Training lecture
Jul. 20th, 2015 06:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avevale_intelligencer"Gentlemen, if I might crave a moment of your frankly not very valuable time...thank you. The subject of my discourse this morning shall be Human Civilisation, and let me assure you at the outset that I have indeed heard the venerable quip to the effect that such a thing would be a very good idea, more than once in fact, and I confess that for me it has lost just a little of its charm. I see six of you looking disappointed. Console yourselves by concentrating on the brand new joke about human civilisation that each of you, severally and without consultation, shall present to the class next time we meet. Wit, sirs, is nothing if it be not original.
"Human civilisation is in brief an aggregation of systems, of rules, laws, morals, ethics, traditions, customs, rituals and shibboleths. Now if I tell you (as I do) that the purpose of these systems is largely to obviate the necessity for rational thought, you are likely to fall into an even hoarier error, the comfortable assumption that this is because human beings in general do not like to think and avoid doing so wherever possible. Not so. As you will be learning in your General Humanities classes under Theopompos, any statement that begins "human beings in general..." is almost certainly a lie, or at best so vague and inchoate as to be void of meaning. Human beings in general are nothing if not diverse, and many indeed find rational thought an imposition, while others practise it incessantly but begin from incorrect postulates which lead them to wrong conclusions.
"To such as these, the rightness of rules, or indeed their wrongness, will never be apparent of itself; only by living under them and observing the practical effects can it be made clear. For this reason, enlightened human thinkers have deemed it necessary to provide an absolute framework of systems to which all humans under their aegis must of force submit, so that all may live together in reasonable amity. Civilisation, at its best, is encapsulated and epitomised in the happy phrase 'Because I say so.'
"This phrase has been many times condemned as autocratic, tyrannical even. It is nothing of the kind. Rather it is a benevolent, merciful gesture of inclusion to all humanity. It says 'You do not see the merit of the notion that (for instance), when traversing a busy thoroughfare, you should retain a firm grip upon my hand. You have not considered the possible ramifications, or else you have considered them from the basis of your belief that you know as much as I do about traffic and how to avoid it. Very well. Nonetheless, whenever we are engaged in this activity, you shall follow my rules, and we shall therefore avoid even the remote chance that you might be involved in a fatality which I could have prevented; and later, when you are wiser in the ways of vehicular hazards, you will know how to avoid such contingencies yourself, and thus be free to cross the road unaccompanied.'
"And only thus, indeed, can a rule that has grown antiquated and therefore invalid be changed; for once the human mind has absorbed and internalised a rule, it becomes exceedingly hard to blast it loose. Humanity frequently (not generally, you will note) excels at finding reasons not to change its mind; rational thought is an ideal tool for such a task, since all you have to do is begin from the postulate that you were right in the first place and you can produce justifications ad nauseam. Then, too, the only remedy is 'Because I say so,' uttered in a stentorian voice and accompanied by whatever presents itself in the form of carrot and/or stick. Once the postulate is changed, once the old rule is out of the way, the virtue of the new rule may be assessed in practice; but not before.
"It is hard to overstress the vital necessity of 'Because I say so.' It may well be that ninety per cent of humanity, left to itself, would of its own volition behave in an utterly civilised manner, though I take leave to entertain doubts. Even so, in the absence of rules imposed by fiat, that ninety per cent would soon be utterly at the mercy of the other ten per cent, who see no reason why they should behave so when doing otherwise might yield much profit to themselves. We have now seen this grim drama played out upon a thousand worlds; the foundation of a new colony in a bright spirit of mutual co-operation and harmony, the proud resolve to build a new society without restrictions, rules or taboos, the inevitable dissolution of that dream from within by the first to ask 'Why?', or more often 'Why not?", and receive no conclusive answer. Anarchy, as a functional political system in the long term, is not possible for humans. It may well be that you have to live as long as we do to understand how to make it work; and even we have our rules, our customs, our 'Because I say so''s. And trust me, we need them.
"We are now seeing, in human civilisation as it goes forward upon the galactic stage, perhaps the grandest of all experiments in 'Because I say so.' The Sagittarians, with their Accords, have eradicated, devalued or contained much that was pernicious in human society. Have they provided reasons? No. Do they explain? No. Do they seek consultation? No. Do they have power to enforce their rules? Very little. They have no stick, and only, if one may so express it, a highly speculative carrot. And yet, as we see, the number of UnAffiliated worlds grows steadily less. Before our next encounter, I invite each of you to explain to me, in five thousand words or fewer, exactly why this should be. And yes, I will expect six new jokes as well.
"Enough. When we meet again, we shall explore the many amusing and instructive ways in which humankind has got civilisation wrong, and discuss how they might have avoided the disaster. Now, would there be any questions?"
"Human civilisation is in brief an aggregation of systems, of rules, laws, morals, ethics, traditions, customs, rituals and shibboleths. Now if I tell you (as I do) that the purpose of these systems is largely to obviate the necessity for rational thought, you are likely to fall into an even hoarier error, the comfortable assumption that this is because human beings in general do not like to think and avoid doing so wherever possible. Not so. As you will be learning in your General Humanities classes under Theopompos, any statement that begins "human beings in general..." is almost certainly a lie, or at best so vague and inchoate as to be void of meaning. Human beings in general are nothing if not diverse, and many indeed find rational thought an imposition, while others practise it incessantly but begin from incorrect postulates which lead them to wrong conclusions.
"To such as these, the rightness of rules, or indeed their wrongness, will never be apparent of itself; only by living under them and observing the practical effects can it be made clear. For this reason, enlightened human thinkers have deemed it necessary to provide an absolute framework of systems to which all humans under their aegis must of force submit, so that all may live together in reasonable amity. Civilisation, at its best, is encapsulated and epitomised in the happy phrase 'Because I say so.'
"This phrase has been many times condemned as autocratic, tyrannical even. It is nothing of the kind. Rather it is a benevolent, merciful gesture of inclusion to all humanity. It says 'You do not see the merit of the notion that (for instance), when traversing a busy thoroughfare, you should retain a firm grip upon my hand. You have not considered the possible ramifications, or else you have considered them from the basis of your belief that you know as much as I do about traffic and how to avoid it. Very well. Nonetheless, whenever we are engaged in this activity, you shall follow my rules, and we shall therefore avoid even the remote chance that you might be involved in a fatality which I could have prevented; and later, when you are wiser in the ways of vehicular hazards, you will know how to avoid such contingencies yourself, and thus be free to cross the road unaccompanied.'
"And only thus, indeed, can a rule that has grown antiquated and therefore invalid be changed; for once the human mind has absorbed and internalised a rule, it becomes exceedingly hard to blast it loose. Humanity frequently (not generally, you will note) excels at finding reasons not to change its mind; rational thought is an ideal tool for such a task, since all you have to do is begin from the postulate that you were right in the first place and you can produce justifications ad nauseam. Then, too, the only remedy is 'Because I say so,' uttered in a stentorian voice and accompanied by whatever presents itself in the form of carrot and/or stick. Once the postulate is changed, once the old rule is out of the way, the virtue of the new rule may be assessed in practice; but not before.
"It is hard to overstress the vital necessity of 'Because I say so.' It may well be that ninety per cent of humanity, left to itself, would of its own volition behave in an utterly civilised manner, though I take leave to entertain doubts. Even so, in the absence of rules imposed by fiat, that ninety per cent would soon be utterly at the mercy of the other ten per cent, who see no reason why they should behave so when doing otherwise might yield much profit to themselves. We have now seen this grim drama played out upon a thousand worlds; the foundation of a new colony in a bright spirit of mutual co-operation and harmony, the proud resolve to build a new society without restrictions, rules or taboos, the inevitable dissolution of that dream from within by the first to ask 'Why?', or more often 'Why not?", and receive no conclusive answer. Anarchy, as a functional political system in the long term, is not possible for humans. It may well be that you have to live as long as we do to understand how to make it work; and even we have our rules, our customs, our 'Because I say so''s. And trust me, we need them.
"We are now seeing, in human civilisation as it goes forward upon the galactic stage, perhaps the grandest of all experiments in 'Because I say so.' The Sagittarians, with their Accords, have eradicated, devalued or contained much that was pernicious in human society. Have they provided reasons? No. Do they explain? No. Do they seek consultation? No. Do they have power to enforce their rules? Very little. They have no stick, and only, if one may so express it, a highly speculative carrot. And yet, as we see, the number of UnAffiliated worlds grows steadily less. Before our next encounter, I invite each of you to explain to me, in five thousand words or fewer, exactly why this should be. And yes, I will expect six new jokes as well.
"Enough. When we meet again, we shall explore the many amusing and instructive ways in which humankind has got civilisation wrong, and discuss how they might have avoided the disaster. Now, would there be any questions?"