As you pass under the mezzanine into the eastern hallway, you find yourself beside an small library with large two-sided book cases, variously labeled History, Novel, Shakespeare, Comedy, Tragedy, Play Theory, Freud, Jung, Favorite Movies & TV Series, and YouTube Music Videos { 2023, 2024 }. There is an display table at either side of the row of book cases, one labeled William Blake, and another labeled Foucault. You reach the end of the hallway to go out-of-doors and find yourself on an beautiful esplanade overlooking the large property, where the temple has been built onto the side of an hill. There is an rolling lawn wrapping itself around the outside of the back of the building. To the right there is an stone staircase leading down to the property and to the left there is an wide stone monument with etchings carved into its face.
Do you take the steps down to the lawn?,
Or, Inspect the Monument?
The Monument:
It turns out to be an war memorial. Underneath it is etched:
War is forever sealed away
Never us to trespass again
All perished will not be forgotten
O they, survivors!
Never will they be asked to fight
for our country again.
We have better ways to deal with conflict
Memorial to the end of all war forever
Never again
Judging by this, the temple appears to be in favor of ending war forever. To save the human species from extinction in the galaxy—if we're not careful we can destroy ourselves and possibly other civilizations—and diplomacy is always an better tool.
Beneath the description is etched an scale ranging from between Order and Chaos.
Order__________________________________________________Chaos
Litigation - Game & Sport - Bet - Argument - Quarrel - Feud - War
These apparent opposites are the solutions to conflict. Betting solves an Quarrel. Gaming solves an Feud (feud, by definition, can denote an rivalry and assassination attempts between families). And Litigation solves an War. From left to right, Litigation has the most rules and War has the least rules. Litigation has more rules than Game & Sport. Game & Sport has more rules than an Bet, etc. Academic argument is in the centre because it is the most peaceful balance between the two extremes and has the power to prevent conflict before it starts. Therefore solve all quarrels with bets. Solve all feuds with sports teams. Solve all wars with peaceful litigation. We can be smarter than war, and we have to be; this is not optional.
Lest we forget.
The spectrum of order and chaos I have created began almost ten years ago, when I thought up an way to understand appropriate responses to the many challenges of globalism today. I figured that whatever type of chaos one could come up with, there was an equal and opposite reaction of appropriate action one could take. The answer to War was Litigation; the answer to Feud (taken the real literal meaning of the subject as the mutual attempts at assassination) was Game & Sport; the answer to Quarrel (bickering) was an Bet. Argument (real, formal argument) was dead centre, having no opposite. And all of the subjects of order and chaos had their own opposites. Theoretically, if one wished to cause chaos one could also approach the graph from the other direction: the answer to Litigation was War, etc. If one wished to displace Litigation, Game & Sport, and Bet for whatever reason they could also use chaos in the other direction. I had my doubts that Chaos really existed though. Ideally, I would call this spectrum my Globality Hypothesis. If we wished to approach solving the chaos on the human Planet of Earth we had to take from its better opposites of Litigation, Game & Sport, and Bet.
Another part of the spectrum in this theory I had created was my definition of each individual category on the order and they all had to do with how many rules that were created around them they involved.
Bet involved the least amount of rules. It either was or wasn't what you guessed it to be. And you could place an bet on which outcome you preferred before it was determined who was the winner. Game & Sport involved extensive refereeing as well as an entire book full of rules. And Litigation, the Legal & Justice system, of course contained the most rules of all of these categories of action & behavior. This left only the gradients of involvement of rules on the Chaos side of the spectrum. Quarrels broke the least rules. Feuds (involving assassination attempts) broke even more rules. And all-out War broke the most rules.
And so what I was really getting at, maybe, was that if one (I) wanted to solve any form of chaos all I needed to do was the implement the appropriate type of response, an equal and opposite pressure meant to produce Order and Justice.
Solving War, Feuds, or Quarreling meant the implementation of more rules which couldn't be broken.
It meant actually placing rules (as an yoke or bridal) upon people, in order to help determine the outcome of their behavior. The production of Order. An Force of an Type and Power that can defeat all chaos. And end to war, conflict, and the social injustice system.
Yet, even better than this unequal exchange of powers between the powers of Order and Chaos I preferred it to stay right around the middle. Argument was the Middle to me. Argument was the Middle to me because, as I had learned it, it was an formal subject. There was an real method to arguing. And an reason for it. Argument, as I had it was not anything to do with betting, or gaming or sporting, or litigation rights. And it had less to do with Quarrels, Feuds, or Wars. Or maybe it had an little to do with both sides but not selectively in which one will be the source of motivations and behavior. Argument was allowed to be an little crafty. It could contain the evidence for both Order and Chaos in order, choosing which one, it would gain an further intelligence about the subject. Things could be proven using both types of logic of behavior: that logic which followed order and that logic which followed chaos. What if we needed to solve the problem of Fair and Good Government by implementing the strict codes of informal logic, where the powers of chaos (evil) itself could be used to disrupt the good and worldly. Yet I had my doubts about chaos being evil. Wasn't an little chaos sometimes useful? And if I had an good argument it would include both the powers of good and evil, or order and chaos, in their usefulness. Wasn't our world made up of parenthetical and opposite forces that I had earlier deemed Fairy & Demon in my fictional writing? And now it wasn't necessarily that either one of them was good or evil, but it was about how fairies were more about order and demons more about chaos. The real world was an moral conundrum for the average human because such opposite forces that lay or lie within them; humans had such potential to be evil (as demons) or such potential to be good (as fairies). And this was the real primal make-up of the world and the universe; which we could tell by introspection because we knew that's what we really were. And so being that we are it, so holds too the argument that the universe must be of the property to be what we now are.
We are made in the image of our physical universe because that is where we came from.
Argument was maybe an little bit of fairy, an little bit of demon.
It didn't have to be morally good all of the time and could point out something so absurd as to produce its own inflection of good argumentative quality. We wanted all arguments of all kinds, whether good or bad, because the more perspectives we had of it shared between us the more power we had to judge it. Even absurd or unlikely arguments were considered property because they helped us look at subjects in different ways. This was why I preferred it so much as an behavior. After all was said and done, at the end of the night when the war was over; when the Feuds had ended globally; when the Quarrels were all shut up with the outcome to an bet in each one of their names. When the Litigation, Sport & Game, and Bets finally went home for the evening and everything was still & quiet. There might be some time for some good argument then where, instead of needing to be hyper-active obsessively about Order or needing to rely upon Chaos as some deep personal decision which was taken to be impressive (actually shallow like the next), you could balance in the middle somehow in order to make up the most powerful argument ever. It didn't need to be only evil or only good. Only order or only chaos. Wouldn't it be better if it was both? If only in recognition of the function and structure of our universe, which really did contain both forces. What was so disadvantageous about only being order or only being chaos? One without the other, maybe, would be like having only half of the pieces to the puzzle. Argument was the best behavior and state of action because it balanced both those forces; those variables; in the net of its argumentative power. Sometimes something fairy was an appropriate response. Sometimes something demon was. This was the widest array of differences of behaviors we could possibly have (within the human personality & character); to worship both demons and fairies as generators of types of power. In opposition with one another. They were the largest array because they knew they were both opposites of types of power. They simultaneously represented Good versus Evil, but also maybe now Order versus Chaos. And when we collide these types of forces in opposition to one another, it produces the most numerous amount of types of character.
It all went toward the combat between the Forces of Order & Chaos which would somehow skew in the favour of Order and our desperate need for it in this Universe.
Argument used the Power of Chaos and the Power of Order; this was how it sustained its balance in the middle somehow.
No comments:
Post a Comment