shonk: It might do to clarify what I imagine by the word “benevolence” in lieu of idealism. It seems to me that true benevolence, perhaps better described as love, involves a fundamental element of tolerance, for the benevolent or loving person puts themselves at the service of another person or thing which really exists, as opposed to an ideal, which exists only in the mind of the thinker. So true benevolence or love is in fact almost the opposite of idealism.

Benevolence = the act of being beneficial to other individuals. = the exchange (communication) of beneficial (True) information.

Isn’t benevolence a source of power?

Suppose you have a friend, and your association with this individual always tends to be beneficial. You’d do what you could to maintain that relationship – right?

All forms of friendship would be “benevolent entanglements”?

But this relationship cannot be considered an obligation or an "entanglement" if the desires of both the benefactor and the beneficiary are the same.

Maybe helping another (benevolence) is a form (a manifestation) of aggrandizing oneself?

aggrandize = to augment = to increase = to make larger (greater) or more powerful

Curt: But this relationship cannot be considered an obligation or an “entanglement” if the desires of both the benefactor and the beneficiary are the same.

You re-editing your posts on me?

Your original comment talked about Aggrandizing?

Of course this is your pseudoverse, you are “god” here, you have control over the “matter” (i.e. the contents of these posts).

But addressing your point … I would say that in reality you always have a situation where one individual is subordinate to the other. Either that, or both individuals are subordinate to the same individual.

Put another way, if you and I play chess, we BOTH benefit from the experience of the game; however, that doesn’t change the fact that we are also “entangled” by that system. When one of us makes our way onto the winning worldline, by necessity the other of us is forced onto the losing worldline.

In other words, even though our desires are the same (to win the game of chess) only one of us gets his wish. The outcome is not the same.

"In other words, even though our desires are the same (to win the game of chess) only one of us gets his wish."

First of all, this is isn't true. If Frank and John are playing chess together, they do not have the same goal. Their goals are equivalent, in that both want to win, but if they both had the same goal then they would both want Frank to win, for example. And that is why a game of chess is not the same as a benevolent relationship. A truly benevolent relationship would be one in which, for example, a child wants a toy and his mother wants him to have the toy in order to make him happy. Now, one could quibble that they do not have exactly the same motive in that the child wants the toy and the mother only wants him to have the toy insofar as it makes him happy, but this distinction does not affect my real point, which is that if the mother finds happiness in making her child happy she will hardly find the relationship exploitative or an "entanglement."

p.s. I am also aware that making another happy is not always equivalent to gratifying their momentary desires, and in some cases may well be directly opposed to it, but that does not seem to me to be a real problem with my idea, only with the defectiveness of the example I have used. My point, to reiterate, is that insofar as one person considers the happiness of another to be synonymous with their own, the benefits they render unto the other will not be felt as impositions upon themselves.

I suppose I am not entirely sure on what point you are disagreeing with me. If you mean to imply that all relationships are relations of power, I could not agree with you more. I also entirely agree with you if you mean that there is always some inequality between the partners in any relationship. But if you mean that all relationships are inherently exploitative, or that there is no such thing is benevolence, I disagree with you. I agree that there is no such thing as altruism in which no personal benefit is involved, but the formula you evoke with your question "Maybe helping another (benevolence) is a form (a manifestation) of aggrandizing oneself?" seems to me to be a perfect example of a successful benevolent relationship in which both parties benefit. Further comments later.

If you mean to imply that all relationships are relations of power, I could not agree with you more.

Let me be the touchy-feely voice of dissent here. On what basis do either one of you claim that all relationships are relations of power? I would agree that most are such, but having been in relationships in which I could not perceive any sort of power struggle, I would disagree that all are. Now, maybe I'm just not very perceptive of power relations, but I would like to see some substantiation of this claim.

I agree that there is no such thing as altruism in which no personal benefit is involved, but the formula you evoke with your question “Maybe helping another (benevolence) is a form (a manifestation) of aggrandizing oneself?” seems to me to be a perfect example of a successful benevolent relationship in which both parties benefit.

Correct. Aggrandizement need not be exclusive.

"I would agree that most are such, but having been in relationships in which I could not perceive any sort of power struggle, I would disagree that all are."

I think we may simply have different things in mind when we think about "power" as it applies to relationships. Although I did say that all relationships are relations of power, I certainly did not mean to suggest that all relationships are power struggles. You will probably think my idea of "relations of power" is so simple and obvious as to be tautologous, but I simply meant that in relationships the various powers and abilities that people put towards accomplishing their desired goals are applied towards each other, either mutualistically or antithetically. Thus it can be conflict-ridden or oppressive, but not necessarily thusly.

You have to remember that according to my worldview, reality is essentially a fractal. A fractal is a form of layered-hierarchy (a “Godelian Hierarchy”), ergo reality itself is a layered hierarchy, and all components of reality (i.e. consciousness) are components of that hierarchy (sometimes referred to as the “divine hierarchy”).

You seen that creepy little pyramid on the back of the ultimate materialistic expression of “the matter” (i.e. the money)? That’s what I’m talking about.

Curt: I suppose I am not entirely sure on what point you are disagreeing with me. If you mean to imply that all relationships are relations of power, I could not agree with you more.

In a sense, Yes. All relationships involve an element of “control”, and you would probably consider control and power synonymous.

Curt: I also entirely agree with you if you mean that there is always some inequality between the partners in any relationship.

Sure … like the mother and child in your example. The mother tends to control the child’s actions far more than the child tends to control the mother’s actions. But the flow of control is by no means one way.

Curt: But if you mean that all relationships are inherently exploitative, or that there is no such thing is benevolence, I disagree with you.

No, I’m not saying that all relationships are exploitive. Only an Atheist would think like that. And benevolence is definitely a real existent quality.

I’m trying to think of a good meme …

You seen that new Kill Bill movie? There’s a martial arts master, I think his name was Pei Mei, (or something like that). He’s a good example of what I am talking about. He’s benevolent as hell, but only to an individual who is very perceptive, and comprehends their position in the divine hierarchy.

Curt: I agree that there is no such thing as altruism in which no personal benefit is involved, but the formula you evoke with your question “Maybe helping another (benevolence) is a form (a manifestation) of aggrandizing oneself?” seems to me to be a perfect example of a successful benevolent relationship in which both parties benefit.

I’m glad we agree on that point.

Yeah, I’m saying that Altruism works, but it only works because an altruistic act is ultimately beneficial to the Altruist himself (or herself). No sane individual would ever deliberately harm themselves in an attempt to benefit a non-axiomatic individual.

Of course my old Master would probably say something like … It is amazing the similarity between the pattern of Love and the pattern of Insanity.

But there is a clear difference, he was just a cynic.

Shonk: Let me be the touchy-feely voice of dissent here. On what basis do either one of you claim that all relationships are relations of power? I would agree that most are such, but having been in relationships in which I could not perceive any sort of power struggle, I would disagree that all are. Now, maybe I’m just not very perceptive of power relations, but I would like to see some substantiation of this claim.

You are referring to marriage, and Love … I am assuming?

I’d say that was a “special case” (or special class) of relationship (entanglement).

To assume a position in the Divine Hierarchy, you have to be Sworn. Essentially any individual Graviton will have a Master, (a Liege) and they will have servants (vassals). And this is true regardless of the individual in question, and regardless of their precise position in the overall hierarchy.

But a “Soulmate” (your spouse or spouses) is (are) potentially Unsworn. Their position in the hierarchy can be affixed solely by virtue of their spouse’s position. Essentially you and your spouse(s) are peers. One of you will always be controlling the other at any given moment, but if you look from moment to moment to detect who is in control at a given instant it will appear “random”. (i.e. sometimes the husband is making decisions for both individuals, sometimes the wife)

It’s not actually “random” keep in mind (remember I the LD don’t believe in randomness). It just appears random. There is an underlying mechanical process that is completely Logical. Over time the individuals in question (assuming they have the proper intrinsic parameters) will tend to perceive that process better and better. And as they do the strength (power) of that entanglement grows.

Hey I was talking to someone else and they got me to thinking about the chess example; there is something else I’d like to add.

Curt: First of all, this is isn’t true. If Frank and John are playing chess together, they do not have the same goal. Their goals are equivalent, in that both want to win, but if they both had the same goal then they would both want Frank to win, for example. And that is why a game of chess is not the same as a benevolent relationship.

I disagree, and here’s why.

I would say that BOTH Frank and John have the same goal, and that goal is playing a game of chess. Winning is not the real goal, that’s secondary.

Look, assuming that Frank and John are both being honest neither is going to allow their desire to win (a secondary goal) to interfere with an honest game of chess played by the official rules of chess.

If winning was the true goal (the primary goal) then both Frank and John would attempt to win by any means necessary – which would include cheating (i.e. NOT playing by the “official” rules).

But assuming that neither player (knowingly) cheats during the game, I would assert that the game itself was the goal of the situation, and winning was a secondary objective (i.e. it is more beneficial to win than lose, but it’s also more beneficial to play chess and lose than to sit around being bored, by not playing).

"I would say that BOTH Frank and John have the same goal, and that goal is playing a game of chess. Winning is not the real goal, that’s secondary."

Well, that point is debatable, but given that it is true, then you have even less of a reason to disagree with me, since you brought up the chess scenario to provide an example of a situation in which the goal of two or more people in regards to each other can be both the same and mutually exclusive. Now if you want to say that the goal of chess is simply to play chess, then the relationship would seem to be mutualistic, in that both players help each other accomplish their goal in tandem, which is similar to what I am suggesting can happen in a real altruistic relationship.

I’m not sure that I am disagreeing with you.

I know shonk is a self-professed “Anarchist”.

And I know that Anarchism is essentially the rejection of the notion of a Hierarchy (like the one I’m describing). So assuming that you are also an anarchist, I would also assume that you would have some problem with the concept of the Hierarchy.

"So assuming that you are also an anarchist..."

Now what exactly would lead you to that assumption, other than the fact that we have the same parents? I refer you to my entry from March 7, entitled: "Why I am not an anarchist". It is true that my misanthropic tendencies could be confused with anarchism, because, while I recognize that hierarchies and exercises of power are inevitable in social relations, my natural tendency is to avoid them by avoiding people.

The Curt: Now what exactly would lead you to that assumption, other than the fact that we have the same parents?

I only possess the limited information I possess. All of my judgments (decisions) are based on that information and nothing else. How do you suppose it works?

But please don’t get me wrong. I was not trying to mischaracterize your beliefs. I was merely stating my assumptions regarding your beliefs.

The Curt: I refer you to my entry from March 7, entitled: “Why I am not an anarchist”.

For the record I am a Minarchist myself. Minarchism is consistent with the concept of Parsimony as well as the concept of a Hierarchy. Pure Anarchism assumes infinite Parsimony (i.e. non-existence/no “system” at all) which is the reason pure anarchism denies the existence of the Hierarchy. It’s contradictory nonsense in the extreme.

The Curt: It is true that my misanthropic tendencies could be confused with anarchism, because, while I recognize that hierarchies and exercises of power are inevitable in social relations, my natural tendency is to avoid them by avoiding people.

Okay, you have the potential to shed a lot of light onto something for me …

You say that your tendency is to avoid people (I’ve heard that from a lot of Atheists). So suppose that you had the following choice:

1) Solipsism (the ultimate mechanism for avoiding other people) combined with true Free Will (no consequences for your actions).

… or …

2) Individuality (more or less like now) combined with Fatalism (or Determinism if you prefer).

Which option would you pick?

Keep in mind that neither option is really “Evil” (less moral) relative to the other. “Evil” is when an Individual tries to pick #1 for everyone, regardless of everyone else’s personal desires.

And I know that Anarchism is essentially the rejection of the notion of a Hierarchy (like the one I’m describing).

Some would call it merely the rejection of artificial hierarchy. Not that this is necessarily my view, but the etymology of "anarchy" is simply "no state", not "no hierarchy".

Shonk: Some would call it [anarchy] merely the rejection of artificial hierarchy. Not that this is necessarily my view, but the etymology of “anarchy” is simply “no state”, not “no hierarchy”.

What’s the difference between a “State” (a “government”) and a “Hierarchy”?

Couldn’t it be argued that a “State” is a form of “Hierarchy”?

My point (to Mr. Kennedy) was that if civilized man exists in a state of hierarchy naturally (which I would argue is true) then how is the act of denying that reality a Logical action?

Does a “state” (a “government”) exist amongst animals? Isn’t it true that animals exist in a reality with “no state”? Would you consider animals “anarchist”? Why not?

A state is certainly a form of hierarchy, but it's not necessarily true that all hierarchies are states.

Shonk: A state is certainly a form of hierarchy, but it’s not necessarily true that all hierarchies are states.

We are entering the realm of semantics.

State = a set (system) of circumstances, attributes (properties) or rules characterizing a “thing” at a given moment in Time = Condition = form (of being) = Stage or phase of existence = rank or position

State = (i.e. Government) = The power and/or authority represented by a government = A territorial or political unit (geographic area)

Hierarchy = A Sequence of Sequences = A system of theocratic government by priests or other “clergy” in graded ranks = A group of “officials” (esp. the highest officials in such a system). = a group of persons (individuals) or “things” arranged in order of rank (mass), status (velocity), grade (spin), and class (charge).

Sequence = Two or more related Options = an array = a list

Option = A mutually exclusive binary choice = a decision junction on one’s worldline = a base meme

I’d agree that not all hierarchies are “States” (i.e. governments) although I would argue that all Hierarchies are Systems.

I’d also argue that all governments (i.e. “States”) are Systems which is why I assert that all forms of government are hierarchies.

I would assume that you would assert that Government is an unnecessary system/hierarchy, which would lead me right back to the question – what is the difference between civilized man, and uncivilized man (i.e. “animals”)?

Do animals have a State (a government)? Does that make animals anarchist by default? If not, then why not?

I would assume that you do not assert Anarchism as a return to a state of “jungle law” (i.e. a return to humans living as animals), so my question (the same I repeatedly asked Don Kennedy) is what exactly (precisely) do you mean by the term “Anarchy”?

Unless you are claiming that humans would be better off living like animals, then I’m not sure what you mean by asserting human civilization would be better off without a state.

"Unless you are claiming that humans would be better off living like animals, then I’m not sure what you mean by asserting human civilization would be better off without a state."

Huh? "Hierarchy," as you call it, is certainly not unique to humanity nor is it universal among humans. Certain non-humans like ants live extremely hierarchical existences; equally, many humans over the course of history, like hitchikers and wandering minstrels, have succeeded in living fairly anarchistic lives. Your notion of "hierarchy," or "civilization" as it used to be called, has been somewhat discredited as a concept by the recognition that it is not really a product of the unique human reasoning faculty, but simply a more or less inevitable product of social living-together in large numbers. Many other animals demonstrate equivalent social structures, some of them even perhaps more hierarchically complex in certain ways. But in my opinion hierarchical order is not generally a thing possessing nor requiring some outside legitimization. The strong, the clever, the unscrupolous dominate the rest, and that is how things are. Your main point, that social relations are inherently hierarchical was (within certain limits) long since conceded, indeed was never disputed, but your claim that hierarchy is a unique product of human reason and a reflection of our highly-evolved state, in addition to being false, promotes invidious distinctions between social and asocial existence.

I would assume that you do not assert Anarchism as a return to a state of “jungle law” (i.e. a return to humans living as animals), so my question (the same I repeatedly asked Don Kennedy) is what exactly (precisely) do you mean by the term “Anarchy”?

An absence of States, where a State is defined to be "an organization with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given geographic area." Note that this definition says very little about hierarchies per se, other than in the sense that a State is a hierarchy. However, families, churches, youth groups, sports teams and businesses are also hierarchies and I have no desire whatsoever to destroy them.

I think you're making the rather dangerous assumption that "government" and "society" are equivalent notions.

Unless you are claiming that humans would be better off living like animals, then I’m not sure what you mean by asserting human civilization would be better off without a state.

It's rather naïve to think that the only difference between humans and animals is that humans have governments. For example, although we wouldn't consider ants or termites as being sophisticated enough to have anything as abstract as a "government", surely we could agree that their social structures are orders of magnitude more totalitarian than anything humans could ever implement for themselves.

Curt: Huh? “Hierarchy,” as you call it, is certainly not unique to humanity nor is it universal among humans.

It certainly isn’t “artificial” or external to reality either, so I’m not sure what your original point was (or is)?

I’d also disagree that the concept of “Hierarchy” is not universal amongst humans. Humans wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the Hierarchy.

Is the food chain a hierarchy? Are humans a part of the food chain?

I notice you have this common Atheist tendency to assume that “Humans” are somehow “special” and external to the laws of Physics. I am not exactly sure how you arrived at that conclusion?

Curt: Certain non-humans like ants live extremely hierarchical existences …

I agree.

So … in your assessment are ants “anarchists” or not?

Curt: … equally, many humans over the course of history, like hitchikers and wandering minstrels, have succeeded in living fairly anarchistic lives.

Is “fairly anarchist” the same as “Anarchistic” or is it more like “Minarchistic”?

Curt: Your notion of “hierarchy,” or “civilization” as it used to be called, has been somewhat discredited …

Yeah, but Atheists tell me the same thing about “God” and it’s obvious they are completely out of their gourds on that score, so …

Curt: … [Civilization …] as a concept by the recognition that it is not really a product of the unique human reasoning faculty, but simply a more or less inevitable product of social living-together in large numbers.

Yeah … that’s what I’ve been telling you – when Individuality is True (i.e. living together in large numbers) then Fatalism (i.e. a “Hierarchy”) is also True (i.e. the inevitable product of social living …)

Curt: Many other animals demonstrate equivalent social structures, some of them even perhaps more hierarchically complex in certain ways.

Fate (or TLOP if you prefer) affects animals just as much as it affects Humans. Remember Humans exist in the same system as animals, and technically Humans are animals.

Curt: But in my opinion hierarchical order is not generally a thing possessing nor requiring some outside legitimization.

Define “outside legitimization”? It’s all just the inevitable result of the orderly functioning of TLOP – right?

Or are you back to asserting that something “magical” is happening?

Curt: The strong, the clever, the unscrupulous dominate the rest, and that is how things are.

So does Might make Right?

… or does Being Right (True) makes you Mighty?

Curt: Your main point, that social relations are inherently hierarchical was (within certain limits) long since conceded, indeed was never disputed, but your claim that hierarchy is a unique product of human reason and a reflection of our highly-evolved state, in addition to being false, promotes invidious distinctions between social and asocial existence.

Well, I guess that depends upon whether or not you believe that humans are more evolved than animals? Do humans occupy a special (elevated) place on the food chain? Is that the result of Magic, or is there a Logical (comprehensible) reason for it?

But in any event I still have no idea what you mean by Anarchism?

Just for the record, do you consider yourself an “Anarchist”, Mr. Curt, or are you more accurately labeled as a “Minarchist”?

The Shonk: [What is “Anarchy”? …]An absence of States, where a State is defined to be “an organization with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given geographic area.”

Okay, but according to this definition I would infer that all wild animals are “Anarchist” because all wild (non-domesticated) animals exist in a “Society” (if it can be called that) where there is a complete an utter absence of a “State” (or “Government”). Animals do not exist under a system where there is a “monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a geographic area”.

But this raises another interesting point. How would you define “legitimate use of force”? Doesn’t that phrase imply an Objective system of morality amongst the members of a “Society” (a “geographic area”)?

If there is no Objective system of morality, then how is ANY force “legitimate”? By what definition of that term? Without an Objective system of morality wouldn’t all force be Subjectively applied?

The Shonk: Note that this definition says very little about hierarchies per se, other than in the sense that a State is a hierarchy. However, families, churches, youth groups, sports teams and businesses are also hierarchies and I have no desire whatsoever to destroy them.

I concede that there are Negative Hierarchies -- they exist. But the point of contention is whether or not all Governmental Hierarchies are Evil (negative) by necessity.

You are arguing that they are all evil.

I am arguing that is not always the case.

I am arguing that to claim all governments are evil makes about as much sense as claiming that all black people are evil.

A hierarchy is an algorithm. It isn’t Good or Evil in and of itself. It is only the purpose it is put to that can possess the quality of Good or Evil.

Now I would assume that you are actually arguing that it is the purpose (the very function) of government that is Evil, ergo any algorithm applied to that purpose would also be evil.

But I’m not seeing how you are arriving at the conclusion that all government function is evil. That would seem to be counter-intuitive and anti-capitalistic.

Look, in Capitalism everything has a cost (a consequence). It’s like the Ying and the Yang. There is a benefit to it – there is a cost to it. You can’t obtain the benefit, without paying the cost at the same time. Either the cost is worth the benefit, or it is not.

The Shonk: I think you’re making the rather dangerous assumption that “government” and “society” are equivalent notions.

What I am saying is that you cannot have a “Society” without some form of “Government”. The Government is what transforms a group of isolated individuals into a Society.

Trade and commerce are the byproducts of government and society. Without a government or a society you don’t get trade and commerce.

Trade, commerce, government, and society are all based on the premise of comprehensible (logical) communication between individuals. That is the entire purpose of government – to facilitate communication between individuals.

The Shonk: It’s rather naïve to think that the only difference between humans and animals is that humans have governments.

Does the alpha male in a pack of wolves count as a “Leader” in the minds of the other wolves? I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if that was the case. I’d say it was simply a matter of degrees, complexity/elaboration, and self-awareness/self-perception. Humans are just “more aware” of their governments than animals, kind of in the same way humans are more aware of The Laws of Physics (in a manner of speaking) than animals are.

The Shonk: For example, although we wouldn’t consider ants or termites as being sophisticated enough to have anything as abstract as a “government”, surely we could agree that their social structures are orders of magnitude more totalitarian than anything humans could ever implement for themselves.

My problem is that by your definition of the term “Anarchy”, I’d have no idea (no way of telling) an Anarchist society even if I saw one. For all I know I am living in an Anarchist society this very moment and I just don’t realize it.

Ants and termites wouldn’t be considered Anarchist? How about a herd of sheep? How about a pack of wolves? Is Rwanda an Anarchist nation? How can I tell “anarchy” when I see it? What’s the true test for Anarchy?