On Universal Contexts

On Universal Contexts

An attempt to quantify and justify the aims of the Tear Down The Walls project here follows.

Most people will see the world as undoubtedly being full of problems. Some people regard Earth as beautiful, indeed she is. Others regard her as a cesspit where we play out our vilest natures. Whatever your view, most agree there are problems which we should try to solve. Before dealing with the more obvious issue of war and killing, which in effect at this point need no new explanation, let us look instead to our own systems, to workings inside nations, not between them. Let us look at that fundamental holy grail of all humanitarian efforts - universal quality of life.

Let's talk theoretical politics.

I'm a left-winger. I believe that the system should be geared towards ensuring a good, comfortable lifestyle for everyone rather than seeing how rich we can make the elite. A study once demonstrated that 13 billion dollars would provide everyone on Earth with a basic diet, compared to 18 billion dollars which the West spends each year on pet food. It's a well-known fact that there's more than enough resources to accommodate everyone, and so those resources should be shared. The extreme of this principle is communism. So let's take a look.

For those of you who are not familiar with communism, the basic premise is that taxation is high and that the government shares out the collected money (and hence resources) equally. The bin man gets paid as much as a doctor. It is the opposite of capitalism, apparently. The problem with capitalism is the neglect of the lower orders. So, is communism a better idea? There are problems with communism too, obviously. I'll list them and see if there are solutions.

"The bin man gets paid as much as the doctor?! What the hell?"
Morally speaking, I could argue that people should be altruistic in helping the people around them. After all, the doctor would have far too much illness on his hands if the bin man didn't do his jobs. Of course, humans aren't like that, unfortunately. I suppose it's only fair that people need rewards for their efforts. A doctor has to go through a lot more training and hard work to achieve his job than a bin man. One of the problems with communism is that it fails to take account of the human instinct of ambition. So, is there a way around this?
Firstly, it is possible to have a kind of pseudo-communism, where taxes are high and a minimum level of comfort is assured but at the same time the leftovers of the country's resources are up to grabs in the capitalist style. But in order to remain true to the principles of Marxism, perhaps another solution may be found. Much of people's desires, from my experience, revolve around being comfortable, being liked and having control. In simplistic terms, money fame and power. So, if supplying money does not agree with Marxist values, then the other two offer alternatives. Those who contribute a lot to the society would be put on a pedestal, in the same way that Nelson Mandela is. They would also rise to a higher level of authority in whatever field they have excelled in, thus pandering to the fame and power sides of our nature.

"What about Russia? What about North Korea? They speak for themselves... "
Yes, they do. The thought of freedom in Northern Korea seems laughable. And Stalin killed way, way more of his own people than Hitler ever did. And here's where it falls down - those countries were run from the top. Whereas this works in a capitalist state (as capitalist society is geared towards rewarding the successful), a communist state is meant to be solely for the good of the worst-off. Human greed was the problem in Soviet Russia. The way their state worked meant that the people in charge had a heck of a lot of power, which they used to siphon off a lot of wealth to themselves and to keep the people firmly below them. Ironically enough, sounds to me like the most capitalist system you could possibly imagine. Any Marxist revolution, by its very nature has to start from the bottom. Rather than for the government to be overthrown, and the new powers to convert the masses, the masses have to convert themselves. Someone would need to convince the people of the value of sharing, and then the people control the government. The ideal fair state, then, would have to be more democratic than any capitalist state. Russia and Korea are by no means democratic and that's why they are somewhat believable depictions of hell.

Rather than resources being shared out amongst the people by the higher orders, as was attempted in these states, the population should share them out amongst themselves. Propaganda has been used very successfully many times in the past, it would not be difficult to convince a group of people that they have a duty to help contribute to the happiness of everyone around them by sharing. It would simply be a part of the society. If someone has a lot of money, they would give lots of it to charity, to the people they know... that way, the resources are not forcefully shared but are willingly shared out by the people owning them, thus bypassing the instinct of human ambition. Maybe then, neither capitalism nor Marxism as we know them serve as a perfect system.

Perhaps a state with capitalist laws, in which you are free to do as you please within reason, could serve simply as a backdrop for the conversion of the masses to charity. In fact, liberty can even allow rather than prohibit charity.

I've seen this happen in the semi-homeless teenage groups I used to spend time with. Sadly it's not something I've seen much outside this group. You'd expect such people to be more selfish, more cautious with their goods than anyone else. But no. Many times I've sat with them in some unkempt corner of town and one of them will pull out a box of donuts or a whole bunch of pasties and hand them around freely. Looking back, I think it was the relaxed nature of the group (we spent a lot of time sitting around talking and not doing much, after all several of us *including myself* were actually homeless) that made everyone relaxed about their possessions. There were no rules between us, you could say what you wanted and there was trust. In systems with lots of rules a certain self-preservation and paranoia seems to appear which prevents open charity.

I found this way of sharing to be a far more successful social system than charity in the conventional sense because, unlike giving to actual charities, there was no buzz, no gratification, no brownie points from everyone else, it was just normal. You shared and that was that; you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. And sharing will only have completed its journey into social dogma when it ceases to be an occasional act of goodwill and becomes simply normal. In this way, we would have a communistic society within a capitalist state and the worst off of us, given a proper benefit system and the support of friends, would lead a happy, comfortable life. Two seemingly incompatible systems working side by side.

Of course, this is not a system, at least not a political or legal one, that is at all revolutionary. This is merely a system of thought, an attitude that produces the required effect. Our next step must therefore be to explore our society in an effort to properly define this attitude and in search of potential barriers.

'That loneliness is universal is one of the great hypocrisies of our nature' - Me, last week

This is an interesting topic. Just as our bodies tell us of our physical situation through hunger, pain, thirst and pleasure our brains tell us of our mental status through emotions. Universal loneliness, then, must signify a universal problem. What can be so widespread and yet so unacknowledged as to cause such a problem?

Most people feel lonely. You would therefore expect everybody to be constantly seeking to remedy this, to make bonds, to abolish this barrier to fulfilment. Yet this is not so. Indeed, be overly friendly or open to anyone you know not well and you are likely to be considered strange, annoying, naive, even sinister. Whilst the first adjective is admittedly not even negative and the second bears no relevance to morality or a person's potential value as a friend, there is a commonly held delusion that these first two adjectives are somehow of some unexplained importance. But of course, what explanation need there be? If society has dictated such descriptions to be bad, isn't that good enough? An absurd proposition, of course, but the majority not only swallow social doctrine but proceed adopt it as vehemently held beliefs of their own and seek zealously to cling to them. In the face of this absurdity the problems within our society that are seldom recognised now shine like distress beacons, ignored, spat upon whilst those who call for improvements are exiled into social solitude. Emotional fascism seems an appropriate name for this cause of loneliness, and we have here identified one of the most appalling atrocities of our social system - judgementality. Our original topic of loneliness seems in comparison of little urgency.

Nonetheless, let us remain on the topic of loneliness. What of the third adjective, 'naive'? The word naive suggests a lack of wisdom. This is at best a questionable judgement. Is there any greater wisdom than goodwill towards others? To call overt good nature and openness unwise is to suggest that there is something more important than morality. However, we must consider that the self-protecting person has little choice but to refrain from overt honesty and goodwill given the social climate in which we live. Blame then, can be placed not on the few people 'naive' enough to defy unjust rules but on the society which stifles their efforts, on common perception. Blame can be placed firmly on the shoulders of the hordes who adopt views based on their popularity. We have now not only identified emotional fascism as a cause of universal loneliness, but have now in turn identified a cause of emotional fascism - lack of independent thought. As Albert Einstein said, 'few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.'

We may now move on to the final adjective, 'sinister'.

How exactly would an overly friendly or sociable person be sinister? Perhaps he is after something, and is being friendly in order to gain your trust. I am inclined to believe however that labelling someone you have little or no information about as sinister is simply an indoctrinated reaction to the first adjective, 'strange', which incidentally may be considered a synonym of 'different'. People acting differently are often taken as suspicious. This is a grave state of affairs, where difference must be justified before being considered for acceptance. Rather we should have to justify why any particular behaviour, unique or otherwise, is suspicious in the first place. Such arguments are merely diversions, a way of not having to admit to oneself a judgemental tendency. Let us propose, for the sake of argument, that this often mentioned friendly person is out to benefit somehow at your expense. It is likely you would find some evidence to support this, but let us just assume that you can call someone sinister based solely on their attempts to socialise with you. There is still a vast range of sharing that can take place at no risk to yourself. You can talk about your views and opinions, for example. I have no idea, for instance, who will read this essay, yet I cannot sensibly expect to be adversely affected by posting it. To echo the surprisingly common reply that all information can be used against you is bordering clinical paranoia.

Feeling close to people is important to us because we are social animals. Loneliness, it seems, is universal because relieving it on any grand scale is universally difficult, made manifestly worse given probable reactions. Perhaps it is possible that on an instinctual level advocating judgement on those different to yourself lowers competition in regards to reputation and increases your chances of acceptance. Logically speaking, this is counterproductive as there is always someone else slagging off whatever group you belong to.

There is something that can be said for the proposition that conformity is our chief enemy. People are easily convinced, and people do not like deviance from the norm. Let us explore conformity a little more.

Of all conformity's symptoms, the problem I see is in tolerance. Despite all the lip service everyone pays to acceptance and open-mindedness, people always have been, and it seems still are, easily led. As such, those few of us that are lucky enough to be famous, or who decide what goes through the media at us, or even to a small extent those natural leaders in society (sometimes for as shallow a reason as being good-looking) set standards. They set certain styles, certain attitudes, that become considered social dogma. And that becomes the accepted norm, each group of people have their own version of it. If you don't conform to any group's own ways you will find it extremely difficult to make any headway with them. A polite, friendly even, relationship is about the best you can hope for with most of them, there will most likely be little real closeness or depth involved. A good relationship to the walls they put up will be about the top of the road.

But of course the wall thing is a two-way deal. Let's take a hypothetical group of people. They have their ways like any group, and you start up a conversation with one of them. Up goes the wall and the conversation quickly becomes a test of how quickly you can think of the best social thing to say about some random topic neither of you really give two craps about. Of course that doesn't happen all the time, but it happens a hell of a lot to a hell of a lot of people. It's a scenario generally known as small talk, and the only people I've ever known to enjoy it or make any use of it are the very open or confident, most of us see it as something we have to do because we don't want to be seen as rude. This hypothetical person won't be very eager to lower that wall. Because they will have assumed, understandably, that you are not of their group, and so not the same type of person as they are and so, following the pseudo-logic, less likely to accept or understand them if they opened up and showed any real honesty. You have to know someone very well to get any relevance out of them. And because you are not of their group (and because all the resulting subconscious reasoning has occurred) they will unlikely be willing to spend the time to get to know you that well. The result is a failed or useless conversation. It scares me to think how many close friends I'll never have simply because I've not been lucky enough to wander around the brickwork.

So what am I trying to say? That people shouldn't order themselves into little groups? That they shouldn't have so many unique peculiarities? That people shouldn't follow trends? No, that's not what I'm saying. Those peculiarities make the world a little less boring. And people will organise themselves into groups, it's how we are and it makes us happy. I don't necessarily think people should follow trends, but I've no right to say they shouldn't, it's their life they can do what the hell they want. And that's the point of all this. I can't stop people being so easily led, nor can you, nor can anybody. So, what can we do? Well, the walls that people put up are there for a reason. They're there out of some mix of anxiety, caution, low confidence or self-esteem? in short, fear. What are people afraid of? The only thing they could possibly be afraid of is how we'll perceive them. After all, what is the purpose of image if not for perception? For years, we've been telling the masses you shouldn't worry about what people think of you, just be yourself. All very true. But really, come on. People aren't like that, everyone wants to be liked and so everyone will suspend the real them to get along in the world, we can't blame them for that. Maybe then something is wrong with us. There must be a reason they think they need to worry about how we see them because, let's face it, if our society were really as open and accepting as we like to make out, there'd be no need to worry. But, as always, there is a certain accepted way of behaving now just like there always has been. For example, a forty year old watching a teenager climb a wall may roll his eyes. A teenager who overhears two elderly people talking about cats and nostalgic 'old times' might think 'pathetic'. Ok, stereotypical examples maybe but intolerance is still rife. And deep down we all know that, that's why we have walls. So rather than spreading self-confidence and insensitivity to social conventions, as has been done so unsuccessfully in the past, I say we spread tolerance, acceptance and goodwill and let the rest come naturally. Look not to how you project yourself but on how you allow others to project themselves to you.

As can be seen, the problem lies not with the individual but with the masses, to the context. A universal social context would scarcely exist without conformity, as it is conformity that generates large numbers of people who think in the same way. Let us propose, in all pessimism, that conformity is a natural human instinct that cannot simply be removed. Perhaps it is possible to loop the instinct, to make controversy itself a controversy, to make taboo a lowly regarded notion, to make independent thought popular. Conformity would, in theory, proceed to self-destruct. What would be the resulting world? A more free one, certainly. A more moral one? This is more debatable. Many, through the natural human desire to consider themselves moral people would attempt to be good people. Other human instincts and compulsions of a more selfish nature would nonetheless produce barriers and exert their own, equally potent influences. Even if the existing immorally judgemental systems of thought were abolished through the self-destruction of conformity, we would still need to use the conformity instinct again to establish a basic attitude with which to replace it. This should be as simple and as loose as possible to be universally accessible and to allow for individualism to retain the ideals of independent thought, yet clear enough to serve the purpose of guiding humanity towards utopia. For us to steer clear of descent into conformity in the old style or worse, oppression, our ideal society must be guided by one principle and one principle alone, something short, sweet, elegantly simple and irrefutably moral. In fact, let morality be this principle.

What is morality? There are many philosophies, thoughts and systems invented over the years with regards to the question of morality, and what it entails. There is one founding rule that all respectable versions of morality seem to have in common: one should seek to cause more benefit than detriment to living beings. Let me pose a few examples.

Stealing is wrong, right? Completely and utterly. You're a guest in someone's house: would you steal their money if it was lying on a shelf? I should hope not, it's selfish and immoral.

You live in the third world. You receive a phone call telling you that a family member is very ill and needs food and water, fast.

You're a guest in someone's house: would you steal their money if it was lying on a shelf? Of course you would. Stealing is wrong, yeah, but no decent person would let someone die rather than steal, especially not a family member.

Murder. The worst of all bad deeds, unforgivable, detestable. You're in a plane, it gets hijacked, would you kill the terrorists?

The examples show that no action is inherently right or wrong and so the morality of our actions can be judged solely by their consequence. The examples also show that the criteria by which you judge those consequences follow the benefit-detriment ratio.

What about 'moral codes' that do not come into this category? Such as "please" and "thank you"? Manners are free. But that's the point, we follow these conventions because they're free. If, for whatever reason, saying please and thank you harmed someone in a measurable way, you'd refrain from such manners and deal with the bad rep, I'd imagine. Most of everything moral falls somehow into the same simple formula, and if it doesn't it would be disposed of if it went against said formula. I have not yet come across an exception.

"It's not that simple... "

It really is.

What happens, in our theoretical world, if you break this code? I myself do not believe in the concept of justice, as the term too closely resembles vengeance for my liking. Justice as an ideal does not serve the benefit over detriment principle and is in nature rather petulant. Punishment and reward, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. To clarify, justice is the concept that you should cause suffering to those who wrong or please those who do right because this is what is deserved. Punishment and reward is the concept that this should be done because it serves a purpose - it advocates the latter and deters people from the former. Social pressure is an invaluable tool in these calculations. If our inflexible moral rule were an unmovable, revered social dogma (as would be inevitable given it would be the only universal ethic), breaking the rule would be immensely unpopular. You would be shunned. This pressure would ensure the principle is followed in most cases up to the most extreme of human atrocities, such as murder, which the state would then deal with using the usual method of imprisonment.

What if you were in the army? Would you really disobey an order to hose down a gang of rioters running pretty quickly at you with crowbars and knives?

Here's a more difficult one. Surely, given the formula, you should let them kill you, one person, rather than kill the several people who are attacking. You could say it's their fault for attacking, or that they could go on to hurt other people, but these answers simply serve to distract from the real reason most people would pull the trigger: survival instinct. Everybody has an overwhelming urge to survive and further themselves. This does not make it moral. A line must be drawn between what is moral and what is understandable, between sympathy and empathy. Strictly speaking, the survival instinct shouldn't always be followed, indeed given a calm, considered choice, many people would gladly give their lives if it meant saving others. What makes soldiers kill when they are attacked is a) because it is expected and b) adrenaline makes instincts kick in. Killing people, where it does not serve the greater benefit of life, is strictly speaking wrong but it is understandable in certain circumstances and should not be judged too harshly. A person's capacity (or lack thereof) to follow the explained formula to the letter has to be taken into account. In terms of social pressure, such pressure would here be relaxed as people could understand why such a deviance from the rule would have taken place. Similarly, with complex situations in which the benefit-detriment formula is difficult to calculate, people would accept this difficulty and be supportive rather than judgemental of the actions under such a predicament, given the moral code were the chief consideration. In short, people's intentions and willingness to follow the code would be considered alongside, if not above, people's ability to follow it unwaveringly. A certain attitude is what would be encouraged. People have proposed to me that upsetting people by insulting them (and other such acts) falls outside of this category as you are causing no actual detriment to them. This reasoning is flawed as an assumption is made that benefit and detriment refers only to material, physical matters whereas in actual fact the principle is all-encompassing; inclusive of emotional or psychological considerations.

In labouring upon this straightforward rule, oppressive tendencies may be perceived in the insistence in its reverence. However, we labour here merely because the principle must be properly defined, assessed and quantified if it is to provide a basis for human interaction. Upon this principle, freedom, tolerance and utopia would establish itself through natural course.

I am seemingly justifying existing human nature, and attempting to explain how the formula fits already existing attitudes. The purpose is to prove the truth of the formula and so afterwards be better equipped to prove the immorality of intolerance of difference, the usuefulness of democracy and sharing, the value of openness and so forth which requires greater aknowledgement for universal solutions to be made manifest. The benefit over detriment ratio supplies us with a straighforward principle with which to define all other variables.

Such a principle, necessarily characterised by an attitude of goodwill that would be its most essential effect, would solve arguably all problems that we are capable of solving. Let us follow this through up from the fundamental base. People would treat each other with dignity and respect regardless of their culture, race, disability gender or age, and would be judged only by their intent to help or to hinder. Resources would be shared simply because they should be, support would be by all for all. On a national level, all actions would be for the help of the masses. Complete transparency would be necessary for absolute democracy to serve its purpose and ensure there is no corruption. The lower orders would be pulling the strings - no power could decide to keep some things to themselves as we are their higher authority and should feel perfectly at ease in overthrowing them at will. For our leaders to retain their positions, or even gain them in the first place, they would thus have to be converted to our attitude. If this be the case, our leaders would thus work for the benefit of all through simple, rational drives. Our system could then exert itself on the international stage, as our converted leaders would treat each other with respect and goodwill. Indeed, through the power of modern mass-communication, our system will have produced understanding and friendship between populations of nations and so, as we are pulling the strings and our system is universal, our leaders would be impotent not to consider all of humanity as one supernation. Thus would end war, poverty and oppression.

Some have commented that the name 'Tear Down The Walls' is cliche and likely used many times. This is somewhat deliberate. As the name accurately describes the basic premise of the system, searches for it online or elsewhere may throw up other projects with similar beliefs. This would help them on their way to aknowledgement and potentially help such people who believe as I do to work towards a common goal through association with each other. The premises here described in this essay are, I'm quite convinced, capable of solving our most hated problems. Such is the vision of the Tear Down The Walls project. I'm only one person and there's little I can do, but I will try nonetheless.