A Society of Rules

The pragmatic theory is that we live in a society of rules, which are created in order that things will function smoothly. The question for rulERs then becomes what it is it we would like to have function smoothly. Is it everybody's lives, all of society in harmony with the environment which sustains us? Or is it simply the lives of the rulers?

Then there is the meta-rules theory, which is that rules are rules because they are rules, either because they are created by a higher power, or just because they are rules. We don't need to understand them, they are there to be obeyed.

All of this can also be very convenient for people who are in the position of being rulERs, who may in fact be following the narrow version of the pragmatic theory (personal gratification) while preaching the broad version (fairness and/or equal opportunity, which may not be the same thing in a zero sum game) or some version of the meta-rules theory.

Either way, they're ripping you off.

Some would suggest responding violently. In general, though, violent revolutions are also rip offs, and their leaders are gratifying themselves in one way or another, whether through the sheer sense of power and "glory" or through the wealth that can come along with power, at the expense of those they lead, and certainly not in accordance with any higher power. If the early leaders are sincere, someone will soon come along in the chaos of revolution to steal a personal advantage.

Mahatma Gandhi, in titling his autobiography, termed his life "My Experiments With Truth". The truth about rules, I think, is that they are convenient creations of man which function best when they are created in accordance with Truth. Truth on some level can be equated with Tao, which I have seen defined as "the Way Things Work". So Truth is both practical and relating to whatever higher power exists; to me, it is both personal, somebody watching and listening, usually at the edge of consciousness, as I write and think and live, and speaking to me, telling me what it is, and it is everything, the way of things, the nature of existence itself and all the myriad qualities it takes on, he, she, and it. Verging on pantheism!

But I wax nutty. That's OK, we all have our version of that.

Does this help us to make better rules? What was the nature of Gandhi's experiment with truth, and what sort of rules does it suggest we follow -- and why? How are they practical? How are they spiritually motivated?

Tune in next week to find out! It's a cliffhanger, and I have no idea how it will conclude. Well, maybe I do, I just have to ferret out the answer. Or maybe this is just another loose end in the blog.

Well, maybe I'll ramble on a bit more.

Lesser leaders tend to fear the truth, because the Truth will suck out their power, if their power is based on lies. Truth is leverage, at least to the degree that Truth is embraced by the people and they allow it to decide whether they give or withdraw their support for the leader
(Impeach Bush!). It is usually then that the leader must rely upon violence. If the leader was right, violence would not be necessary, because the power of Truth does not rely upon violence for its existence. Truth against lies will win eventually, but must be buttressed by conviction and strong arguments, which can be derived by keeping the focus on Truth. Lies cannot be as strongly buttressed by those elements, and so tends to reach for violence as a crude way of silencing its competition. An alternative to physical violence is to simply shout down (Bill O'Reilly) one's opponent, which is nevertheless violence: spiritual and psychological violence to the person being shouted down, especially while trying to speak of the Truth, and violence to Truth itself.