Re: virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change
Thu, 12 Dec 96 16:46:19 GMT

Lior wrote:

> Hara, this very thought-string is one of those from which my
> functional-society model evolved. So, I'll finally quit trying to
> translate my model onto English, and begin building a model with you...
> Let's see:
> * What's the boundaries of a social structre?

The law.

> What's the difference
> between it and a state?

The state is commonly used to depict the territorial boundary. It is
all powerful, with total authority. It is not optional, all within the
state *must* obey, otherwise it is not the state.

I think that if we're going to build a model of society, where
territorial boundaries are dissolved, then the idea of a state must
be dropped, or completely redefined.

> Several rhetorical questions:
> * Can you design a state which can work for the benefit\interests of
> each and every one of its citizens?

That is the purpose of each state, but they have varying success rates.

> What's so ideal in such a state?

In such a state, rule by the people would be absolute. But there would
not be tyranny of the majority. It would be so difficult to achieve.
The state here is ideal, because it is right for all the the people,
regradless of race, sex, age, religion, etc...

> * Can you design a state once which can function well for years?

As long as it can easily adapt to the changing needs of society

> How
> flexible can a state be, so it could survive and function well on and
> on?

Very flexible, but well organised. Difficult.

> * How firm & developed could be a national idealogy?

In a state with no territorial boundaries, national idealogy would
have to be removed, or it could not work.

> Now
> * What about having various social structres, each working for a certain
> interest of its members?

Good. Very good idea indeed.

> * What about infinite Super-structres [e.g. state] and Sub-structres
> [e.g. family], forming, mutating and collapsing according to the needs &
> aspirations of the individual?

These already exist, we just need to rebuild them from base principles.

> * Let's say a billion people are interested in eating choco-ice-cream -
> Should the social structre for this interest be made of a billion
> members?

Impractical. There lies the problem with large states.

> What are the criterions upon which to build a social structre?

That's what we';ve got to decide (I'm not being all that helpful, am

> What's wrong with buying choco-ice-cream in the nearby store?

How would you apply such a metaphore to *actual* social structures?

> * What makes a society stable?

Non conflicting laws. No prejudices. Education among the people.

> torn apart?

The opposite of the above.

> totalitarian?

A good idea in principal only. Unless human nature were always benevolent,
then greed would take over, as we have seen so many times, and the
society becomes dangerous.

> flexible?

An unwritten constitution.

> conservative?

A long existence, following an inbred class system.

> functional?

The people themselves.

> ignorant?

Inefficiency on the part of the state.

> flourishing?

Efficiency on the part of the state

> fanatic?

Powerful memes

> liberal?

A good legislative system.

> good?

Me :)

> <How many grammatical mistakes flourish throughout these questions?>

who cares, you said what you wanted to, and that's all that matters, as
long as people understand.

> Ok, additional questions will be posted only if those ones are clear
> enough to be answered.

Was that any help. I know I've been a little blunt, but I havn't got
much time, and my brain's dead :) Hopefully it'll get people's creative
juices flowing ;P

Richard Jones
"We are the New Breed,
We are the Future."