law) being exploited
to a degree where the same protection drive can emerge. With this process a shift from B to B+law introduces elements
of B into the culture since B is now explicitly, formally, tied to the structure of the culture by the law, IOW
B has formal rights and as such
the culture itself will transform, the whole is transformed by a part.
As the exploit/protect loop continues so the B element becomes more strongly expressed, becomes more of a major
influence on the whole where B transforms into (B+law) that transforms into ((B+law)+law) that transforms into
(((B+law)+law)+law) where each transformation inevitably leads to attempts to exploit it (and so 'court' becomes
'child court', 'family court', 'industrial court', 'criminal court', 'civil court' where each adjective serves
as a particular instance of 'B')
If the law element gets too extreme then the culture as a whole can suffer a form of paralysis in that the shift
from absolute laws (a la the ten commandments etc) to context sensitive laws(consideration of current context in
the light of past events (precedence)) creates an industry open to exploitation, an exploitation that acts to manipulate
the mediation dynamics to its benefit regardless of consequences to others(as in those using mediation processes
to achieve a result rather than to make a living).
In other words the lengthening of litigation is advantageous to the industry but at the same time the lengthening
can act to benefit 'precision' in judicial determinations! Thus we witness that out of the middle of the exploit/protect
dichotomy has emerged an industry based on mediation. This reflects the 'law' emphasis as manifesting cultural
sophistication (but also a potental path to cultural slowdown/collapse due to increased regulation).
The dynamics of all of this leads to 'culling' periods where we need to monitor the excess of laws, refine them
through generalisation away from particularisation in that the latter is the source of precedence that over time
can become 'excessive' and so be so fine in distinction-making as allow for abuse through the use of technical
'errors' to decide/block cases etc.
The problem of course with culling through generalisation is it can serve as a source for appeal where a particular
is implicitly revoked. (and so a new industry emerges specialising in the appeal processes).
The presence of the mediation industry reflects the sophistication of the culture but at the same time can act
to limit cultural development; the mediation position in Peirce's concept of thirdness has a dynamic element where
once habits are learnt the mediation can be withdrawn, you only use it when you need it. The industrial perspective
forces the mediation process to always be present since a prospect of withdrawal is threatening to the livelihoods
of those involved for the sake of exploitation; ambulance chasers abound. ;-) This 'eternal' development points
to the continued oscillations across the exploit/protect dichotomy, a dichotomy reflecting the dot/field distinctions
previously made where the emergence of mediation from the exploit/protect dichotomy attempts to establish itself
to a degree where a field, a protection emphasis, develops out of a more dot, i.e. exploitation, emphasis.
In general, the processes of evolution, of exploitation/protection, are 'mindless' and as such can develop down
pathways that from a pragmatism perspective are 'unwise' paths to follow since they can lead to unacceptable consequences
regarding species-survival; consequences that without mediation we would not necessarily be aware of. These paths
can include the excess use of resources that unless renewed will inevitably lead to the collapse of economic systems
etc as well as excess 'beliefs' that emerge out of tightly bound collectives that either choose to be such due
to their viewing of the behaviours of other not so tightly bound collectives or are forced to be so in response
to exploitation followed by neglect.
To aid in following the 'correct' paths from a species perspective, the development of moral habits requires proactive
participation of those who function within a culture that utilises secular mediation. A democratic culture is not
'free', that is something for an anarchistic culture (!?!). In a democratic culture there are obligations for each
individual and over the period of self-development these obligations need to be taught, not for idealistic purposes
but for pragmatic purposes - survival of the species.
Since within a culture the precise mediation position does not develop (beyond the 'hidden' genetic element or
the general religion sourced element) until the culture reaches a degree of social sophistication, from a species
perspective it becomes the obligation of the more sophisticated to aid the less sophisticated by giving them access
to the pool of general laws, general legal principles, that form the mediation base from a *species* perspective.
Therefore it becomes a requirement that any act of exploitation of an unsophisticated culture by a sophisticated
culture is done so utilising the set of mediation principles sourced in the sophisticated culture, thus ensuring
the unsophisticated has the same level of protection in the form of appeals etc etc as does the sophisticated.
This can act to make any exploitation work for the benefit of both parties in that it raises the sophistication
level of the less sophisticated due to the access of the mediation principles, and it prohibits exploitation 'extremes'
by the sophisticated in that it ensures 'proper' conduct.
The pragmatics comes to the fore in that the unsophisticated culture can attempt to exploit the mediation principles
now gained to improve their lot even further but at the same time are forced to recognise that the sophisticated
culture is in a position to withdraw (but still leave behind the mediation principles). Inevitably a potential
conflict position is transformed into either one of no relationship( withdrawal of either/both parties) or of a
cooperative relationship since the oppositional relationships have been defused to some degree through the introduction
of advanced mediation principles honed over many centuries of development of the sophisticated culture's path through
oppositions.
The success of secular mediation systems reflects this species-level perspective in that freedom of choice re cultural/personal
beliefs are retained but governed by formally set species-level constraints. The failure of these systems is in
the paralysis caused by excess, cronyism, nepotism etc etc all rooted in cultural processes that stem from species
'instincts'.
The alternative to pouring energy into maintaining the mediation industry is to transfer general social laws into
moral training of the individual and this returns focus on training from the state to the family; IOW you cannot
leave moral training to the state system, you must take some responsibility in moral education of your children.
Alternatively, it is possible to include awareness of social laws as part of the education system, a formal requirement
for all such that in legal situations some assumptions can be made re the person's knowledge of what is lawful
and what isnt and so demonstrate intent etc. This may be the 'easier' path in the long run since returning moral
training to the family does not ensure all are formally made aware of their moral obligations to the species. (Note
there is here a shift from a reactive system, where law is applied after the event, to a more proactive system
where those to whom the law could be applied are aware of the laws prior to any event. IOW some of the energy poured
into the reactive format is now focused on the proactive format that in the long run can act to reduce the energy
used in the reactive system).
This is not an idealist perspective, it is a perspective based on pragmatism in the form of consideration of the
choices available and their outcomes over the long term, especially the costs in maintaining an ever developing
mediation industry.
My overall emphasis is on species survival and we have reached a stage in our development as a species where the
emphasis is on globalisation concepts and so an increased demand for awareness of our species-nature; we are all
linked together regardless of cultural/individual creeds. The pragmatic approach is to recognise the globalisation
'push' (exploitation), to recognise the anti-globalisation push (protection) that naturally emerges in response,
and to pre-empt developments in the oscillations by introducing mediation principles sourced at the species level.
A lack in encouraging these principles from the beginning can mean emergence of 'sudden' disputes that can get
out of hand before mediation processes are created to deal with the particulars in that the weapon systems used
can be too 'instant' and too 'global' to allow time to 'reconsider' positions such that the species is directly
threatened by more local disputes.
The more common 'do as you wish' emphasis, the postmodernism 'anything goes' perspective favours exploitation over
protection; the legal system is caught in eternal 'catch-up' as it has to deal with the exploitations and as such
fuels the development of the mediation industry to a level where the seeming paralysis of the system leads to introduction
of 'absolutes' to aid in solving the problems (mandatory sentencing, three strikes and your out concepts etc).
As a species we are at a level of general sophistication where we can introduce formal moral training etc from
a species perspective without too much concern re the possible abuse/exploitation of that training (To see current
attempts at the more local 'moral' training, watch childrens cartoon shows or the religious schools of the Taliban,
fundamentalist Christians,
fundamentalist Jews, etc etc). Yes, there will be those who prefer the 'dark' side but that is part of our nature
as a species and as such will need to be accommodated for in that the 'dark' can also serve as a source of transformation
(And at the local level, yesterdays enemy can become todays friend)
My main emphasis here is the recognition of mediation as an expression of species sophistication rather than cultural
sophistication and as such allows for the setting-up of a formal set of principles that can be taught to species
members without threatening cultural/individual perspectives although they will serve to *guide* the development
of those perspectives.
The emphasis on *species* over all else should enable the quick detection of cultural/individual attempts to exploit
the creation of such principles(some of which would come from analysis of population dynamics studies in biology
more so than any religion-sourced senses of morality etc)
The presentation of these principles would follow a pragmatism approach based on an emphasis of species-survival
rather than cultural/personal perspectives. This approach can be presented explicitly (as part of schooling) or
implicitly (subliminal advertising etc - this may 'upset' some but we are getting to stage where some form of social
engineering is required. Limited to a species approach ensures 'total' agreement in that all disagreement is sourced
outside of the species or will in fact manifest cultural issues not relevant to species concerns. The final step
is regarding the withdrawal of such presentations - say after three generations? Is that enough time to allow for
the seeding to influence the species as a whole?)
Here in Australia, a supposed 'free' country, we have one obligation to all members of the democracy - voting is
compulsory. This helps to get over apathy which can allow for a minority to gain an advantage in government. IOW
to maintain a 'level' government you lose the perceived 'right' NOT to vote - or else to keep that right its a
fine or 24-48 hours in jail! .. which gets into issues re criminal record etc etc and the possible consequences.
What mandatory voting also brings out are the presence of 'extreme' perspectives in the culture, formally declared
in the voting, and so giving a fuller picture of the culture as a whole (E.g. the emergence here of the 'One Nation'
Party that expresses principles that are seen by many as 'extreme' (Xenophobia etc)). (Note I have not seen any
analysis of those fined/jailed for not voting - perhaps there is a 'hidden' collective functioning in the background!
;-))
The above emphasis on participation through compulsory voting may seem a 'little' issue but it serves to establish
some sense of connectivity between individual and culture. Yes there will be those who insist on paying the fine/doing
the time, but the overall bias favours 80%+ involvement by citizens rather than in countries where voting is voluntary
and participation is under 50% (and then there are those countries with no votes etc - supported by other countries
for their own exploitation needs).
This 'insistence' on participation may need to be extended to the species level where we need to recognise we are
not born 'free' but are born as members of a species with general patterns in behaviour etc and as such have obligations
to that species re survival. These obligations include restraints at the cultural/personal levels that both culture/individual
need to be made well aware of. To aid in these obligations are species-level mediation principles, 'human rights'.
Participation in local/global government is not based on ideals, it is based on analysis of the consequences of
allowing 'mindless' exploitation/protection activity in that the development of technology has allowed this 'mindless'
activity to become a threat to the species.
At the same time, we need to maintain a degree of the 'mindless' to allow for development rather than stagnation
and wallowing in our own waste, but there needs to be some formal governance at the species level. Not much, just
a touch. Enough so that it can act to influence the thinking of cultures/individuals beyond their own interests.