Aswad
Posts: 6619
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: online
|
Sorry for the delay, Tim.
I hope this will serve as a reply, or- rather- the start of one, at least.
As a general rule, people are indeed passive creatures, moving only when poked. The exceptions would probably be rare on the fictional Gor, as well, for the reason you mentioned (they come from the same stock). Indeed, we see examples of this in the books, such as in Tharna, where the men just take it lying down, including the slaves, until Tarl comes along and pokes them. Then, they revolt. Similarly with, the Russian and French revolutions, and one could add the independence of the USA as another datapoint (although not the same situation).
Anyone can do the math when there are more slaves than free, for instance. Yet, that's the thing about slaves (and by no means all who could be so were in the series, men or women): nobody will make that first move. At a recent visit to the doc, I chanced upon a popsci article about some group having found that the way modern society works on Earth, is that everyone is playing follow the leader, while our culture has them trying to hold the leaders from leading (legacy of negative egalitarianism: pushing some down, rather than lifting most up), in effect leading to a situation where there is no leader. Nobody to make the first move that causes the rest to follow. But when one comes along, the rest do follow.
Ghandi didn't just do the math. A lot of his countrymen had already done the math. What he did, was to take the first step, to assume the mantle of leadership. And people followed. The British had also done the math, and realized that they were left with a choice between letting one man advocating nonviolent resistance erode their power base, or just kill him and have a bloody revolt on their hands. The outcome might not have been certain, but it would have been decided long before the affair ended.
So, yes, people will, as a general rule, sit around and wait for the person they've been trying to weed out, unless they have a distinct perception that they have nothing left to lose. Risk aversion. It's a trait that sets in with age, along with a dulling of the most active emotions, such that the established populace will neither sympathize with, nor connect with, vigorous youths that hotheadedly- but at times rightly- argue that now is the time to act. Without backing, only leaders will act (and the disconnect ensures their following among the established populace will be minimal). Well, not only, but the other group is what we've seen in the "fine" tradition of Columbine, and I suspect that topic hits too close to home to serve as a foundation for any debate, regardless of stance.
I noted some points on that in another thread recently.
You will, perhaps, see that the relationship outlined by the Initiate is analogous to collaring a woman to liberate her, the negative aspects of the situation providing the motivation to overcome habits and conditionings, eventually revealing her essential nature. In the books, it is first and foremost a tool for bringing out the sexual side of her nature, but certainly a second point is that of freedom. Not only in the sense of only realizing the import of a thing after it is lost, but also in the sense that it is a situation that tells you what you're willing to risk- or sacrifice- to (re)gain your freedom, and thus just how important it actually is to you.
As such, the Initiate is saying that mankind is not yet ready to be free.
And when talking about mankind, the general species traits, well... I concur.
History bears this out, with the vast majority of societies having had a significant fraction of slaves, generally more than the number of free, and the question frequently comes down to "who can you manage to put into chains?" Goreans, in the books, resolve this with the system of tiered knowledge, which ensures a system of passive slavery, akin to the one which women in Japan were subject to up until recently (i.e. know not, want not; experience and instinct are the totality of what can tell us whether anything is missing in our life, and what). On Gor, the judicially recognized slaves are not to be trusted, and there are tasks the free should do themselves for other reasons, so their function is limited to hard labor and personal service, with sex featuring as one such service that's given a lot of prominence in the books. This will have an impact on how slaves fit in, compared to a historical context, but not what their nature is. And the vast majority of slaves on Gor, as on Earth, wear no collar, will never wear a collar, and would be insulted to be confronted with their nature in word or deed.
As I implied, I do not entirely buy what was forwarded by the Initiate, though.
I think humans overcome individually, and am as confident that the species will not do so collectively as I am of anything- really, anything. There have been cases where the fraction that does so has been higher than usual, but there is no evidence, and nothing to support a hypothesis, that this is doable at a species level. This is one of the reasons I've a certain fondness for the tiered system in the books, and observe with some regret that while a similar system exists in practice, it is not formalized among what Bull coined as "living Goreans." From my perspective, it remains one of the most enduring monuments to our failure to be truly honest with ourselves, and to see beyond the limits of our origins.
As I have said before, this is an extension of the concept of division of labor.
Yes, I do agree with Heinlein's statement about specialization being better suited to insects, but the statement outlines a continuum that it does not grade, with an underlying reason that it does not address. At some level, our species is made (or, rather, has evolved to be) such that it cannot bear equality, and a full realization of this entails some stratification, as well as an element of partial specialization (perhaps it might be better to term it otherwise, so as to emphasize that what I'm referring to is "capitalizing on," rather than "limiting to," for the most part).
I don't mean to devalue humanity here, and I wish I had the skill with words to convey the idea more clearly, and the structure of mind to select the relevant thoughts out of the whole, with which notebook upon notebook is filled with hastily scribbled keywords and reminders used in organizing that whole. One may hope Ron will make it clear with some additional sentence, as is his forté, but for now, I will have to dump a bit of a mess on us all, and hope that it makes sufficient sense as-is.
The visionary and leader, ideally united in one man, is the sword to the scabbard that is mankind. Either is something less than complete alone, regardless of how well they fill their individual functions, and however fine examples of the respective crafts they may be to behold. It is as man and woman together we reach the heights of individual humanity, and as a people united under the singular vision of visionary leadership that we reach the heights of collective humanity.
This need not imply that the outcome will be great (e.g. Jung noted that there was an "almost Islamic atmosphere" to Germany in the earlier phases of the rise of nationalist socialism, referring to the comparative vitality of Islam vs the sedate Christian, Jewish and similar faiths), merely that it is the means by which human civilizations cease to behave like machines and start to move in a direction under will. Without that, mechanics take over, with mediocrity the analogue of gravity.
And, so, yes, reiterating, we come "batteries not included," for the most part.
To be continued...
Briefly, though: government and globalization is akin to a higher pressure, temperature or convection, normalizing and advancing the rate of decay (entropic loss of work in the course of approaching an equilibrium). This happens to be a perfect fit for some. Neither the PK, nor the Kur, are an insurmountable obstacle, but it's tricky, and predicting what the outcome of a conflict would be, depends on information that is simply not even hinted at in the books. What is the ideal role of those in the know, should be discussed among those in the know, as the discussion will not be productive otherwise, indignation and toes be damned.
As for how the whole thing maps onto the real world, well...
... I've been silently pondering that question and its implications for close to 3 years now.
That's put a dent and some scratches in the surface, but the hatch isn't open yet; perhaps a trebuchet? 
Health,
al-Aswad.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: With or Without the Priest-Kings? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread