? We are animals; we can't help looking outward from behind out eyes.
Our difference seems to me to be how we measure vertically inclined groups. You look at a singular society with one ruler and I look at the many groups that together make up a society, each in its own context a vertical society.
I wasn't looking at one group or a single ruler. I was looking at stratified vs non-stratified societies.
An "efficient" civilization divides labour.
8. Peasants and soldiers are at the very bottom: oppressed and expendable; often from the same class, so that, for a farm-boy to be sent off to kill other farm-boys is a social step
up. 7. Servants and urban labourers marginally better off (in that they have
some mobility and choice). 6. Then come white-collar workers - 6. clerks, essentially; still poor (indeed, often paid less than a navvy), but socially "better" than men with callouses on their hands. (Craftsmen and tradesmen are sequestered by neighbourhood so that, while there is a micro-hierarchy within each guild, their social mobility as a class is very limited. They may be classed as 6, 5 or even 4, depending on the society's attitude to artifice.) Then 5. rank-and-file clergy and civil service (often the same thing), then 4. merchants and traders - the class with the greatest latitude of both physical and social movement; arguably, the class in and through which the majority of social change occurs. 3. bankers, 2. landowners, aristocracy (the classes which supply officers for the army, bishops for the church and top administrators for government) then 1. royalty. Each layer has more influence over policy, more privilege, more resources to control, more power to reward and punish - and
use - the levels below
That's a vertical arrangement.
A horizontal arrangement is egalitarian, where all members have a say in the selection of leaders and the decisions which affect them all; where the contribution of each is valued and respected.
Democracy is
ideally a horizontal arrangement: one man, one vote, equal opportunity, etc. But this is never the case in practice, because democracies are established in pre-existing vertical societies. The classes are already entrenched, as are the attitudes, institutions and wealth distribution.
Yes rulers have a court to summon for their combined knowledge which isn't commonly available to all.
Why
should this be so? What's in it for the society?
The Romans where an inclusive society made up of captured states, yes they disposed of those that rebelled or didn't want to be a part of Rome but many statesmen where actually residents of captured states.
Also rigidly stratified - except that the army was so big and active as to facilitate social mobility within the ranks, as well as in the administrative structure of vassal states.
Greeks were renowned philosophers, Alexander the great built libraries, Muslim conquerors built temples with arches that still astound architects today. In all these cases, rulers let it be known they were here to stay.
Yes, a few rulers did that. Of course, Alexander wrecked and plundered and burned hundreds of cities; terrorized populations and destroyed long-established civilizations before he commanded one library to be built. He also named
everything after himself.
Ditto the Muslim empires. Some real nice buildings, yes - but they're on the rubble of the previous rulers' nice buildings.
They made themselves a part of the society they conquered.
Hardly. They remade the society they conquered in their own image.
Your depictions sound more latter day empires belonging to the English, French and Spanish.
No, it's been going on much longer. All empires have common features. They just keep getting bigger, because the human population keeps growing and transportation improves.
Democracy is a wonderful way to govern a country but as Plato found out as soon as you get more than one person thinking and acting in a similar manner they form a political faction that if strong enough will dominate a debate. This is the same whether we talk about western or native culture. It is natural that we look for those that think like us.
How different can be the thinking of people who share the same fate? Certainly, there can be disagreements and factions, but if one point of view dominates, it generally carries the vote. That's not a problem, so long as a robust constitution - or a cultural more - guarantees the protection of minorities.
Anyway, Plato's was a very limited franchise; many voices were never heard at all.
Where did we go wrong? It's in the essence of who we are.
A crazy species. Yes. Probably destined for self-termination.
We're explorers and when we explore we look to conquer.
That doesn't necessarily follow. It follows testosteronally, territorially and economically, but not logically.
We explore because we believe we have already achieved and desire to know what else is out there.
There, you have two interesting concepts. Achievement can use some scrutiny, but the more philosophically interesting one is "out there". Whence the idea of in/out?
When we do we look for those that show themselves to be equal to us and if they're not our desire quickly wanes and we look to our companions instead.
I don't get this.
Ask any tourist what food they ate or people they spoke to and most will cite those that are close to what can be found in their own society. Very few will venture beyond this and actually get to know the people and culture of the country they're visiting.
Ask Shirley Valentine to serve you up a nice egg&chip. Yes - explorers are, in reality, a very small segment of any society.
We do not all achieve, explore and conquer.
What makes the exceptional personalities that do?
We want change but how much are we willing to let go?
Change is most often thrust upon us. The question in world upheavals is not how much you're willing to let go of, but what can you save?
We desire to learn but how much of life's lessons do we take on board and how much do we dismiss and for what reason?
We each have our own capacity and need; our opportunities and receptive moments.
In my experience, it is more about people wanting to learn than people wanting to share information.
Seems like, it's harder to make a You Tube video on how to build a greenhouse (there are dozens) than to search for one.
Those that have usually will only part with it when they see a gain for themselves.
You can always construe whatever people like as a 'gain'. The old bore who chews you ear off about naval history through an unbearably long dinner party is gaining - what? The pleasure of imparting his knowledge.
A teacher doesn't teach purely because he/she wants to rather because they're being paid to do it.
They're not paid so much as to make that a primary motivation. Which is why a lot potentially brilliant math teachers are playing the stock market or blackjack tables. That leaves the ones who don't have a wide choice of occupations and the ones who desire to teach.
When they do they follow a curriculum that lists what is to be taught and when.
A fair amount of educators' thought, knowledge, experience and care goes into devising curricula. I don't say they're all good at it, and i don't always agree with their priorities, but I don't dismiss them out of hand.
In mythology of course you have the willing teacher imparting knowledge as it is required onto a willing student until such time as the student knows as much as the teacher
That would make advancement, or a well-rounded citizen, impossible. Should not a child learn many different things from many different adults?
Limitations have been put in place with the issue of certification. Years ago a person who studied carpentry or sheetmetal work may also know about wiring and electrical work, not today each has its own certification and thus a person's knowledge is limited.
OTH, you can learn to do all those things for yourself: the knowledge is freely and publicly available.
Division of craft guilds - and qualification of journeymen - goes back a few thousand years.
We put people in boxes and now because of the dire situation we find ourselves in we say 'go on, change' expecting that everyone will just pick up what's needed and do what is required.
That, in a nutshell, is you vertical society - AKA civilization.
