I've started and abandoned several comments on this piece. Mostly because my own thinking isn't too clear, but one comment I've consistently had is that I think you are oversimplifying the lives of our ancestors. I also think there is or needs to be a distinction in terms between bureucratized and systematized. To my mind the bureaucratization is the imposition of an administrative system where there need be none.
My more salient comment though I think comes in to try to explain why hero narratives endure. First is the preference for people to be able to identify in some way with the story. A story about a multitude of systems and their interactions is not inspiring or relatable. We can see this in our own non-fiction stories. It is far more accurate to describe the early warning network of agents during the revolutionary war, but far more romantic to retell the 'one if by land, two if by sea' midnight ride of Paul Revere. To capture our imagination and attention a story has to have a protagonist (it is much more inspiring if there is a single antagonist). I think this is partly why the WEF has become a bit of a lightning rod on the right. Yes, they are operating through a vast network of systems and probably aren't collecting their thoughts in some secret back room meeting like a Simpsons-esque Republican party, but having Klaus Schwab as a figurehead to whom we can tie the multitude of bad WEF ideas makes a useful story in which we can all play a small hero arc.
I'll end this here because I feel like I'm getting a bit rambly, I think you're on the right track with the notion of a poly system, but there will be an art to packaging it in such a way that the masses find compelling.
Reviews or suggestions on stories that show female characters in a likeable/ realistic way would be of interest to me. Women doing things like fighting like men or being prostitutes are not appealing but seem to be more common these days than things us normal women can relate to.
In the latest adaption of Sherlock Holmes they turned Irene Adler into a prostitute when, if you read the book, she is a respectable woman. So I have gripes with how women are portrayed even tho they are supposedly empowering.
Absolutely lovely article! One of the highlights for me was: "Perhaps the future’s dystopian hell turns out to be a German train network. (Again!)" As a German, this has to be one of the funniest things I have ever heard.
Aug 4, 2022·edited Aug 4, 2022Liked by John Wheatley
Another complication (unwanted as it is necessary) is the reality that many of these systems are spontaneous; the system itself emerges from the intentions, actions values and beliefs of human agents but the order itself is no the product of intentional design. Language, markets etc. are distinguishable from institutions such as for instance, governments, which (more or less) exhibit the characteristics of intentional structure. Our confusion (and often our propensity to shoot ourselves in the foot) in regards to systems stems to a considerable degree on an inability to separate spontaneous and artificial systems. Deliberate change to a deliberately planned system never seems to work with emergent systems.
As far as I know even individuals with a schizoid personality disorder crave to be part of a society. The pain you experience from being socially rejected or excluded lights up the same parts of your brain that react to physical pain, which can be seen as a good thing, if you think about it. It is not strange that people will learn to use cold, unfeeling technologies and systems if they think it will help them to form connections with others. No-one wants to be left behind.
When anthropologist Margaret Mead was asked when the first civilization started her answer was when the first human survived a broken femur. Someone took care of him for a long time, while if you break your leg in the animal kingdom, your kind will let you die.
Being social allows humans to grow closer, and by communicating and helping others it is possible to build relationships and a funcional society. We just tend to function better that way. Being social, and having empathy is also useful for child rearing, and to fully appreciate certain books, music and movies.
On the other hand, empathy is not as positive as people think. Empathetic people can easily be manipulated by individuals who know how to act, and they are often victims of gaslighting. Socializing can be draining and can lead to depression.
Also, with a lack of empathy you would not help a man unload items from a tan Volkwagen Beetle. Even if the poor man had his arm in a sling.
Rational and irrational is just yet another meld ultimately. Everyone is made up of both, and to deny one or the other is to leave yourself only half a person. Prioritising one over the other is fine (everyone does that. Some people are more rational... most are more irrational, though there's always an underlying logic behind things, even if the user wasn't altogether aware of it) but it's the denial of one or the other that is just rank stupidity and dare I say: irrational (when I find people who claim to be fully rational and basing something off of just rationality, either they're being edgy or they're really irrational and cannot accept it and feel the need to prove just how "rational" they are... which isn't something a rational person would do and bespeaks massive insecurity about one's own flaws. Like, the French Revolution is one of the most irrational time periods simply because of this pathological need to make everything "rational" and breaking things that weren't broken... which is irrational. Don't fix what isn't broken or you'll break it - even a child should be able to figure this out but somehow these so-called "rationals" couldn't. -.- Actual rationals should be able to figure out the utility of generally "irrational" things and appreciate them for that utility (it's the job of rationals not to change for change's sake, but to identify what is broken and figure out a means to improve and change it. Change for change's sake is irrational and only serves the fuel the ego... and usually bloodlust). Those stories of heroes and villains serve a purpose, unconsciously or not, which is to maintain the stability of society and promote the values of the author/storyteller. And I don't think they're entirely dead either (well... nowadays they might be with Kathleen Kennedy's reign of terror...), but rather we see them in other forms, usually fantasy or sci-fi (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time etc.) and, back when those series weren't viciously murdered, the graves defiled and the corpses mutilated and made marionettes, they seemed highly successful (whereas the corpse puppets are anything but, except by shrieking idiots chasing social acceptance), and then there's the people I see online who desperately want a revival of these. There is a place for such narratives, we just need the right one for this modern world...
And yes, most people crave social acceptance above anything else. It's funny how human evolution created such an exploitable weakness. -.- Sorry, I just view that kind of behaviour as insecurity and a lack of sense of self (particularly as I grew up amongst people who craved it to the point where they faked entire personas and interests around it, but hated anyone who was genuine or authentic - authenticity is far more valuable because it's actually real instead of people playing pretend endlessly. Such pointless games tire me...). I see certain people on Youtube who are quite well-meaning but are hopelessly naive in the belief that they'll win simply by having a better argument than their opposition and then people en masse will take their side. Yeah, not to be rude to them but they've clearly not been paying attention because most people do not listen to arguments, no matter how logical, because they're A. more moved by emotions, and B. are terrified of social ostracisation so even if you do convince them logically, they'll never take your side and will oppose just as hard (if not moreso) than a true believer because they will want to keep the peace (just like a husband being abused by a mentally ill wife will attack the child that speaks up against their mother's behaviour in order to keep the peace and avoid repercussions from said wife) and please the unpleasable (they're kept walking on eggshells forever and ever and ever - the moral goalposts constantly shift so no-one feels safe, heretics will be created and punished, and therefore everyone else will work twice as hard to avoid the guillotine). In order to change the minds of most people, you'd have to usurp the current paradigm first, not the other way around. And most societal change was driven by minorities.
I've started and abandoned several comments on this piece. Mostly because my own thinking isn't too clear, but one comment I've consistently had is that I think you are oversimplifying the lives of our ancestors. I also think there is or needs to be a distinction in terms between bureucratized and systematized. To my mind the bureaucratization is the imposition of an administrative system where there need be none.
My more salient comment though I think comes in to try to explain why hero narratives endure. First is the preference for people to be able to identify in some way with the story. A story about a multitude of systems and their interactions is not inspiring or relatable. We can see this in our own non-fiction stories. It is far more accurate to describe the early warning network of agents during the revolutionary war, but far more romantic to retell the 'one if by land, two if by sea' midnight ride of Paul Revere. To capture our imagination and attention a story has to have a protagonist (it is much more inspiring if there is a single antagonist). I think this is partly why the WEF has become a bit of a lightning rod on the right. Yes, they are operating through a vast network of systems and probably aren't collecting their thoughts in some secret back room meeting like a Simpsons-esque Republican party, but having Klaus Schwab as a figurehead to whom we can tie the multitude of bad WEF ideas makes a useful story in which we can all play a small hero arc.
I'll end this here because I feel like I'm getting a bit rambly, I think you're on the right track with the notion of a poly system, but there will be an art to packaging it in such a way that the masses find compelling.
Reviews or suggestions on stories that show female characters in a likeable/ realistic way would be of interest to me. Women doing things like fighting like men or being prostitutes are not appealing but seem to be more common these days than things us normal women can relate to.
In the latest adaption of Sherlock Holmes they turned Irene Adler into a prostitute when, if you read the book, she is a respectable woman. So I have gripes with how women are portrayed even tho they are supposedly empowering.
Absolutely lovely article! One of the highlights for me was: "Perhaps the future’s dystopian hell turns out to be a German train network. (Again!)" As a German, this has to be one of the funniest things I have ever heard.
Side note: When asked about the trains being late constantly the response of Richard Lutz (CEO of the Deutsche Bahn) was "believe me, I suffer like a dog". :D https://www.manager-magazin.de/unternehmen/deutsche-bahn-richard-lutz-leidet-wie-ein-hund-a-2306a35a-da42-45c1-a111-4fcc7fcafcb3
Another complication (unwanted as it is necessary) is the reality that many of these systems are spontaneous; the system itself emerges from the intentions, actions values and beliefs of human agents but the order itself is no the product of intentional design. Language, markets etc. are distinguishable from institutions such as for instance, governments, which (more or less) exhibit the characteristics of intentional structure. Our confusion (and often our propensity to shoot ourselves in the foot) in regards to systems stems to a considerable degree on an inability to separate spontaneous and artificial systems. Deliberate change to a deliberately planned system never seems to work with emergent systems.
As far as I know even individuals with a schizoid personality disorder crave to be part of a society. The pain you experience from being socially rejected or excluded lights up the same parts of your brain that react to physical pain, which can be seen as a good thing, if you think about it. It is not strange that people will learn to use cold, unfeeling technologies and systems if they think it will help them to form connections with others. No-one wants to be left behind.
When anthropologist Margaret Mead was asked when the first civilization started her answer was when the first human survived a broken femur. Someone took care of him for a long time, while if you break your leg in the animal kingdom, your kind will let you die.
Being social allows humans to grow closer, and by communicating and helping others it is possible to build relationships and a funcional society. We just tend to function better that way. Being social, and having empathy is also useful for child rearing, and to fully appreciate certain books, music and movies.
On the other hand, empathy is not as positive as people think. Empathetic people can easily be manipulated by individuals who know how to act, and they are often victims of gaslighting. Socializing can be draining and can lead to depression.
Also, with a lack of empathy you would not help a man unload items from a tan Volkwagen Beetle. Even if the poor man had his arm in a sling.
~
P.s. Omnipresent Hitler, heh.
Rational and irrational is just yet another meld ultimately. Everyone is made up of both, and to deny one or the other is to leave yourself only half a person. Prioritising one over the other is fine (everyone does that. Some people are more rational... most are more irrational, though there's always an underlying logic behind things, even if the user wasn't altogether aware of it) but it's the denial of one or the other that is just rank stupidity and dare I say: irrational (when I find people who claim to be fully rational and basing something off of just rationality, either they're being edgy or they're really irrational and cannot accept it and feel the need to prove just how "rational" they are... which isn't something a rational person would do and bespeaks massive insecurity about one's own flaws. Like, the French Revolution is one of the most irrational time periods simply because of this pathological need to make everything "rational" and breaking things that weren't broken... which is irrational. Don't fix what isn't broken or you'll break it - even a child should be able to figure this out but somehow these so-called "rationals" couldn't. -.- Actual rationals should be able to figure out the utility of generally "irrational" things and appreciate them for that utility (it's the job of rationals not to change for change's sake, but to identify what is broken and figure out a means to improve and change it. Change for change's sake is irrational and only serves the fuel the ego... and usually bloodlust). Those stories of heroes and villains serve a purpose, unconsciously or not, which is to maintain the stability of society and promote the values of the author/storyteller. And I don't think they're entirely dead either (well... nowadays they might be with Kathleen Kennedy's reign of terror...), but rather we see them in other forms, usually fantasy or sci-fi (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time etc.) and, back when those series weren't viciously murdered, the graves defiled and the corpses mutilated and made marionettes, they seemed highly successful (whereas the corpse puppets are anything but, except by shrieking idiots chasing social acceptance), and then there's the people I see online who desperately want a revival of these. There is a place for such narratives, we just need the right one for this modern world...
And yes, most people crave social acceptance above anything else. It's funny how human evolution created such an exploitable weakness. -.- Sorry, I just view that kind of behaviour as insecurity and a lack of sense of self (particularly as I grew up amongst people who craved it to the point where they faked entire personas and interests around it, but hated anyone who was genuine or authentic - authenticity is far more valuable because it's actually real instead of people playing pretend endlessly. Such pointless games tire me...). I see certain people on Youtube who are quite well-meaning but are hopelessly naive in the belief that they'll win simply by having a better argument than their opposition and then people en masse will take their side. Yeah, not to be rude to them but they've clearly not been paying attention because most people do not listen to arguments, no matter how logical, because they're A. more moved by emotions, and B. are terrified of social ostracisation so even if you do convince them logically, they'll never take your side and will oppose just as hard (if not moreso) than a true believer because they will want to keep the peace (just like a husband being abused by a mentally ill wife will attack the child that speaks up against their mother's behaviour in order to keep the peace and avoid repercussions from said wife) and please the unpleasable (they're kept walking on eggshells forever and ever and ever - the moral goalposts constantly shift so no-one feels safe, heretics will be created and punished, and therefore everyone else will work twice as hard to avoid the guillotine). In order to change the minds of most people, you'd have to usurp the current paradigm first, not the other way around. And most societal change was driven by minorities.