Given the increasing division between the thinking/feeling poles in the modern integrated society, we can answer the question of how the system will evolve. Recall that in the Transnational Liberalism post, the system described had the thinking player at the exterior of an expanding universe. The feeling player is in the interior with the stability point being non-Pareto, i.e. it is somewhere within the interior between the two players. As the system grows fueled by technological advances, the periphery expands at a geometric rate and therefore the overall influence of the thinking player will outpace the that of the feeling player and the equilibrium point will tend to move towards the periphery. But this is the long term limit. The stable growth of the system can be upset as it is today by the rapid condensation of the interior as they tear from their connection to the exterior player.
Let's use the analogy of the system universe in a slightly different way. A system grows by its ability to direct useful information. The well-defined mores of a socio-political system are like the supporting structures of a tree that direct information (position) to the leaves. The feeling player gravitates to the points in the system which nurtures future generations, actively participates in the interpersonal relations of the culture, and forms the crony networks that dominate large organizations. While the exterior player creates wealth from work done with the environment, the function of the interior player is to create human value. But untethered power tends to corrupt and when the interior player does not see itself as dependent on the wealth creation process of the exterior player, the impression of dominance and self-sufficience may arise. At this context, the structures that were developed to support the productive activities of the exterior player may appear counterproductive to the interior player therefore leading to their corruption. This dynamic can lead to instability and collapse of the system.
As partisanship increases, the feeling player coalesces with the benefit of central position in being able to organize their efforts. Additionally, the feeling player has a simple common set of expressions, i.e. it is primitive in its motivations. Meanwhile, the exterior player is focused on the external environment. The exterior player typically goes about its business of working as a normal mode of operation while the interior player manipulates those with which its comes into contact as its method of extracting wealth. The exterior player experiences a lag in adapting to the initiatives of the interior player. This relationship will persist while the internal structures of the system supply information to the exterior player. If the information structures of the system are corrupted by the concentrated efforts of the interior player (it benefits from the ability to position itself against the exterior player using unrestricted interior lines), the efforts of the exterior player may collapse and it is forced to redirect its efforts into reestablishing the interior structures. This is now the present situation.
What follows is a chaotic interior struggle. The eventual winner is the exterior player due to their ability to communicate the creation of wealth and eventually, the interior structures will be rebuilt and the system reformed. Of course, the system will be the worse for this disruption and there is the chance of total system destruction should an exterior intervention such as nuclear war occur while the system is in its vulnerable state.
Let's use the analogy of the system universe in a slightly different way. A system grows by its ability to direct useful information. The well-defined mores of a socio-political system are like the supporting structures of a tree that direct information (position) to the leaves. The feeling player gravitates to the points in the system which nurtures future generations, actively participates in the interpersonal relations of the culture, and forms the crony networks that dominate large organizations. While the exterior player creates wealth from work done with the environment, the function of the interior player is to create human value. But untethered power tends to corrupt and when the interior player does not see itself as dependent on the wealth creation process of the exterior player, the impression of dominance and self-sufficience may arise. At this context, the structures that were developed to support the productive activities of the exterior player may appear counterproductive to the interior player therefore leading to their corruption. This dynamic can lead to instability and collapse of the system.
As partisanship increases, the feeling player coalesces with the benefit of central position in being able to organize their efforts. Additionally, the feeling player has a simple common set of expressions, i.e. it is primitive in its motivations. Meanwhile, the exterior player is focused on the external environment. The exterior player typically goes about its business of working as a normal mode of operation while the interior player manipulates those with which its comes into contact as its method of extracting wealth. The exterior player experiences a lag in adapting to the initiatives of the interior player. This relationship will persist while the internal structures of the system supply information to the exterior player. If the information structures of the system are corrupted by the concentrated efforts of the interior player (it benefits from the ability to position itself against the exterior player using unrestricted interior lines), the efforts of the exterior player may collapse and it is forced to redirect its efforts into reestablishing the interior structures. This is now the present situation.
What follows is a chaotic interior struggle. The eventual winner is the exterior player due to their ability to communicate the creation of wealth and eventually, the interior structures will be rebuilt and the system reformed. Of course, the system will be the worse for this disruption and there is the chance of total system destruction should an exterior intervention such as nuclear war occur while the system is in its vulnerable state.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Share your thoughts