Original link: https://onojyun.com/2022/10/21/7570/
△ 294｜The way to maintain absolute fairness is to allow relative unfairness
There is a book called “The Courage to Be Rejected”. When it talks about “value”, it quotes Alfred Adler, the founder of the individual psychology school: “A person can only gain courage when he feels that he is valuable.” Then, The whole point of this book is that “value” itself is not determined by others, but the parties themselves recognize their own “value”, and so on. Next, the author believes that “value” has a certain way of obtaining it, for example, “If you want to feel your own value, you must first do what you can for others.” But what if your warm face sticks to your cold butt? “If you can contribute to others, even if you don’t get their approval, you should be able to definitely feel that you are valuable.”
Here, you will find the author’s twists and “contradictions”. At least when I read this book for the first time, I paused here for a long time, not because I couldn’t wrap my head around it, but I found that the author had detoured himself into a lovely dead end, and the mystery of this dead end was later summed up by me In “Logical Symbiosis” , but this rule was actually summed up by an old man as an oracle thousands of years ago.
During this period of time, my wife experienced the “survival game” in a group. From the few words she talked to me, I could probably draw a side view of the establishment of a concept and rules. To put it simply, it is a group of strangers who have passed the test of layers of human nature and been dismantled by self-analysis, aiming to establish a rule of honesty, so that this interpersonal relationship established through the Internet has a chance to become a reality. The endorsement and sublimation of the relationship. Since I wasn’t actually involved, I can’t make a global assessment of this. But it seems that this “survival game” has recently been stuck in an unavoidable “human nature problem” – the symbiosis of institutionalization and logic, which is the lovely dead end just mentioned.
The “survival game” that I learned from just a few words still requires actions such as voting, emphasizing fairness or even absolute fairness, randomizing the rules, and becoming an unshakable “order” of mutual respect. Just like Thanos snapped his fingers, one-half of the human beings will disappear from this world today, and the absolute fair method must be global randomness – but the price of absolute fairness is that everything is impossible to be fair, or superficial. Fair but behind the scenes there is another set of unfair rules that we all have to uphold. According to the logical symbiotic relationship, fairness loses the unfair opposition, and it cannot exist by itself.
For example, in Solomon’s trial, it was decided to split the child in half and distribute it to two people who both claimed to be the child’s mother. At this time, only the child’s biological mother would feel distressed that this was about to get a fair judgment by splitting in half. children. So Solomon concluded that the child belonged to the mother who would express her compassion and pain from the heart. Did Solomon really want to split the child in half? Obviously impossible, because of human nature and morality, the adjudication system he uses is not fair – it is human nature – human nature can’t be fair, and the mother who can’t get a stolen child will certainly not feel bad for the child. Being split in half – she would even think it was the best referee’s result, because no one else could get what she couldn’t get.
Well, we now institutionalize the expansion of these two mothers into a rabble. On trial are two institutionalized groups vying for the belonging of a believer who both believe that the values of this believer are more in line with their own collective. At this time, if Solomon still used this adjudication system and ordered the believers to be split in half, and each side got half, what would happen? Obviously, even if Solomon didn’t want to kill this believer, no one would stand up and really accept it, because the institutionalization has been formed, and their humanity and IQ have been adjusted to the lower limit of the entire rabble-because of their universal value It is necessary to take care of every “idiot” that exists in the set , unless they conduct internal liquidation – the problem comes again, if the internal liquidation is to be based on the survival of the fittest, does it violate the concept of “fairness” itself, “random elimination” It has become the best endorsement of absolute fairness – but the problem is that the proportion of the rabble after the liquidation is no different from the proportion of the previous components. They maintain the reality that there are still “idiots” in the rabble, so after institutionalization The human nature and IQ of the people are still at the lower limit , so the discussion on both sides of the trial is no longer the believers themselves, but against another rabble.
One party showed pity for the believer, and they decided to admit the believer. The other party is arguing: what do you mean, you want to show that you are very moral, right? We also want this believer! The verdict returned to its original state; one party showed absolute tolerance for the believers, he would rather the believers be split in half than compromise, and threatened the other party with the life and death of the believers, but the other party also threatened the other party in the same way, they No one will let go, so should believers be split in half? There is also a situation where one party suddenly abandons the believers and encourages them to join the other side’s camp, and the other party feels cheating and decides not to accept the believers. If the believers are not accepted, will the case be closed? ——Then add a condition that if no one accepts him, he will be executed.
The last situation is also the most “cute” situation that institutionalization will inevitably appear. The two rabble cast all decision-making and moral kidnapping onto one believer, letting him decide where he wants to belong. No matter what he chooses, the longer he thinks about it, or wanders around, the more blurred his position becomes, and the more unacceptable it is to the system, the believer finally had to turn to Solomon: “You smashed me to death! “
I’ve been revising my previous novels recently, and while revising, I’m adding stories that can continue. It also raises a philosophical question: “How to build a perfectly ordered society?”
First, the law cannot predict crimes. In other words, crime is actually one of the fundamental reasons for the perfection of the law; secondly, because of the individuality of people, they have different perceptions of the same thing , such as the two mothers in Solomon’s trial; thirdly, the system In order to ensure the stability of the collection, the rabble formed by the transformation will definitely make the individual lose its individuality , thereby forming a public consciousness, which is evident in the intelligence quotient and human nature level of this public consciousness.
A society of perfect order must first solve these three things: crime prediction, individual differences and the low intelligence of the rabble.
In the novel (Part 2), I set up a “Pila Project” section. The crime prediction center decided to use the human subconscious to conduct reverse guidance and adjust all human beings to the same morality. and human nature to prevent crime; secondly, individual differences will also disappear due to the unification of moral standards; as for the institutionalized solution, we only need to raise the human nature of public awareness and adjust everyone to seek common ground while reserving differences. Respecting differences, does that mean that the rabble will also merge?
However, the “Pila Project” predicts the formation of the final institutionalization. When contradictions and antagonisms do not exist, how can they drive the rules of the entire society? According to the pre-order society, sex workers and politicians are two completely different professions after all, and there are distinctions between noble and inferior. To adjust the social status of sex workers and politicians, another “means” needs to be used. So why not remove “sex work” from society altogether? The non-disclosure of sex and the illegality of its existence means that there will be criminal provisions, and if all people’s needs for sex are adjusted, it will in itself cause a devastating blow to the fertility rate. So “Project Pila” found a plan made by “perfect citizens” – this will be explained in future novels.
In addition, I also conceived another interesting setting, that is, when death becomes a “balance method” for artificial intelligence to intervene in the ecological balance , how to make death have “fairness” – “Pila Project” has a “random death”. ”, i.e., eligibility for death is randomly assigned from perfect citizens at regular intervals.
Random death is a manifestation of absolute fairness- then it must bring about the loss of something in order to maintain its apparent fairness -that is, a transaction that replaces death and death qualifications.
// The stones that Pyrrha and Deucalion threw behind them became men and women, new human beings after the world-destroying flood, and they were born with different genders, nobles, occupations, destiny, good and evil, etc. After waiting, the human society was able to continue in accordance with the original order – but unfortunately, the human beings at this time, built, or the world before the opening of Pandora’s Box, and it is impossible for human beings to forget about the use of fire, survival or Killing – Imprisoned on the cliff, Prometheus still accepts the crime and punishment of stealing the sacred flame. //
This article is reproduced from: https://onojyun.com/2022/10/21/7570/
This site is for inclusion only, and the copyright belongs to the original author.