Re: Are "they" really the enemy?

[jdd@aiki.demon.co.uk (Jim Dixon)]

In message <9408160310.AA13160@phoenix.aps.muohio.edu> Shalder Flow writes:
> > What I said was : "to work with a system, you need to understand it
> > objectively".  [snip snip]
> 
> I've been watching this for a bit (I lurk here a lot) and this discussion 
> is really interesting.  I have some questions.  How are we going to 
> understand the system objectively?  By objectively do you mean logically, 
> mechanistically, magically?

To understand something you must become somewhat dispassionate about it.
Otherwise your observations are warped and you simply do not see what does
not agree with your preconceptions.

>			       Its clear you can't seperate yourself from
> "the system," even the "government system" as a member of this country.

Well, in some sense this is true, and the universe is one, and so on and
so forth.  But actually all of us observe systems in operation every day.
For example, the police force in your city is a distinct little system.
If you do not believe this, go out and buy yourself a uniform, a gun, etc,
and walk around the town for a while.  You will find that the police
will disagree with your simplistic theory and will arrest you.

> Sure, you can not vote, not participate, and try to observe it, but we're 
> all part of those average americans that you point out make up the 
> government.

(a) It is not necessary to withdraw from participation in order to observe;
    it is only necessary to be dispassionate, specifically in regard to
    your explanations or theories about things.  In fact, participation
    will probably make you a better observer.
(b) My comments about average Americans are somewhat more guarded than
    what you say I say.  My point was that in trying to understand the
    government it is best to start from the elementary observation that
    it is staffed by a more or less random selection of Americans, not
    devils incarnate.

    If you look more closely, you will find that certain types tend to
    concentrate in certain departments, and then again experience causes
    some to become alienated from the population at large.

> > > In _Systemantics_, John Gall conducts a very interesting examination of
> > > man-made systems and their behavior.  He notes that all man-made systems
> > > exhibit certain traits, among them growth, encroachment and promulgation
> > > of intra-system goals.  Your observation on the people employed by
> > > government may be right on target, but it doesn't take into account the
> > > entity of government itself.  This entity cannot be touched,
> > > communicated with or coerced.

The last sentence has a certain noble silliness about it.

A mob is a man-made system.  It often grows, encroaches, and promulgates
its own goals.	Yes.  But all of us know that it can touch and be touched,
it can be communicated with (ask any demagogue), and coerced (read
Napoleon's remarks on the utility of grapeshot in coercing mobs).

> I'll have to check out this book-- it sounds very interesting.  I'm
> bothered by the statement "all man-made systems." I find it hard to
> believe that such generalizations can be made.  Is it all man made
> systems of a certain size?  Of Western philosophical culture?  Does my 
> family exhibit these traits?  My circle of friends?  I must read this 
> book myself to fully understand you point.
> 
> > I more or less agree.  Now apply your arguments to this list as a
> > man-made system.
> 
> OK, I should have read along a bit farther.
> 
> > > Put another way, even though every person within the system may be a
> > > "good man", the system itself isn't necessarily good.
> > 
> > I agree.  But recall that I never spoke of goodness; I just said that
> > the people who work for the government are pretty much a random
> > assortment of Americans.  On the other hand, there have been several
> > heated statements to the effect that 'all lawyers are X' and 'all
> > government employees are Y'.  It is this that I disagree with the most.
> 
> Makes sense... you dislike generalizations based on occupation.

Not really.   What really bothers me is generalizations that are based
on nothing and/or generalizations that the generalizer is unwilling to
defend.

I _like_ generalizations, whether based on occupation or anything else,
that are accurate.  And I was trained in the scientific method, which
means first you take a good look at the real world, then you make up
theories, then everyone has a good time poking holes in them, then you
do it all over again.

> So what do we do?  It seems we've pretty much agreed that governments are 
> beasts beyond anyone's control, but so is _society_.  So is the entire 
> human population.

Personally, I find these statements very disturbing, because they are so
empty.

The 'beast beyond control' is your image in the mirror.  The government
that you are so concerned about controlling is staffed by people like
you and me.  They look in _their_ mirrors and they feel threatened too
and they want to control what they see too.

>		    Where do we start?	If, or based on the words of many
> on this list, we tear down the government, will we understand the 
> resultant human-made system any better?

You won't tear down the government without replacing it.  And I would
argue that the more violent the means used to tear down the government,
the more repressive its successor.  Governments exist in part because
we are such dangerous animals.

--
Jim Dixon