'Aristocrat'', and ''The Community'' - Two Philosophical Dialogues

“Aristocrat” and “The Community” are each dialogues that take place among friends through the course of a night. “Aristo...

Author: Nicholas J. Pappas

18 downloads 674 Views 862KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

“Aristocrat” and “The Community” are each dialogues that take place among friends through the course of a night. “Aristocrat” is concerned, among other things, with what it means to want to rule, with the comparison of aristocracy to democracy, and with duty. The friends begin this dialogue by touching upon excellence, aristocracy’s traditional claim to rule. They soon come to question whether there are in fact but two true claims to rule — force, or a system of belief. But most importantly, they come to consider their involvement with and commitment to “the cause,” a potentially transpolitical cause. “Aristocrat” attempts to answer several “whats” — what is “the cause,” what does it involve, and what does it mean to serve? “The Community” attempts to demonstrate a “how” — how to create the new city, a new city determined to set itself apart from the outside world. Discussions of appealing means to make the city different and therefore worthwhile are interwoven with a concern for viability — represented by the Bank, whose interests it seems must always be taken into account. Is the creation of an ideal community an effort that is doomed to be utopian? *

Algora Publishing

“Aristocrat” and “The Community”

Nicholas J. Pappas

Nick Pappas, author of two books with Algora, graduated with honors in English Language and Literature from the University of Chicago and earned a Law degree at Harvard University. He has written over 100 philosophic dialogues and many short stories and poems.

“Aristocrat” and “The Community”

Philosophical Essays

Nicholas J. Pappas Algora

Algora Publishing

“Aristocrat” and

“The Community”

“Aristocrat” and

“The Community” Two Philosophical Dialogues

Nicholas J. Pappas

Algora Publishing New York

© 2010 by Algora Publishing. All Rights Reserved www.algora.com No portion of this book (beyond what is permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the United States Copyright Act of 1976) may be reproduced by any process, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or by any means, without the express written permission of the publisher.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data — Pappas, Nicholas J. Aristocrat and the community: two philosophical dialogues / Nicholas J. Pappas. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-87586-759-5 (trade paper: alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-87586-760-1 (case laminate: alk. paper) 1. Political science—Philosophy. 2. Communities—Philosophy. 3. Social classes. 4. Elite (Social sciences) 5. Social conflict. 6. Democracy. 7. Representative government and representation. I. Title. JA71.P3384 2010 320.01—dc22 2009049942

Front Cover: © Liam Norris/cultura/Corbis

Printed in the United States

To my wife

Table of Contents Introduction Aristocrat

An Introduction Challenge Excellence Concerned The Best Shall Rule Making Money The Princes of the Land Doubts To Want to Rule Duty Economy and State Sense, Process, and History The Excellent Best Unease Unease No More Self-Rule Cause Friendship Democratic Age, Freedom Loose Tight Strangers Holding Back Distance Friends, Form Understanding Nature Blood Studies Universals Out of Place

1 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 16 17 17 18 19 21 22 23 25 26 28 29 30 31 33 36 37 37 38

Two Philosophical Dialogues Meritocracy, Bond Proper Interest Honor Power, Change Acting Reconciliation Subtle Signs The Cause Problems in the Faith Luck Feelings Tangles A Metaphor Beautiful Opposites, Rights, Open Ones Belief Strength Perpetuity Legacy Progeny Ways Explorations Compromise Help War Buried Clues Peace, Neutrals Gray Learning Fast Track Unstrung Problems Strength, Again Neutrality Transcendence and Philosophy Wisdom Precedence Preferences Dynamite Evil, Good Converts Want Wanting More Appointees Guiding Star Helm Family Steering Fallen Men Without the Cause Faithless Standing Alone Force, Heart More Force Restraint Courage, Pride

39 42 43 46 47 48 49 50 51 51 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 66 68 69 72 73 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 94 96 97 98 100 102 103 104

x

Table of Contents

The Community

107 107 107 108 109 110 111 112 114 115 115 116 118 119 120 121 121 122 125 125 127 127 129 130 132 133 135 135 136 137 139 140 142 144 146 147 148 150 151 153 153 154 155 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 168 170 172

PART ONE

In the Cellar Kept Company The Mix Weight Interest Of Interest Wonder Core Profit Curfew, Security, Only Safety in Numbers The Presidents Teachers Profit, Again Hiring Syllabus Quirky Tens Guardian of Education Pack Animals Social Review Movies Recreation Guests Athletics Land and Space The Pack Constitutions Outside the Gate The Second Wall Third Wall Records Arrogance Committee of Staff Two Youths Communications General Votes PART TWO

Old Wine Religion Wonder, Again The College Population Soul Dignity Pilots Hotel Whisky Contracts Community Head Wall Founding Day Student Movies More Red

xi

Two Philosophical Dialogues Selling Mystique Colonies Sameness at Home Creativity Political Services More Money Spirits Pride Outsider Insiders Night School Influence Pro Bono Ideas and Sameness

173 175 177 179 179 180 181 183 183 185 186 187 188 190 190 192 192 193 195 197 197 199 201 203 203 204 206 207 208 209 211 213 214 216 217 218 220 221 223 224 225 226

PART THREE

Opting Out Hasten the End Loyal and Stubborn Fundamentals Dual Residencies Office of Offices, Non-General Votes Council More Wine Experiments Sparks Other Things More Other Things Unofficial To the Heights Middle, Dark or Light Notes and Chisels Crimes Adult Education Subject Touchstone Modest Cities League of the Unsame Eighths On the Attack Flag Uniforms The Future End

xii

Introduction More than ten years ago, I left my role as a lawyer in a large firm and began a period of searching and writing. After some experimentation, I found that the best vehicle to convey my disparate thoughts was the dialogue. I wrote my first dialogue, “Architect” (published in Controvert, or On the Lie by Algora Publishing in 2008), with a great deal of passion. It discusses what it means to value trusting human relationships above intelligence and the other virtues of the mind. The dialogue form allowed me to get at the question from several angles and to bring it out into as much fullness as my ability allowed. In my dialogues the characters have somewhat unusual designations — Director, Aristocrat, Chef, and Student, for example, are the characters in “Aristocrat.” Why so? In thinking about dialogues, I naturally thought of Plato. His dialogues are filled with famous historical personages, who presumably represented specific types whose characters and personalities were generally known at the time. Could I do the same thing, using famous people of my time or of the generation before me? In a globalizing world where each person has a different range of knowledge and experience, it might be difficult to identify such telling examples. Should I just make up names for the characters and go with that? That didn’t seem useful. And then it came to me, with a laugh. Instead of using famous names, I would avoid using names altogether. My characters would be cast unabashedly as types — Developer and Investor are characters in “The Community,” for example — but would make themselves individual, real, through their participation in the dialogue. Director is the one constant character throughout the 100+ dialogues I have written so far. I should note that he is a director in the operational sense, rather than a board member. His name conveys a station in life but also an activity. He in large part does direct the dialogues. This book consists of two dialogues, “Aristocrat” and “The Community.” Both take place among friends through the course of a night. “Aristocrat” is concerned, 1

Two Philosophical Dialogues

among other things, with what it means to want to rule, with the comparison of aristocracy to democracy, and with duty. The friends begin this dialogue by touching upon excellence, aristocracy’s traditional claim to rule. They soon come to question whether there are in fact but two true claims to rule — force, or a system of belief. But most importantly they come to consider their involvement with and commitment to “the cause,” a potentially transpolitical cause. “Aristocrat” attempts to answer several related “whats” — what is “the cause,” what does it involve, and what does it mean to serve? “The Community” attempts to demonstrate a “how” — how to create the new city, a new city determined to set itself apart from the outside world. Discussions of appealing means to make the city different and therefore worthwhile are interwoven with a concern for viability — represented by the Bank, whose interests it seems must always be taken into account. Is the creation of an ideal community an effort that is doomed to be utopian?

2

Aristocrat P ersons

of the

D ialogue

Aristocrat Chef Director Student

A n I ntroduction Director: Why, look who’s free at last! Hello, Aristocrat. Aristocrat: Hello, my friends. I’m sorry that you had to wait. I thought that it would never end! Director: Perhaps we should have launched a bold assault to help you get away. But we weren’t sure you wanted out. Those people were intent on every word you said. How are you feeling now? Aristocrat: Exhausted, yet concerned. Director: That’s odd. From here you look exhilarated. Something on the brain? Don’t say it. I commended Chef to you some years ago, and now you want to have it out with me. Oh, I suspected it might come to this. Aristocrat: Don’t make me laugh! Why, everybody knows that he has been an excellent addition to my staff. Director: And while the two of you are off on trips like this, who runs the kitchen back at home? What will you eat when you return? Aristocrat: You’re ever practical. I’m fine with cold cuts, friend. 3


Director: You’re very lucky, Chef, to have a master such as this. But, Student, what’s the matter now? Are you perturbed I used the “master” word? Student: It cuts across the democratic grain. Chef: He is my master, after all. Student: But you were born right here, in this democracy. Chef: And so you think that “master” ought to make me cringe? Here’s how I look at it. If I’m the best preparing food and making kitchens run, should I not rule the culinary staff? And if I do, does that not make me master there? Then why would I have any problem thinking of Aristocrat as “master” or “my lord”? Am I a hypocrite? Director: No one’s suggesting that. The only problem I can see is if Aristocrat is not among the best at eating what you cook! But tell me, Chef, is it not true the greater house you serve, the greater kitchen you may have? Chef: In general, yes. Director: I wonder, then, how great your kitchen is. The house you serve is old and noble past dispute. It’s rich beyond compare. And then there is Aristocrat. He’s young and yet to set his ways. He’s handsome, too. To men ambitious for a kitchen of magnificence, what greater patron could there be? These chefs would bend his ear to their own ends. And how persuasive they can be! Why, after all, they earn their keep by studying the tastes of those they serve.

C hallenge Chef: It’s not for me to say how great my kitchen is. But no one doubts it does the job it’s meant to do. As for the rest, Director acts as if he doesn’t know me very well. Student: Why did you take the job if not for all those things? Chef: Aristocrat has qualities that make me want to work with him. Director: Are they the qualities that make a master or a ruler good? Student: What does it take to make a master or a ruler good? Director: He must be wise. He must be kind. He must be just. Who here denies Aristocrat is all those things? Student: But is that really all it takes to rule? Director: What more? The just give confidence that all will get their due, both good and bad. And if the good must hope the just will rule so they can get what they believe they’re worth, the bad prefer the unjust prince because they do not want what they think they deserve. It bodes so well that bad men keep their distance from our friend, while he’s surrounded by such good men nearly every minute of the day. Student: Then what of kindness, friend? 4

Aristocrat

Director: The kindness of the ruler builds up loyalty among the ones who’re kind themselves. Student: But is he kind to the unkind? And if he is, does this result in faithfulness, as with the kind? Director: I think such men have no good sense of gratitude. It’s likely they will think the ruler is some sort of fool. Student: So how is he supposed to deal with them? Director: His wisdom tells him what to do. Student: His wisdom also tells him how to run the state? Director: Of course. Student: Is part of wisdom knowing how to benefit the ones who’re ruled? Director: I think it has to be, don’t you? Student: Should he do good to those who are unkind? Director: That question takes us back to justice, friend. Student: I have another question, but I’m not sure if it’s on the justice or the wisdom, or a bit of both, of those who rule. Must they do good, or benefit, the ones outside their states? Director: Quite possibly, for reasons of good policy. Student: What happens if a neighbor state is ruled by unjust men, or men who are unwise, and our ruler, who is much more powerful, decides to benefit the just, or wise men, of that state? Will those who rule that state not call this action tyranny, because it interferes with their interior affairs and cannot be successfully opposed? Director: Perhaps. But maybe they deserve a bit of tyranny, if that is what it really is. And then again, those men in charge might understand their own rule as a sort of tyranny. So they might think that anything that undermines their rule is “good,” by definition. That’s a psychological impediment of every tyranny. Student: So then it’s paradox if tyranny steps up to undermine another tyranny. Director: That’s how it seems. But what do you think, Chef? Chef: I think that I’m a Chef who knows his place. Director: Indeed. When has the kitchen ever been the place for politics? So, what say you, Aristocrat? You lead a mighty state. Don’t arguments of politics belong to you? Or is that your concern?

E xcellence C oncerned Aristocrat: The main concern is that there can be only two true claims to rule. The first is force. The second is a system of belief. Now, I’m no priest, and I’m no tyrant, friends. 5


Director: And so you stand and hold your ground right at the great impasse. Student: But what about consent as claim to rule? Aristocrat: And what exactly is consent? It’s just belief… in me! How many in my realm have met me in the flesh? Should I accept their blind support? Director: Then what about hypocrisy as claim? Aristocrat: You want to make me laugh again! Hypocrisy, indeed, would seem to qualify a man to rule a modern nation-state. Just move the citizens with noble words and do the things that must be done behind their backs. Student: But what about the claim to rule by birth? Aristocrat: That claim is nothing if it’s not a system of belief, belief in breeding and in blood. Student: But isn’t it the claim in which the people of you realm have put their faith? Director: No, there’s another claim for them. It’s one Aristocrat cannot deny without great difficulty — excellence. Your excellence legitimates your rule, Aristocrat. Aristocrat: You mock me, friend! How could it be my excellence when there are those within my realm who equal me, and those who I think go beyond? No, it’s not excellence that lets me rule.

T he B est S hall R ule Student: So what’s the democratic system of belief? Chef: Equality. That’s all the democrats believe, essentially, though there are many roots and branches to this tree. They can’t see things in any other light. They cannot understand what comfort comes from knowing where one stands within a stable hierarchy, having one’s own place. Or can they, friend? Director: However that may be, let’s rally to the cause and see if we can’t help Aristocrat, who has good reason for concern. Aristocrat: The cause that is “Aristocrat”? I’d rather it were something else. Director: Well, what about the cause without a name? Student: Is this cause linked to aristocracy? Director: It’s hard to say. Chef: But aristocracy just means the best shall rule. Student: Shall rule the state? Chef: Shall rule whatever that there is to rule. This means the state. This means the schools. This means the kitchens, too. In other words, each sphere, whatever it contains. Student: And who decides who’s best and therefore fit to rule? The democrats use markets and elections to decide. 6

Aristocrat

Chef: Good birth decides who’s in the aristocracy, and then the aristocracy decides the rest. Student: And what if they’re corrupt? Chef: And what if democrats, or institutions they’ve devised, are by and large corrupt? Aristocrat: But really, Student, it’s not hard for lords to know who’s skilled at what, regardless if they’re virtuous themselves. Will they not want the best at their command?

M aking M oney Director: But we all know the best aren’t always where they ought to be. What keeps them from their rightful place? Aristocrat: Sometimes it’s self-imposed, an exile of a sort. Let’s talk about democracy. The market by itself can’t make it so that everything works out. I’m sure that Chef could get a job in almost any kitchen here. Within the market he would be among the best. But who would be his boss? Would this man be the best? I know there is no guarantee aristocrats will be the best. But in democracy the man with money almost always rules. What skill lets one pile up a heap of cash? Is it compatible with proper rule? Does one lose sight of his responsibilities if always chasing wealth? Does this cause difficulties for the ones beneath who wish to do, and do, what’s best — in other words, the ones who feel that they deserve the best? Of course, this isn’t how it always is. There are some very wealthy men who rule quite well. Student: So then it all depends on who’s on top? Well, what of aristocracy? What stops the tyranny of those who rule? What checks the lesser rulers chosen by aristocrats? Will they persuade the best to work for them? The money chasing man might not be all that bad. Chef: And it seems likely that he won’t be all that good. Student: Do you deny that it requires virtue to make wealth? Chef: No, I can see it does. But I can also see the making and the chasing aren’t the same, and that the former seems to take more energy and discipline. Director: If that is true, which sort of man would you prefer to serve — the one who chases or the one who makes? Chef: To serve within his house or in his restaurant? For serving in the house, I don’t know if there’s any difference. It would depend upon the man. Could he not leave his discipline or money chasing at the door? But even if he gives himself no rest and brings it home with him, this won’t affect the kitchen all that much. He’d have no time to interfere. But if you’re thinking of a restaurant, then it would seem I should prefer the man who knows the discipline. Would he not smooth the way for me and all my staff? Would his directions not be clear? Would he not help us operate at high efficiency? Would he not generate 7


tremendous synergies? And wouldn’t he instill great unity of purpose in our work? How could there be a better choice?

T he P rinces

of the

L and

Director: And if we turn to politics writ large, the rulers of our two regimes? Supposing one can choose, is the aristocrat or democrat the better choice? Aristocrat: Let’s speak in praise of each, to bring them into some relief. Student: Should I relieve the democratic prince? What sort of champion attains the higher democratic offices? The sort that can surmount the insurmountable. The sort whose skin grows thick with every obstacle he overcomes. No taunt or jeer deflects him from his course. Both praise and blame are one to him. He knows how fast they can reverse. He uses them as tools, no more nor less. He knows the people’s mind to know what’s possible. And thus he knows the limits of his strength. This prince gives each he meets a chance, because he might just find a use for him — or might be used himself, to good effect. He’s fair — or else is known as fair — because he has to be, to keep up his support. Director: Now, what about aristocrats? Chef: I first would like to comment on the democratic prince. He’s always chasing power if not money, too. This means he’s barely got, and mostly doesn’t want, a moment to himself — unless he knows some way to isolate himself with company. Reflection and self-knowledge won’t reveal the wishes of the vast majority, unless he truly is the people’s man at heart. And are those people, by and large, quite tolerant? Or do they urge their champion to pound the opposition as he serves their ends? And who is that? The few? The best? The ones with other hopes? Which citizens will be the natural opponents of his cause? And now for aristocracy. What virtues do its princes have? The best possess both magnanimity and grace. How can such virtues thrive amidst the tumble of democracy? In aristocracies, no frantic striving for a place upsets a noble cast of mind. Aristocrats have leisure to pursue the interests that cultivate the soul. And cultivated rulers can appreciate the qualities of other cultured souls, and have the power to assist. The humble in the realm can trust the prince to elevate the best, without the dog-eat-dog so typical of many of the democratic states. And what of how the princes rule? Since they can feel their grounds are firm can’t they be strong with anything that comes their way? They do not have to calculate for re-election, freeing them to concentrate on what’s at hand. And what’s at hand, if not the interests of all the people that they rule? The princes think of them as part of them, of their domain. They’re happy in their place and want to see their subjects happy this way, too. Will goodness such as this not shine throughout the land? What subject would not feel content, not feel secure? Now, tell me which of these would be the better choice.

8

Aristocrat

D oubts Aristocrat: Good Chef, perhaps it’s true aristocratic rulers are the best. But I am not as good a prince as that which you describe, and things are not as simple as they may appear. A number of my peers, the ones who aren’t that good, to put it mildly, must have their hands in everything — and I mean everything. It’s difficult to keep aristocrats like this in check. And so the interests of all the citizens aren’t always served. And so they aren’t all happy in their place. They don’t all feel content. They don’t all feel secure. Student: So what’s the worst that these aristocrats can do? Aristocrat: Oh, these aristocrats, as bad as they may seem, are not the worst of them. The arrogant and proud must claim this prize. The arrogant men always manage to find ways to set off other states. And then the proud, when other states respond in kind, are forced to fight in order to protect their own. Voila! We have a war. So what’s a prince to do? He has to know what’s happening in all the lands, and most importantly his own. This means he has to gather information quietly, to spy. And if he learns a neighbor has a force much greater than his own, he then must find a way to make his stronger still. And if he learns a neighbor has a plot against his state, he then must scheme to overcome the plot. Most terrible of all is when he learns about the intrigues of his peers. Of course, I understand democracies have troubles just like these. And I can’t help but wonder if the toughened, democratic prince is better off as far as these things go. Director: There’s surely something to be said for toughness, friend. But don’t you think that character and intellect will win out in the end for the regime that makes the most of them? Aristocrat : But aristocracies rely upon the dice, and as I’ve said, I’m not the best of throws. Chef: Those bones roll twice, my lord. The first throw is for nature’s gifts. The second is for how one’s raised. In aristocracies, that latter toss is made with loaded dice. Aristocrats are bred to be the best. Director: How do those best appear to you? Chef: There’s nothing that they want from those they rule, especially not votes, except for them to do their proper work, and pay a bit of tax. Director: You mean they mind their own affairs? Chef: They do, but also have a care to see their subjects shine. Why wouldn’t they? What threat is their success to them? Aristocrats can’t lose their place. The greater fame their subjects win, the greater their own names. Director: In other words, they’re confident. Chef: Oh, yes. Aristocrats like this, as long as all the work is getting done, can well afford to tolerate whatever eccentricities that their subordinates might have. 9


Student: But some of them are miserly in this respect. Chef: That’s true. But there are those who see no menace to themselves or the regime. They show grand generosity and fill their households with great men, a rich diversity of skills, and arts, and ways, the sort that would be hard to find within democracies. For melting pots exist, and render men the same. As tastes all tend toward one, variety is superficial — color, dress, or favorite sport. Student: Well, we were speaking of the intrigues that Aristocrat must face. From what you’ve said, I take it that he finds support within the wide array of talent that he leads. And I suppose they will sustain him in his time of need, if not from gratitude, then from their duty, or self-interest.

T o W ant

to

R ule

Aristocrat: Perhaps we’ve wandered off too far from our intent. Were we not speaking of a rally point, the nameless cause that may be linked to aristocracy? Director: Well, if the cause of aristocracy is that the best shall rule, I think that first we ought to figure out if rule itself is good. Why couple something bad to something good? Aristocrat: It sometimes seems it’s best to let another rule. But with my circumstances I’m compelled to say it’s good to rule, and mean it, too. Director: Your rule comes naturally. Aristocrat: Well, I was born to it. To lead with just a small degree of excellence one has to know his nature very well, and learn to live with it. One steps inside the crucible, and that’s no time to be surprised. Director: But being chosen right from birth one has the opportunity to be prepared? Student: Democracies have rulers who are natural, though they’re not chosen for their blood. Most spend their youths preparing for their day of sun, though I’m not sure they know it at the time. And yet so many who aren’t naturals quite consciously prepare. How many think it’s good to rule! But very few are born to lead. Chef: And why is that? Student: That many think it’s good to rule although it’s not for them? Perhaps they don’t know rule, and what it takes. Or maybe they just sell themselves too short, not knowing what their natures really are. Or maybe they’re just right, and they aren’t fit. And maybe it’s some combination of the three. Chef: Perhaps they’re just corrupt. They have no wish to do their dirty work themselves. They think that’s what a ruler’s for. Aristocrat: Is that what rulers do? Take out the trash? Student: No, rulers let their underlings do that. But there’s another possibility. Somebody may not be a natural, but could have studied for the part, and now 10

Aristocrat

he plays it fairly well. So he might think it’s good to rule, although it’s really not his thing. Chef: And so aristocrats who train quite hard to learn their roles might only play them fairly well? Student: One trains a dog in hopes he’ll win the show. That doesn’t mean that he’s a champion. Aristocrat: Why, Student, don’t you know aristocrats are more like horses — thoroughbreds? They’re made to win, in every sense. Some lines will run a thousand years, to good effect. A real democracy has never lasted long. Student: You don’t believe democracies would have a winner take the reins? Or is it that they don’t know how to guarantee success? Or maybe they can win but can’t perpetuate a victory. Aristocrat: I thought that liberal democracies have processes transcending human frailties, to run to good effect unendingly, selecting nature’s aristocracy for rule. Director: And they are those who have the strongest genes, whatever that might mean? So then democracies can breed their own great lines, as well, and then elect them to their offices. Student: And what if those so bred don’t want to rule? Aristocrat: They mostly will, if that’s what they are told from birth they’re meant to do. Chef: Perhaps the ones in doubt can be persuaded by the ones they’re meant to rule with signs of love. Student: And what if someone who’s not bred to rule is loved? Chef: You’ve got the makings of a tyranny, assuming that the man can get to power and is willing to command. Student: That might be how it is in aristocracies, but democrats have ways of taking in the strong outsider, making him their own, and harnessing whatever force and drive he has. Chef: Absorbing outside force evolves a nation rapidly. I think these democrats will want some ballast for their ship. Where will they get it from? Could it be old, hereditary rule? Not formally, of course. The rulers might attempt to shape some stable way of life that all of them can share, exclusively, while staying open to the next great outside force they know is bound to come. This ruling democratic way will come from more than training or experience alone. When both are right, in harmony, a sense of duty forms, and gains in strength with every passing day. This sense can serve them as a counterweight.

D uty Student: And you, Aristocrat, what sort of duty were you taught? 11


Aristocrat: Why, family, land, and subjects, friend. Student: I think the duty of the democrats is much the same. It’s family, country, citizens. Chef: The same? The democrats have got no class responsible for all the people of the land, though they have wealthy individuals who do indeed have things to rule. If that’s not difference, I don’t know what is. Student: The people are the class responsible for all the people of the state. The classes differ, sure, but not the fact that there’s a ruling class itself. Chef: A ruling class must have responsibilities. Does voting really count? Student: They also have to keep themselves informed. Chef: Quite well informed, indeed. What else? Student: They have to stay within the bounds of law and serve when they are called. Chef: And that makes them a ruling class? Student: It is the only formal class democracy has got. It has to do. Chef: It seems to me if everyone is in a class, then there’s no class. Well anyway, I’m not a member of the aristocracy, but I have got a duty all my own — the duty of a chef. I have a role to play. What’s yours? Student: You know I’m still in school. Chef: And so your duty is to learn? Then after that, what place will you take up in your regime? Student: Who thinks of it like that? Most people simply think they have to get a job. Chef: And what will they become when they have jobs? Student: Become? They’ll mostly be the instruments and tools of the economy.

E conomy

and

S tate

Aristocrat: But why are they just tools and instruments? Why aren’t they citizens? Student: A modern democratic citizen exists within the public sphere. The private sphere englobes the rest. Aristocrat: But many of the corporations occupy the public world. Does that not make the workers citizens? Student: Most public companies are owned by private men. If these men had a public, unelected, unappointed, formal standing there would be a different ruling class. Aristocrat: It seems like everything’s confused. There’s public and there’s private, and the private can be public, but it’s really not — or something much like that. Chef: And don’t forget the public can be private, too.

12

Aristocrat

Student: Not formally. I think Aristocrat has got it more or less exactly right. So how are things in your domain? Aristocrat: My father taught me how to manage the economy to benefit the realm. He warned me that democracies would try to put our whole financial system in their economic melting pot. That’s how they rule beyond their borders, he explained. But he told me that if I looked quite carefully I’d see they feel the burden of this rule. That’s why they spread the load among their tools, if that’s the name these men deserve. So it would seem that Chef was wrong, at least in part. There is a ruling class. It’s just that it’s not held responsible for those it rules. Student: Do you believe that it’s your duty to resist this rule? And does that mean the democrats are enemies? Aristocrat: Sometimes one must resist a loved one or a friend. That doesn’t make them enemies. Student: Are many of your citizens content that you and all your peers own everything? Won’t democrats attempt to spark whatever discontent exists? Aristocrat: I have good reason to believe that many of them are content. Chef: They like to know what’s going on. In our regime, they see who runs the show, in both economy and state. But in democracies? How many of the wealthy stand behind the throne, out of the public eye? How does a ruler rule when he’s so backed? How can the ones whose rule is indirect be held to count? Student: But what accountability is there in your regime? What good is knowing who’s in charge when no one rules the lords? They answer to themselves, whatever they decide. Chef: Just so, the people in your state must only answer to themselves, whatever they decide. But then again, perhaps a proper democrat must answer to his great ideal — equality. As long as he still worships at that altar, rulers must pay homage, too. If many of them were not hypocrites, they would pass laws to equalize the citizens, as radically as one might think. So if the rulers get religion, what could check this trend to level all? Who’d stop the tearing down of all the bulwarks that were meant, in every liberal democracy, to keep egalitarians from running straight to anarchy? Student: I thought the rich were in control. Won’t they oppose? Chef: They’d like to, sure. But how would they do that? They use elected rulers to control what they would call the mob. And how do many of those rulers manage this? They preach equality. As long as they propound this principle they seem to get away with anything, despite the fact they only feed the people true equality at meager banquets, few and far between. But even so, each time they pass a law that treats the citizens the same, it tends toward the end result that people are the same — conformity. Student: That’s only in their public life. 13


Chef: The line’s that clear? Who doesn’t go along in private, too? Why, even if someone pretends that everyone’s the same, to get along, the habit takes, with time, and then he comes to think that way, as well — the same way everybody does. When everyone is doing this to deviate brings trouble, friend. One risks his place, meant in the broadest sense. Is that the freedom democratic peoples want? Student: You’ve painted the extreme. But then you think paternalism is the source of liberty? The lord, or prince, or what you will, will smile down and set the happy tone? But what of those who’re out of tune? Is their place not at risk? Chef: While that may be, the chances are aristocratic breeding makes the lord one serves a better sort of man. Student: I doubt that’s true, though I have never lived around aristocrats. Besides the breeding, how is he a better man? Chef: A ruler who’s secure by custom and by law is free to spend his time ensuring that his people are secure. Security’s a requisite of liberty. Student: Indeed. But free time isn’t always that well spent. Chef: Quite true. But don’t you think aristocrats can take a longer view, and that this lets them better serve the people’s interests over time? They’re not distracted by the polls. They have the time it takes to plot a proper course. Is it the same with democrats? Student: Well, what of all those rich you spoke about? Aren’t they around to take the longer view? And what’s to stop the people from considering the people’s interests over time? Can’t they then vote accordingly?

S ense , P rocess ,

and

H istory

Director: I’ve heard it said that in an aristocracy one counts on sense, while in democracies it’s process that one trusts. Well, what’s the surer bet? Does it depend on one’s belief in man’s inherent good? Democracies would seem to say they don’t believe that man is good, and so strong process is required. Aristocracies, however, seem to have an interest in the opposite assessment of the soul — aristocrats, if not the commoners, are born, or raised to be, quite good. Of course, there’s good and bad in both aristocrats and democrats. And it would stand to reason that the institutions, processes, in each of these regimes can be both good and bad, as well. Perhaps it’s just a wash, and citizens and processes of both our states can be as bad and good as often as they’re not. Perhaps it all depends on luck. Is it not possible for chance to overpower principle, regardless if it’s in the form of institution or belief? Aristocrat: I do believe it is. But how much should we leave to chance in politics? Now, I have trouble with the notion that aristocrats rely on sense. How many of my peers have sense? And when they lack a thing themselves, they tend to think it’s lacking in their peers, as well. Are they not jaded more than not? They don’t much count on anything, except the baser human drives. And on 14

Aristocrat

the other hand, the democrats can be the greatest optimists. They tend to overstate what’s possible. Director: Well, what if things reverse? Suppose the people are quite cynical, and the aristocrats are optimists. Let’s play this out. A democratic man, today, is bound by narrow processes. A certain sort of cynicism just might reconcile his spirit to the limits of his power in the state. Perhaps this cynicism makes him better at electing decent men, because he has a taste for honesty and doubts the promises the would-be politicians make. Now, what about aristocratic optimism? Leaders who are optimistic, to some small degree, at least, might take advantage of their legal freedom from constraint to work some good. So is it possible to “breed” for these two opposites in our two states? Aristocrat: Concerning the aristocrats, one ought to show the young the full extent of their abilities, so they’re aware of all that they can do. But then one has to guard against the smallest trace of overconfidence. Their self-assurance has to square with their capacity. Once they’ve aligned their hopes with facts, they’re free to work their good. Student: Then how is one to breed for cynicism? Aristocrat: That, I think, can happen by itself. The world is often promised in democracies. That gives a lot of people hope. But then competing interests grind their optimism down. Just add corruption and incompetence among the rulers and you’ve got the recipe. Director: I wonder, then, are optimistic aristocracies inherently progressive, friends? And how about these less than optimistic democratic states? Are they conservative at heart? Chef: But aren’t democracies conservative when they are optimistic, too? If change comes via well established processes, designed to handle it within a certain set of limits meant to keep the state intact, what sort of “change” is that? Aristocrat: Democracies replaced a number of the most important aristocracies. So many now believe democracy to be, essentially, progressive and a liberal affair. Chronology, however, doesn’t tell it all. Things often change for reasons that are hard to see. Student: Perhaps you ought to write a history. Aristocrat: Perhaps I one day will. But first there are some things I’d like to do while I’m in charge. Director: You’d like to make some history yourself? For you or for your noble house, my friend? Aristocrat: When men make history must it be always for themselves or else some cause? Why can’t they simply do what must be done?

15


Director: Because it seems that “must” must always be backed by a cause. Perhaps you ought to say — “Why can’t they simply do what would be done?” Or — “Why can’t they simply do what it is possible to do?’ Aristocrat: Then let’s suppose I would, because I think it’s possible, replace hereditary rule. Director: That’s quite a thing. You’re saying that aristocrats will rule because they truly are the best, and not because they have inherited the right? And titles will be granted just for life, and only life, reverting on one’s death? Aristocrat: Do you believe, no matter how I might desire change like this, I’ll see it in my life? Director: If not, you could at least prepare the grounds. A modest contribution just might snatch a footnote in the pages of the histories.

T he E xcellent B est Student: But what about the ones who serve the noble house? Are they to be turned out when someone dies? Aristocrat: Why, no! I think the family wealth remains intact. It’s just the title that is lost. Student: And once it’s lost where will it turn back up? The question, once again, is who says who is best? The ones who’re currently “the best”? That seems incestuous. Who would they choose if not the ones from their own set, regardless if that is the old aristocratic class, the rich, or else some other clique, such as their school? Aristocrat: I haven’t got the final answer. Do you think the people ought to vote on this? Then what is that, democracy with terms for life? Is that the way? Student: That makes me think — the rule of excellence, does that belong to both of our regimes, and not just aristocracy? Aristocrat: Perhaps the purpose is the same in either state, and all that differs is the means. The fruits of each will tell us which is best. Student: Who gets a taste to judge? Or do we go by looks? Besides, what ruler won’t believe the means that chose him are the best, regardless of the fruit? Chef: Are you inclined to rule, in any sphere? Student: You want to know what means I think are best, as they apply to me? Well, since the odds are that some corporation takes me in, like Jonah and the whale, why don’t we look at that. For one, no corporation that I know is run as a democracy. The workers will not vote me manager. How would I rise? With favor from above, just like in aristocracy. But who’s in charge? Is it the CEO, or president, or chairman of the board? No, it’s the holder of the bulk of stock, the owner of the thing. So how would I approach this man and then convince him of my worth? That’s how I would be chosen as the best. But maybe there 16

Aristocrat

are better means for me. Since I am entering my final year in school this fall, I’ll have nine months to look for them. Aristocrat: You’ll carry on in studying political affairs? Student: I will.

U nease Chef: And you, Director? If you had your choice what would you rule? Director: Oh, Chef, what if you laugh? Aristocrat: So what if everybody laughs? We’re friends. Director: Alright, I’ll tell you what I think. I want to rule unease. Student: Can you be serious? You are the best at this? But what is this? Director: Why, surely you must know. Just tell me. When do you begin to feel unease? Student: I feel it if I’m not where I belong. Director: Well, don’t you know it’s possible to help somebody get to where he needs to be by means of his unease? I gave a hand to Chef, now didn’t I? Student: And what of those who’re comfortable where they do not belong? Can you persuade them that they have to move? Director: If they don’t have the sense enough to feel unease, there’s nothing I can do for them. I only work with friends, my friend. And they are well aware of where they stand.

U nease N o M ore Student: So how is it you rule? Director: I help to clarify the reason that unease is there. Student: You mean you show your friend why he is not where he belongs? Director: We focus on the feeling first, and let the rest play out. Student: So how do you do that? Director: We try to capture it with words. Student: And if you do? Director: Close questioning. We want to understand exactly what it is. Student: And once you know? Director: If we succeed we let it loose. Student: And then it goes away? Director: For good. Student: So you don’t really rule. 17


Director: It’s just a metaphor, of sorts. But still, it’s gone. That counts for something, no? Student: But can one really do without unease? Can’t it help out at times, by making one think twice? Director: What need to doubt oneself if one has memories of past unease to help him on his way? Student: But why not help out those who aren’t your friends? Director: Why should I help them out? The ones I help I have to trust. I trust my friends. But it’s a very special sort of trust in question here. I trust these men to rule. Now tell me, friend, can anybody rule effectively unless unease is gone? Student: In other words, can anybody rule effectively unless he rules himself? Director: Oh yes, unease and rule of self relate. But even if one hasn’t got command enough to drive unease away, it’s possible for friends to help in his self-rule and end up with a similar result. Now, let’s get back to whether anyone can rule effectively unless unease is gone. What do you think? Student: It’s hard to say. Uneasiness might drive a leader to perform superlatively, as one runs when chased. But then again, it might just hamstring him. A man with no unease is free to act as he sees fit. But he might not know where the boundaries are. Chef: Oh, he’ll feel something when approaching them, and steer away before he’s overwhelmed, if he is one of us, and that is what he wants to do. Perhaps that’s how it is with leaders on the run. It’s always biting at their heels, but never takes them down. Student: Director, what about the rulers that you make uneasy? Director: Do you think that I can conjure up unease as though it were some circus trick or ghost? Student: I’ve seen you give it to a few. Director: You have? I think unease just came, if that is what you saw. But if I could, I’ll tell you whom I’d pick — our enemies. Are you surprised? Well, who are they if not the ones who’re ruling when they shouldn’t be, especially if something’s dominating them, a passion or some circumstance. That’s really when they work their harm. But it could be quite dangerous to bring unease to those on high. It might be safer, and quite likely easier, to get to them before they rule. It’s this I recommend to you, my friend, if you can do what you believe is done by me.

S elf -R ule Aristocrat: Director, why don’t we explore self-rule? Director: Alright. We have to ask who’s capable of this. What sort of man am I if I do not believe my friends are fit in this respect? The question really is the rest. 18

Aristocrat

Well, I am sure that many others must be able, too. My friends and I have no monopoly. But what of those who are incompetent? Student: Society has institutions set aside for them. Chef: But of the capable not all will rule themselves. Are they committed, too? Director: The question’s not as easy as it seems. For instance, what of those who do maintain control? Have they secured complete, continuous control? What sort of man does this? Why, I don’t think it’s possible, unless you’re dead at heart or never do or feel a single thing that’s fresh or new. And why do I think this? To rule yourself you have to reconcile external circumstance with what is happening within your soul — and it’s not always wise to harmonize these things. At times external circumstance is bad. At times our souls are out of sorts. I’d say it’s knowing which is which that makes one wise. And that is why my friends aren’t always comfortable in rule. They know that dominance of circumstance, just like the dominance of soul, destroys capacity to rule. And so the ones I trust are well aware that they can’t always rule effectively. They’re ineffective in their rule precisely at the proper times. This possibility of dominance means that perpetually efficient government is not for us. And what’s profound in this? We all know that the interests of a government and that of man diverge at certain points. I do not trust the dead at heart, and those who never feel or do a single thing that’s new or fresh, because they cannot sense when it is best to let the government go slack. Student: You mean to say that those who feel their soul is out of sorts allow the dominance of circumstance? And those who feel that circumstance is bad allow their souls to dominate? In either case, when they don’t rule what do they do, just hide in bed? Director: They let things go until it seems they’re back in shape. Student: They just let go? What happens then? Director: That’s where our friends come in, my friend. Sometimes it’s good to step aside and let them run the show. Chef: But isn’t that much easier in aristocracies? If one relaxes rule at times, then who complains? The rulers answer to themselves. But in democracies the people can expect too much from those in government. In their own lives they often think that constant drive’s the only way to get things done. These people don’t know when it’s time to stop. And so they think their leaders ought to never stop, as well. Aristocrats are bred to have good sense enough to keep from overdoing it.

C ause Aristocrat: Let’s talk about the cause in question here. Student: Perhaps the cause is that the best shall rule, but only in a looser sort of rule, and that our leaders know enough to step aside when it is time. 19


Director: That doesn’t sound too bad. Now who objects? Chef: That’s not the cause you had in mind. Director: You mean because we’ll call this cause that-of-the-looser-best-that-rulewho-step-aside it cannot be the cause that has no name? Alright. The cause without a name, the lack of which in no way means it must be shadowy, is something more, not just a better sort of rule. Chef: That-of-the-looser-best can be a means toward this cause. Student: Which is? Chef: I don’t think I can say. Student: You mean that all of you know what it is, except for me? Aristocrat: Let’s put it this way, Student. We are friends. And friends must deal with politics. We cannot run and hide. Student: What’s that supposed to mean? You’re telling me the nameless cause must be political? Aristocrat: Oh, no — not simply so. You see, this cause involves the rising up above all things political, if only for the briefest time. Is one who rises thus not more than his regime would make of him? Student: So you have found some transpolitical belief. I didn’t know you cared about religion, friend. Well, how does one transcend? Aristocrat: It happens with support from friends, when wisdom and philosophy have made one whole. Director: Aristocrat, you’re speaking of the highest things. Perhaps we ought to work our way toward them gradually. Student: And so for now, while we are working toward the essence of the nameless cause, the stated cause is that we do not want the absolutely best to rule. Director: The absolutely best? Well, that, of course, depends on what we mean by “best.” If someone only cares about the interests of the state itself, and he’s the best in service to the state, I wouldn’t want that man to rule. The state should be a means and not the end. Aristocrat’s among the truly best, it seems to me. He’s not too serious about the state, although he must be deadly serious at times. For him the state indeed is means. Student: Toward what end? Or is it like the cause, and there aren’t words? Chef: Because Aristocrat keeps silent on the end so many more have truck with him, believing his and theirs are one, whatever theirs might be. Aristocrat: But am I really silent, Chef? I talk about it endlessly. Besides, it’s really not that different from the end of those who rise above — a matter of degree. Student: So you are really friends with them. Aristocrat: Oh, yes. 20

Aristocrat

Student: Then what is it that lies above, beyond? Aristocrat: For one, the possibility of more pure friendship, friend. Student: Because you’ve dealt with politics?

F riendship Aristocrat: Let’s think of it like this. A friendship ought to trump the needs of the regime. Agreed? Student: Of course. Director: You say “of course” so readily. I wonder if you understand just what’s at stake. “Regime” means more than “state,” you know. It’s the traditions, and the customs, and the way of life. It isn’t just the government. It is the broad conception of the things that make a people one. It’s all of their beliefs. It’s very hard, if not impossible, to supersede these things, my friend. Student: Director, I believe I know exactly what’s at stake — one’s sanity. For how can one stay sane if he has gone beyond what nearly all his fellow citizens believe? Chef: That’s why a man alone cannot transcend. He needs the backing of his friends. Student: But isn’t there a danger that, at times, the friends appear subversive to the nation? Persecution follows, no? Chef: Not in an aristocracy in which the ruler is a friend. Student: Well, isn’t that the case when any ruler is a friend, regardless of the type of state? But is there more to this transcendence than the possibility of being better friends because no politics, or things political, are in the way? From high atop the vantage point does one see better ways of doing things? Does one enjoy the pleasure that might come from feeling free of all restraint? For that is what transcendence is, correct? Chef: Not quite. Remember, they are with their friends when they transcend. They feel their friends deserve the best. So they are on their best behavior. Student: What about the state? Is it the means for friendship’s end? Aristocrat: Our state is used to help our friends. Student: Then friendship is the leader’s end. For this he will exploit the state. Aristocrat: What ruler doesn’t use the state to help his friends? But there is more to it than that. Some rulers have much more than just one end. Student: And you? Aristocrat: I wouldn’t say that I exploit the state. I like to think I run it rather well. I simply put it to the use, when possible, of helping friends. Student: But shouldn’t all the citizens be friends? Aristocrat: In my regime that seems impossible. 21


Student: Then what about the ones who aren’t your friends? Are they just damned, as far as you’re concerned, regardless of how well you may or may not run the state? Aristocrat: We can and do not damn the rest. The ones who only care about the very few, our friends, are arsonists. They’d see the very house in which they live burn down. No, we cannot forget our duties to our citizens. The government’s a means, indeed. And so sustaining and improving it seems wise. As long as I am at the head, there will be eyes upon the noble end of state.

D emocratic A ge , F reedom Director: The word is that Aristocrat has got a handle on the means in his regime. Chef: It’s true. And so, Director, don’t you wish that you could live with us? Director: Oh, Chef, I’ve reason well enough to stay where I am now. Chef: Is that because we’re living in a democratic age, and you would be where all the action is? But these democracies bring all their action right to us. They’re quite aggressive, speaking of their universal rights — and I believe that some of them are most sincere. Now, in their quest to spread their ways, they try to seed democracy in every land. But our citizens are more or less content with what they’ve got. They don’t much care for democrats’ peculiar forms. And yet the democrats declare that if the people cannot vote there must be something wrong. But I think there is something wrong with their great money lust. What need have we for all the dog-eat-dog that would destroy much of the gentleness, and grace, and generosity of our regime? Student: And greed’s no driver in an aristocracy? Chef: Of course it is. But democratic markets run on greed. Student: That’s not exactly true. To hope to gain is not the same as greed. Chef: How much do you believe aristocratic citizens are taken with the hope for gain? Student: If it’s not much, is that because Aristocrat’s the one distributing the wealth? Chef: With him in charge, it’s possible for people to have realistic expectations. They can free themselves of all the madness of false hopes. This helps them in their friendships. Men can’t have true friends unless they’re free inside. Student: Aristocrat, from the outside, makes freedom on the inside easier? Chef: Of course. It’s easier to free oneself when one has freedom from without. Student: So, in a tyranny you think it’s harder to be free inside. Chef: How can there be a doubt? False hopes are generally a tyrant’s stock in trade. What sort of atmosphere does that create? How much of that does one internalize?

22

Aristocrat

Student: But if it’s bad outside, as in a tyranny, there’s ample reason to cut loose from the regime, inside, and make a space within that’s free. But if the circumstances on the outside aren’t that bad, why fight for inner freedom, friend? Chef: But you can’t live your life entirely inside. For one, you need your friends, or what’s the point? Student: Well, you can have your outside life, as well, as long as you’re prepared to take the consequences. Director: Yes. Let’s take a look at where we are. Free men who band with friends transcend regimes and lend support to one another when they do. Now, does it matter which regime they’re in, as long as they can have their friends and rise? Student: The end remains the same, but it’s much harder in some states. Director: Well, what’s the hardest, then? A tyranny? Or is that easiest? Student: It seems to me it’s easiest inside, and hardest on the outside. Aristocrat: Tyrants can cause fear, mistrust, and envy to grow wild. It’s impossible for people feeling this in full to make and keep true friends. Is that an outside or an inside thing? Director: And what about democracy? Aristocrat: Democracy is infinitely better than a tyranny. Chef: But freedom in democracy is often thin. Accordingly, the friendships can be so, as well. So many citizens are fast to form as friends, and just as fast to drift apart as other combinations come along. Student: It’s better thin than nonexistent, as it is in more than one regime. Director: So, Student, tell us what you think of aristocracy. Student: Well, here’s the best that I can say. An aristocracy provides for depths of friendship seldom found in other states. A person has his place, with deeply running roots, so he is capable of forming deeper bonds. But if he has bad luck in choosing friends, he’s stuck. There’s nowhere else to go. But then I wonder if, because they are aware of this, the wise ones keep their friendships shallow, purposely. The democrats, who have so many second chances, just might be more willing to risk deeper things with friends.

L oose Aristocrat: Director, now I have a question that concerns the freedom of the self, or soul. We’ve said that rulers shouldn’t govern perfectly, that they should be a little loose. Does this extend to souls? Director: Well, what is this we’re calling “soul”? Student: Perhaps it’s our emotions and beliefs.

23


Director: As far as the emotions go, I think we simply feel the things we feel, though many people sometimes find that knowing them is hard. Student: Belief can color feeling. Director: Yes. Now, feelings sometimes change with time. But can they change at once? Beliefs can sometimes change at once, though it takes time to thoroughly digest the change. Chef: Yet man is born into belief, belief that is his destiny. He cannot choose, except as far as he accepts. Director: There’s truth to that. But there are also different beliefs, beliefs that men can choose. And what is it that makes that choice? It cannot be the soul, unless it somehow forms itself. Is there a higher part? Student: The mind? The consciousness? Chef: But don’t both mind and consciousness consist, at least in part, of our beliefs, if not emotions, too? Then it’s just soul again. Director: Then let’s suppose that soul decides what soul will be. Should it let loose? Now, questions such as this are for the men with healthy, firm, and daring souls. Student: The highly disciplined? Chef: Well, certainly not those who’re loose beyond all sense. Student: So we are speaking of the men who’re free. Director: Suppose that they’re like citadels, with gates shut tight. That might be good at times, perhaps when there are enemies about. But what about their friends? Are they to be shut out? What if the daring of their friends arrive with something new? The free men trust their friends, of course. Should they just take a leap of faith and let this new thing in? What if it isn’t possible to push it out if it proves bad? But what if they don’t take this risk? Won’t they, eventually, become like stagnant pools? I think it might be better if they strike out on their own. And if they do, what guides them as they let things in or not? Should strong emotions tell the soul when it is time to loosen or to tighten up? And what of circumstance? Is there a certain combination of events that ought to pick their locks? Student: But what do you believe? Director: Oh, I believe that it’s both circumstance and feel. At first, I think that one should open up when both are mild. Getting used to being loose, for just a little while, can be good when it seems safe. As time goes on one might take greater risks.

24

Aristocrat

T ight Student: So, once one gains experience enough he opens up to everyone and everything? Is that the logical conclusion of the “greater risks” he’ll take? That’s radical, you know. Or does he only open up to what he feels is right? Director: Well, not exactly either, friend. Some say to know what’s right one has to know what’s wrong. And how is he to know what’s wrong? Student: By knowing what is right? Director: And so we wonder if the man must gain experience in everything. Ridiculous, of course. But, really, how is he to know? What happens if he thinks a thing is right, or wrong, but doesn’t know the truth? For instance, what if he believes it’s wrong to ever loosen up? How likely is it he would ever loosen up, for anything? But if he never loosens up he’ll never know that it’s okay, at times. This holds for all of his beliefs. So what is he to do? Perhaps his model is the scientist. He will experiment, but carefully, and learn the qualities of each new thing. When he has proof that something’s bad, he stays away. Chef: But what is it he hopes to gain? Director: Why, understanding, no? Chef: But is it good to understand just anything? Director: I am inclined to think that understanding’s always good. But there are things that give me pause. For instance, is it good to understand how it must feel to kill a friend? I’m sure you can imagine other things like this. Perhaps he’s really only after knowledge that a thing is good or bad. Student: But can’t he understand by just imagining? Director: He might get some idea from that. Student: And can’t he reason through by inference? Director: He can. But where he starts and where and how he steps make all the difference, no? Without experience, how likely is it he’ll end up on solid ground? Aristocrat: What if we take a modest case? Suppose someone would understand the point of view of his close friend although it cuts against his grain. Now, is such understanding good although it doesn’t feel so good? Student: It all depends what comes of it, what someone does with it. Some understanding can be good. Some understanding can be bad. Aristocrat: Does whether someone trusts his friend affect the end result? Student: I think it can. But it is possible he’ll trust no more once he has understood. Or maybe he will trust all that much more. Aristocrat: Does someone have to start out trusting if he’d understand? Student: Not if he positively burns to understand. What trust is needed then? 25


Aristocrat: A fevered man might have the greatest need to trust of all. Student: Well, trust can let one loosen up. But then we have to ask if one can gain in understanding while he’s tight. Aristocrat: You mean like when he’s with a stranger? Student: It’s possible to loosen up with strangers, friend. Aristocrat: But only when they don’t seem strange? When they seem trustworthy? What are the grounds of trust? Are they the same for strangers as for friends? Familiarity, is that all that it takes? One knows friends’ characters. One knows their actions in the past. But, still, there’s often part of them one doesn’t know, the deeper part. Should one attempt to understand what’s in the depths so that he’ll know if they are worthy of his faith? Or should one be content with superficial trust? In diving deep one might dredge up some awful stuff. It’s possible that trust and friendship will be lost. Director: But if someone can chance the depths with friends, why can’t he chance the opposite with strangers? The unknown is equally unknown in either case. And don’t the shallows carry much less risk? Student: But still, what if he worries that he’ll be too tight? For all the confidence that he might have with friends, he may be nervous when it comes to meeting someone new. Director: Then maybe he should only meet with strangers when he has his friends around.

S trangers Student: But if he asks you if you talk to strangers by yourself, what will you say? Director: I’ll tell him that it’s true, I’ve talked to strangers in the past all by myself. But now I only speak with them around my friends. I’ll tell him there’s an art to it. It takes some friendly inquisition, on both sides — some give and take. Student: And if he asks how you establish your rapport? Director: I’ll tell him it involves a feeling coupled to a certain sort of circumstance. Student: That feeling is uncanniness. Director: How did you know? Student: And what of circumstance? Director: It’s just the chemistry of all those there that makes things work. Student: But he might want to know if you can’t have good chemistry with just the two of you. Director: I’ll have to ask him, “Are you asking me why I will only speak to strangers with my friends?” Well, here’s my story, friend. I all but lost myself in conversation with the strangers that I came to know. I opened up so fully that I couldn’t always tell which thoughts were mine and which were theirs. 26

Aristocrat

At first I thought this good. Indeed, I learned a lot. But it began to seem I’d stepped into a maze. When I attempted to explain to friends what we had talked about, they felt I needed help, and offered it, to find my way back out, my way to me. Student: Our man might think this qualifies you as a guide. So tell us, please, what sort of strangers might he find with you? Director: Well, let’s divide them up. It seems that there are two — the strangers from within, and those that come from other lands. The former shed their light on problems that the citizens experience. They know a thing or two about the native way of life. The strangers from without illuminate the whole regime. They see the contrast with their own and note the differences, to bring things into high relief. Both types of strangers face some difficulties. Strangers from within receive a great amount of scorn from fellow citizens. The nationals don’t always like to hear about their faults. The strangers from without draw terrible mistrust from many citizens who do not feel the need for outside help in understanding their regime. Of course, a great amount of overlap exists between internal strangers and the ones from other lands. With light on the regime itself, is it not possible to see the problems that the people feel? Conversely, with an eye on all the problems of the individuals, why can’t one work his way right to the character of the regime? So in the end, I’m not sure what the difference is, except their origin. Student: And that’s your full account? There’s more to say. For instance, which regime is best for strangers? Director: Too much detail must be factored in to say. Aristocrat: But isn’t it more interesting to ask what strangers from an aristocracy will see in democratic lands, and then the other way around? Chef: I think that strangers from an aristocracy will see a glut of colors, shapes, and sounds, but that they’ll come to see that, fundamentally, it’s all the same — a mass of men all melted down in one great pot. Student: Now let me tell you what I think that strangers from democracies will see. They’ll find an ordered land, with everybody situated in the hierarchy. They’ll see that it’s composed of elements that stand apart, each in its place. This leads to different sorts of souls, which makes for more diversity, which means the citizens are used to seeing something different from themselves. And so the chance seems good they won’t be spooked when strangers come along. What more, if stronger friendships form because of deeper roots, stability from this might let the friends feel confident enough to be receptive to the strangers in their land, if not to open up. But while I think that aristocracies have got some useful qualities, as far as these things go, I’m not convinced that they are simply best.

27


H olding B ack Aristocrat: What holds you back? Student: What happens if one’s place is bad? Is there mobility? Or does one have to get a dispensation from the prince? And I believe the odds are good the prince is bad, despite his breeding and his blood. He may well be a tyrant or a fool. One has to trust to luck. At least democracies have got a process to demand their leadership be somewhat good, imperfect as it is. And even if the rulers are selected for their merit, who’s to choose? Democracy, it seems, is still the better hope. Chef: And so democracy indeed appears conservative, the safer choice, while aristocracy has greater risks. But do you think that, at its best, an aristocracy should be preferred? Student: Reward must be proportionate to risk? Well, when is aristocracy its best? When everyone is in a place that’s good for him? But isn’t that a dream? Democracy is grounded in reality. Chef: Reality? But here’s Aristocrat! He’s real! So why not join us, friend? Student: Should I not ask what sort of place I would receive? Aristocrat: You’d be a student with us, too. Student: And after that? Director: Although you don’t yet know what you’d do here, you want to know right now what you’d do there? Chef: Perhaps he wants to know what happens if Aristocrat should die. Where would he be? Director: Except for you, he might turn out a total stranger in your land, a man with neither friends nor place. Chef: One might suppose the closest thing he’s ever felt to being strange was when he went away to school. Director: But if it’s true that democratic differences are only on the surface, with a unity at heart, then one might think it wasn’t hard for him to make new friends, assuming there were those who went beyond mere superficiality. Chef: So, was it easy making friends? If not, is that because, at heart, you’re not a democrat? Or were you stuck on superficial things? Director: The simple question is — were you a stranger at your school? Student: In part, I’d say. But isn’t everyone, at first? Director: In one sense, sure. But once they find their proper place, and that can happen very quickly, if not right away, they are not strangers anymore. Chef: I think that once you get a place in our domain, you should be set. And once you are in place, I think you’ll find your friends. 28

Aristocrat

Student: Is that the way it was with you? Aristocrat: Chef came to us with something very clear in mind. He set right to and made good friends. And he’s still friends with most of those friends now.

D istance Chef: Perhaps our friend is still hung up on calling someone “master” or “my lord”. Aristocrat: The titles, Student, separate. That’s how the citizens don’t all melt down to one. They put and keep the distance in the ranks. So there is room for one to grow out fully in his place. There is no clambering that makes a mess of things. And yet the social intercourse that’s possible in democratic states attracts. How nice to speak as formal equals for a change! Perhaps it’s this you think you’ll miss. Chef: My lord, how often do the different democratic strata mix? I don’t think that aristocrats are missing much except the elbow throwing that you’ll find in all democracies. Director: There surely is less stirring of the pot than possible. But do you think they throw those elbows from ambition or from something else? Chef: I think some people just want room. Some people want to climb. And some are simply cruel. Director: Well, what about the ones who’d climb, the ones ambition drives? How are these men in aristocracies? Is all the room they have a hothouse for their hopes? Chef: Why, to the contrary. The greater space can make ambition grow diffuse. But those who keep the pressure up will generally want place. This usually determines wealth, though wealth enough can sometimes purchase place. Student: And what of those who simply strive for cold, hard cash? Aristocrat: We keep our eyes on them. The state can tolerate their quest up to a certain point, but puts an end to it when it’s apparent it’s destructive. Student: When is that? Aristocrat: It’s simple, friend. The state will draw the line when someone’s greed affects another’s place. And that’s because it won’t support a ruined man. Student: What happens to someone who’s reached that point? Aristocrat: If he has sunk through negligence or recklessness, and he is too far gone to be redeemed, I banish him. Student: But don’t the neighbor states resent the fact you dump these men on them? Aristocrat: There are too few for there to be much stir. Student: What distance do you keep from them, the neighbor states? Aristocrat: As much as possible. But I am forced to stay much closer to the ones with whom I am allied. 29


Student: And what about your citizens? Do you stay closer to the ones you need? Aristocrat: Would it make sense to keep them far away? That’s politics, my friend. What can I say? Student: That’s understood. But do you play your citizens against each other? Aristocrat: Like I do the other states? At times the means for keeping peace are just as bad as those for making war. My citizens expect that I will keep the peace.

F riends , F orm Director: But do you do the same with friends? Aristocrat: If you don’t know by now, Director, there can’t be much hope for you. Of course I don’t. Director: Ah yes, but then aristocrats aren’t all like you. Some give their friends an income and a place. They’re therefore, generally, positioned well to have great influence, if not control. Is that not true? Aristocrat: It is. Director: Do you give friends an income and a place? Aristocrat: I sometimes do. But I believe that they are fit for what they get, and I have no desire to control. Director: You are true friends. Aristocrat: We are. Student: And do you think that such a friendship lasts much longer than the friendships formed in other types of states? Aristocrat: True friendships last, regardless of the state. Student: But what if it is harder to make friendships deep in democratic lands? It’s generally the case that something that is harder to create will seem more valuable. Don’t friendships such as this seem likely to outlast the rest? Aristocrat: But what if those inclined to form such friendships tend to value something else more highly, something that conflicts? How long would such a friendship last? I think that there are differences between regimes that bear on friends. But they have got to do with qualities the friends possess. For instance, can’t we say that democrats are blunt and that aristocrats have grace? Which trait is best for friends? Student: I think that it’s a wash. It’s necessary to be frank, but one must do that with some charm. The one without the other isn’t very good. I think if democrats are blunt by temperament, then grace is what they want. If it is true aristocrats are graceful naturally, then they need naked honesty. Director: Supposing that two friends have both, is that the sort of friendship that we spoke about, the sort that is more fundamental than the way of life of one’s 30

Aristocrat

regime, the sort that’s far beneath the oneness of democracy, that’s far beneath the place and hierarchy of an aristocracy? Student: You mean the sort that, in another sense, is far above these things and based upon the bedrock of the soul? Director: We’d have to talk a bit about that “bedrock of the soul,” but yes. Student: It’s not the one we spoke about. Director: What’s missing? Student: Love. Director: I see. Supposing love, how does one make the friendship last? Student: I think one tempers love. Director: And thus the heart grows wise? Student: Indeed. Director: Does friendship on these lines seem possible in any type of state, regardless how repressive or corrupt? Student: It does. Director: And so it’s possible that friendship, or a certain sort of friendship, is essentially the same in every land. Student: As long as it is true. The only thing that changes, due to pressures brought to bear by each regime, is friendship’s form. Chef: Director, is there something wrong? You’re looking strange. Director: There is a doubt that we must face. Chef: What doubt? Director: That friendship’s substance changes with its form. Chef: But can’t there be a substance that’s more powerful than form? Director: That’s very hard to say. For one, how can one know the substance isn’t shaped by form of which he’s not aware? Aristocrat: To answer this, good men transcend.

U nderstanding Student: And when they do, these friends can understand the substance of the friendship perfectly? Aristocrat: Depending on how far they’ve gone. Student: But is complete transcendence an ideal, impossible to reach, or is it something humans have attained? Aristocrat: I think that some have gotten very close.

31


Student: Would those who’re wholly free from the regime inside, supposing this is possible, be capable of understanding only those who’re free like them, or are they also capable of understanding those whose freedom is in part? Or could it be that they can’t understand the ones who’re free like them and only understand the partial ones? Aristocrat: I think they understand the most where there is overlap, where there is shared experience of what they’ve overcome. Student: And where experience is shared, the feelings are the same? Aristocrat: If not the same, then likely very similar. Student: The ones who share experience, have they got friendships that are deep? Aristocrat: That’s probable. Student: And if they’re very deep, they’re very strong? Or is there something else that gives a friendship strength? Chef: I don’t know if it makes for strength, but knowledge of external things can give a friendship from the heart some grist. Student: What sort of knowledge have you got in mind? Chef: The dislikes and the likes of friends. Student: But how are they external things? Chef: Their objects are external, no? Student: Perhaps if one is merely focused on the what, but not if he sets out to learn the why. Aristocrat: There is some risk in understanding whys. Student: But if good friends can take this risk and know about each other’s whys, might one not see the other much more clearly than the other sees himself? So can’t he help the man to change? Chef: Don’t friends accept each other as they are? Student: They can, but also shed some light. Then things develop as they may. Chef: What changes? Student: Understanding of the self. A change in taste might follow this. Aristocrat: A change in taste? To what extent? Student: Not all that much. But it can be a double change. The fundamental tastes might gain in strength. And then one might begin to savor subtle bits of spice that complement those tastes. Thus friends might bolster and enhance their friends. Chef: But won’t a friend persuade a friend to change his tastes to be more like his own? Student: Which “own”? In every friendship there is overlap of taste right from the start. 32

Aristocrat

Aristocrat: Can’t overlap of tastes get out of hand? The loop might close and feedback on itself. Their tastes might grow quite strong indeed. What subtle spice, the irony, remains? This is the makings of a sect. Student: And if the circle’s open, what comes in? Ideas? Director: Then there’s need for thought, and some ideas are tough to chew and harder to digest. Most sects prefer the softer foods. They don’t want thought. Chef: Shared understanding makes it so they do not have to think. While sects are generally quite secretive, they’re pretty clear among themselves about what they believe, the understanding that their members have. The same is true of other bodies, groups, and institutions, when they’re one. A reason to transcend. Director: Then what about the understanding of good friends? Should one transcend this, too? Chef: That understanding differs qualitatively from that existing in a sect or other entity. The one helps someone be himself. The other makes one stay a certain way, a fossil stuck in tar. Director: Well, if the understandings differ, what about the strength of each? Student: I think they can be equally as strong. But odds are that the understanding of the sect, regime, or what you will, will win out in the end. The other way around is rare. Aristocrat: But don’t forget that sects, and all the like, consist of individuals, of friends. Student: And there’s no greater difference in the world than that between the one and other kind of individual or friend.

N ature Director: What signs are there when understanding in regimes or sects is not that strong? Chef: When they rely upon the written word you know their understanding must be weak. This usually occurs when they are born, or very young. Director: You mean they write their fundamental laws to bind things up, since there’s a risk they’ll fly apart? Chef: That’s generally the case. The risk declines if the regime survives, of course, unless there is some underlying cause that boils up. But understanding of the laws will come with time. And then they are unwritten rules. The spirit overtakes the letter. Director: Spirit’s best? Chef: That’s what they say. When rules are understood within the heart they’re second nature. Nature’s hard to beat. Student: Although convention has been known to win. Director: Now, who prefers to be a member of a state that’s “naturally” bound? 33


Chef: For many it’s more comfortable to share a legal understanding with the rest. They’d rather be in such a mellowed state than in a new regime where “understanding” is imposed. Their souls go well with all the customs, ways, and laws. So they will mostly feel quite happy and at ease. The fit is natural. But certain natures can or will not take the given shape. They’ll be uncomfortable, of course, and worse. Student: Is there a type of state that’s best for them? Chef: Corrupt republican democracy’s the only state I know that might approach the natural for them. It might just have the means to suit (if only somewhat decently) each soul. When fundamental law is posited with regularity, and not sustained as something that’s essential to the state, the laws will not have time to be like second nature. Everything is up for grabs, and that’s what makes the state corrupt — but that is also what fulfills democracy’s ideal. If legal change becomes the norm, so many different laws will suit so many different men, if only for a time, before the new laws pass. The end result is many garments cut to fit a crowd, with nearly half the citizens tricked out in clothes that aren’t the fashion anymore. Student: So different understandings form and then lose shape with regularity? That seems a recipe for wholesale madness, friend. Don’t all the other states attempt an understanding that seems permanent? Aristocrat: Not all. We keep some things quite fluid in our state. But very many things, of course, are understood. For instance, people understand that I assist good natures, putting them where they belong. Student: But who’s to say who’s nature’s good and where he ought to go? Aristocrat: Well, I’m to say. But I consider friends’ advice. Student: These men you help, do you prefer the ones with strong ideas? Aristocrat: I prefer the dough the cookie cutters haven’t touched. But if it’s cut, then I prefer the cookies that have yet to bake. Student: So what is nature, then? Beliefs? That’s what we said. Director: No, I believe that we were speaking of the soul or self. And if beliefs are part of it, we said there might be something more above. We didn’t quite arrive, if I recall, at any final stance on what this something more might be. In fact, I think we said that soul shapes soul. But maybe that is only part of it. Perhaps there is indeed this something more above. Why don’t we call that nature, friend? Student: Is nature given right from birth? Aristocrat: I think we have to say it is. What other term is there for what is given right from birth? Student: So it’s like blood, a thing that can’t be changed? I guess that means if there’s a change in soul, it ought to harmonize with nature, then. And if there is a 34

Aristocrat

limited amount of natures, there will be a limited amount of souls that harmonize with them — if harmonies are finite things, and we as humans have a finite range. What soul and nature combinations do you seek? Aristocrat: I’m less concerned with combinations than I am with basic parts, and natures are the parts I need. Student: But would you take a nature that is good although it’s not in harmony with its own soul? Aristocrat: I would, and do, whenever possible. But things can get quite difficult. I’m sure you can imagine why. Student: Well, what about a nature that is base? Aristocrat: Why, I could use a man like that — for base employ. Chef: Hold on a minute, please. We’re saying that one’s nature is biology, plain blood and flesh? The body, strengths and failings both, determines what one’s nature is — or rather, is exactly what one’s nature is? Aristocrat: I’m not sure how much good it does to think of it like that. What if we look at it another way? What if one’s nature is his temperament? Student: You mean like whether he is patient. Aristocrat: Yes. Student: But does this trait remain no matter what? For instance, what if one is born or thrust into exasperating circumstances? Aristocrat: Patient men can lose their cool from time to time. That doesn’t mean that they’re not patient men. One sees through circumstance to what’s at heart. Student: So does that mean that even though a man has got a democratic soul, a man unlike yourself, you’d still be able to determine what his nature is? Aristocrat: Determining a nature, in most cases, isn’t difficult. Why, nearly everybody does this every day. What’s challenging is finding friends with traits you want. For me, that’s patience, loyalty, composure and some other minor attributes that add some color to the mix. Student: And do those minor qualities include both grace and magnanimity? Aristocrat: Those both are nice to have. Student: But can’t all these, except perhaps for magnanimity, be learned? Aristocrat: I doubt they can. More likely they are feigned or have the semblance of the quality while really being something else. Student: But you are working with the people of an aristocracy who by and large are settled in their place. The democratic men have got a certain sort of flexibility. It might surprise you what they learn.

35


Chef: If nature is not fixed, then why distinguish it from soul? We’re back to soul that shapes itself. If that’s not it, what’s left? We may as well just say the higher part is blood. Or will you tell me that the soul can change the blood?

B lood Student: Before we get to that, I’d like to ask you this. If blood’s the higher thing, are higher friendships based on it? Aristocrat: Now, that would make some sense. Student: For those that are, their blood’s the same? Aristocrat: You know, they say that inbreeding degenerates an aristocracy. Would common blood do that for friends? If so, it seems they’d want some blood that’s complementary, and not the same. Student: Well, what would happen in your realm to those whose blood is not a complement to yours? Aristocrat: You think I’d punish them? No, they’d be free to find their complements, all on their own. Student: But isn’t there a danger that they’d form a sect, one based on blood, that tends toward conspiracy against your rule? Aristocrat: What’s new in that? Student: So you’d play blood groups off each other, keeping them in check? Aristocrat: When there’s a danger, yes. Student: Would you promote your complementaries to places where they’d rule, assuming they seem fit, however low or high? Aristocrat: I would. Student: So, Chef would be a complement. Aristocrat: How can there be a doubt? Student: And I? Aristocrat: And you. Student: Does any of this change if blood is not a simple, constant thing? Aristocrat: You mean if it can be transformed? That complicates the matter, certainly. What have you got in mind, some sort of chemistry of blood? Student: Why not? Aristocrat: You seem to think that everything, except for any rules of chemistry you learn (for now, at least), can change. But I would like to learn from you, if you can demonstrate that this is truly possible. Director: So tell me, Student, is it easier to study such a chemistry in steady aristocracies or in democracies that whir? 36

Aristocrat

Student: It’s hard to say. A lot of changes might make patterns much more evident. But stable structures offer more control. Chef: So when you start where will it be? Student: Who says I’ve yet to start?

S tudies Aristocrat: How do you go about investigating blood? Do you begin with one small group, and note the traits of individuals and how they interact? And then you try another group, once that one’s down? And so it goes. And when you think you have the basic chemistry, the one for any group, you study how the groups all interact? Student: Why, yes. Aristocrat: Well, I can get you access to some groups. Director: An access from without or from within? Chef: But is it really access if it’s from without? Director: He might see different things, depending on which side he’s on. The bigger question, though, is who sees him. Don’t people change when they’re aware they’re watched? Within, without — in this respect it doesn’t matter either way. He has to be discreet, if not invisible. Chef: That’s understood. But why will people let him in? Director: You mean you don’t think that his blood can open doors? Chef: Perhaps with certain groups, but isn’t it absurd to think he’ll always be a complement? Director: Then he might get assistants with the proper blood, who go like spies, reporting back. Chef: But how will they approach their groups? How will they infiltrate? Aristocrat: And why should they do that? He’ll get them from within. Director: How will he know which of the inside ones are looking for such work? Aristocrat: Well, I choose mine by means of signs as clear as day to me. Director: The signs of blood? Amazing. You will have to teach us, please, the way to recognize these things. Aristocrat knows something of your work, my friend. Student: Well, clearly it’s not mine alone.

U niversals Chef: How long do you believe that it will take to learn of all the different types of groups? Student: I’d say a great long time. 37


Director: Will you forget about your native land? Student: Who says I’m going anywhere? But if I do, I plan to come right back when done. Director: Is that because you’ll want to try your new found knowledge here? It might not work, you know. Perhaps the blood types that you’ll learn about are only proper to aristocratic states. You might not even find them in democracies. And if you do, perhaps they’ll interact quite differently. Your knowledge might be purely local, friend. Or do you think that you’ll somehow convert the rules and make the democrats more like aristocrats? Student: Now who wants that? Director: So you’ve embarked to learn while understanding universal application of the chemistry might not be possible. Student: I have. But I can keep an eye out for a general law or two. Aristocrat: Are you aware that there are pockets of aristocrats in almost all the democratic states? Student: Aristocrats like yours, or in a broader, universal sense? Aristocrat: Just in a simple sense. Some natures, souls, or bloods have got aristocratic qualities, despite the fact they’re born into democracy. Student: And so they’re underground, a hidden sect? Aristocrat: Not necessarily. They tend to form small enclaves of good friends. They have no creed, unlike a sect, just feelings from the heart. Student: But won’t the democrats discover them for what they are? Aristocrat: Oh, yes. But what of that? What wrong do these aristocrats in spirit do? They have their preferences, but they can also play their democratic parts quite well enough. Student: So do you want to liberate these men? Aristocrat: From their democracy? Well, some of them, I guess. But what if they don’t want to leave? Student: Then you will have more foreign allies, friend.

O ut

of

P lace

Director: Do you have democrats at heart within your realm, Aristocrat? And would you care to liberate some of them, too, and send them to democracies? Aristocrat: They’re free to leave. Student: Are others out of place in your regime? Aristocrat: Unfortunately, there are those whose hearts are good, and right where they belong, that haven’t got a proper place. 38

Aristocrat

Student: What sort of ratio of placed to out of place? Aristocrat: At best I’d say it’s ten to one. Student: At worst? Aristocrat: The other way around. Student: Oh, my. That puts your state at risk. So how’s it now? Aristocrat: It’s somewhere in-between. That’s why some find it tempting to use force or fraud to keep the state intact. They fear we’re at some sort of tipping point. Director: Well, maybe there’s a way to turn some of those democrats around. Suppose that you import a bit of democratic competition for some places that they want. Chef: You think we don’t have competition for the places we have now? Director: Oh no, but maybe you could make a place, a small and simple place, for which the people choose. Oh, I don’t mean some broad election. I just mean, for instance, find a team that has a democratic element, create the role of lead, and let them all decide who gets it, not the managers appointed by the lords. Student: That’s hardly going to satisfy ambitious democrats. They’ll want much bigger places. Aristocrat: How are we to make these bigger places, let alone determine who’s to run and vote for them? We’re strained to keep the places we have now. Student: Why, you control the banks. Just give the winners loans so they can set up shop. Aristocrat: On what security? Student: Their honor. Don’t you think that most of them will be quite keen to prove themselves the equals of the ones who hold a normal place? Chef: But even if they’re given loans, they still won’t have security, meant in a different sense. Foreclosure looms if things go bad.

M eritocracy , B ond Student: They’ll work for their security. What happens if a person with a normal place fails in his job? Chef: Eventually, he’ll be replaced, and serve as warning to the others, too. Student: So, how’s that any different? Are any of these men with normal places outand-out secure? One earns his place, and then he works to keep it. Isn’t that the essence of a meritocracy? Chef: But isn’t “meritocracy” just code for dog-eat-dog? Director: Perhaps. But what about the noble born, the most conspicuous of all? I’d say they’re mostly out-and-out secure. 39


Aristocrat: There’s something to be said for the nobility. It guarantees some temperance, beyond what I might introduce. There is no competition for the highest places in the land. The democrats might find it hard to understand exactly what this means. There are no formal parties seeking offices. Aristocrats do not divide themselves like democrats and fight to rule the state. This lends a bit of harmony to things. And yet if only those who’re best shall rule, if there’s to be a meritocracy, which is to say an aristocracy that’s true, one based on excellence, there’d have to be full competition all across the ranks. What sort of strife would come of that? Would there be no political restraint? Director: My friend, it’s nice to point this tension out. But, fortunately, it’s not one to be resolved right now. The future leaders of your state will work things out. Not everything is up to you. Aristocrat: You’re absolutely right. Student: And so, for now, the system has to work by luck — the one who’s born to rule, and all his peers. Chef: That’s true. But if the ruler’s weak, the leading citizens can help him rule. Director: And what about a strong willed prince? Chef: Strong willed in what? But let’s suppose this ruler favors the corrupt. And let’s suppose his court consists of flatterers, and that he doesn’t care who’s best. If no one leads this man away from all of this, the whole state’s wrecked. But who can guide a ruler such as this? That’s where it all depends on luck again, that someone in the state has got the skill and opportunity it takes. But aristocracy is not alone in this. The democratic people are susceptible to strong willed demagogues, who help them bite off more than they can chew. They, too, will lead the nation off its proper path. In aristocracies it all depends upon the noble born. Democracies depend upon the people’s character. It isn’t clear to me which makes for better odds. Student: I think it’s easy to conceive how nobles can go bad. What makes a people so? Chef: Ambition does it every time. Ambition in a man’s alright, so long as it can flow within a proper channel. But the people can’t be channeled quite so easily. They get a thing into their head and set off on a tear. There isn’t an authority above their will, so they are by and large allowed to act upon their hopes. But if they fail to realize their dreams, they generally have spent themselves into oblivion. And that is when the really desperate measures start. But even if they gain ambition’s end, they’re doomed. They feel themselves to be superior. They strike for bolder claims. They keep this cycle up until eventually they lose. There’s no way out, once things have gone too far. Student: But what first sparks ambition in the people’s heart? Chef: It’s hard to say. What makes a man ambitious, friend? Student: That, too, is hard to say. But what’s the proper channel for a man? 40

Aristocrat

Chef: His place. He needs to know his place. Director: Well, he can know his place but still decide to cross the line. Perhaps you mean he has to understand the place the way the place’s keeper, or the one who made it, understands? Aristocrat: However that may be, do you think I should honor those who’re doing very well while staying perfectly, emphatically within their bounds? Student: Well, if you did I think they would feel bound to you. Aren’t bonds like these of use? Aristocrat: I’ll tell you how some of my citizens describe them, friend. They say the bonds have got intrinsic value, giving them a sense of warmth, security, and satisfaction, too. As you’ve implied, such citizens can be of use. The whole regime will function well, both for the commoners and the aristocrats, if very many bonds like this are formed. Director: Is it enough to honor men to win their bond, or must one also grant them greater place? Aristocrat: At times the honor is enough. At times a place is more appropriate. Director: So it takes virtue to create these bonds. For one, you need to know when place or honor does the trick. And then you have to have the power to confer the honor or the place. Now, honoring, what sort of power does it take? Aristocrat: A moral power. Director: He who honors has to have some honor of his own? Aristocrat: That’s right, or else the honor’s meaningless. Director: And what about the leaders of democracy? What sort of bonds can they create? Aristocrat: I imagine that they’re much the same, but I don’t know firsthand. Chef: But is their power really much the same? They please the people first. That colors everything. Student: But surely some will serve the people’s interests first. Chef: Do people always know their interests? If they don’t, they might not be too pleased when served. In other words, they might not want their medicine. And so a number of them grumble constantly. What sort of bonds can come from this? Student: The best of leaders rise above the noise and steer with steady hand. It’s then that bonds are formed. Chef: But steer toward what? The democratic leaders have to scam their way back into office every term. What sort of long range goals are possible? Regardless if a ruler serves the people’s proper interests, he must please them first — that

41


means no medicine, and lots of candy, too — if he would like to carry on with his career. Student: But he can carry on when people know their interests and see that he is serving them. Director: Is that the virtue of the citizens — to know their interests? We may have started out all wrong, my friends. It’s not the politicians who will take the lead in forming bonds. The people will. Chef: Then virtue goes both ways across these two regimes. In aristocracies, the people should be worthy for the leaders to confer an honor or a place. But in democracies, the leaders should be worthy for the people to confer the same.

P roper I nterest Director: Our good friend Student brought up serving interests. But, Chef, you added a distinction here. You spoke of “proper interests.” What did you mean by that? Chef: I called attention to the fact that there’s a difference between perception and reality. Director: But can you say what the reality of people’s interest is? Chef: That’s not for me to say. Director: Then who’s to say? Nobody wants to say? Why, surely aristocracies have got their proper interests, too. Aristocrat and Chef, can you say nothing on this score? Since no one’s speaking up, I’ll tell you how it seems to me. One’s proper interest, in either state, is being recognized for what one is and keeping wholly to his place. Does anyone deny that being recognized is good? Is it not good to be entirely within one’s place? Chef: As long as it’s a place that’s meant for you. The rulers, or the market, are supposed to put you where you need to be. Most everyone agrees to this. But they debate the means. Student: Of course, they also differ quite a bit regarding who deserves what place, regardless of the means. Aristocrat: But what if someone doesn’t have a proper interest? What if he isn’t recognized, or isn’t wholly in his place, or both? Director: We four all know how one might not be recognized. But why would someone not be wholly in his place? Is he too big for it? Or maybe it’s too big for him? Perhaps he simply wanders off. Aristocrat: Yes, those are possibilities. But I was thinking of what happens to the men who rise above all things political. By doing so, they lower the importance of their place in their own eyes. It is no longer how they orient themselves. They’ve gained what we might call perspective, friend. Student: So what’s their new found center, then? 42

Aristocrat

Aristocrat: Transcendence shows them where to plant their feet. Student: Well, I don’t understand. Aristocrat: Then maybe this will help. Transcendence means to stretch above the state, toward the stars. It means to dig your roots much deeper than the old foundations of regimes. Student: So “rise above” is only loosely meant? Director, can you clarify a bit? Director: Transcendence isn’t always easy to describe. But I can tell you this. A man with proper interest cares an awful lot about his place. He keeps to it religiously. But if that man transcends, impossible as it may seem, there’s change. His focus is, in part, on something else. That doesn’t mean he cannot do his job effectively. In fact, he’ll have advantages on those who stay entirely within their place. He’ll be relaxed. He’ll work efficiently. He’ll roll with changes easily. (Except when “change” becomes the norm.) At least that’s how it seems to me. Student: Then tell me this, Director. Which of our two states is best for those who go beyond? Director: I don’t think I can say. In either state, if there’s a fight for place, and one who has transcended doesn’t fight too hard for it, he might not win that place. What happens then? Perhaps a friend will rescue him. Perhaps he’ll have some other stroke of luck. But when he finally has a place, his raw ability, if given scope, should tell. We might suppose he’ll do quite well. But then the others who are very serious will sense that he’s apart from them, and they can make life difficult. So, in the end, he just might lose this place and have to start again. It’s best for him to have a ruler who appreciates his talent and can put it to some use. It’s even better if the ruler doesn’t care if he is serious or not, as long as he seems competent and finishes the job.

H onor Student: Can someone who transcends be happy where he is? Or is he always longing to transcend? Aristocrat: He ought to have his happiness. I think that he can find some pleasure in his place. And then there are his friends. Student: The pleasure in his place, is that from honor? Aristocrat: That is possible, depending how this man comports himself. But that can also be a burden, as I think you know. Student: I wonder if it’s worse in aristocracies because the places and their honors are more fixed. Aristocrat: There’s truth to that. But there’s another difference between the two regimes that’s greater still. The highest honors in an aristocracy are closed

43


to those not of nobility. Those honors in democracy are open to the mass of citizens. You cannot say enough on that. Chef: The difference is not as great as it might seem, my lord. Aren’t all the highest honors in democracies effectively reserved for those who’re rich? Student: That isn’t always true. The ones who strive with all their might can overcome a lack of wealth. Chef: The question is, however, what this does to them. Aristocrat: So what becomes of them when they achieve their goal? Student: They strive for higher honor still. They just can’t stop. Chef: And what if they become the president, or some equivalent? Student: They seek a place in history, what else? They’re never satisfied. Aristocrat: Director, are there men who lack great wealth who do not have to strive excessively? Director: The artists are a special tribe. Most strive, but those who’re any good do not do so excessively. They often serve as honored, unofficial democratic priests. And if they don’t, they sometimes leave for other lands, and sometimes sink into obscurity. Student: But artists in an aristocracy can also be, effectively, the priests of the regime. Chef: That all depends on who’s in charge. Student: Do you believe that artists have more freedom in your realm? Chef: I do. Of course, Aristocrat first filters out the trash. The rest, however, freely speak their minds, through art. While artists in democracies are nominally free, they’re censored by the crowd, and those who serve the crowd. Student: But artists in your land are censored by Aristocrat, and those who serve Aristocrat. Aristocrat: So much depends on luck of birth. Student: Well, there’s another sort of honor, that which comes from wealth. It isn’t just a democratic thing, I’m sure. Aristocrat: Some nobles have great wealth, while others do without. But most of them believe the honor that derives from it is secondary to the honor that derives from place, though they sure like their money well enough. Student: Well, what about your commoners, can they be rich? Aristocrat: Of course. Our merchants are first rate. But there’s an honor that they share that doesn’t come from wealth. Their honesty’s their bond. It’s good for business, too. Student: How rich can merchants get in your domain? Won’t they become a threat?

44

Aristocrat

Aristocrat: Believe me, nobles in my land are quite aware of what the risk is here. The rights to trade are granted by the aristocracy. If any commoner steps out of line, the state will strip those rights and confiscate his wares. Student: Where does that money go? Aristocrat: Toward administration of the state. It’s all accounted for out in the open, friend. Student: How else do you get money to administer the state? Aristocrat: Through tax, of course. Student: But I’ve heard said your taxes are among the lowest in the world. And yet your military is first class. So either you are confiscating tons and tons of wares, or you have got some other income stream. Aristocrat: You’re right. There is a special one for war. The nobles pay. They donate what they please. It may surprise you just how much an old aristocrat will give to get his name onto a ship or regiment. It is, of course, an honor, friend. Student: And what about the ones whose family titles would revert? Would they put up some money for defense? With pride so stung they might not be inclined to give. Aristocrat: But, then again, where would their honor be? Might they not turn to wealth for lack of what they thought was best? And if they do, perhaps they’ll want to get their names on bases, tanks, and planes, to show how much they have. They’d serve their pride through different means. Student: But even so, it seems to me you’ll have a bunch of wealthy, title-stripped, aristocratic progeny to stir up trouble in the state, regardless how they give. You really think they’d ever rest until they got the honor of the title back? How wise is it to let them keep their wealth, their means? Aristocrat: It is a problem, as you say. Student: But as things are today? What of aristocrats’ demand for cash? Aristocrat: Outside the normal means? They often turn to foreign sources, naturally. They won’t get any cash from me. The poorest can be worst of all. Oh, how they scheme! They sometimes make me think the wealthy, title-stripped, aristocratic progeny might not be all that bad. Student: But who would make a loan to poor aristocrats? How would they be repaid? Aristocrat: Some foreigners will lend them money in the hope of gaining influence within our realm, without much care for how they’ll be repaid. Student: But can’t all these aristocrats find ways to earn some wealth? Aristocrat: No one’s more arrogant than poor aristocrats from my domain, with notable exceptions, here and there. You really think that they would set to work? It’s just assumed by men like these that wealth is part of their inheritance, not something that is earned. Imagine how they’d fare in your regime. 45


P ower , C hange Student: What happens if the ruler of a realm like yours is poor? Aristocrat: He’ll be quite like the others who’re in debt to foreigners, but worse. When he cannot repay, conditions go downhill. And when they bottom out there’s often war. The end begins when he can’t pay his troops. Director: Is your rule guaranteed by troops, Aristocrat? Aristocrat: They are the means of last resort — but, yes. My judgments have to be backed up by force. Don’t all good statesmen’s judgments have to be? Student: With force as last resort, what means do you employ to rule? Do you exploit your great amount of wealth and all the industries that you control? Aristocrat: I use them both. But don’t forget the power of the law. That’s means, as well, you know. My realm expects I’ll use it fairly often, and that I will use it well. But I believe I understand what you are driving at. Democracies are always on the lookout for monopolies and concentrations of great wealth. You wonder why my people don’t cry out because of all I own? Well, maybe it’s our system of belief that holds them back. Perhaps the people all suppose that something good derives from my control of so much property. That’s what they call belief in birth. I am the prince, and I should have great means. My family has ruled this way for many generations now. The people find it natural. Student: And what about the ones with democratic hearts? .Aristocrat: I sympathize with them, you know, because I question my own rule. Chef: Why don’t you tell them of the ones who leave for democratic lands but then return much stronger in the spirit of the aristocracy? It does you credit, lord. Aristocrat: The only thing it does is show that they weren’t really democrats, or those democracies they travelled to were poorly run (assuming that these people had some skills or capital to barter with on their arrival there), or that they weren’t democracies at all, just so in name. Chef: In any case, the reason that so many of them give for coming back is that they have more say in our regime. Student: Now how can that be possible? Chef: For one, they have some access to Aristocrat, or those advising him, if they believe that what they have to say is worthy of an audience. Director: It’s quite unusual, the time you’re willing to commit, Aristocrat. These interviews, they’re innovations on your part? Aristocrat: Indeed. Director: Well, it appears this new born practice has some power over men. It makes them want to come back home. But will its power grow with time?

46

Aristocrat

Aristocrat: It might well grow beyond what I had meant it for. It might one day bring on the sycophants. But, as you’ve said, I have to trust that leaders after me will do what they must do. Student: But if your practice of today becomes tradition, or a law, what must those future leaders do to innovate in turn? Aristocrat: How can I say? So much depends on what they face. But I can tell you how it is for me. The nobles and the people are quite sensitive to change. So prudence says to tread most lightly here. Accordingly, the alterations to be made should seem to be but common sense, at odds with no convention. When the day for change arrives, the switch should seem to be a matter of mere form. Student: So your regime should seem to be conservative, despite what we’ve said of progressive aristocracies. Aristocrat: At times the greatest progress comes from those who seem the least disposed to change. It’s true, the state appears conservative, at least for now. But it can change in subtle and important ways. Student: You’d be hard pressed if you believed you had to make a rapid, sweeping change. A liability when dealing with democracies? How can you shift with circumstance as fast as they? Aristocrat: We can’t. But aren’t we firm where they’ve gone soft? We take the longer view. Besides, quick change alone does not betoken strength.

A cting Director: What is your longer view, Aristocrat? Aristocrat: The whole thing isn’t mine, I’m sure you know. There is a planning council that consists of both aristocrats and subjects who have shown they have an eye for long term strategy. I simply help to shape the view. I haven’t got the final say. I merely play my part, a part I’ve limited. Director: You’re acting in a role like every other man within your realm? Well, one would think they all would take their cue from you. But where do you get yours? Tradition? Aristocrat: Yes, to some degree. Director: Perhaps you also follow common sense? Aristocrat: Of course. They’re much the same. Director: And what about your subjects? Do you take your lead from them? Or is that just the same as following tradition and some common sense? Aristocrat: I take my lead from them, in part. Of course, at times I have to lead without a cue. Director: And that’s when you direct the show. But you do this while you’re on stage?

47


Aristocrat: I do, on more than one. I have to lead in ways the people don’t know anything about. Director: Well, let me guess. This has to do with foreign policy. So, are you just to other states? Aristocrat. You know it doesn’t work like that. You have to measure force with force and then determine what is possible, and if it’s possible it must be done, or else that possibility is turned on you. Of course, it’s nice if it seems just. My citizens, however, but a very few, must never learn of what I have to do. They know the way I am with them, and that is all they need to know. Student: But why such secrecy? Aristocrat: If they learn what I’m like to other states — which simply is the way these states behave toward me — they might begin to doubt my character. So I am playing dual roles, each on a separate stage. The people know a single stage and those who play on it. In this role I am gentle, kind, and just. But when I play upon the other stage, the stage of state, I can be devious, deceitful, full of guile — a veritable devil, friends. Why show them this? To keep things separated, I do not allow the ones supporting me upon the second stage to play upon the first. So, I’m the only one who has two characters, as far as I’m aware. Director: Aristocrat, is there advice you’d give to princes after you about the second stage? Aristocrat: Of course. I’d say, that if you’re nice, and play a nice man on the stage, there can be synergy, and if there is, then things will likely work out well for you. Or I might say, if you feel cold outside the state, then turn those stage lights up as hot as they will go! And if that’s not enough, then seek more radiance with greater fame. But this is not the only way to keep a body warm. If you’re as energetic as can be, immersed in grand affairs, you’re bound to feel some heat. But if you shiver still, you might try being loved, provided you can keep from being burned by all the steam. Student: Profound. But is it possible to have a single stage, or if there must be two, to have one role for both? I’m sure that there are those who’d rather have no role at all if they can’t be the same.

R econciliation Chef: No role at all? But even if they abdicate, they’d have some role, if only that of former prince. Must they be strangers, traveling to other lands? Is that the sort of life that men like this would want? Student: So how to reconcile the roles? Director: These princes must be dogs. Student: You’re serious? 48

Aristocrat

Director: Of course! A dog is friendly to the ones he knows, but barks at those he doesn’t know, and sometimes bites. They can be all they wish to be for those within their realms, and they can still be harsh, if necessary, with the foreign states. If many of their citizens are dogs as well, they’ll understand the reason why their princes wear a different face depending who’s around. So there’s the single role, my friend. Student: Suppose they wish to make an ally of a state. How do they get their dog-like citizens to come around? Director: Why, just the way they would with any dog. The princes get them used to this new state and show them it’s a friend. Chef: A state’s alliances change rapidly at times. A dog just thinks a friend’s a friend, and that is that. How could the princes keep the role of dog when dealing with complex affairs? Director: Well, maybe they just drive their foreign policy based on the feelings of the pack. Chef: And put the state at risk? Director: Perhaps they’d rather play two roles once more, instead? It might just be the nature of the place, and there’s no good way out.

S ubtle S igns Student: Suppose they rove the world, and win an outside fame. Won’t everybody always want to know their cause? Well, what’s their cause? Should they just say they’re there to serve their state? Director: What’s wrong with that? Student: There are some very influential people who’d look down on that, who’d look at that as crass, the work of underlings. A leader, they believe, must serve great principles. Director: What greater principle than that the best shall rule, or else equality? But do you really think that it will be that bad? What if they’re caught up in the princes’ charm? If that’s the case, and they are fully in a human role, I think they’re likely to enjoy their travels mightily. Their biggest problem, and it is admittedly a minor one, will be to deal with those who’d immigrate to their domain. Student: You really think there’d be a flood? Director: If not a flood, at least high tide. Student: But what criteria will they employ in judging who gets in? Director: Why, don’t you think that they should see if they’re receptive to the bond of their regime? Student: And how will they do this? 49


Director: I think that they, or their associates, should probe around their sense of loyalty. See what they’re made of. Ask them why they’ve come. They’ll have to know the subtle signs. Student: You mean they’ll have to go by feel. Chef: What’s wrong with that? Aristocrat: There’s nothing wrong as long as they can ascertain, along with loyalty, their sense of trust — of when they trust, of how they trust, of why they trust, of where they trust, of whom they trust. Chef: And they might also ascertain if they’re related to the cause.

T he C ause Student: I think it’s time we have a definition, one that’s nice and clear. Director: You want one that is rational? You’re like so many servants then. Oh, they know that they have to understand the cause within their hearts, but they still long to know it with their minds. They’re frustrated. They have no good way to describe the cause. At best they say it feels like that, it feels like this. For some, this even makes them doubt, at times, the cause exists. For they believe that there are words for everything that’s real, and if there aren’t, there ought to be. And so they waiver in their faith. Student: They think the heart’s irrational? Why, it can have a logic of its own. But I’m aware it can be hard, at times, to plumb the heart. One might not know what he’s about in acting on his feelings. Feelings can be wrong if they’re not grounded in known fact. Well, maybe not exactly wrong, but leading to bad consequences. We can see, for instance, certain types of ignorance, when coupled to strong feel, ignite hysteria. But I don’t see why servants just can’t have some working definition — from the head or heart, it doesn’t matter which — the other part can hold. Director: And if somebody has it wrong? Student: He tweaks it then, or changes it wholesale, if that’s what he must do. Director: It’s not that easy, friend. So many of these men will base their lives upon these definitions. Trouble’s guaranteed if even little bits are changed. Student: Then why won’t someone just give up a proper definition? Director: It would be so good to clear things up for them. The problem is that all believers have an inner language they alone can speak. The definition must be in the native tongue. These men, all on their own, have what it takes to straighten themselves out. Student: Is that the cause? To be both clear and straight? Director: That’s some of it. Aristocrat: It’s also possible, you know, to be both clear and curved. 50

Aristocrat

Student: Okay, then how about opaque and straight? Chef: But if we can’t see in, how do we know what’s straight, or curved, or something else?

P roblems

in the

F aith

Director: Well, let’s suppose we have a leader with a working definition, one that’s not too bad, a leader who supports the cause. How can he tell if those who call themselves believers truly are, or if they have a problem in their faith? Student: I guess he’ll have to get a sense of what their definitions are. Director: They’re in a language he can’t understand. Besides, what happens when someone opaque avers the cause? Student: I guess the leader must rely on more external things. Director: You mean what this man does? Well, speaking surely is an act. The leader listens, then? Or do you mean he must rely on anything but that, since speech is fraught with lies? So what reveals the truth? Student: The way he shapes his portion of the state. The friends he makes. The way he spends his time. Director: Alright. Let’s look at the reverse. How could the others know a leader’s of the faith? Are words of leaders any different? Is there some other deed we’re leaving out? Student: No, spending, shaping, making — these all tell for anyone. Director: And what about the ruler who attacks the cause, who hates the cause? Student: What reason could he have to hate the cause? Director: Oh, where to start? Perhaps he’s jealous of the men who seem so sure. Perhaps they pose some sort of threat. Student: What else do you think drives this man? Director: A love of persecution, friend. To him it’s sport both great and cruel. Student: Why wouldn’t all the other non-believers in the cause grow jealous, too? What’s different with this man? Director: Perhaps he once suspected he could have their certainty but threw his chance away. Who knows? Student: And those who don’t believe and have no jealousy, can they be hateful, too? Director: I think they can, indeed. But not them all, by far. It’s one thing not to serve, and quite another to attack.

L uck Chef: Aristocrat supports the cause, you know. And, Student, you would learn a lot about it if you come to live with us. Why don’t you, friend? 51


Student: I have to wonder why Director doesn’t lead the way. Aristocrat: He has a point, my friend. Why not come over to our land? Director: My thanks, Aristocrat. But I have got my fight to fight right here. Should I just up and run away? What sort of luck would come of that? Student: Perhaps the sort of luck that has involved you with the cause? I mean, it’s luck that makes someone believe, that makes somebody serve. Correct? Aristocrat: One either has the faith or not. One’s born to it. Student: So if a friendship’s based upon the common cause, those friends are accidental friends? Aristocrat: Well, some would say they are the friends of destiny. Student: So one cannot control what he believes. And one cannot control who are his friends. And one cannot control, at least in your regime, who rules the state. It all comes down to luck. Aristocrat: The cause is what it is. But not all servants make good friends, and one has friends who do not serve. And one believes in much, much more than just the cause. As for the state, if someone who believes becomes the head, in some regime unlike our own, he might find ways to guarantee succession of somebody who will serve the cause in turn. And so it might be possible to overcome dependence on raw luck. Student: But that’s just luck at one remove. For then the luck is whether that succession holds, or if it’s watered down, or worse. Chef: That’s why it isn’t raw. The basic problem is, of course, not everyone who serves is fit to lead. Director: Well, Student, you are looking luck right in the face. You haven’t got a tie to keep you here. Student: That’s true. But still, I’m not so sure. If you will stay and fight, should I not do the same? Director: Have you begun your fight? Perhaps your fight continues or begins within Aristocrat’s domain. Student: And that’s my fate? Well, what if I don’t go? Director: It’s you, and only you, who truly knows your fate. But if you feel, just know, that something is your destiny, and you don’t follow it, you only make your life much harder than it has to be. Student: So, then it isn’t only luck. Chef: It’s what you do with it.

52

Aristocrat

F eelings Student: Agreed. The first thing one might do is change the way he feels about his destiny. How many feel they know their fate and feel this fate is bad? Suppose they feel ashamed. A change of mind to see their destiny another way might make them feel much better, right? Their shame might turn to pride. Thought changes feeling all the time. Of course, one’s luck affects both thought and feel. If luck is strong enough, for good or ill, great feelings will result. And then thought’s virtue is to deal with them, for fear they’ll run amuck. But when those feelings have retreated, thought must deal with this, as well. For absence, too, is force. Aristocrat: There’s much to what you say. But I would give a different emphasis. One’s feelings change the mind. Let’s look at your example. Someone who believes he ought to be ashamed will change his mind if he feels love, the love deriving from another who can understand. It makes him think he needn’t be ashamed. So while it may be true that feelings can be changed, or at the least reined in, if not controlled, by what we think, we must admit that feeling can change thought, and often does. Developmentally, it makes good sense. A child feels before he learns to think. (Perhaps you think we’re thinking from the start, before we feel? Let’s save that for another time.) His early thoughts, quite naturally, will focus on the way he feels. When he begins to think of other things it is because they’ve caught his feelings up. Director: Now what about the cause? Aristocrat: I think it all comes down to this — the fundamental feeling that one has, the feeling at the bottom of the man, the base on which his whole life rests. If this is good, he will believe. Eventually, he’ll learn to serve. Student: Not all that many call this “good.” But what about the ones not sharing in this basic fate? Do servants of the cause make war on them? Aristocrat: Oh no, not all of them, by any stretch. The good will only fight the hostile non-believing types. They want to save themselves and liberate the ones who seem like them. Student: And if those look-alikes don’t want release? Aristocrat: They’re very careful whom they pick to free. I always tell them if someone objects, they have to back right off. Student: They do this in your realm? Aristocrat: Where else? Student: And does it ever fail? Aristocrat: It does. Student: But why?

53


Aristocrat: The ones devoted to the cause don’t always know where someone stands. I tell them that they ought to meet him where he is, not where they think he ought to be. Student: And if they don’t? Aristocrat: They might just find a man whose feelings are confused, though he may hide them well. Student: His feelings are all tangled up? Aristocrat: Indeed. He must untangle them or cut the knot. Student: And which way’s best? Aristocrat: Well, both ways work. But I would say to cut. The other way is hard. It takes a long, long time. It is exhausting. In the end, I don’t know if there is a difference in the way one feels. One’s simply better sooner if he cuts. But one sure learns a lot about the complications of the soul when teasing it apart. That knowledge might be put to use within psychology, or some related field. Oh, one who cuts can also learn these things, if he is so inclined. The truth is that not everyone’s prepared to cut. It’s quite a shock. And then it takes recovery. The one untangling recovers as he goes. But, like I said, it takes a longer time. So if someone can cut, I recommend he does.

T angles Student: Aristocrat, can you tell me how someone gets his feelings tangled up? Aristocrat: You mean that you don’t know? Student: I’ve never heard it said it has to do with where somebody stands. Aristocrat: One’s feelings get entangled if he isn’t firm on solid ground. Student: But how would servants think a man to be their own if he’s not sound? Or are they all like him, plain tangled up? Aristocrat: No, they’re not tangled. They just think he seems like them but hasn’t come around. Student: They think they always know when someone’s just like them? Do you think that they always do? Aristocrat: Eventually, they might. But true believers don’t all recognize each other right away, and if they do, they might not get along. I mean, not everyone has absolutely pure belief. Why, isn’t everybody at a different stage along the way? Suppose, for argument, that true belief is represented by the north. Now, who of those associated with the cause don’t want to reach that pole? So, off they go, determined to arrive on top, no matter what the cost in treasure, time, or blood. Some travel in the western hemisphere. Some travel in the east. But here’s the thing. The journey to the top is never short. Will they not pick up different dress and habits and the like along the way? And that is 54

Aristocrat

saying nothing of the languages and dialects they’ll come to speak. With time enough, it’s even possible they’ll speak their native tongues in foreign tones. This happens now and then. With differences like these, and many more there is no point to list, is it so clear they’ll recognize each other at the pinnacle? So if the summit is the one true faith, and it’s not clear if there is recognition there, what sort of trouble must they have along the way? What if we took a bunch of westerners and dropped them in the east, well down below the pole? Do individuals from different cultures understand each other right away? And there is more than culture to bewilder servants of the cause. Suppose there is a different concentration of believers in each hemisphere, and that they differ in the types and ranks of places that they hold. What sort of mess might this precipitate? Would servants see each other as they see themselves? Of course, it’s possible to say much more. For instance, what about believing souls who’re coming from the southern hemisphere? Their journey is much longer than the journey of their cousins from the north. Would they be instant friends with northerners? Or would they turn and head due south? Student: I see. But can’t the ones who’ve reached the pole assist the ones who’re on their way? Can’t they be shepherds to the north? Chef: You think that those who share the cause are sheep? Aristocrat: Remember, friends, we’re speaking of a metaphor, and one that won’t bear too much weight. Now as for sheep, the servants know they have to take initiative, initiative in war. As long as they are fighting for the cause, they ought to know that they are where they ought to be, regardless of how close they are to any pole. Student: It seems it would be good to help them in their fight, Aristocrat. To know for sure, however, there is more I need to know about the cause. Is there another metaphor?

A M etaphor Aristocrat: I haven’t got one, friend. Director might. Director: Perhaps I do. But first let’s check with Chef. Chef: I haven’t got a thing. Student: It’s up to you, Director. Director: Well, then, so it is. Alright, I’ll try. Let’s choose a metaphor that helps explain the cause. Why don’t we take whatever is at hand? Well, how about the human body, friends? No one objects? A strong and healthy body is the goal. What’s first? Let’s say nutrition is. What sort of fare? I think the staple foods, some grains and all the like. What does this signify? The routine intercourse with friends. And if one wants to build his body up, what should he eat? He has to have some commerce with the ones who aren’t his friends, some meat. Student: This forces him to learn? 55


Director: Indeed, because he doesn’t want a stomach ache from what he’s put into his mouth. Student: And then resistance training to build strength? Director: Of course. And that will make one hungrier. But how to train? Why, conflict with the hostile ones. Student: So what’s the blood, the carrier of all the nutriments and oxygen? Director: The blood. It’s not a perfect metaphor. It’s only meant to give a start. Student: Suppose, for argument, that we create a state devoid of enemies. How would one’s vigor grow? Director: It’s likely there are enemies outside the state. So one might sally there. But still, it might be best to seed this state with enemies, inoculating it. Student: How many enemies do you believe that it would take? Director: It’s hard to say. This would be worthy of a close review, if we were speaking of an actual regime. But our regimes are far from lacking enemies, my friend. Let’s take this question up in earnest when the foe is all but gone. Student: Alright. But is there something more that we should know about? Director: About the body as the cause? Well, no. Unless.... Student: Unless? Director: Unless you want to know if it is beautiful.

B eautiful Student: If it is beautiful, let’s say what makes it so. It seems there are three possibilities that follow from the body metaphor. There’s beauty in one’s looks. There’s beauty when one’s fit. And then there’s beauty in a job well done. Chef: Those jobs well done, are they all beautiful? I mean, suppose that it’s an ugly job. What then? And what about a job that’s wrong? Student: I thought the body of the cause, as long as it’s itself, can do no wrong. No, if it does it well, no matter if it’s ugly, wrong, or something else in someone else’s eyes, it must be beautiful. Aristocrat: You’re sounding like the faithful, friend. Director: Let’s set aside the body metaphor and talk about the cause itself. If it is beautiful, what makes it so? Aristocrat: The true believers think that it’s the bonds that form between good friends in common service to the cause. The bonds bring cheer and strength of heart to face adversity, if not catastrophe. They help them serve the cause untiringly. They make them proud. So can you understand the way the cause seems beautiful to them? Student: But what about transcendence? 56

Aristocrat

Aristocrat: I would guess that most would say it’s equally as beautiful, but in a different way. Director: We haven’t said what’s beautiful about the cause itself, just things that it involves. Should I describe the way it seems to me? The cause is dark and cool like night. The cause is hot and dry like burning sand. The cause is cold and hard like winter ice. The cause bursts forth like magma from the earth.

O pposites , R ights , O pen O nes Student: So you’ve described a bunch of opposites. The cause is cool. The cause is hot. The cause is frozen. Now it’s molten. What does it mean? Director: Perhaps I should elaborate. The cause is dark and cool when one most needs a break from light and heat — the toiling of the mind. It’s hot and dry when one has labored in a chilly swamp — a metaphor for spending time with sickly souls. The cause is lovely like the ice upon the naked trees — a vision of the beauty that sustains before the spring time of the heart. And then the cause bursts forth like magma when the frozen ground has grown too thick — an image of the power of the cause. The play of opposites is what, I think, in part, defines this thing. But more than that I couldn’t say. Chef: I won’t attempt to tell you what my definition is, but I’ll make bold and state the highest purpose of the cause, as I see it — the great unfolding of humanity. The opposites involved in this are myriad. Student: But how does one assist with that? There has to be an element of politics. Unfolding happens when someone transcends? Chef: Let’s save unfolding for another time. We simply couldn’t do it justice here. And, if you like, consider that my ploy for us to get together once again. But I can say a bit about the cause and politics. As long as it does not come down to rule by naked force, all politics involves some sort of rights, the firmly held political beliefs. The servants of the cause examine rights and see their good and ill effects. At best, they are not unconditional in their political beliefs. A prince supportive of the cause might make effective use of them. They can be flexible about these things. Student: Well, what if everyone is flexible and analyzing everything? Can they see eye to eye, to be together of one mind? Or doesn’t politics require this? Besides, I thought all nations have to have important things that actively resist analysis, the sacred things, unquestioned things, the things at bottom of regimes, the mooring lines — their gods, or principles. So how are they to live? Chef: That’s why it’s very hard, if not impossible, to found one’s politics upon the cause. Director: I’m not aware of any state that’s even close to having everyone a servant of the cause. While this is so, what should we recommend to those examining regimes? Since no one’s stepping up to speak, I’ll offer my own view. They ought to seek out friends among the ones who’re open to the cause, but do not 57


serve. Then once they have them they should tell them what they think. Their new found friends will listen, giving them a truly open minded chance. They’ll go off on their own, observe, and then conclude about the truth of what the servants said. And then they’ll follow through in deed. This follow through is what the analytic minded fellows need.

B elief Student: Do open ones, as they observe, break down the facts? And if they do, how do they differ from the servants of the cause? Director: I’d like to give a bit of background here. Analysis, the sort we’re speaking of, is only possible when there are objects of belief. We call some of these objects rights. All proper citizens know what these are, and they make use of them. But if these rights aren’t exercised, in time they cease to be. So what would cause the citizens to let their rights go soft? Analysis can answer this. And that’s because it’s more than thinking of the good and ill effects of rights. But when analysis has gone as far as possible, one sounds the open men, persuading them to take a closer look at the regime by telling them, exactly, what he sees, which can be much more difficult than it might seem. The open men do not initiate analysis. They ponder what believers tell them of their own, and verify with what they see through their own eyes. They then conclude, as we have said. Student: And if they disagree with those who serve the cause? Director: If servants do what they should do that isn’t possible. The true believers analyze but need the help of open men to see next steps. And so they shouldn’t sway these men as they decide, though they may clarify the points that seem obscure along the way. The servants shouldn’t have opinions as to what they’d like to see the open men conclude. They do, in truth, rely on them — for when it comes to this, they’re blind. Student: But isn’t thinking also synthesis? Who does this work in our scenario? Director: Why, anyone is capable of synthesis. The question’s who believes in what’s been synthesized — in other words, the quality of synthesis. Student: So do you think that synthesized beliefs are always present in regimes? Director: They are. Student: Especially concerning rights? Director: There are a number of assumptions blended into every right. Student: And those who serve the cause are well aware of them? Director: Not everybody sees them all. In fact, perhaps nobody does. Student: And what of those who’re merely open to the cause? Director: You mean, how could they be aware unless they’re told? Well, it takes difficult analysis to get at buried postulates. Not everybody wants the job. 58

Aristocrat

Student: But what do they conclude? What if they say that certain rights must change? Director: Can you imagine how much care it takes to introduce such change, assuming that these rights are of significance, without a major meltdown on the way? The people have to be prepared. But, then again, if this is how deliberation ends, perhaps some preparation has been made.

S trength Student: Well, let me ask you this. The change is meant to make a stronger state, correct? Then I would like to know if it would be much stronger still if there were many servants of the cause, or just a few. Chef: How can you doubt that it would be much stronger with a greater number of the ones who truly serve? Student: Do you believe it would be stronger since they serve the prince and give him good advice, advice they glean from open men, supposing he is not an open man himself? Chef: Why do you ask? Student: It seems to me that just a single servant could give excellent advice. So why is there a need for many more? What surplus benefit are they? Or are they capable of gathering more data points, by way of different conclusions, or concurrences, from open men? Chef: Here’s how it seems to me. The true believers’ bonds of service to the cause, if coupled with the bonds of service to the state, such as aristocratic bonds, can help to stiffen leadership’s resolve. Student: To do the things that their analyses and the conclusions of the open ones reveal? If that’s the case, then maybe we should see how this plays out in each of the regimes. So, what’s the democratic bond? Chef: The oneness of equality. Student: And what about the servants of the cause? They’re equal, yes, in that they serve? Believers have no ranks. That resonates in democratic lands. Chef: But aren’t there levels of degree? Don’t some believers serve with much more force? The ones who do might think that they deserve a higher place. With true believers at the head, this might result in different servants getting different ranks. Director: What’s this? I thought that you were clear in saying that one’s service to the cause is not enough. “Not everyone who serves is fit to lead.” Would you support the opposite? But I know this. However much somebody serves in no way makes him capable of piloting a ship. He has to learn that skill all on his own. Student: So what are we to say about the way that service bears upon the strength of the regime? 59


Director: I wouldn’t say that it’s the source of strength, for sure. It’s evident that democratic and aristocratic bonds make states grow strong. And this is so by definition, friend. The bonds of service to the cause are something else. Perhaps they won’t be incompatible with states and their own bonds, some sort of fellow travelers. But nothing more. I think Aristocrat agrees. Student: So how will state and cause relate along the way? Aristocrat: The faithful use their states to serve the cause. Their states are powerful or not, as far as it is in their hands, depending on the things the cause demands. I think they’d rather keep them strong. They have their friends, the servants of the cause, and some might man the most important posts. They are prepared to do the things it takes to serve both cause and government. They travel on along with their old states, until they feel they can’t. Student: What happens when they’re torn between the cause and their regimes? Aristocrat: They choose the cause and hope that things work out.

P erpetuity Student: How long can nations run on hope? Aristocrat: They say that all regimes must fail, eventually. Is it so bad, if one must fail, for it to fail on hope? Director: The sentient is noble, but who says that all regimes must fail? Why, just because regimes have failed before we can’t be sure one can’t go on. Student: So what about the cause? Does it go on? Director: I think the cause can end, can cease to be. I tend to think the non-believing cause, the causes, as it were, in which the non-believers place their faith, will last forever, without any care at all. Student: What are the non-believing causes, as it were? Director: Why, any cause that’s not the cause, what else? All I can say is that the nonbelieving cause’s multiplicity ensures that part of it will always carry on. Student: But aren’t there many of the non-believing cause who have great faith? Director: I know there are. Student: Does mere belief make for a cause? Director: No, it takes power and belief. Aristocrat: Director, why do you suppose the cause can die? Director: Because the cause might be a flame, a flame that humans chanced upon, and then kept up, and passed along. Each generation must effect a transfer or it all dies out. But then again, it might not be the cause will die, but rather servants will lose touch with it. And then it isn’t clear they’ll ever gain it back. Student: What would it take to get it back? 60

Aristocrat

Director: They’d have to search until they found a thread that leads them back to where it all began, the cause itself. Student: But how are they to know which thread’s the one they want? Director: They’ll know when they begin to pull. Student: Should they just pull on everything until they know? Director: It might be wise to start with gentle tugs in likely spots. Student: What if they’re pulling on the hostile, non-believing sort of thread? Director: They’ll hear a growl. Student: And if they pull on open threads? Director: They’ll feel resistance with some give. Student: And if they pull and feel the thread is fastened tight? Director: Perhaps they’ve found the cause. Student: So they would trace that thread and hope to find the cause itself? Supposing that they do, what then? Director: I think they ought to share. Student: But how? Director: Why, they could show their friends the thread. But I believe they ought to let them trace it on their own. Student: But what if unbelievers find the thread? What if they rip it out? Director: Perhaps the friends will leave a thread all of their own, a backup to the one they found. If all of them can do the same each time they make it to the cause, things might turn out okay. Student: But what if they’re detected on the way back in? The enemy would see their threads and tear them out. And then all’s lost? Director: Well, maybe so. Student: But they could keep on looking, right? There might be different threads. Chef: And if they do not find a single one? Aristocrat: Before it gets to that, perhaps they ought to scatter threads both far and wide, and learn to be most quiet on the way back in.

L egacy Student: We’ve been supposing that the cause is lost. And when it’s not? Is that not what we’re dealing with right now? How does one pass it on beyond today? Chef: Perhaps one has the youth chase strings, to get them in the groove. Student: Perhaps indeed. But first there has to be a winnowing, to see who’s fit to serve. Don’t you agree? 61


Chef: If that is so, then what of those who fail the test? Perhaps they shouldn’t know that they were tested. If they knew, they might resent. Director: And what if evil ones turn up? Student: Then there’s an opportunity to cast them out. Aristocrat: As tempting as that seems, the servants can’t forget the families of the evil ones will likely raise a cry. And even if there’s only one, how could they banish such a youth? What reason would they give to those who don’t believe? We simply know this spawn is monstrous? When the non-believers cannot see the signs, or when they do but don’t know what they mean, or when they think he’s just like them, what will they think of those who serve? What will they do? I think the servants have to live with evil ones and keep an eye on them. But all of this aside, how many youths will they pronounce as good? Student: My guess is few. Director: And so the stakes are high to place the good strategically. Student: But will they choose a prince to help them pass the cause along? Aristocrat: I am inclined to think that one will just appear. Student: You mean he will be obvious? Aristocrat: Oh yes, to those who know these things. It would be best if he were one of these young citizens, the ones who’re deemed the good. He’d get an education just like theirs. If they are chasing strings, then he is after them. But he must also stand apart. Perhaps he’s chosen or revealed at very early age, so he is almost born to rule. He’ll need to know that he’s the one. Or is it better if he doesn’t know? It’s hard to say. In any case, before the servants choose their prince, I think they’ll have to give him time to let his nature bloom, so they feel sure. They probably will want to give him time to show his character. Or maybe they’ll just go by nature on its own, because they plan to form his character themselves. Chef: Alas, the prince in our regime continues to be chosen by heredity, dumb luck.

P rogeny Student: What if there are no good ones for a long, long time? Aristocrat: Then true believers wander in the desert of the spirit. Really, though, what’s happened to your chemistry of blood, your natures that are flexible? Can this not irrigate the arid land? Student: Let’s say, for argument, that it’s impossible to make the fundamental change, to take a youth who’s less than good and make him simply good. What happens then? Chef: The cause is lost. Student: And what of all the threads the wanderers will leave? 62

Aristocrat

Chef: Perhaps my great, great grandchildren will pick them up when they’re of age. Student: Your children are not of the faith? Chef: They show no signs, though they’re quite young. Perhaps they’ll be like open ones. I don’t think they will join the enemy, but that’s not up to me. Director: Now, all the servants of the cause must have some non-believers that they care about. Or are there those so focused that they don’t? Chef: Some certainly are at that point. They much prefer the children of the cause to their own progeny, unless the two are one, friend. Director: Hmm. They place the natural beneath the causal. That might be because they fell in love with status, Chef, conceiving of themselves as part of some elite. When so in love, it’s easy to forget the ones who’re close to you, or might be close to you. A bout of hubris generates a host of bad effects. Imagine what occurs when it’s sustained. Student: Then should they place the natural above the cause? Director: Each sort of progeny goes on in its own way. Sometimes a way can rise, sometimes it falls. One cannot change which way is high and which way’s low. It does to take them as they are.

W ays Student: And what if both are high or low? They’re equally important then? So one must choose. How to decide? Director: How often do you think the roads are leveled perfectly? But let’s suppose they are. What is the task of progeny, of either type of progeny? Student: To carry on. Director: To carry what? And where? And how? Upon one’s back? Within one’s memory? Or in the meaning that one’s words convey? Perhaps it’s all of these. Perhaps it’s none and something else. But who will do the carrying? Is it just children of the cause and children of the flesh? Can’t family, aside from children, carry on? And what about one’s friends? I know of friends who carry great big loads. So we have four. Can anyone come up with any more? Student: No, let’s assume that’s all, that these are all the ways of progeny. (We’ll set aside the question of the children of the enemy.) How does one choose? Director: Suppose the choice is forced by this — one’s progeny would snuff the cause right out. What then? Student: As far as we support the cause, the choice is obvious. Director: And now suppose instead one’s progeny is mildly opposed to service to the cause. Student: It’s possible to underestimate what can be done by mild opposition. Choice might not be forced, but I think there is one to make. 63


Chef: And you would choose the cause? Student: I’d give some mild opposition to the mild opposition. Director: Finally, what if one’s progeny is not opposed at all? Let’s say he even lends support, although he is no servant of the cause himself. What then? Student: No choice. But servants never really make a choice, now do they, friend — unless you count the choices that they’ve made upfront, well in advance? The ones who’re focused to the point where they can only see the cause have hardened their priorities into a sort of programming that “chooses” automatically. There really is no choice, just consequence, if that makes sense. Chef: But what about the servants who are progeny themselves, why, all of them? Do they just carry for the cause? Student: You mean you don’t think they can walk four ways at once? Director: It’s possible for paths to run together for a spell. And it is possible for someone to have strength enough to carry many loads. But if or when the ways diverge he has to find his own true path, a fifth way through this land, and one he walks alone. And then he’ll lay his burdens down, and start to take his bearings in the beauty of what’s now become a wilderness.

E xplorations Student: But how can one be certain that he’s on his path if he has never ventured off upon some other ways not properly his own? Aristocrat: Indeed. But don’t you think the most important things are found along one’s proper way? Student: So if he finds important things he’ll know he’s where he ought to be? What tells him they’re important, then? Can’t someone miss important things along the way in life? Perhaps you’ll tell me he will know by feel. But is it mere intensity that tells? So what of feelings that are terrible? Or is one always feeling good along the proper way? Aristocrat: Nobody says these things are easy, friend. But what of you? Do you believe you’re on your way? Student: I’m at a fork. And so it seems I have to choose. But what if I don’t choose? Chef: What will you do, just stand there in the way? That, too, is choice, you know. Director: When everything’s a choice, then nothing is a choice. I think that Student has to choose. Aristocrat: With luck, my friend, you’ll only hit one branching of the way. Student: But I think you’re a lucky man who makes hard choices all the time. Aristocrat: What sort of choices do you think I make? Well, I can tell you one. I have to pick who gets what place. And as you might imagine, this involves the dashing of so many expectations and the severing of ties. 64

Aristocrat

Student: Do servants dash and sever, too? Aristocrat: I think they sever more than dash. But then again, their motives are a little off from mine. While they are soldiers, I am more a judge.

C ompromise Student: And if some servants do not soldier on, what then? They compromise the cause? Chef: The cause cannot be compromised. It’s fixed. Student: Like some idea? Chef: The point is that it’s people who are compromised. Student: Unless the cause is purely metaphysical, what is it if not those who serve, who keep the faith? Director: I do not like this narrow definition. We must also have a care for all of those related to the cause. It isn’t just about the servants, friend. Student: Then there’s no compromise as long as no one who’s related to the cause sells out another who’s related to the cause, however loosely so. Chef: But what is “selling out”? Student: Denial of the truth of what another does or says as it relates to matters of the cause. The rest is solely on the individual and how he sells himself. He’s selling out if he won’t fight when it’s quite clear he should. He’s selling out if he won’t follow through on all the choices that he makes. He’s selling out if he won’t make the most of what he is, in other words, if he won’t let himself unfold. Aristocrat: And then he might just learn to fold himself, like fine and complex origami. Student: Our cause demands integrity. Chef: But what of compromise to get ahead, to rise up in the ranks and serve from there, to more effect than possible below? Student: All servants know the lowest man can serve as well as anyone as long as his integrity’s intact. The truth of this comes clear when he who’s gone on high comes face to face with him, the low yet sound. They’ll take the measure of each other’s virtue through their eyes. Who’ll find whom wanting in the end? Aristocrat: Indeed. Do you believe this holds for mere supporters, too? Student: Can they give more support if they maintain integrity? I think that’s very likely. Servants wouldn’t take assistance from someone they know is not quite sound, however they might understand the term. But getting back to what it takes to rise, one needn’t always compromise. The servants trust the cause to make their fate come clear, and then accept it as it is and go with it. This could mean they will rise like air. This could mean they will sink like lead. So all it is, is what it is — no more, no less. Chef: And if they’re true they’ll thrive inside, no matter what the outside brings? 65


Student: No doubt the outside will bring difficulties. They will wish at times that they could quit, and maybe that they were not even born. But they’ll remember in their hearts, no matter what, that if they quit they let the others down, their friends, and maybe even those they’ve never met, and will not ever meet. Director: Well, I would like to know what happens to the ones who’ve been sold out. Student: I think they’ll feel a weakening in their relation to the cause. Chef: And that may be. But don’t you wonder what will happen to the one who sold them out? Student: I think his conscience will attack him endlessly, if he is truly of the cause. Director: So one false step and there is no way out? Perhaps this man deserves some help. Aristocrat: Of course. We are obliged.

H elp Student: What sort of help can we give him? Chef: Why can’t you be a pillar to your friend and let him lean on you until he has recovered from his lapse? Student: And that’s all that support entails? What do we do, just tell him it’s okay? Well, do we really know that it’s okay? Should we be blithe? We’ll tell him it’s okay, in hopes that it will be okay, in part because we’ve told him so? No. If we do not know, he’ll know we don’t. What then? Do we just tell him to forget it all? Why, after all, we’re not the sort to rub his nose in it. But can he live with cover-up? Can we? The ones who know will always know, regardless what we do, and this includes our friend. Perhaps he’s better left alone. If it can be worked out, he’ll have to work it out himself. And won’t he be much stronger having done it on his own? Aristocrat: It might be possible to leave him be, but lend support another way. Why can’t we help by being what we are? Won’t it encourage him to see how we associate with those with whom he serves? While healing he might emulate some of our ways, until he finds his own, again. Student: I think you’re on to something there. But we’re examples in another way, to different people in their need. We’re counter-models for the better sort of youth, the ones who’re trapped by hostile non-believers, risking what the evil men might do to us for interfering with their plans.

W ar Chef: Such interference likely sparks a war. What good, if any, comes of that? Student: The benefit is that the youth in question get to watch the fight. What better way to learn?

66

Aristocrat

Chef: And what’s the lesson if they’re witness to a loss? Defeat is always possible. In fact, it might be probable. Can there be many who support the cause? Student: I didn’t think the question was how many can support the cause. I thought that it was whether those who do will fight as one, my friend. And if the trapped but better youth must witness loss, well, they will get a better sense of what is possible, and what is not. But let’s not focus there. Let’s talk about the victory. Chef: The servants love to talk about their victories. They revel in their teaching of the trapped but better youths about the cause, their simple yet profound conquest. They try to show them everything, and if they can, they feel with certainty they’ve won. And then it’s to the youth to figure out if they will serve, support, or leave the cause alone. The point is that they have been helped to have a choice. Student: And what’s the price of that? Chef: To those who won? Whatever persecution that the enemy might bring. Or were you thinking of some other cost? Student: No, none to speak of. Yet, suppose there is a prince who backs the servants in this war. What persecution can there be of him and his? Chef: Nobody is so powerful that he’s immune from personal attack. Student: So is it wise to hide oneself, disguising anything that touches on the cause? Chef: While one’s at war? But how can he begin to teach if he is hidden, friend? What sort of model hides? Will he attempt to hide his students, too? Or does he have to teach them how to do it on their own? Director: Now, wouldn’t students such as these already know a hidden way all on their own? Student: Well, what of those who opt for true belief? Don’t they feel pride in this and want to open up, and therefore call attention to themselves? Chef: But if they do what would they say? I serve the cause? And if somebody asks what cause is that, what can they say? Student: There’s nothing they can say. But I believe that they would speak against the wisdom of the enemy, the things they teach. Chef: And that is what? Student: They would have all believe, or else proclaim they do, the doctrines they uphold, whatever they may be. The cause has none of this. And so the true believers fight. Chef: But enemies won’t tolerate attempts to contradict the things they say. All their authority’s at stake. Student: And like so many cornered beasts they’re dangerous. Oh yes. So I believe the servants have to exercise some care in what they say. Besides the menace to 67


themselves, they have to think about the safety of the youth, who might repeat the criticisms that they’ve heard, and suffer for that sin. The servants ought to verify the youths can understand what they would share, before they do. The poisons of the enemy run deep. Chef: It seems both prudent and effective to proceed this way. Director: So how is final victory secured? Student: The final victory? The trapped but better youths will carry that. Once they have made it to the choice they’ve dealt the enemy a deadly blow. No longer can they be controlled by means the foe employed before. And arms, when ineffectual with some, are weak for others, too. The victory extends beyond itself. Director: Let’s set aside for now the question of a backlash or of backsliding. What happens if the rebels overtake the evil ruling class? Student: Why, don’t they win, as long as they remain true servants of the cause? Director: And if they’ve won, then they’re on top? And if they are, what happens if the enemy revolts? Is there to be an open fight? Aristocrat, do you have insurrections in your realm? Aristocrat: From time to time. Director: And do you fight them openly? Aristocrat: It all depends. If it’s no fundamental threat, we fight them openly. But if it’s vital? We use much more subtle means.

B uried Student: And so this war consists of fighting for the youths, against the elders’ nonbelieving articles of faith. And even if it’s won, the servants and the youth had better keep an eye out for an enemy attack. Chef: Another way to think of it is digging youths up from the places where the evil ones have buried them. Director: But those who dig should hand their spades to them as soon as they can see their arms. For youth must extricate itself. Student: Perhaps they’ll build great mounds as all the digging out proceeds. The deeper that the youth were sunk, the higher that their mounds will be. They’ll stand upon them when they’re free, and they’ll be proud for having won so large a pile — a sort of justice, friends. Director: Well, that would be the sort that’s sweet. But, terribly, there often will be those for whom it’s now too late. They’re buried, dead, and past all hope. Student: I think that something in the metaphor is wrong. A youth that’s buried, how is he to live? He has to breathe. He has to drink. He has to eat. You get the point. 68

Aristocrat

Aristocrat: Perhaps he’s in a tomb for kings, Egyptian style, loaded with the things he needs, and more. The enemy entices youths with living underground in luxury. Student: But what’s the good of that? It can’t be cheap to put them up, or rather, down. Aristocrat: Indeed. It’s propaganda — marketing — to serve their way of life. They want to show that youth takes up with them. It makes them strong. Student: How would they choose the one to place within the tomb? Aristocrat: One might believe they’d want the weakest one, the one who’d go along without much fuss. But wouldn’t they attempt the strongest one, the one who’d fight against them most, to be a sort of trophy for their system of belief? But then it gets confused, for couldn’t he who goes along most easily be he who has the strongest trust in what they teach and thus the strongest soul? It’s hard to say. Student: Then what becomes of whomsoever lives within the tomb? Can he be good? Aristocrat: The evil ones will think he’s good if he obeys. But if you mean the other kind of good, the good believe the good are always good. In fact, they even think it’s possible to serve the cause from one’s own tomb. Student: You mean the buried good will serve by leaving treasure for their friends, like books? Aristocrat: Of course, and maybe other things — but books, primarily, I’d think. Student: So if the author doesn’t make it out, the servants ought to dig up what he put to words, and set to learn once they’ve recovered it? Chef: You know that some believe the lessons of the past are useless for today, except for any pleasure they might give. And some will say the past is best and worship it, and think there’s more to learn from there than here. Student: And what’s the point, to find some mean? Well, how would one do that? Don’t worship and don’t disavow? Is that enough? This artifact, it’s for the cause. With anything that serves, is there a mean? I thought the cause demands one strive beyond all averages. Chef: Perhaps one day you’ll demonstrate how artifacts can strive. Student: The point is how the artifact is used. I’m sure some want to wield it in the fight before they know it thoroughly. They read down in the depths and think they understand a thing or two, and off they go. They’d be much better off to read it superficially. But authors of an artifact like this know well the differences in meanings on the surface and the meanings down below. Their time in tombs has given them the opportunity to understand.

C lues Chef: How does one find such treasures? Student: One just digs by feel, I guess. 69


Chef: As would a mole? So what’s to feel? Aristocrat: I don’t know that there’s anything to feel, assuming that the author’s dead. The treasure’s with the corpse, unless the evil took it up. Chef: Preparing for that possibility, the author might have hidden or enciphered it. Student: But even if they couldn’t understand the book, it would be suspect in their eyes because of who the author was. Aristocrat: But do you really think they won’t just leave it in the tomb? By taking it, they give it status that it wouldn’t have just lying there. Director: Perhaps they fear the book will rise and walk the earth, and they just want to get a jump on it and put it in a cage. Chef: I think they want it for their private library — impossible to get at but for those invited in. Another trophy for their vanity. Director: Why can’t it serve the cause from there? Student: Would anybody bother reading it? Director: Oh, I don’t know. I think temptation would be strong. Forbidden book by “evil” man, and all of that. Chef: Well, let’s suppose they either cannot find it or they leave it where it is. The servants have to look for clues that lead them there, right to the grave, and hopefully straight to the stash. Director: Indeed. But I would recommend that they not look too hard for fear they miss the obvious. It always seems one stumbles on a clue where no one thought that it would be. And so my counsel, friends, is to employ a vigilance that is relaxed. They must keep up their energy to stay alert. But when they find a clue at last they have to follow up on it at once, regardless if it’s inconvenient. Student: But what’s the rush? Director: Why, can’t you see they have a murder case to solve? The criminals might get away. Student: But is it murder if it happens during war? Director: Why, no, I guess it’s not, as long as both are soldiers in the field — in other words, as long as each is well aware that he is in a war, and that they stand opposed. Student: Do you believe the servants are at war right now? Director: It’s somewhat complicated, friend. A number of our fellows are now happily at peace. Another number are in all out war. I doubt that there’s a time when everyone’s at peace, or everyone’s at war. Don’t you agree, Aristocrat? Is it not mixed within your realm? Aristocrat: Oh, yes. There’s often peace and war at once. We’ve yet to be at peace entirely. I doubt we ever will. But here is something I would like to know. 70

Aristocrat

What difference does it make if one is killed in peace or war? It’s death in either case. Student: But doesn’t murder seem much worse because there is no special honor for the fallen man? There are no medals for the victim of a crime. In war, one’s more or less aware of what is going on. One takes a conscious risk. Aristocrat: It’s possible for someone to provoke his death in peacetime. He would be aware that there’s a threat. This, too, is conscious risk. Student: That’s true. But those who kill in times of peace are sinister. Aristocrat: And those who kill in war are noble, yes, depending on which side you’re on, your point of view. Student: The true believers ought to learn about the circumstances leading to their friend’s demise. In doing so, they’ll arm themselves against the enemy, in case he tries the same assault on them. And while they’ll want to know about his death, they ought to learn about his life, as well. Chef: Perhaps they’ll paint a picture of that life, based on whatever facts they can unearth. Student: And then they’ll frame and hang that painting in a gallery, to give their friend a bit of fame, among their friends, at least. But that is hardly compensation for a life cut short. Chef: But if it rouses some to emulate his deeds in service to the cause? Student: Well, first the servants of the cause must find his tomb. Director: Perhaps the enemy have built an underground necropolis where they inter the living. That should be much easier to find than just a single crypt. So if the servants cannot find the tomb they want, perhaps they will find this. And if they do, perhaps they’ll rescue some of those who’re still alive. But if they are too late, then maybe they’ll find artifacts. Aristocrat: So they will have to save up all their clues, and hope that one day they will find the key. A patient bit of work. Perhaps in time they’ll gain in skill at hunting signs. Director, how should we describe to servants what a clue is like, so they won’t pass one by? Director: A clue is something odd. It’s something that appears to make no sense. It’s like a puzzle piece that won’t fit in that tells you that the puzzle’s different than you thought. Student: Is what you mean like this? Suppose that there’s a fleck of white upon a sheet of purest black. Is it an accident or there by some design? Perhaps it is a clue, if not the key. Director: Well, that won’t get you very far unless you know the context, friend. If jet black paint is fabricated in a plant with walls of virgin white, it’s not so odd to see some deep, dark splash on entering. But if the owner swears the factory 71


has never made black paint, this might be something odd, indeed. So on one goes, if he believes it’s worth his time, until he knows.

P eace , N eutrals Aristocrat: We’ve given time to war. Let’s make some time for peace. Director: Then why not focus on the peaceful intercourse between the servants of the cause? For, after all, is this not what they’re fighting for? Student: What sort of intercourse is this? What have they got in common but the fight? Director: Why, everything! Each word a true believer speaks is permeated by the cause. So does it really matter what the topic is? He’s free to babble pleasantly to those who keep the faith. Chef: And what of those who’re open to the cause but do not serve? There’s peaceful intercourse with them. They’re often our great friends. Let’s call them neutrals. Student: They don’t fight? Chef: They fight, but only when they’re pressed. I think that you are something of a neutral, friend. You’ve not committed to the cause. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. Student: Of course. Chef: The conversations of a neutral with a true believer can be very interesting. Neutrals have a way of sensing moral fiber, sensing principle. They know the cause is there and want to understand. The servants sense the neutrals cannot understand, but try to make them see as much as they can see, all in a friendly way (except for when they lose their patience, which is most unfortunate). But what the neutrals come to see is that the servants go by feel, and they themselves don’t feel the way believers do. Aristocrat: And yet there may be much they share outside the cause. So, Student, do you think you understand the cause? Student: I’ve learned some things, but no. Director: Perhaps it’s time that we consider things anew, all from the point of view of neutrals. What do neutrals see? Are they aware of how the war is waged? It’s one thing to be told, another thing to see. Student: Let’s say they know a part of it but not the whole affair. They see that people fight, and, naturally, they side with the believers when they can. Chef: What’s natural in that? Student: The enemy can’t leave them well enough alone. Don’t they attempt to force the neutrals to support, if not believe, all their supposed certainties? The neutrals will, to some degree, resist. Aristocrat: And what about the servants of the cause? Do they have certainties they push? 72

Aristocrat

Student: Is that their way, especially for definitions of the cause? It shouldn’t be. Director: But getting back to neutrals, they’ve got peaceful intercourse with those against the cause, much more than those who serve. It’s easier for them to seem to get along. So neutrals learn of things that true believers don’t because they’d never get that close to evil men. Student: Why can’t they share? Chef: Are you suggesting they be spies? Student: Perhaps it’s best to think of them as merely gossiping. Regardless what we call it, men like that are valuable. Chef: Can there be many men like this who help? Student: How many neutral friends can one man cultivate? Chef: But will that man know what to do with all they say?

G ray Aristocrat: To do? Why, know the enemy as well as possible. So he should study what they say, and look to verify. Then if he can’t make sense of it, he needs to call for help. And most of all, he has to be alert for signs in what they say of trapped but better youths. Student: But what about the neutral youths? If they are trapped can they be saved? If so, do they remain the same, just neutral, as before, at most just sending out reports about the evil ones? Or do they, out of gratitude, do something more to help? Aristocrat: Oh, I believe that they can help, if only indirectly, shoring up the ones who serve, or proving useful to supporters of the cause. It once seemed black and white, my friends. One was a servant, or a neutral, or an enemy. But now there is some gray, with neutrals who aren’t strictly so. Chef: Let’s call them grays. Director: Well, here’s what we should keep in mind. Potential grays will look, and often act, like enemies, although they’re far from that within their hearts. Just like the trapped but better youths, they are surrounded by the evil ones. But here’s the thing that may be hard to take. They can’t be saved. They have to save themselves. And if they do, they fade or darken to a shade of gray. Some say the grays ally with those related to the cause because they wish to make amends for what they may have done while they were with the enemy. But I prefer to think that once they’re free they’re simply drawn toward the cause, for reasons that should be quite obvious by now. Student: How do they save themselves? Chef: Just tell us how you saved yourself. Student: I’m not so sure I’m saved. 73


Chef: Well, were you once surrounded by the enemy? Student: I was. Chef: And did you succor them? Did you believe the things they teach? Did you pretend? Student: I once pretended. Now I don’t. Chef: But why did you pretend? Student: What should I say? I didn’t know there was another way? Well, when I tried to stop, I couldn’t do it right away. A great momentum builds with all the lies. You can’t go back on that at once. Response enough? Director: Your tone, and the expression on your face, make clear there is no sarcasm here. Aristocrat: And I believe the question isn’t just rhetorical. Chef: I think the ones that seem so most with us are mostly not. But tell me, friend, is there much pain in going back on all the lies? Student: It gets much better as you go. Aristocrat: Our invitation stands, you know, to come and live with us, and take your course of studies at the university. Student: My thanks, Aristocrat. But are the teachers all believers? Aristocrat: Those who hold some of the most important chairs and much of the administration are. As for the rest, you might just help us out. We’d love to know what’s going on with them. Student: I’m not so sure I want to be a spy. Aristocrat: But really, do you have a choice? It’s not that I insist. It’s just that it’s your nature, isn’t it? You cannot help but learn some things about the enemy. Student: But why don’t you just fire them? Aristocrat: It’s not so simple, friend. Do you believe we could recruit enough good teachers to replace the evil ones? The cause is truly weak in universities today. The bad professors are quite popular. Were we to fire them, the students might revolt. There’s just enough of enemy within the mass of them for trouble to begin. Can we expel them all? We’d have to have a reason to cut out the rot. And that’s where you come in. You’ll help us see if we can spring a trap and rid ourselves of ugly weeds before they take deep root. Student: But won’t it seem quite odd when I’m in courses taught by servants of the cause? Aristocrat: I’m sorry, but we can’t have that. You’ll have off-campus, private tutoring. We need you in the classes of the enemy. I do believe you’ll learn a whole lot more about the cause in doing this. Student: But there is more to learn about than just the cause. 74

Aristocrat

L earning Chef: What’s there to learn? It’s not as though you’re studying biology. You study politics. What’s more political than this? Oh sure, some history might help. But you can get that on your own. Perhaps you need some economics, too? That’s what the tutor’s for. (Or maybe you can get this, too, all on your own.) You’ll learn the things you need. Student: Would you expect that I would fight? Aristocrat: You’d help the ones who fight. Student: Director, what do you advise? Director: It all depends on what you want. Do you still wish to study politics? Student: I do. Director: And do you think you’ll learn of politics while fighting, indirectly, at the university? Student: I do. Director: And do you know of any other way to get experience like this? Student: Not quite like this. Director: But you believe it’s valuable. Student: I do. Director: So what’s the choice? Student: I’ve finally given up on all those lies I used to tell. And here I go right back again! Aristocrat: But now it’s different, friend. Won’t you be lying for a worthy cause? Student: But I’ll be isolated once again, just like before when I was with the enemy. Aristocrat: While you’re at school. But nights and weekends would be yours, except, of course, when you must meet the bad men socially. That will not be too often, though. You’ll meet some friends of mine I think that you’ll enjoy. You won’t be lonely, after all. We’ll fix you someplace far from school, so you can do whatever you would do. Student: And would your friends know what I do, for you? Aristocrat: Not all of them, but some. You’d have to be discrete. Chef: A man of mystery. Student: Oh, great. The curse of the oblique. Director: Oh, I don’t know. How bad is that? Student: Then maybe you should go. Director: It’s as I’ve said — my war is here. 75


Chef: But maybe if you win? Director: If I’m victorious, I’ll surely come to visit you. But, Student, tell us what you think. Student: I’m still not sure. Chef: It’s only June. You’ve got a few more months. But I believe that once you get a taste of this you’ll love it and want more. Student: Is that because you’ve worked with grays before and they all love their work? Chef: No, it’s because I think that you’re a natural. You’re neither wolf nor dog, my friend. Student: So does that limit my potential as a friend? Chef: Why think of it like that? You are a friend. Forget your state of in-between. I hope you don’t feel insecure. We’re going to put you in the driver’s seat, you know. Student: You mean I’m not to be some passive witness to the enemy? Aristocrat: You’ll stir things up. We need to know how they react, so we can guess what they’ll do when provoked. Student: The path to victory.

F ast T rack Director: You could be on the fast track now, my friend. Student: Yes, that’s the way it seems. But tell me, friend, are you not much a gray yourself? Chef: Director? No one is a greater fighter than this man. Director: Why, thank you, Chef. But I don’t know that’s true. As far as being gray, what can I say? If once I were, what would it matter now? Student: But what did you believe you were? Director: A man who held the evidence of one great crime. Student: You’re serious? Director: Oh, yes. Student: How did you find this evidence? Director: I tracked the man I thought to be the criminal. Student: What sort of crime? Director: High treason to the cause, I thought. Student: You “thought”?

76

Aristocrat

Director: Well, when I really set to work, I learned there really was no crime. The man was innocent of all I’d thought. My efforts, though, were not for naught. I’m something of a good detective now. Student: What other sorts of crimes did you investigate? Director: Oh, mostly thefts. You see, I had some friends who couldn’t seem to find their place. They thought someone had taken what was theirs. Chef: That very often happens when the leadership is not what it’s supposed to be. But how did you proceed? Director: Well, no one ever took a place from me. And so I wondered what could possibly have happened to my friends. I talked the matter over with them, time and time again (completely confidentially, of course). They’d often say that people had it out for them, that people interfered — that people stole. And sometimes they were right. But I would ask them if it’s possible to steal what’s truly yours — your inner place, or space. You see, I saw what they would not acknowledge openly — that they believed that inner place is more important than the outer one. Of course, I told them that it’s good to have an outer place that fits. But many of them came around and said that this is not the most important thing. Chef: So were your friends successful in the end? Have they secured their inner place? Director: A handful have. Another handful still are striving toward this end. But there were those I couldn’t help. Aristocrat: At times, a man is scarred too deeply, friend. But I would like to meet these friends of yours, the ones who have their inner space but lack an outer one. Perhaps a few of them are worthy of a loan to start them out in our domain, if they believe it worth their while, no?

U nstrung Student: Supposing that all’s right or mostly right inside, what if the outside place one thinks he wants is far away? How can he know if it’s for him until he’s there? Aristocrat: He can’t. But he can talk to those who come to him and get a sense. Student: They’ll give him some idea? Aristocrat: Maybe it’s more likely he would form one on his own. Director: So tell us, Student, how you feel about the opportunity before you now. Student: I feel excited, but I’m also scared. I have a great big knot inside my gut. Chef: You have two months before you’d go. Perhaps you’ll disentangle it. Student: Perhaps. But I suspect that it will take a lot more time than that. Chef: Then will you simply cut? Or will you come to us, your knot intact, and work it there? You know, I’d venture that a man should always go to where he feels the way that you feel now. Those feelings might well be the sign one’s on his 77


way. Besides, I wonder if these heightened feelings can make dealing with the knot, if not enjoyable, then better than before. Student: Director, do you think that I should try unraveling or should I simply cut? Director: That’s up to you. But either way, you’ll have to tie your strings back up again. Or would you go around unstrung? It’s one thing to remain untied within the privacy of your own home. But in the street? At work? Among the enemy? It’s clear enough. The knot must be retired. Student: You mean that one must wear a mask. Director: That’s not the way I think of it. The knot is truly tied. For instance, think of all the true believers. Are their feelings left unstrung, or are they tied up to the cause? Student: The servants tie their feelings to the cause. Director: And were they always fastened thus? It’s one thing to believe, another thing to have your feelings all in line. Perhaps it took them many knots until they got it right. And once they had, were they disguised? You think the very things that bind them to the cause make them appear as other than they are? No, there are masks — but knots like these aren’t them. Student: But what about a gray? He doesn’t serve the cause, at least directly so. So he won’t tie his feelings up to that. What’s he to do? Director: Well, if our metaphor of knots is good, his feelings have two ends. The first might be his feelings toward the world, the second feelings toward himself. Can anybody live a decent life if these two types of feelings split? And so the gray will tie them up. The question is, how tight and complicated is that knot? A somewhat loose yet simple one might be the best, when one sets out. It makes adjustments easy when the circumstances change. Student: He ties his knot to nothing, then? Director: No, I would say he ties it to himself. Who tethers empty space?

P roblems Student: But can a somewhat loose and simple knot withstand much force? Suppose there isn’t time, or that the person lacks the skill, to make adjustments readily. What happens if it fails? Director: Then one’s undone. So it seems best to prove one’s knot on lesser forces first, then work on up as far as one might dare. Student: By “force” I take it that you mean the enemy. So one should climb as high as possible and fight the greatest ones he can? Aristocrat: I think that’s more for servants than for grays, who tend to favor lower ground. Though grays might start with tight and complicated knots, the kind at times discovered in the heights, once cut they might not want to tie them up like that again — and certain fights demand they be that way. 78

Aristocrat

Student: But if they disentangle them? Aristocrat: Well, it would take a lot of time and solitude to work that out. Student: And if they can’t? Aristocrat: The knots are much too tight. Student: Or much too complicated? Aristocrat: Here’s the thing with that. As long as it is loose, a knot can be as complicated as imaginable, and it shouldn’t be much trouble, not at all. The problem is when knots are tight. But even if they’re very tight, there’s hope. It’s something like the buried man — the deeper down, the higher mound when digging out. Well, when somebody’s knot is all but tight and complicated past belief, he has the chance to gain a knowledge that is rare, the knowledge of all knots. This doesn’t mean he then untangles others’ knots. All knots must be untangled all alone. But he can recognize when someone has a knot that’s very bad, and see the sort it is. And sometimes recognition is enough. When someone knows that someone sees what has been done to him, there’s courage there to pull apart or rive.

S trength , A gain Student: So if I learn to tie my knot the way I should, will I be stronger than before? Chef: Well, who’s to say how you should tie your knot? But let’s assume you somehow make it strong. Does that make you a stronger man? I’m not so sure. It might just mean that you won’t come undone. Student: But isn’t that the measure of one’s force? Chef: No, knots are knots, and force is force. It’s possible for knots to hold against great force. But that’s no guarantee that one can send out force in turn. Student: Whatever force I have, where would I send it to with you? Reconnaissance of enemy designs? Chef: In part. But you might have an overflow of strength. Who knows? You might take up a second job and seek out grays. That really might be where you’ll put your energy. Student: How many can there be in one regime? Chef: There might be more than we believe. So let’s not take it that we know. But I’m quite sure they won’t all call themselves “the gray.” So many will have different terms, if they’ve got terms at all for what they are. What more, along the way you just might find more servants of the cause. And maybe with some time you might go off to other lands to bring them in. That could be some adventure, friend. What better use for strength? Student: You think adventure’s what I’m looking for? Director: Regardless if it is or not, it seems adventure has discovered you. 79


Student: How am I qualified to seek out grays or servants of the cause? Aristocrat: You’ll recognize the grays because they’ll seem like you. Student: Unlike those true believers that we talked about, the ones who fail to recognize each other as they are? What makes you think I’m not like them? Aristocrat: The wise voice doubts. But I have confidence in you.

N eutrality Student: So how am I to recognize the good? Aristocrat: You’ve got some good in you, now don’t you, friend? Student: But not enough to be completely good. So how am I to recognize somebody unlike me, someone who’s simply good, who’s marked from birth to serve the cause? One either is, or not — correct? Aristocrat: But, Student, you seem much the gray, and grays might prove exceptional. Perhaps it’s possible for them to join the good, and come to know them very well, so they can make them out in any place, at any time, without a shadow of uncertainty. Student: If grays are all so special, why don’t all the neutrals change their hue? Aristocrat: Potential grays want freedom from the enemy. Now, why do some and not the rest? It isn’t lofty sentiment for liberty. Their knots become unbearable. Student: Have any of you ever met a gray? Aristocrat: Have I met those who seem like you? I’ve seen some with some similarities. But were they neutrals first? They might have been. Student: Were they once enemies, the way I was, in part? Aristocrat: Perhaps the way you were. Student: If someone who was something of an enemy can change, why can’t an enemy himself? Aristocrat: An enemy might change — his taste for persecution might increase — but he will never blossom, friend. You are whatever you may be, for life. There’s comfort in this truth for some. That’s why I don’t think you were ever partly enemy. Why, you yourself declared that you were just pretending while surrounded, friend. Student: Then let me ask you something else. Can grays join with the enemy? Aristocrat: Well, grays might be with enemies, the way you will if you help us. But once escaped, does it seem probable they’d want the company of their old foes for good, or just as long as necessary? Who would spoil victory by going back? Student: I’ll join you in the fall. Director: And what about your knot? 80

Aristocrat

Student: The one that’s in my gut? I’ll work it out, and find a better way of tying it, or learn to live with it. Director: And what about your fear? Student: I’ll let excitement be the better part of that. Director: And finally, what do you say to those who think that only cowards spy? Student: What can you say?

T ranscendence

and

P hilosophy

Director: It seems we’ve made some progress here. So let us turn to things we’ve given scant attention, friends. We spoke about transcendence, and a place beyond the way of life of the regime, a place arrived at with the help of friends. We said the state is just the means. We mentioned that philosophy’s somehow involved in how one goes beyond, when one is one, although we weren’t too clear on this. Philosophy and friends. It should be obvious what friendship is. But what’s philosophy? I’m guessing, Student, that you’ll claim that you don’t know. And you, Chef, do you know? Aristocrat: Our friends are mute. Well, I will speak right up, if only hypothetically. Philosophy’s the glue that binds the servants into one. It’s that which differentiates the cause from all the many causes of the enemy. They lack philosophy. Director: But is philosophy the love of wisdom, friend? Aristocrat: Oh, yes. And that is how the friends unite. For servants love the wisdom of their friends. They don’t grow jealous when their friends are wise. That wisdom makes them wish to strive to grow more wise themselves. The enemies are jealous of the wisdom of their friends. They only strive to tear that wisdom down. What sort of love exists among such men? Student: You really think philosophy’s the thing that separates the bad from good? Aristocrat: Of course. Philosophy, in this sense, is the cause’s bond. Whatever evil ones have got just can’t compare. Student: So is philosophy the means by which the servants of the cause transcend? You said transcendence means to stretch above the state toward the stars, to dig one’s roots much deeper than the old foundations of regimes. Can you say more? Aristocrat: Of course. Transcendence takes one far beyond the state and the regime to where he feels that he is whole. Transcendence lets him revel in the end of all his means, such as philosophy. It only comes at times because the means demand so much. But those who know the cause quite well will tell you that the means are ends themselves. So it’s a little complicated here, but in a way that’s very good. Transcendence is the sum effect of all the means that keep

81


one’s roots well nourished so they do not shrivel up and die. And it allows one’s shoots to grow toward the sun.

W isdom Student: Well, I have no idea what that means. I do, however, know that wisdom’s necessary for the cause. I wonder if we talk about what wisdom signifies I’ll get a sense of what transcendence means. Director said that wisdom’s knowing whether circumstance is bad or soul is out of sorts. Aristocrat: That’s part of it. Student: Then what’s the rest? Aristocrat: The knowledge of the way to act toward friends. Student: And how is one supposed to act? Aristocrat: With honesty and trust. But one must know when he should speak and hold his tongue. And he should value friends and hold them in esteem. Student: This simple formula, Aristocrat, is it enough to form a bond? Aristocrat: It is, if one considers valuing more closely. Friends should recognize each other’s strengths and faults. They ought to know a man for what he is. For this to work both ways, of course, each must be confident enough to be well known. An insecurity might be the seed of friendship’s end. Student: That’s all that wisdom is to you? Aristocrat: That’s much! But if you’d like I’ll say some more. One’s wisdom is the knowledge of exactly how to deal with people, generally. Now, every situation calls for something different. The wise man knows the way that he must act in each of them. Student: In knowing how to act, in general, one has to know with whom he’s dealing, right? So part of wisdom’s knowing who’s a friend, and who’s an enemy, and who is something in-between. But there are many shades of in-between, just as there are so many different shades of friends and enemies. Chef: So if one only knows a man in part he’s only wise in part. What does this mean for friends? Aristocrat: But look at it the other way. The more a friend is wise the more there is for one’s philosophy to love. The wisest man of all would have the greatest love attached to him. But if a man is just a little wise, then it would follow that there’s just a little love. And if a man’s philosophy is strong, it takes a great amount of wisdom for philosophy to be sustained. If one’s philosophy is weak, a bit will do the trick. Student: But which comes first? One’s wisdom or philosophy?

82

Aristocrat

P recedence Aristocrat: It seems to me philosophy is first. If one desires wisdom, won’t he seek to have some of his own? Then as his wisdom grows there ought to be more food for his philosophy, which grows in turn and seeks out wisdom once again. Student: But then is someone simply bonded to himself? What good is that? Aristocrat: Why, can’t you see that it might make one whole? But barring total wisdom from within, one bonds with friends, as well. Student: I see. But can’t a man be whole with wisdom from without? Aristocrat: Perhaps if he’s immersed in it. And it might be a different sort of whole. Student: But, either way, within or from without, suppose that wisdom doesn’t want philosophy around. What then? Or will we say that wisdom always does? And if it does, is it not possible that there won’t be enough philosophy to meet demand? Director: A shortage of philosophy? Well, what does wisdom want? In part, it wants to know the way to deal with other men. So does philosophy assist in this? Perhaps she helps one understand how much he knows — in other words, how wise he is. Now, won’t this understanding regulate the way he interacts with other men? But what if wisdom grows all by itself, without philosophy, with knowledge of the way to deal with other men, but with no understanding of itself, what then? If this goes on for very long, and it is coupled with success, will wisdom want philosophy around? Aristocrat: What say the gray? Student: I think they say that wisdom’s first. They’ve got philosophy, somehow, but she’s all covered up. And yet she strives toward the surface where the wisdom lies. I think this can be very painful for the grays. I think they go through metamorphosis. Aristocrat: Do you believe that if philosophy were first they’d all be servants of the cause? Student: I just don’t know. Suppose they had philosophy right from the start. Don’t all the enemies have wisdom of their own? Would grays not be attracted to the enemy for wisdom’s sake? Chef: So you don’t think the wisdom of the enemy is false? Student: The enemies have dealings with their fellow men. They have success. Aristocrat: You’re right, of course. But, still, do you believe that they have got philosophy? They have a wisdom of their own, and it attracts philosophy. But this philosophy is from without, and not their own. They’re barren in this sense. Student: You mean that they don’t love the wisdom bringing them success?

83


Aristocrat: They do not love the means. They love the ends. Were they to love the means, well, that’s a different thing. Director: But what attracts philosophy to evil wisdom, friend? Aristocrat: Philosophy would sap it from within. Student: Does love of wisdom drive that urge? Aristocrat: I wouldn’t say that it’s an urge. But love indeed impels philosophy. When someone loves the good he simply feels the bad must be destroyed. There is no room for doubt as far as that’s concerned. And so philosophy sets out in force.

P references Student: But which does she prefer — the battle with the enemy or peaceful interaction with the good? Aristocrat: The answer has to be that she prefers the good. Student: But doesn’t she enjoy destruction, too? Don’t you? Have you destroyed the evil wisdom of the enemy? Aristocrat: Director is the man to ask. Director: I have. And I’ll come clean. I do enjoy the work. Student: So how does it compare to what you feel when you’re among the good? Director: I’m often with the good when fighting with the enemy. But really, Student, can’t you understand the pleasure that one finds in victory? I love to crush the enemy. That in no way detracts from all the pleasure that I feel in times of peace. Chef: You make me wish that I could go behind the lines with you and fight. Student: Since you’re not gray, how could the two of you go undetected, friend? Chef: Perhaps if we say nothing of the cause the enemy will pass us by, blood on the door. Aren’t they preoccupied with their beliefs? This blinds them to the things before their eyes. But we’ll know them, no doubt. They can’t go long without some discourse on their faith. They’re simply bursting to let on with what they think they know, or what they’d make somebody — anybody — know. If we’re discreet, they might not notice that we do not share their lies. But when they’re quiet, that’s when they’re most dangerous. That sort will almost always notice when somebody doesn’t back the things from which all their authority derives. Their instruments are very sensitive to this. Student: Director, how can one deceive the quiet ones? Director: It’s very difficult, if not impossible, my friend. They know the subtle signs of one’s belief, or lack thereof. That’s why they’re quiet, after all. Student: To pick up on those signs? Or are they hypocrites who hold their tongues because they have no faith? 84

Aristocrat

Chef: They’re seekers after power, after and above all else. They justify their lust, to others and themselves, by thinking that they do the things they do in order to support the one true faith. Aristocrat: Oh my! Is that the sunrise peeking through? We’ll just have time to pack and catch our flight back home. So now there’s only one thing I will ask. Director, why do you prefer to stay in your democracy? You’ve said you have your fight to fight right here. But we have evil wisdom, too. Why don’t you fight with us? Perhaps it’s worse in your regime, and you would like to be where there is greatest need? Director: My friend, how can I say where there is greater need when I have never seen the place that you call home? So I will thank you once again, but tell you that I feel it’s best to stay in my own land.

D ynamite Aristocrat: I’ll press it just a bit, my friend. Should we not concentrate our force to strike the enemy? Strategically, that makes good sense. And it’s not running from the fight to shift the battle to another front. Now, your reluctance might be due to loyalty to your own land. But isn’t loyalty, above all else, supposed to be directed to the cause? Director: Aristocrat, you are determined. I suspect that this is why you’ve gained the reputation that you have among the servants of the cause. Oh, don’t think I don’t hear the sorts of things they say of you in your own realm. When sparing men give up high praise it travels far. But I have heard much more than praise. Some civil servants from your realm were here not long ago. A friend who knew one of them pretty well, from school I think, invited me to join them for a drink. Now normally I don’t go out at night, but this was promising to be an interesting talk. One of these men had written, in a journal of philosophy, an article about the ancient Greeks, and how their thought devolved. I don’t know if you’d know the man. He’s just a minor functionary, and I can’t recall his name. (Just let me know if you would like to know and I will ask my friend.) Well, anyway, they told me of the many exploits you’ve performed. I was impressed, of course. I think that many more can see how you support the cause than you’re aware. But as for me and why I’ll stay, what can I say? The reasons might not be as clearly formulated as you seem to think. Please don’t assume that I will always know what I’m about. Can’t one just listen to his gut? And yet, from how you look, it seems you doubt. Well, that is fine. But what I speak is truth. Did you not say that feelings cause our minds to change? And now you want to know my mind but then apparently won’t listen when I tell you how I feel? Well, that’s my explanation, friend. I hope it will suffice. Aristocrat: How could it not? But be prepared for me to try again some other time. Chef: Will anybody mind if we return to something that we said before? Philosophy would sap the wisdom of the enemy. Well, how does she do that? 85


Student: Let’s say she makes men turn their gaze within. Chef: Well, how about the men who can’t or won’t look in? How does philosophy get through to them? They seem like rock. Aristocrat: It might be time for dynamite. Director: At times that’s necessary, yes. But one should pay attention to the roof. It’s dangerous to blast when tunneling. Student: So what’s the dynamite? Director: It’s argument that’s sprinkled with explosive facts. Student: And when the rock is broken through, what then? Are enemies now friends? Director: No, enemies like this are enemies for life. One simply hopes to change the way that neutrals interact with them by demonstrating that the wisdom of the enemy is false, or rather, ineffectual. The ones who see the truth of this are free. But some of them are simply in too deep. And other times they haven’t got the strength to face the blast. Student: You mean they’re killed. Director: In order to prevent an accidental death, the one who rigs the dynamite should make a careful study first. The job requires just the right amount of bang, the perfect touch. Student: All metaphors aside, what really happens to the neutrals who can’t face the argument? Director: They take their chances where they are. They just refuse to see the enemy for what he really is, an enemy that has his way with them, an enemy that sucks their blood. These neutrals mostly end up hollow in the end. Student: But what about the ones who do break free? Can argument alone sustain these men? Or must they have encouragement, support, when all the blasting’s done? Can’t other neutrals who’ve been freed help out? They’ll understand what’s needed here. Chef: That’s likely true. But none of this applies to grays. They save themselves. Director: That’s what we’ve said. But sometimes it sure seems like they could use a little dynamite as well.

E vil , G ood Chef: I bet the enemy would like to dynamite the neutrals from the good. Director: I’m sure they would, if only they could find some rock to blast. Student: Do you believe that neutrals ever leave the good to take up with the bad? Director: I know they do. Student: But why? False promises? 86

Aristocrat

Director: There’s that. Beyond I couldn’t say. But what about the neutrals who’re attracted to the good? Are they just running from the dynamite? Or do they have some other sort of hope? Student: More likely they’re just running from the ones who kept them down. Chef: They flee pure evil — robbery of energy by means of false belief. Director: Is false belief what makes it “pure”? We ought to take account of robbery by means of true belief, as well, you know. Student: So, this is what the war between the good and evil is? The foe indoctrinates by means of threat or force, in order to legitimate the exploitation of another’s energy. The good then fight the wisdom and the teachings of the enemy. Chef: But it gets complicated, friend. For instance, what if our enemy corrupts some of the good? Student: You mean that they avow the doctrines of the foe? Chef: When force and complicated argument are joined, some of the good get tangled up. And then they sound like evil ones. Don’t get me wrong. I think that they’re still good. But they’re confused. They’re caught up in the spider’s web and now they need some help. Student: So is it best to treat them something like the enemy, or something like the good? Chef: Why, both. When they sound like the enemy, just talk to them the way you talk to evil ones. And when they act like they’re your friend, just be a friend in turn. Student: And what about the neutrals who’re caught up in evil arguments? How do we know them from the caught up good? Chef: It’s obvious. We feel which one is which.

C onverts Student: Is that the way we differentiate between the evil and the neutral men? Or is there something more than feel involved? Chef: An evil man will stifle you. A neutral man will leave you well enough alone. Do you need more than feel to tell between the two? Student: But let’s suppose an enemy lets off with all his stifling. Suppose that something happens in his life that makes him change his ways. Is he not then a neutral or quite possibly a gray? And if it’s possible for grays to join the good…. Aristocrat: What’s this, some urge to make us all essentially the same? “Why, anyone is anything when circumstances change.” Who wouldn’t want all of the evil to turn neutral if not good? But who is fool enough to hope for this? Now, I assert that fate determines whether one is evil or is good. And fate cannot be changed. An evil man makes choices that he can’t undo. It’s like what you have said concerning lies. Momentum swiftly carries him away. There isn’t 87


strength enough in all the world to turn things back. And he did much, much more than lie to enemies. His acts have caused the ones related to the cause some lasting harm. And they should take revenge by undermining all his wisdom and whatever he might teach. Director: For nothing hurts the enemy like that. Student: Aristocrat, are you a proxy for revenge within your state? Aristocrat: I often am. Student: And does your reach extend to other states, as well? Aristocrat: I mostly operate within my own domain. But maybe you could one day help exact revenge abroad. Chef: Ah, great adventure is prepared for you. Student: That isn’t what I want.

W ant Director: What do you want? Student: To know my wants. Director: How wise. Do you still want to join Aristocrat and Chef? Student: I do. Chef: Perhaps while you’re with us we’ll bolster and enhance your taste so that you’ll know what other things you like. Student: How could it hurt to shine a little light? But “like” and “want” are different things. So tell me, what’s the want of all the good? Chef: The servants of the cause? What else but this? To be with friends. To rise above regimes. To fight the enemy. To serve the cause. Student: And what about the evil men? Chef: I think they want to dominate the way that people think. And that’s the means by which the satisfy their other wants. Student: And what about the neutral men? Chef: Which neutral men, the ones who live among the good? They serve no grand ideas, so they would have simple wants. Student: What do they serve? Chef: Themselves, their own. Do you think anything is wrong with that? Student: But don’t the evil serve themselves and those they call their own? Chef: It all depends on how you serve. The good form noble bonds, the kind that ought to lend each party energy and strength. The evil ones exploit to get the same. Student: So both the evil and the good desire energy and strength. 88

Aristocrat

Chef: Of course. The question is what means are used to reach these ends. The question is what ends, if any, do these two ends serve. For us, the means are ends. For many, means are merely means. They use them indiscriminately if they serve. And that’s the reason why they need and love to find fresh people to exploit. They plunder them and leave no spark of energy behind. And when they’re at their worst, they make their victims just like them. Student: But we sustain each other, right? And aren’t our means both means and ends because we love our work? Chef: We must sustain ourselves. And yes, we love our work. The means and ends of servants tend to be harmonious with their great end. The evil ones, though, have to live with dissonance, however desperately they want their harmony. When they must choose between their ends and having means that strike great chords within their key, they cast both grace and beauty in a ditch. But they’re sure capable of playing one seductive tune. Director: Is that why good men teach their youths both bright and cheerful melodies, to counter evil ones? Student: If that is all they teach, they should extend their repertoire. It’s easier to be seduced when you’re not used to the seductive arts. Director: That isn’t always true. Some good who don’t know anything about the arts are proof against all but the greatest of attempts. But taste in music is a sort of want. What’s yours, good Chef? Chef: Oh, I prefer the simple, pleasant things, done over and again, until there is a great, complex effect. It seems to me a metaphor for how we ought to live. The devil’s in simplicity. Student: And how about your food? Chef: My food? Ha, ha! My food is simple, too! But when it’s not, when we serve dignitaries, it is elegant and in small shares. We don’t want the ambassadors to grow too sleepy when the dinner’s done! We leave them wanting more.

W anting M ore Student: In matters of the cause, what happens when somebody isn’t satisfied? Aristocrat: You mean if he would have more energy? Student: No, I was wondering if his philosophy were longing for more wisdom. Aristocrat: We would send him to the front. The wisdom of the enemy should always give a man’s philosophy enough to do. Student: And when does he come home? Chef: Come home? The battlefront is now his home. Student: Aristocrat, would you engage in war, the sort with knives and guns, if it were necessary to support the cause? 89


Aristocrat: Declaring war is something that I’d only do to save the state. Student: You’d kill for your regime but not the cause? That seems ironic, lord. Aristocrat: But how would such a large scale war be waged? Would we just separate the good and evil men and have them fight? How would we pull that off? And what of all the neutral ones? Should we pay them no mind? And finally, are we so strong that open fighting to the death seems smart? Student: I understand. Let’s end this talk of war. Suppose that someone wants to earn more money than his place supports. What then? Aristocrat: Assuming he’s an able man, we’d send him out to foreign lands to open up new markets for our goods. Student: Is that the same if he’s a neutral or a servant of the cause? Or do you give the servant preference? Aristocrat: Should I not trust the man who’s better suited for the job, as we have said? If that’s the neutral, then that’s fine. Student: But does that hold for places in your higher offices?

A ppointees Aristocrat: My closest ministers will tell you that our state is meant to serve the cause, as much as possible. They know it is, as we have said, a means toward an end. The neutrals do not understand the cause. So what can we expect of them if they’re on top? The servants of the cause are, by and large, a very able group. Should we not raise them up to our highest posts if they seem fit? But if an able neutral comes along we’ll take in his advice. We ought to honor any expertise that he might have, don’t you agree? With this all said, I will admit — we do not have enough good men. Director said it all. Not everyone is good for every post, no matter how he serves. And so, at times, I let the neutrals in. Student: That only seems good policy. I wonder, though, how far you’d go. Would you take guidance from an evil man? Aristocrat: I’ll always take in sound advice, regardless of the source. The enemy is often competent. But you should know that it would undermine the cause to honor anything associated with an evil man. So I would be quite careful to ensure that only very few would know. Student: Well, how are your appointments made? Aristocrat: We mostly know who all the servants are. So, much is known about these men well in advance. We judge them with the neutrals who seem qualified. In case of tie, the cause wins out. Student: Do all your friends know much about these men, or only certain ones? Aristocrat: Not all of them know what they are supposed to know. I had to take to task two of my best advisors just the other day. It seemed they were not keeping up 90

Aristocrat

with who is who within the lower ranks. They seemed to think that they had more important work to do. Student: What did you do with them? Aristocrat: I took them off the team that recommends the men to elevate. Student: Had they suggested candidates? Aristocrat: They had. But when we met about the choice somebody asked them how they knew their men were best. They answered that they knew by feel. Student: So what was the reply? Aristocrat: The challenger declared that he had feelings, too, some feelings that were not in harmony with theirs. But then he said he had some facts to prove that he was right and that his candidates were best. He listed them then called a vote, and the majority was his. Student: And so you kicked them out because they only went by feel? Aristocrat: Not quite. I asked them what they knew about some other ones then rising in the ranks. I was considering these men for other posts. Student: And they knew very little, right? Aristocrat: Well, that’s the odd thing, friend. They knew in great detail some minor things of personal concern, of no concern to our appointment team. But when it came to basic facts about the job these men were doing in their present roles, they were quite ignorant. And so they left me little choice. Student: I’d like to know some more about these men advising you. Do they serve you for life, or at your pleasure, lord? Aristocrat: Appointments mostly are for life. But if they don’t work out I find another place for them. Student: But will you always have the final word? Aristocrat: I head the state, but I don’t rule the cause. If I do something that appears to compromise our friends, my men won’t hesitate to speak right up. Student: Is that because they’re so devoted to the cause they damn the consequences, or because they trust that you won’t lose your cool? They have to fear your powers in the state, you know. Aristocrat: That’s why they say it all depends on luck. The temper of the man in charge makes all the difference, friend. But do not underestimate my men. They’d speak their minds to me, no matter if I were a tyrant. Director: Would a tyrant heed?

G uiding S tar Student: But don’t these men get tired of the cause? Aristocrat: The servants or supporters? 91


Student: Both. I mean, to always focus there — can that be any good? Aristocrat: They all have jobs, you know, that keep them rather occupied. Student: But isn’t everything the servants do, regardless if it’s for their job or private life, in service to the cause? Is there no end? Aristocrat: Will there be final victory? Well, there are victories enough along the way. So on it goes. But you should know the cause serves servants, friend. It isn’t simply servants serving it. Student: How does the cause reward those of the faith? Aristocrat: By giving them a gift, a guiding star. Student: This star gives meaning to their lives? Aristocrat: I’d rather say it helps them find important things. For instance, it can lead them to their friends. Once they have got their friends the other pieces seem to fall right into place. That’s how their lives take shape. Student: But aren’t there those who claim to serve the cause but cannot see the star? Aristocrat: Oh, yes. They zigzag here and there with no apparent course. One humors them, but can do nothing more. They are not meant to serve. Student: And aren’t there ones who see the star but lack the means to steer? Aristocrat: There are. These men are rudderless. They sit at anchor or just drift. But starlight tells them where they are. We try to fit them out with what they need then send them on their way. Some wish to stay.

H elm Student: So, do you use this star to steer the ship of state? Aristocrat: I trust in my advisors. Many of them take their bearings from the star. Student: And does this lead, at times, to choppy waters? Aristocrat: Yes, it surely does. But things get really rough when we set to the navy of the enemy. Student: And how do helmsmen of the foe set course? Aristocrat: The enemy most often moves in packs, quite close to shore. He rarely ventures out upon the open sea. He hates to navigate by stars. Student: But do you really think the enemies can’t navigate that well? Aristocrat: Oh, they can navigate real ships alright. But they don’t know the way to find true friends. They have no guidance there. They just manipulate the friends they have to serve their ends. Student: But don’t the good manipulate to serve the cause? Aristocrat: The good persuade their friends. At times it’s even possible for them to influence the enemy. But as for neutrals, I advise the servants to behave as 92

Aristocrat

though they were the good. They ought to earn their trust, so they can have them as their friends. Who cares if neutrals guide their lives by different stars? Student: Which stars are these? Aristocrat: There are a million stars. How could I say? Student: But surely you know one. Aristocrat: Shall I just pick it randomly? They steer by family.

F amily Student: And how does that work out? Aristocrat: Let’s say there are two types of families, the good and bad. (Let’s not concern ourselves for now with terrible and great, and all the rest.) It makes as little sense to say all families are good as it makes sense to say all families are bad. From this it should be obvious the star of family alone won’t do. For how can someone know what sort of family he’s in except by means of other stars? Student: You mean that it’s not obvious by feel? What sort of family do you have, lord, and did you learn of it from stars? Aristocrat: My family is mixed. I started learning by the way I felt. But as you’ve said, one’s feelings can be wrong. Would you fault me for having looked toward the stars? I have two basic types of kin — the ones who try to make me steer their way, and those who let me steer all on my own, with some advice, of course. Student: And yet you have a duty to them all? Aristocrat: No, I see it another way. I have no duty to someone who tries to knock me off of course. I lend support to those who lend support, a true support, to me. Student: Is that the way the neutrals feel? Aristocrat: A number do. But many of them steer by family alone. And when they do it’s up to luck, the luck of who is in their clan. There might well be an enemy, or many more than one. Should neutrals feel a duty to support these evil men? I hardly think they should. But often times they do, when that’s their only star. Student: But if they’re open to the cause why can’t they steer, from to time, by that star’s light? Aristocrat: It’s light they cannot see. This has been tried so many times. They’re blind in this respect, as is the enemy. Student: But can’t they trust the good to tell them how to steer whenever things get bad? Aristocrat: If they don’t really know about their family, how could they trust that servants do? Student: Then can’t they find some other points of reference? Is there a star of decency? A star of honesty? Of love? 93


Chef: There are all three. But what will happen when they’re overcome by storms and can’t see light from these three stars? Student: Perhaps there is a star that shines right through the darkest clouds. Aristocrat? Aristocrat: I think we’ve reached the limits of the metaphor.

S teering Student: Then let’s back up a step. Suppose that there’s a neutral in a storm right off the coast. We know the channels and the shoreline well and help this man without the use of any stars. What do we do with him? Aristocrat: Why, take him to the nearest port that’s not controlled by enemies. Student: And once the storm has passed, how long before he sails out on his own? Aristocrat: As long as necessary, sometimes many years. Student: At who’s expense? Aristocrat: His own. Student: So what about a servant in a storm? Aristocrat: Why can’t he know the shoreline and the channels well? Student: But let’s say he gets driven out to sea. Does he just wait until the clouds have cleared and he can see the star? Aristocrat: Why not? Student: Well, maybe he gives up, stops looking for the star. Aristocrat: Once someone loses heart it doesn’t matter if the clouds are gone. The star, for him, means nothing anymore. He drops away completely and no longer serves the cause. Student: And then he is a neutral, right? Aristocrat: Oh, no. He is a fallen man. There’s nothing anyone can do to help. He has to go away and right himself. Student: So what’s he like when he comes back? Aristocrat: I wouldn’t know. No fallen man has ventured back to my domain. Director: Perhaps he’d come back gray. Student: And so he wouldn’t serve the cause? Director: But maybe he could offer help.

F allen M en Student: What sort of help? Director: Before we answer that, I think we need to understand some things. How will the fallen see what they have done? Will they believe they’ve failed the cause? 94

Aristocrat

Student: It’s almost certain that they will. Director: And someone thinking he’s a failure, will he feel great shame? Student: That’s just as likely, friend. Director: So what of those who feel no shame? Are they just lacking moral sensibility? Student: Perhaps it is as simple as they stopped their service to the cause and knew they couldn’t stay. If they had stayed then maybe they’d have felt the moral pain. For some, all shame comes from without. Director: And what of those who feel the shame? Perhaps they will support the cause in foreign lands where they’ll live out their lives, quite happily or not, depending on their luck. Or maybe they will take to wandering. Who knows? We only know they do not use the cause’s star to light their way, just like the ones who feel no shame. In fact, both sorts of fallen men might now regard that star to be a moon reflecting other light, and not a sun all on its own. Student: So now they navigate with other bodies of celestial fire, such as decency or love? Director: It’s hard to say what they will do, my friend. I think it’s likely, though, that they will stay away, at least at first, from those we call the good. They’ll likely move among the neutral men, and some will make strong friends. Student: But won’t there be a void where once the cause had been? Won’t emptiness like this require urgent care? What do they do? Director: If there’s a void, perhaps they have to learn to leave it be, in hopes that it collapses on itself. They cannot fill it up. They cannot make it go away. They can’t go back to service to the cause. They can return, however, to the place it all began, despite the fact Aristocrat has never seen a fallen man come home. Philosophy might call them back, back toward the wisdom of the good. Student: And so the love of wisdom makes them want to help? What use are fallen men to those who serve? Director: Why, they can help the true believers in the things for which they haven’t got the time. If they were of the higher ranks, they might assist with higher things. But all their help is simply practical. They free the leaders up to focus on the cause and not get all tied up in day-to-day affairs. They know the leaders well and so are capable of serving all their needs, effectively. The problem is the good won’t want them back, on principle. Aristocrat: Of course the good should have them back. They’d be great fools if they did not. Such men are welcome in my realm, and they’d be used to good effect. But I’m aware of what the good might say, forgetting one of their most fundamental principles, that men once good are always good. How is it possible to trust a man who gave up on the cause? They’ll want to know why he would never sell them out to enemies. I’ll simply have to tell them that I know there is no risk, and if it turns out that there is, so be it then. 95


Student: What makes you confident? Aristocrat: Oh, I would know the signs if he were working with the enemy. It would be obvious. He’d poke around in business not his own. He’d press too hard when trying to persuade. He wouldn’t give the means enough attention. He would only care for ends. Student: And what about the gray? Aristocrat: Well, what about the gray? Student: The only difference between a gray and fallen man appears to be that one escaped the enemy and one…. Aristocrat: Escaped the cause? “Escape” is not the proper word for leaving off. Nobody forced him to believe. Nobody tried to stop his leaving off. The servants of the cause aren’t like that, or they shouldn’t be. They know that’s how the enemy behaves. Student: Alright. But if the fallen men have voids, why can’t a gray? I mean, if one is deeply in a cause belonging to the enemy, when he tears free he might create a void. What then? Aristocrat: Well, if he comes to us he just might demonstrate that good believers can accept a gray who’d fill his void with service to the cause. It might not happen all at once. It might take many years. But I’m inclined to think it’s possible. Chef: And what about the fallen men with voids, the ones who leave those voids alone? Aristocrat: I think they’re done with causes, Chef. And I believe they’ll keep the void at bay, though never filled, through work, through lots and lots of pleasant work.

W ithout

the

C ause

Student: If work’s the means for fallen men, and even if it is an end, I’d like to know what end or ends it serves. It’s not the cause. It’s not the so-called causes of the enemy. Does it just keep the void at bay and nothing more? Well, I’ll suggest another thing. Perhaps the end is simply helping friends and hurting enemies. Director: Aristocrat, is that the faith of fallen men? Aristocrat: Why, that depends. What’s help? What’s hurt? Let’s say that help is clarifying, weakening an evil argument. Let’s say that hurt’s to shake the faith of enemies, to break their will, to make them lose their stomach for the fight. Student: Well, what’s an evil argument? Aristocrat: It’s one that smothers life. Student: In fighting for their breath, or that of others, friend, how is this different than what servants do? Is fighting not essentially their thing? Yet fallen men can fight without the cause. And so it seems the drift of all we’ve said is that it’s possible for everyone to do without the cause. But if it isn’t possible, I’d like to know the purpose that it serves. 96

Aristocrat

Chef: Two things come right to mind. Without the cause, how will the servants set their course, and how will they cohere? Student: Why can’t they learn to use the other stars? And don’t you think the bond of wisdom and philosophy will be enough to keep them tight? Director: Aristocrat, would many of your inner circle be completely blind without the cause? Aristocrat: I think they’d need a great amount of help. Student: But why is that? Is wisdom blind? I thought it sees the way men are. And what about philosophy? Can it not see the truth and weaknesses of all the varied arguments? Aristocrat: It seems you have a point.

F aithless Chef: Perhaps we ought to find a better name than “fallen man”. Student: “Philosopher” might be the best. These men love wisdom, after all. And that’s the thing we’re saying draws them back to where it all began. Chef: That’s true. But with their evil wisdom don’t our enemies have false philosophers? I think we ought to think of something else, a name that is unique. Student: But won’t the enemy appropriate whatever name or sign that we devise? Director: Then why not keep it simple and just call each other friends? Student: Who wouldn’t like that name? Why, can’t a faith in friends go far in helping to fill up a void? Of course, one still must work. And voids like this are never truly filled. But surely service to one’s friends can compensate for lack of service to the cause. Director: This faith, however, do you think that it’s essentially the same as what the citizens would place in our good friend Aristocrat, which he rejects? Chef: No, it’s a very different sort of thing. If citizens and governors were friends, who knew each other very well, one might consider these two faiths to be the same. But when that’s not the case these are two things indeed. True friends should have true knowledge of each other. They, unlike the citizens, can have a faith that’s not political. Remember what we said about transcendence? This is why it’s not so clear that we can do without the cause. Or do the fallen men, philosophers, or friends — whatever they are called — transcend, as well? If so, then what did they leave off of when they quit? Director: Perhaps we were too strict before when we suggested that transcendence is required if one wants to keep a friendship pure. Now, if transcendence isn’t necessary, Chef, I think the problem you are getting at does not exist. Why, after all, who really cares if substance is an artifact of form?

97


Chef: Perhaps it’s best to act as though there is no difficulty here. But there’s another problem that’s concomitant with putting faith in friends. Suppose one does. What happens if they let one down? But faithful service to the cause will never let one down. Student: Then it’s much harder to have faith in friends than in the cause. Chef: Communion with the cause gives one a taste of immortality. Student: But didn’t we agree the cause might end? And if we say the cause will have no end, why can’t we say that friendship, too, will last through all eternity? Chef: The question is where one can safely put his faith. Student: Is faith just money looking for a bank? Chef: Nobody’s saying that. But servants think the cause is their best bet. Student: Is that because the cause can be whatever they define it as? Chef: The definition’s based on what they feel about the cause. And they can’t simply feel whatever they would like to feel. The more in tune they are with what they feel, in other words, the less they’re wrong about the things they feel, the more precision that is possible in giving definition to the cause. And once the definition’s diamond clear, they understand by means its refracted light. But let’s get back to being disappointed in their friends. I think that many feel a need for something more, for something higher than good friends. They understand all men are flawed. If there is something more, a cause, it serves to shelter them from human weaknesses. They sometimes fight with those they love. If friendship’s all there is, won’t they feel crushed? But those who have the cause, or anything approximating it, will tell you that they are refreshed in it, and many of them are. And thus prepared they take the friendship up again. Now, isn’t this good reason for a cause, for love and friendship’s sake?

S tanding A lone Aristocrat: Director, do you think that love and friendship stand alone, or must they have support? Director: Well, let’s consider what the neutrals do and see if we can’t learn from them. Suppose the love and friendship that they feel in no way has support. Then would we not expect some volatility from them when love or friendship fails? But some are calm while some go wild, everybody knows. So what accounts for this? Perhaps the ones who’re calm have got some inner source of peace. And those who’re wild lack this inner peace and need support to calm them down. Perhaps they have to have a cause. What cause might they take up? Aristocrat: As with the stars, there are so many that it’s hard to say. But what’s the source of inner peace? Director: No doubt it’s possible that it’s a cause held tight within the breast. Aristocrat: You mean a cause that we can’t see? 98

Aristocrat

Director: Well, maybe there is really nothing there at all. Perhaps it’s just one’s nature that’s the source of peace. Student: But if there’s something there, are we to think that neutrals wouldn’t share their heart of hearts, not even with their dearest and most loved? Director: Well, maybe they would share, in strictest confidence, with those who are the very best of friends. But that is not to say they’d share the bottom of their hearts. Aristocrat: Now, who wants that? What’s there, if anything, except the dregs of old experience? Good friends have got no need to get into that muck. Student: But don’t you think among that sediment there might be room to spirit in a core belief? Aristocrat: My friend, that would depend upon the size of heart and the adventures that one’s had to fill it up. But let’s not dwell on hidden principles or faiths. What of the ones who openly avow belief, at least among their friends? Does which regime they’re in make any difference here? Director: Of course. But how shall we approach these causes that they might take up? Aristocrat: Why don’t we look at them from raw utility? Director: We may as well, since many see it from this point of view. So, what about democracy? What sorts of utile instruments of faith does it demand? Chef: Equality’s the basic faith of democrats. So why would they need any other instruments or tools? The melting pot is there to make man homogeneous, which reinforces this belief. Student: But can this faith sustain them when a friendship or a love’s gone bad? Director: Perhaps they need a secondary faith atop equality. Aristocrat: I think that one alone for all of them might work. But many faiths could also do the job. Student: And what of aristocracy? Are we agreed it’s fundamental faith is place? Or is it excellence? Aristocrat: Why not just say they are the same since there’s a great amount of overlap? Does such a faith sustain a wounded heart? Student: I don’t think it’s enough. So it appears there is a need for secondary faith here, too. Director: But we have said that aristocracies allow for different types of soul, more so than does egalitarian democracy. Must there be many tools, a cause to fit each type? Aristocrat: That may be what it takes. But what about the enemy? Is this not fertile ground for him?

99


Director: I’m sure he’ll swoop right in to numb the pain. But he will have to reckon with the shaking and the breaking first. Student: And if his arguments are dead, and he has lost his will to fight, what then? Should servants craft and then distribute instruments of faith to meet the wild needs? What else can soothe these men? Or do they just run feral through the land? Chef: But if the servants soothe them with such means then they’ve become the enemy. Student: But you said that pure evil is the robbery of energy by means of false belief. What if they give them true belief and take none of their strength? Chef: That is pure evil’s way. But dirty evil is the simple pandering of false belief. And servants cannot give them true belief because one has to come to that all on his own. That’s just the way it works. Student: Well, if the servants cannot pacify these wounded savages with causes true or false, perhaps they’ll calm them with some music, no? Chef: You’d have them play some evil lilt? Student: But isn’t there a music of the good? Chef: There is indeed a music of the cause. But neutrals are all deaf to it, the same way they can’t see the causal star.

F orce , H eart Director: So what are we to do? These wild men will likely do some harm, or join the enemy, or both. Aristocrat: We will not rule these men by fraud. Student: Then how about the use of force? Or would that mean, again, that we’re no better than the enemy? Aristocrat: The evil ones use force on those who don’t obey their will, respect their high authority — and do so even when the disobedient are peaceable. With us, if men join with the evil peacefully, we don’t use force on them. And we don’t care if they obey our will, our extralegal will, or not. But if they’re acting wild, they must be restrained, regardless if they’ve joined the enemy. Student: I wonder what percentage of the population in your state requires force, Aristocrat. Do you use it infrequently? Aristocrat: I use the threat of force more frequently than force itself. The threat of losing place, however, can be almost as persuasive. Director: Do the ones persuadable by place require much persuasion, though? I mean, aren’t they the ones who’re in their proper place? And could it be that those who’re in their proper place are those who’re calm, without a secondary cause, when love or friendship goes awry, or when there’s loss? Student: So it’s the place itself that comforts them? 100

Aristocrat

Director: A man well placed might well be buffered from the storms of heart. That’s not to say he might not feel as deep a loss as any other man. But he will stay composed. And so it seems that if a person has support, from place or something else, or if he just has inner peace, there by and large will be no need for force, though it, of course, is still the means of last resort, the way it is in any state. Aristocrat: Indeed. Director: Alright. I think it’s time to take a small step back and look at all of this another way. Regardless if somebody has support or not, there is a factor here we can’t ignore, a factor that Aristocrat brought up — the quality of someone’s heart. For even though he spoke about the heart’s capacity, in certain things the quantity is quality. Student: So, who has got what sort of heart? Director: You want to know about our types of men? I think the neutrals, when they aren’t in bondage to an evil argument, or darkened by a passion that’s consuming them, will tend to have a good, and pure, and simple heart, don’t you? Student: What of the fallen men? Director: It seems to me that, in the end, they ought to have a heart that’s proud, assuming they come back. So what about the gray? Do they seem much the same? Student: I’m not so sure how proud they are. Director: Well, what about the men we’ve called “the good”? What sort of hearts have they? Student: I think their hearts can be both loyal, and sincere, and proud, and more. Director: What “more,” my friend? Do you mean they are complicated? After all, are they not highly sensitive to all the arguments that come from those who are not good? Can one be both insensitive and highly sensitive at once — insensitive to loss while highly sensitive to subtle reasoning or shades of meaning? That’s no likely pair, as every poet knows. So how do complicated hearts react to loss? Student: Without support, I think they howl in pain. The good are possibly more sensitive to loss than any other sort of man we’re speaking of today. So it seems likely that with loss they’ll feel great turbulence. It might be all the worse because their habit is strong self-command. Instead of flying into rage, they are at war within. And that is why it seems they need the cause. It promises tranquility. Chef: And what about the bad? Student: The evil men? What sort of love or friendship have they got that they would truly miss? 101


M ore F orce Chef: And what about the democratic men? They don’t have place to comfort them. Student: I think they do, to some extent. But I assume you want to know when rule of force applies. Well, is it any different than in an aristocracy? The wild ones must be restrained, with force if not with reasoning. Director: Yet there is something more requiring force at times, a different sort of loss. In aristocracy, when one believes in place, and he does not receive what he believes to be his proper place, I think some nasty feelings will arise. It’s similar in democratic lands. If one’s belief is in equality, and one does not believe he has received an equal treatment or his equal share, bad feelings come. If he controls those feelings, well enough. Perhaps the state will give him formal opportunity to seek redress. But if he lets them roar, and acts upon them, too, then you know what. The general rule applies. Student: And it applies to anyone, no matter if he’s neutral, bad, or good? Director: Or gray or fallen, too. Student: But what would make the good ones cross the line when they have got the cause? Director: I’d be surprised to see them cross it frequently. But when they do it’s likely very bad. What makes them cross the line? Perhaps it is as simple as a war within spills out. Student: But is the cause just something to believe in, or does it exert some sort of force upon the good, as well, some sort of force that checks that war. Aristocrat: Perhaps it’s best to think of it as complicated force for complicated hearts, a force that can restrain while strengthening. Student: I don’t think it’s a complicated force. I think it’s either naked force or moral force. Aristocrat: And why discriminate between the two? Student: The evil ones use force derived from false morality. Or maybe they project their force through false morality. In either case, or both, what if the cause is just another moral force, albeit one derived from true morality — is it not possible that it, one day, in some mutated, evil form, might prove a weapon that the enemy would wield to great effect? Aristocrat: And so you think it’s best if it is merely force and not a moral force. That way it cannot ever be corrupt. But then we ought to ask — are servants all restrained by simple force? And does that mean that they are somehow forced to serve the cause? And what about their bond? Does that reduce to nothing but pure force? You ought to be prepared, if you would introduce distinctions such as this, to answer questions such as these.

102

Aristocrat

R estraint Director: You’d rather it were moral force? Aristocrat: Supposing that the cause is merely force, where does this force come from if not the servants of the cause themselves? Morality aside, what stops this force? It simply pushes, pulls, or rests until it comes across a greater or an equal force. What sort of world is that? Director: Because of this the servants choose to understand that their restraint is from within? Aristocrat: To put it in a metaphor, they clothe their force in moral decency. They don’t let it go out undressed. Student: But many causes of the enemy make one employ restraint. What’s different here? Aristocrat: The cause involves informed restraint, restraint that’s based on truth. The evil ones base their restraint on superstition, on false gods. Student: But what about the neutral ones? Aren’t they restrained when steering by the stars of honesty and decency? Aristocrat: Restraint like that is limited. Director: Perhaps we can discuss the nature of the different stars and where they lead when next we meet. But now, since time is short, let’s finish with the cause. It fights the teachings of the enemy, with no restraint, unless good tactics calls for it. Does everyone agree to this? And do we not agree it has no teaching of its own, except, perhaps, the ways to fight the enemy? What are we leaving out? Chef: Perhaps there is an oath. I will not take up any teaching of the enemy, whatever shape or form. I will destroy those teachings, root and seed. And I will be intransigent, upon my life. Director: Is this the moral of the cause? Does it seem right? Aristocrat: I’d just switch out “take up” and put in “harbor”. Director: Fine suggestion, friend. Student: So how are love and friendship part of this? Aristocrat: If nothing of the enemy grows in the soil of the soul, a true adherent can, with just a little shovel work, dig down to bottom rock within himself. When friends or loved ones look within, they, too, can see clear down. This proves the best foundation possible for good relationships. There is no rotten faith beneath. Student: Foundation rock? Do we need dynamite? Director: There’s only one good way to know. Let’s circle back around. Aristocrat, I wonder if you really meant that thing you said about the cause. Aristocrat: What thing? 103


Director: You said that servants outfit force in proper garb. Now, friend, that sounds just like the evil ones — the velvet glove that hides the iron fist. Or have I got it wrong? Aristocrat: You know I’m not always that good with metaphors. Director: And I am no authority, but maybe it goes more like this. The true believers wrap themselves within their noble cloaks of service to the cause, both dark and red. (I think it’s nice to add some color here.) They gaze about and see their fellow servants draped like them. Their hearts begin to swell. Their spirits rise. And thus prepared they are intransigent. Aristocrat: That’s so much better, friend. But maybe hearts should “pump” instead of “swell.” And maybe spirits do not “rise” but “soar”. Student: But what’s the iron fist in this new metaphor? Aristocrat: Within the breasts of those brave men in their great capes one finds the power of the cause, the bloody fist — the heart.

C ourage , P ride Student: And so they cloak themselves in pride. That’s what those garments stand for, right? Director: That’s right. Student: Do you believe that pride and courage are the same? Director: You mean do I believe that cloaks and hearts are one? Why, Student, what would that imply? Perhaps we oughtn’t stretch the metaphor too far. But still, I think they’re much the same. And yet they’re different in one important way. One’s pride can make one stand with courage. Knowledge of one’s courage makes one proud. They’re complementary. Student: Then pride and courage are the power of the cause. This means if rule by moral force is necessary it will come from here. It’s not that those with pride and courage force the ones who fall away to stay in line. It’s that the one who needs restraint restrains himself because he is ashamed to act all out of sorts among good friends. His pride restrains and courage lets him carry on. Correct? Chef: So then you think true servants of the cause will never need restraint except by means of their own pride? Student: If one has proper pride in service to the cause, what need is there for outside force? But there is more. Without the courage born of pride a servant cannot face the enemy. And if one cannot fight the evil ones one cannot serve the cause. Chef: One also cannot serve the cause if he can’t find his friends. Will proper pride lead to the star that lights the way to them? Will courage born of pride allow a man to pass right through the obstacles he’ll face? Student: What if he has no obstacles? Suppose the state is run by servants of the cause. It should be easy, then, for him to find his friends. But if it isn’t hard, what 104

Aristocrat

happens to his pride? And if his pride can’t grow, what kind of courage can he have? Could it be true that someone turns out best when from a bad regime? Aristocrat: I’ve often wondered this myself. My father was no servant of the cause, but he became a friend to those who were. When I took up the reigns there were already many servants all across the ranks, some in the highest posts. So what of all the up-and-comers of today? Will things be all too easy for these men? How strong can they become if they have got a well paved way? Director: I wouldn’t worry, friend. I think that there’s a remedy. Just send them out, alone, to other, worse off states, and see how they make out. Advise them not to do too much at once. They ought to listen and observe. But they must find a way, however small, to fight the enemy. They will be humbled if they have a false and bloated pride. And if they do it’s good that they’re alone, so they won’t be too much ashamed. They’ll have to build their courage and their pride from scratch. But if they persevere, in time they’ll likely come to long for their return, so they can show how far they’ve come. Student: But what of those from bad regimes? Director: They might one day show up as strangers, so we’d better be prepared. Chef: You mean that we should set a place for them? Director: A place at table would be nice, but I’m not sure about a place meant in the other sense. That’s to be judged by circumstance. I simply mean that we should be prepared to hear what they might say, whatever it may be. Their eyes might see some things that we have missed about ourselves and our regimes. So we should welcome them as honored guests.

105

The Community P ersons

of the

D ialogue

Developer Director Investor

PART ONE In

the

C ellar

Investor: Wine? Director: Why yes, thank you. This is quite a cellar, Investor. Developer: It is a good place to hole up on a stormy winter night like this. Director: That county board meeting did not go so well. Investor: No, it did not. They want too much say in how our community is built and managed. Perhaps the bank can twist their arms so they back off? Developer: Not until it accepts the business case and plan we have yet to provide. Investor: Where do we start on that? Director: Why not start with why the bank thinks you have an idea worth considering? Developer: Well, the people I know there think the fear of crime and desire for privacy are high among the very rich. Investor: And they are impressed by your previous successes with new communities, though admittedly never one that is quite so closed. But they also fancy being involved in something as prestigious as what we have in mind. 107


Director: I see. What about the nature of the community itself, its character, its feel? Is that not a major part of what people buy?

K ept C ompany Investor: It certainly is. Let’s start there and talk this whole thing through tonight. Then can you draft the business plan and case tomorrow, Developer? Developer: Friend, I am sorry they’re not yet done. I’ll draft them tomorrow without fail. Director, one of the reasons I have been putting this off is that this is no exercise in theory that affects someone else’s life and not our own. Investor and I both intend to live in this place. Director: You put mouth where your money is. So tell me how you see your new community. Developer: Other than the fact that it consists of very wealthy people? Director: Does mere presence of a certain sort of people make for a community? Besides, there are more involved than the owners, right? What of the service people? Do they live within the walls? Investor: If they do, that makes our little town a little less exclusive, no? Director: I don’t know about that, friend. Do the owners not seem more exalted when in contrast to the lowly? My understanding is that the rich like to stand in high relief. Can this not be a selling point? Investor: I suppose it can. But it’s hard to say in just so many words. Developer: Perhaps the owners believe the presence of the lowly and their children enriches their own children — healthy diversity. Director: Where do they intermix? Is there a charter school within the walls? Developer: There can be if the bank gets us accredited with the state. But I’m not sure the owners want their kids in school with those of the staff. Elite communes with elite — that sells. Director: How much communing do we expect the owners to do? Developer: We just give them opportunity and let them decide how much is enough. Director: Because privacy is golden? Developer: The rich value their privacy. Director: Do you let them wall their individual castles in within the walled town? Investor: What kind of message does that send to those who desire more community? Developer: But the ones within the walled homes can always meet their fellow citizens out for a drink, if the spirit moves them. And those without a wall can shut themselves in. What difference does it really make? Investor: Perhaps not all that much. But I think we need to encourage the deeply private to step out from time to time, to open themselves to chance encounters. 108

The Community

Director: At the local watering hole? Investor: Sure. Director: So this is the first pillar of the city — the tavern? Developer: We need more than one to support the population. Director: I wonder who frequents which establishment. Does it fall out by neighborhood? Or are all of the bars near each other, and people choose the one most to their taste? Investor: Either way, the bars can give rise to sub-communities. Director: Do you think that is bad? Investor: I guess it depends on whether we think it best for the larger community to be one as much as possible, or to let it shake out into parts. Director: You mean parts cannot make up a whole, not even if they work with common purpose? I guess that means it’s a bad idea to split the owners into formal parts.

T he M ix Developer: But do those parts sell? If we divide them right, I think they do. Director: Is that because such parts can be interesting, and the interesting sells? Developer: Yes, I suppose that is the reason. We can offer a range of properties, varying in size and quality of lot and home. Director: How large a range? Developer: Tenfold. Director: With how many parts? Developer: Three. The first buys at the price of one. The second at the price of three. The third at ten. Director: Do we separate them out into their own areas of town or are they mixed? Investor: I think it’s more interesting to mix them up. Director: Why? Investor: Strange alliances form that way. Tens are likely to take up with threes and ones if they are right next door. But tens also want to form up with their own, the other tens. And threes want to form with threes, and ones with ones. I like the notion of cross currents in the politics of our city. Developer: But, regardless, tens still want distance from the other castes. Director: Maybe they can have walls around their homes while the other cannot. Developer: Yes, and we sell these walls at a great premium. Director: Do you sell the three castes different services? I mean, is there a standard package that comes with each type of property, with the most for the tens? 109


Developer: Certainly. And we let them upgrade if they have the cash. Investor: That blurs the lines between the classes. Director: If you want to separate them further why not give the owners weighted votes, by caste, for matters that concern the whole community? The tens get ten, the threes get three, and the ones one. Investor: But what is the population ratio of the castes? Director: How about ten to three to one? In other words, ten ones and three threes for every ten. Investor: So if the ones vote as one they tie the united tens, while both try to win over the threes, and so on. Developer: That can make for some interesting play. Investor: What about matters that concern only a single caste? Director: Everything in this community impacts everyone else, if only indirectly. So I think each change proposed for a class must be approved by the others.

W eight Developer: We can make things even more interesting and bring in more money if we let the owners purchase additional voting weight. This can be temporary or perpetual, the latter costing much more. Director: How much do you think something like that costs? Developer: The cost of a temporary increase varies with what is going on in the city. But I think the lasting doubling of one’s vote costs one seventh the purchase price of one’s property. A tripling costs one third. Director: Where does that money go? Developer: Why, to Investor, the bank, and me! Let’s consider it to be an extension of the initial purchase of property. Director: Well, I have another money making suggestion, loosely related to the voting upgrades. Sell the offices of the community to the highest bidders, formally. Investor: Why do we do this, aside from the money? Director: We can consider it a harmless vent for vanity or ambition. The officers are largely figureheads. They chair the meetings, and so on. If someone skilled holds the post, it is possible for him to help move things along nicely. If he is incompetent, he cannot do much harm. Developer: So who really runs the show? Director: The council associated with each office. Investor: And how do people get onto the council?

110

The Community

Director: Every home owner can join in whenever it convenes. All of them can come at once if so inclined, though space may be an issue. Developer: It’s likely that only a few take interest in the meetings, unless some big affair is on the agenda. Investor: Just what does the council do? Director: It authorizes the actions of the officer and draws up proposals for the general vote.

I nterest Investor: Do you know what strikes me most about this form of government? The impact it has on the education of our youth. Developer: How so? Investor: How are they supposed to understand the way their city works? Developer: What is there to understand? They just need to know how it works. Investor: But what about those who want to know the why of the how? Do we tell them there is no why, no reason? Director: You two are citizens of this city. Surely you have reasons for your choice. Developer: The land and the houses are beautiful, stunningly so. The services are excellent. There are very fine amenities. And that is saying nothing of the shielding from the outside world. Director: So the environment is pleasant and everyone is comfortable. I think the youth can understand that. But then there is the government and the community it frames. Investor: The government is designed to keep things interesting. Director: Do we teach the youth a doctrine of the interesting? Developer: And what exactly is that? Director: Well, what does it mean for something to be of interest? Developer: A thing is interesting when it is not the same. Director: The same as itself, or something else? Developer: Tell me how something differs from itself. Director: People say they are not themselves all the time. When you feel that way, you know how. Investor: What does it mean when a government is not itself? It does not follow its usual method of proceeding? Developer: But that only happens now and then, or else the different way becomes the usual method of proceeding. I think we have a better chance of staying interesting longer if our government differs from other governments, not itself. 111


O f I nterest Investor: I think our youths can see that the city is interesting because it is not the same as other cities. We have no need for a doctrine of the interesting. They know intuitively that the unsame is of interest. Director: Yes, but what if their city comes to feel the same to them, regardless of how it compares to other cities? In other words, what if they get bored with it? Investor: We can show them a way of doing things that they can emulate, a way of making things unsame, of making things interesting. Director: Interesting to whom? Investor: Themselves, of course. Director: But perhaps not interesting to their parents? Investor: Sometimes youths must persuade their parents into their interesting. Director: Do the mature generally evolve their communities toward the interest of the youth? Do our citizens? Investor: That can be one of the answers we seek in the experiment we are making here, Director. Developer: Yes, and another is how much money we can make. So let’s say this is more of a venture than an experiment. Director: The money results are easy enough to interpret. But it is harder with community, no? Developer: The property value at any given time is not too bad an indicator of the quality of the community. Investor: That tells us how highly the community is valued from the outside. It says nothing about the nature of the community itself, how interesting it is. Developer: People pay for what they are interested in. Investor: But what is interesting to people on the outside is not necessarily interesting to people on the inside. Developer: Then the insiders sell to the outsiders and things work out fine. Director: Do you think there are interesting things that don’t cost very much, if anything at all? Developer: Of course I do. Director: And are there great samenesses out there that people pay a great deal of money for? Developer: There is no doubt about that. Director: So if this community turns out to be just the same, without much interest at all, do you consider the experiment a failure, even though you make a whole lot of money? 112

The Community

Developer: I suppose I do. Director: You know the next question, right? Developer: Do I consider it a failure if it turns out to be interesting but makes no money? The question does not take into account the fact that if the city is not making money it is not sustainable. So you are asking me if it’s a failure if it is interesting for a very short time. I want it to be interesting for a long time. Director: As do I. So what sameness does our community shun? Developer: The sameness of opinion found in typical suburban developments. Director: Do you believe our little city can upend all of that? Developer: Of course not. But if we can upset even a little bit of it, then it’s worth it. Director: School seems like a good place to start overturning opinion, no? Investor: Yes. Let’s separate the tens, threes, and ones and give each a different education. No one in suburbia segregates a school by property. Director: Do the castes have subjects in common? Investor: They have to prepare for state administered exams, so they have to have those things in common. But they study them within their proper groups. Director: Do the groups intermingle? Investor: No, not as whole groups. But the students with the highest grades in each caste study for these exams together. Developer: Why do this? Investor: To challenge their caste identity and allow them to form new, interesting bonds. Director: You are already worried about caste sameness, even before there is a business case and plan for the city? So, what does each group study that the others do not? Investor: The ones study ancient classics. The threes study drama. And tens study contemporary literature. We fight the idea that everything is open to all. It’s like this in their other studies, too. Director: Do we do anything to fight the samenesses that might arise within these caste based courses of study? Investor: Yes. Every year one ten studies with the threes, and one ten studies with the ones, and so on with the other groups, so that there is a member of each caste in each course of study. Director: I see. Cross-pollination. What else seems important in the education of our youth? Developer: I think we need a small college — but only for the ones, with no crosspollination here. The others have to leave the walls to complete their schooling. 113


Director: Why only the ones? Developer: There is an outside sameness that the most wealthy always go to college. In our city only the lowest caste can. Director: What do the ones study there? Developer: Philosophy and what they call the hard sciences, and nothing else. Director: No music? No art? Developer: They get that in school prior to college. For music instruction the tens study baroque and early classical. The threes study jazz. The ones study contemporary music, both folk, art, popular, and experimental. Music has no cross-pollination. For art, students are not limited to one area of study, but do remain firmly within their castes.

W onder Director: Why does music have no cross-pollination? Developer: Because it can have a profound effect on youth. We want them to wonder why it stays strictly divided within the castes. Director: We want to excite their curiosity, so a three goes home and asks his mother if he can borrow from her baroque collection, and so on? I suppose this sort of thing can happen with any of the subjects the castes are not free to study in school. Youth often develop a taste for the forbidden. Developer: We want them to know that there are potent things in this world that are not meant for them. The sameness in other suburban developments is that everything is theirs. Director: Do you consider this part of their character education? Character is the backbone of community, after all, is it not? Developer: I suppose we are educating the youth toward character, much like all proper lawgivers, founders of new regimes. Investor: But can we be such, in the full sense, when everything we establish exists within the larger state? Director: All we can do is try and take things as far as we can within the context in which we are thrown. So tell us, Developer, why is all art for everyone? Developer: We want to get the students wondering why art, though not a required state exam subject, has no caste boundaries. Director: What do you hope comes of this wonder? Developer: Hope? I have no idea what comes of it. But I believe that wonder, as a principle, is good. Director: Because those who wonder are interesting. Developer: Yes. 114

The Community

Director: Do we make them wonder by doing things that make no sense? Developer: No. We make them wonder by doing things that appear to make no sense.

C ore Director: The state allows students to pick which subjects they test in, within a somewhat narrow range of choices, correct? Developer: Correct. Director: So someone can test in biology and physics, for instance, but ignore chemistry? Developer: Yes. Why? Director: Let’s remove one of these subjects completely from two of our castes. Let’s take chemistry and give it solely to the tens. Does this make no sense or appear to make no sense, assuming that distinction holds? Investor: It appears to make no sense. The effect it aims at is an increased interest in chemistry among certain students, because they now wonder what is so special about it. And by isolating the subject we fight the sameness about the universality, or rather, the universal availability of knowledge. So, in the end, putting a hole in what the outside considers to be the educational core makes sense, because it’s interesting. Director: When our students visit cousins, and so on, on the outside, do they not get a sense of just how different their inside education is, and not just because of chemistry? Investor: Yes. Perhaps it makes them appreciate it more. And it is possible the cousins, and such, are fascinated with it. But some of them simply envy the new and strange. Developer: If they do envy, I think it is less because of the newness and strangeness of the education than its exclusivity. Director: Whatever the case, let’s hope envy does not infest the outside authorities. That can make things rather difficult for us. Developer: The bank can flex its muscles and help with that. But it has to be making a lot of money with us to be willing. Profit is critical to our enterprise for more than its own sake.

P rofit Director: Selling all of the properties does not satisfy the needs of the bank? Developer: At first, yes. But that is not enough to gain its continued support. As a fundamental shareholder it wants a river of money flowing in. Director: Fundamental shareholder? You mean the home owners do not have the final say in their city? 115


Developer: They do have final say in many things. But the infrastructure — the services, stores, security, public buildings, and the wall — is owned by those who found the city. The different branches of the infrastructure are the tributaries to the river. Director: The mightier the river, the greater the protection from the bank. Well, I suppose we can sell very expensive goods to the citizens in town boutiques. How about clothing? We can bring in designers and create our own brands, available exclusively to our people, at an incredible markup. We can even open the sale of some of these brands to guests of residents, limiting the quantity they can buy, of course, so we do not dilute the brand. Investor: Do we want to call attention to ourselves by releasing brands into the outside world? Director: Here is a related question. Do we forbid citizens from wearing this clothing outside the walls? I’m not sure how much they buy in that case. But as for outsiders, the guests, the more of them that have the clothes the less likely we are to receive attention, because the articles stand out less. Limited purchases by outsiders serve as a pressure valve, of sorts, while helping fill the chest of war. Developer: The greater the war chest, the more interesting things can get.

C urfew , S ecurity , O nly Director: So what is the next suburban sameness to assault? Investor: Let’s have a curfew for the youth still in school. Director: There are suburban subdivisions that have curfews, friend. Investor: Yes, but not many, and not like ours. We have two times — one for being back inside the gate, one for being home. The former is two hours before the latter. But each one of the castes has one night a week when it can stay outside the gate two hours later. Director: Do they always have the same night of the week? Investor: No, it rotates. Director: How old does one have to be to go outside the gate without an adult? Investor: Thirteen. Director: What else have we got for the youth? Developer: I think they can all help provide security by walking the rounds with radios to call the guards in case of trouble. Director: What is the idea here? Developer: Suburbia believes in leaving security to others. Though our primary security comes from guards who are much like their police, our kids at least get a feel for what it means to share some of the burden. 116

The Community

Director: And the parents? Developer: What parent does not want his kid to learn some responsibility? Besides, what we are asking is not onerous. Maybe it’s one night a month. Even once a year is better than nothing. Director: Is our security within the wall alone, or do we have it on the outside, too? Developer: We have to work this out with the county. But I believe we need outside patrols, reconnaissance. This is for practical reasons and also to fight the notion the kids might develop that a wall is enough to keep them secure from the outside. We show them that there is more to it. Many parents can understand how this is important. Besides, if we patrol the near outside our kids must think twice before doing anything stupid out there. That challenges the idea that being outside the wall makes you somehow free. Investor: The freedom our youths have to care about is freedom from the pack. Developer: Unfortunately, our kids are as likely as any others to form into one. Director: What is the basic idea of the pack? Investor: Safety in numbers. Director: How do we combat this sameness? Investor: I really don’t know. This may be the hardest of all samenesses to fight. We have to find ways to protect the only. Developer: We can give them places where they can be more or less alone. Director: Such as a library? Developer: Sure. Investor: But simply being alone does not make you only. You are only when you are not the same. Director: So are onlys always, necessarily, the minority in terms of power? Sameness dominates, right? If there is a revolution and the onlys come to command greater force, are they sameness? Investor: It does not take a revolution. Onlyness can be sameness even when in the minority. Director: How does onlyness differ from individuality? Investor: Individuality is the belief that you are equal to everyone else yet somehow unique. Onlyness drops the equality. Developer: Maybe onlyness needs to drop the idea of uniqueness, too. Director: What does it then have left? Developer: The fact that an only is no pack animal. Director: An only does not believe there is safety in numbers. Developer: Yes. 117


Director: Is that because he feels safe alone? Developer: Safer, maybe. But not simply safe. Director: Can we help the onlys feel safer? Developer: I can think of a small way. What if we make a trail that one must walk alone? Security can enforce the policy. If someone wants to get away from the pack he can come here and get some fresh air and exercise, and be pretty sure that no one will tangle with him. Violators are punished with the loss of certain privileges.

S afety

in

N umbers

Director: How can we focus the fight on the idea of safety in numbers? Developer: Maybe we go after the voting. Majorities feel the safety of numbers. We can make it so majorities sometimes lose. We choose three people from each class, choose them by lot for each general vote, right before the vote so they are not as susceptible to undue influence. If all nine agree, they can overturn the result. That does not happen very often, of course, but it’s always a possibility. Director: Luck the challenge to safety in numbers? Developer: Yes, and it appeals to the gambler in many. Investor: How do we explain this peculiar process to the bank and potential buyers? Developer: It’s the sort of thing that if you do not like it upon first hearing, you probably never do. We have to hope for good fortune here. Investor: If we are so fortunate, I think we need to take advantage and increase the importance of luck in our city. Director: How about in the school? Investor: Yes. Let’s have randomly assigned seats in every class, and even in the dining hall. We switch them up once a month. That helps break up cliques, or at least renders them more tolerable. Developer: Let’s add a twist. Each December we choose one student, by lot, to order the seating of all three castes for the rest of the year. By this point in the year the group dynamics are more or less established and clear. But there is enough time left for the ordering to have the desired effect of encouraging the creation of interesting relationships. Director: How much time do you think the chosen one needs to accomplish his task? Developer: He only knows his own caste. He needs time to examine the other two. He has to sit in on classes to see who is who. He has one week to study each caste. He delivers the charts at the end of each of these weeks. He completes his own caste first, over the course of a weekend. Investor: What if someone very timid is chosen? Let’s allow him to choose two others to work with him. 118

The Community

Developer: I think he needs to brave it all alone. Suppose we let him choose two others. Is it only the timid we allow to do this? If so, how do we determine who is timid? If we cannot do so in any fair seeming way, and therefore have to let all choose two if they want, what happens if someone with pack animal tendencies is chosen, and he chooses two members of his clique? Do they not goad each other on to make less than desirable arrangements? Besides these problems, I think the chosen one loses an opportunity to develop on his own if he leans on others too much while ordering the youth. We are not heartless. If someone truly meek is chosen we can ask teachers to keep an eye on things and lend some discreet support as needed. Investor: That is fine. But what do the other kids do to him if he sets things up in a way they dislike? Some bully him, no? Developer: He has to learn to form alliances to defend himself. Investor: He is expected to learn something as difficult as that over the course of a couple of weeks? Why not let the student decline the job? Maybe he can even pick somebody else.

T he P residents Director: If we’re going to combine luck with choice let’s add some more luck. Let’s give each caste a president chosen by lot from the top two grades. Investor: For how long a term? The full year? Director: No, we stir things up more than that. A month. Investor: What are the powers of these presidents? Director: Since they have little power in suburbia we make ours strong, give them some teeth. They deputize a dozen boys called monitors. They serve at the pleasure of the president. They keep an eye on things, looking out for any rule breaking or trouble in general. The monitors write students up with violations. Each week the presidents meet with the principal and review these write-ups. The principal vetoes anything that looks improbable or seems manifestly unfair. But as for the rest, he punishes the students with work around the school, in any amount he sees fit. Investor: Is the principal the only monitor on the monitors? Director: Yes, he and he alone. We give them great scope. Developer: What other powers do the presidents have? Director: They have some power over the teachers. They can change the lesson plans for three days each month, for every class in every grade. The changes must be within the limits of the course, so no comic books in ancient languages. But they can be whatever the president wants for those three days — executive prerogative.

119


Investor: You know, students might actually research possible topics and make recommendations to the presidents. But what is the point of the monitors, other than to give the presidents power? Are we creating a presidential bodyguard, a squad of goons for the harassment of enemies? Developer: It may turn out that way. But do you not think that students must see firsthand, and at an early age, just how bad, or good, authority can be?

T eachers Investor: What sort of authority do the teachers have? Director: The reverse of what the teachers in suburbia have, the reverse of their strengths and weaknesses both. There teachers punish and grade. Our teachers lack those powers. All grades, except for those on the state exams, come from a jury of student peers. The teacher makes the case for the student. The student argues against this case or amplifies it. When testimony is complete, each juror renders a grade. They are averaged up and this is what the student receives for that grading period. Investor: Does the teacher have an override if the verdict is clearly unfair? Develop: No, let’s teach the kids to live without a safety net. But what about the power to punish? The teachers have none? How is order maintained? Director: We rely on the twelve monitors. Developer: And when there is no monitor in a class? Director: The students must take it upon themselves to defend order. Developer: Suppose they cannot or will not. What stops things from degenerating into chaos? Director: Why, our teacher’s greatest power — his ability to keep the class interested. Developer: That is indeed where many outside teachers are weak. We need some amazing teachers at this school. How do we get them? Director: Some of the best teachers are simply drawn to a community like ours. But we can also offer them unusually high salaries. Developer: How unusual? Director: Let’s peg their wage to that of an associate justice on the highest court of the outside nation. All our teachers earn the same amount. We want no bad feelings over unfairness in compensation. The only higher wage is for the principal. He earns the salary of the high court chief justice. In the event these outside rates drop precipitously due to some political storm, we find other, equally prestigious and well paying outside jobs to link ours to. Developer: What do we do with applicants who have no teaching background but seem good for the role despite that fact? For instance, a chief executive officer might want to teach business. 120

The Community

Investor: But the state requires him to have certain accreditations. Director: Maybe we put the war chest to use and see if the bank can work out some exceptions.

P rofit , A gain Developer: I suspect that is not the only time the school needs help. Every time we dip into that chest we have to fill it back up, and maybe even make it grow. The school must be profitable beyond the greatest margin we can make on tuition and fees alone. Director: What sort of a war are we getting ourselves into? Developer: The expensive kind. Maybe we bring in more money by letting students from the outside in. Parents who cannot afford to live here may be willing to pay for their kids to attend our school. Since very few within the immediate area, if any, can afford that, I think we have to build dormitories and take on borders from all over the country, and even the world. Investor: But how many? And what does that do the character of the school, the overall community? Do insider parents want to send their kids to school with so many outsiders? They may as well send them to outside schools. Developer: They want the type of education we provide regardless of who else gets it. Investor: But we base the education on the caste system. Where do the outsiders fit in? Do they simply pay to join whatever caste they want? Director: Can we put the outsiders on their own, separate track? Developer: I don’t think their parents are likely to go for that. What makes sending their kids here worth the money? They want them to mix with the insiders. Investor: But what does that get them? The education that the insiders receive comes from much more than the school. It comes from the whole city, the way of life. The school is just a part of that, but a part that needs to be in keeping with the whole. Outsiders misshape it. If we are serious about creating a way of life, we cannot take outside money for education. We have to find other ways of bringing in cash. Developer: Alright. But let’s get back to these highly paid teachers of ours. Do we make them live in town?

H iring Director: If we leave that up to them we allow for a mixed body of experience, perspective. Developer: We need cheap housing for the ones who choose to live inside. Investor: What do you think we are looking for in these teachers? Director: It seems hard to articulate. 121


Developer: It is more of a know-it-when-you-see-it type of thing. Director: Yes. Investor: Where do we advertise for them? Director: Prime-time television. Investor: Really? And what do we say? Director: Let’s show instead of tell. There is no music, no sound. We show the gate, but nothing within the citadel. And then we put up words to the effect that the community is hiring teachers. Finally, we flash the salary and fade. Investor: We give no place to send resumes? Director: Do we really want a big pile of those? Let’s just leave it at that. Candidates can figure out how to get in touch with us and get a foot in the gate for an interview. But we can, of course, also go out and recruit people we happen to know about. In fact, that is likely how we make most of our hires. Developer: Then why all the money on the advertisement? Director: That, my friend, is the only advertising for our city. Investor: So how do we interview? Director: Do you mean who is on the team? Well, the two of you, certainly. Investor: And you, Director. Director: I am honored. We also need a representative from each caste. Without caste approval, it’s very difficult to make this work. We need their unanimous support. Developer: Suppose the caste representatives do not simply know a good teacher when they see one. What formal qualifications do you think they want? Director: The usual — education, experience, past results. Developer: I think we need to make the first cut, before candidates are passed on to the caste representatives. Investor: Do they have the final say? Director: Yes. Developer: What do we do if they reject a candidate we really want? Director: Perhaps we do something like this. For every six teachers they approve for hire, we can hire one of the rejected. After all, the fundamental shareholders manage the school. Do they not deserve some special say?

S yllabus Investor: Once we have the teachers, who approves the syllabi? Director: The parents, and here is how it works. Let’s say that the students in a literature course are to read twenty books. The teacher pulls together a large 122

The Community

list of titles and asks the parents to pick fifteen of them. He then adds the remaining five, which are not necessarily from the large list. He puts the list of twenty to the parents for a vote of approval. This same process holds for composers, artists, and so on in other courses. Developer: What about in the hard sciences? Director: For them, there is a caste meeting which any owner within the cast can attend, regardless if he has kids in one of the courses or not. Teachers moderate. Anyone who wants something included in a course puts it forward, even if it’s not on a list of teacher suggested topics. Investor: Why do we limit the liberal arts to a list but not the hard sciences? Director: Many see the hard sciences as cut and dry, without much room for choice in their study. We challenge that notion, and this is a small way of doing that. Developer: What else is different with the hard sciences? Director: Well, here is a difference for the hard sciences, but also for the liberal arts. We consider our spoken and written language to be hard. To reinforce this, it, and the other hard sciences, are in a building separate from the liberal arts. Investor: Are we only training for technical mastery and accuracy in comprehension? What about creativity? Director: Oh, yes. That is at least half the point. We want students to understand that it is possible to be every bit as creative in the hard sciences as it is in one’s mother tongue. They learn creative writing and interpretation in the science building. But let’s complete the process for the syllabi. The hard science teachers put forward ten of the thirty weeks of work in the school year while the owners supply the other twenty. The teachers may advocate for certain subjects but the decision does not rest with them. Of course, all must keep in mind the requirements for the state exams, but outside of that they have a free hand. Investor: Say more about the study of our language. Directors: Students must develop a command of grammar and vocabulary, but they start out with an extremely limited number of words and only the most simple forms. As they progress, vocabulary and language complexity increases, but very slowly. And they are never allowed to use any figurative language, only the most essential of metaphors, those inherent to the language itself, as far as that can be determined. Everything is radically literal. Developer: How do we sell that to the owners? Director: Why, we teach the children the hard headed language of business. Sloppy metaphor clouds thought. That sells, right? Besides, how can there be any escaping figurative language? It is simply a part of everyday life. Given the foundation our students receive, who doubts they have any trouble gaining mastery over metaphor when the time comes? In fact, I believe their 123


employment of metaphor in later life is likely to be more effective than that of the average, well educated person. Indeed, our graduates even know how to be sloppy on purpose. Investor: Let’s get back to the teachers. Do others approve their lesson plans or can they operate on their own? Director: The teachers submit their lesson plans for approval three weeks in advance. The teachers of the tens approve the lesson plans of both the ones and threes. Investor: Who approves the lesson plans of the tens? Director: Their lesson plans require no approval. Investor: I know the effect of that, but what is the reason for it? Developer: Maybe the reason is we want to bring about that effect. Investor: Yes, but why do we want that effect? There is a reason behind every effect, and an idea behind every reason. Developer: Is there? What is the effect of no approval for the lesson plans of the tens? Investor: The authority and prestige of the top caste increases. Developer: You cannot guess the reason for bringing that about? Investor: Well, the generic reason is that we want to do something interesting. Developer: And what is the idea behind that reason? Investor: I suppose it’s the idea of the interesting itself, Developer. Developer: Which is that the interesting is good. But do we really have to get into the idea of the good? Investor: No, another time seems more appropriate for that. Director: Is it enough for us to know that the interesting is unsame? Developer: That is good enough for me. Director: So the interesting, the unsame, becomes our effect, reason, and idea. But there is more to the effect of the approval of the lesson plans by the tens, my friends. This practice helps our ones and threes in their struggle against the authority and prestige of the upper caste. Developer: How? Director: All of our teachers, across all three castes, if we hire the right ones, know that the power of the tens must be challenged. As the teachers of the tens review the lesson plans of the teachers from the other castes, they, knowing the tens very well, can make suggestions on ways to better arm the kids from the others castes for the fight. Developer: They are traitors to the caste they serve?

124

The Community

Director: No. It’s in the interest of the tens to be challenged. They need to know their true strength. But there is one other effect. Over time, the freedom from approval that the teachers of the tens enjoy encourages eccentric teachings.

Q uirky T ens Investor: That seems interesting. What do you think it leads to? Director: Some of the tens develop quirks. Or perhaps it is better to say they develop their quirks. The ones and threes do not know what to make of them, how to deal with them. This counters the advantage the other castes have against the tens from the teachers of the tens feeding their teachers information. Developer: Do these quirks present social challenges? Director: You mean like mental illness? Developer: For example, yes. Director: Well, we have medical staff in the citadel who understand the context of the quirks and may be able to help. But really, Developer, do you think teachers can induce mental illness? Investor: What becomes of the quirky tens, regardless if they are ill or not? Director: We make them the captains of their teams. Developer: What? Director: In an environment set against sameness, quirks appear as divine gifts. The teachers of the tens choose the captains, not the coaches or teammates, and they do so for the threes and ones as well, all the while looking for the quality of unsameness. Developer: What follows from this? Director: In the worst case, it encourages a magical or occult way of thinking in which the strange or weird possesses power. In the best case, teammates are encouraged to cultivate their own eccentricities and respect those of others, which indirectly fights the idea of strength in numbers.

G uardian

of

E ducation

Investor: What if the teachers do not pick eccentric captains? What if they pick normal students? Director: Someone reviews to ensure they don’t. Investor: Is the reviewer an eccentric himself? Director: It takes no eccentric to recognize one and value him. The review is performed by the guardian of education, an incredibly wealthy man we recruit specifically for the job, which is, of course, unpaid. He lives in the largest and most unique house in the citadel, one built specially for him. It’s surrounded by trees and

125


water, but has no wall. Once a year all of the youths chosen captain, across all of the sports, and across all ages, are invited to a grand banquet at his mansion. Investor: How does he get to know the youths well enough before they are chosen to know if they are truly eccentric? Director: He has full and free access to all of the classrooms at all times, whenever he feels the need to see the students and what is going on with them. Investor: Does he have input into the curriculum and lesson plans? Director: No, he is pure in this respect, so that he can focus on the qualities of the students, and not the means to encourage their development. He is there to be the fresh eye. Developer: What other responsibilities does this man have? Director: Each year he chooses three teachers, one from each caste, for either being eccentric or encouraging eccentricity, and honors them with a single lilac branch. The four of them walk the streets of the community together on a Friday morning in spring, holding these branches. Developer: Why not on a Saturday or Sunday morning, when people are free to watch this procession? Director: It’s meant to be a relatively low profile honor. Adults who usually stay at home, and those who make a point of staying home, see this parade of sorts, as do many of those who work in the town infrastructure. Developer: What do they do after the parade? Director: The teachers go home and place their branches in a vase with water and then meet for a simple meal at the home of the guardian. Developer: And what is the effect of all of this? Director: Youths wonder at the choice of the teachers. There is some envy among the staff at the school. The status of the guardian increases. The staff on the streets admire the teachers, and an important moment of understanding passes between them. Developer: Why do they admire the teachers? Director: Many of them know what it means to be eccentric, or to encourage eccentricity, how difficult this is. They are pleased that teachers are honored for, in effect, discouraging the formation of packs among the students. There is nothing eccentric about a pack. Developer: How do they know the guardian truly picks eccentric teachers for the lilac honor? Director: Our city is small enough that if people don’t know each other they at least know of each other. Moreover, the staff is more or less aware of which youths the guardian approves for the role of captain. So they have some reason to believe the teachers are of a similar quality, or at least encourage such quality. 126

The Community

P ack A nimals Developer: We are talking about one special staff. How do we ensure that it is indeed special? Director: The three teachers of the lilac interview all candidates, after the appropriate members of staff management have approved them. If the three cannot decide unanimously that the person is not a pack animal, that person cannot be hired. This goes for all infrastructure roles, especially medical and security. But you know what all of this presupposes, right? Developer: Pack animals cannot buy property in our city. How do we manage that? Director: You two, and I if you like, interview the initial wave of purchasers. I think we have to keep the bank out of this because to it money is money no matter its source, unless I’m wrong about the sort of bank this is. Developer: How do we convince it to let us turn away potential buyers? Director: We explain that we are selling a community, and that in order to have a community to sell we must build the character of the community, and this means being selective. We emphasize that this is not a selling point, but the selling point. Finally, we show how this sort of character is worth an immense premium. Developer: For this it helps to have letters of intent from potential buyers. But how do we get to potential buyers? Director: Well, our ad for teachers intrigues and possibly attracts the people we want. From there, word of mouth is effective. The ultra rich are rarefied, after all. But if that is not enough, we seek out each potential buyer individually. There is no general marketing campaign for an enterprise like this. Investor: So let’s suppose we bring on the initial wave of owners. What happens when they want to sell? Director: We cannot allow the property to be freely alienable. The community has to decide who can buy, who can become a citizen. We need a screening board. Investor: Who is on it? Director: We can draw lots for seven people across all three castes and require their unanimous vote to let someone in. They try to sniff out pack animals. Seven noses is probably enough to pick up on the scent. Or it can just be three of us.

S ocial Developer: In choosing non-pack animals for citizens, how can we be sure we are not creating a community of socially inept individuals and thus a community that is bound to fail? Director: I’m not sure we can. But I agree that our community requires citizens to develop basic social skills if they have not already done so on the outside. 127


Investor: Only the citizens? What about staff? What about the most influential of the staff, the teachers? Director: They need basic social skills, too. Developer: How do they use these skills? Does a teacher of tens socialize with teachers of the other castes? Director: Why, Developer, this is no totalitarian republic. They socialize as they like. Developer: But what if in socializing they coordinate their efforts across the castes? Director: You mean they play the puppet masters against the grain of our community? I suppose that is possible. What follows from that? Developer: Some of the students figure it out and do not trust them anymore. Director: And the effect of that? Developer: Some of them go underground. Investor: Then they learn, of necessity, skills they can gain no other way. Director: Is it different if teachers and parents socialize? Investor: I think we have the same problem in a different form. Developer: How many teachers on the outside socialize with parents? My sense is that it’s not that many. So let’s require our parents to invite teachers into their homes for dinner, each teacher for each child once during the school year. If that is too much because of having many children or a schedule that does not allow, it’s okay to double up, but no more than that. Investor: Are the students present? Developer: No, let’s let them wonder what is being discussed and let the adults feel more free to speak. Maybe on that night the students have dinner with the guardian of education. So the parents wonder in turn what is being discussed at that dinner. Director: What do the teachers get from socializing with the parents? Developer: If they don’t gain insight into the students, they at least get some background, some context. But let’s not forget that it can simply be nice for the parents and teachers to socialize. And maybe it makes the community more of a community. Director: What about the rest of the staff? Do they dine with the owners? Developer: It’s impossible, of course, for every household to dine with every staff member throughout the course of a year. So let’s say that each staffer dines once a month at someone’s home, and that we arrange all of this by lot. Director: It occurs to me that this practice, aside from being nice, allows the owners to sniff out any issues with the staff, and the other way around. Investor: What is the process if it seems there is trouble with a member of the staff? 128

The Community

Director: If an owner senses an issue, he writes it up and sends it to the school principal. If the principal receives two such complaints he calls one set of the twelve monitors together, explains the situation, and asks them to conduct an investigation. This gives the monitors some real world authority. If they come back with troubling news, then the principal goes to the three lilac branch teachers, who summon the staff member in question and conduct an interview. But this is done over coffee, at a café, and not across a table in a conference room or a desk in an office. This allows other patrons to note any high handedness on the part of the teachers. Investor: What is the process for high handedness? Director: Anyone noting this goes to the screening board, those who determine whether a prospective buyer may purchase, which may still be us. If there are two complaints of arrogance on separate occasions the board members check around to see if anything seems bad about the teachers of the lilac. If they find sufficient evidence to this effect, do you know where this matter goes? To the three caste presidents in the school. They serve as judges and conduct a trial for all three teachers at once. If one is guilty, all are guilty. Each of them is responsible for the conduct of the group. During the course of the year, if one of them feels a group behavior issue cannot be worked out among themselves, he can go to the guardian of education, who conducts his own review of the situation and decides whether to strip a branch from someone and appoint a new teacher. So there is no excuse for letting things get to the point of a trial. Investor: What is the penalty? Director: Termination of employment for all three, with no appeal. Developer: Let’s get back to the accused staff member. What happens after his interview with the teachers is over? Director: If they believe that he is doing nothing wrong, the matter ends there. The teachers write up their finding in a single page and give it to the principal. He distributes the finding to the monitors and the complainants. But if the teachers believe he is indeed doing something wrong, they have two options. First, they may issue a formal warning. After that, the man is automatically terminated if he is ever found to be doing wrong once again. Second, the teachers may terminate him immediately, at their discretion. There is no appeal.

R eview Investor: What is the regular, annual review process for all teachers? Director: There are three facets to this. First, they are reviewed based upon the scores of their students on the mandatory outside state tests. The score of a teacher here is the average of the scores of his students. Second, the parents who dine with them submit one page summaries of their sense of the teacher along with a number grade. Third, two students chosen by lot, one from each caste in 129


which the teacher does not teach, sit in on classes for one day. After school the two produce a one page summary of how they think the teacher performed and render a number grade. The average of the scores from the three facets, all of which are out of one hundred, is the final review number for the teacher. If a teacher scores less than fifty he is fired immediately, with no possibility of appeal or future return. Investor: That process puts a lot of power in the hands of two random students. Director: Yes, but even if they give the teacher a horrible score, let’s say a thirty, the teacher can still get as low a score as sixty on the outside state tests and another sixty on his parent reviews and still have a final review number of fifty. Investor: But if there is a bad teacher who manages to keep his state test average at eighty, he has to get an average of thirty-three or lower on the other two scores to lose his job. Developer: Do you think it hard for students or parents to go that low or lower for someone they really do not like? But I want to know what comes of this review, besides termination. Do we reward the higher scores? Director: No, I think it’s just a useful feedback mechanism. We keep everyone’s compensation fixed, as discussed. Investor: Who gets to know the final review number for a teacher? Director: Everyone in town. We post it online. Investor: Who gets to read the one page write-ups? Director: Who do you think? Investor: Not everyone, just the principal and teachers. People must not be afraid to write what they really think because the whole town sees it. Developer: Why the fellow teachers? Investor: Suppose teachers have a low opinion of one of their own. If this fellow scores highly on his review, the other teachers may want to read the write-ups to know what the parents see in him that they do not. It holds the other way, too. A teacher they think highly of may receive many negative comments. I think they need to know about these things so the school can adjust to the parents. Would either of you care for another glass of wine?

M ovies Director: Thank you. Can we turn to different legislation now? Developer: What laws do you want to create? Director: Let’s shape the community’s entertainment options. Of course, owners can always leave the citadel for entertainment. But convenience argues against that. What else does?

130

The Community

Developer: We can make them pay an upfront fee for a year’s worth of inside entertainment, a fee they cannot opt out of, so it’s free, as they say, each time. They feel good about getting their money’s worth. So if what we offer is only even decent, I think many people attend. Director: I think we need an inside movie theater. Developer: Yes, but let’s not be limited by what is available on film. We want a place in which we can play whatever we want, in whatever medium. Investor: So who picks the movies? Director: Let’s have the threes choose. This can be seen as a compromise between the tens and ones. Investor: How do the threes choose? Director: Through an office of recreation that has a council and officer that come from the threes. The officer has a seventeen month term, to break up the annual rhythm that people are so used to. Choosing movies is only one of the office’s responsibilities. Let’s talk about that first then get to the rest. The officer works with the council to draw up movie packages for a vote. Each package covers three weeks of movies. There are seven packages to choose from for each three week period. But when it comes to the vote the power shifts. Only the tens vote on the packages. The threes draw them up and the tens choose. Investor: What about the ones? Lacking a say, do many of them not go outside the gate when they want to see a movie? Developer: You mean they go to another place where they have no say? Investor: Spite may drive them to it. Director: Is it not healthy for some of the citizens to leave the city for entertainment from time to time? Investor: If the citizens are cloistered, yes. But can we prevent the ones from resenting their contribution to the entertainment budget each year? Director: They get other value for their money that we have yet to discuss. Investor: Well, what guidelines are there, if any, in the choice of movies? Developer: Maybe there is a list of approved movies they can select from. Investor: Why do we want a list? Who makes it? Do people really want their choices circumscribed? Developer: We can use the list to ensure things do not get stale, that movie choices don’t fall into a rut. Investor: Well, if we really want to keep it interesting let’s have someone outside the threes add four movies to each of the packages to be voted on. Director: So who picks what amounts to one and a third movies per week?

131


Developer: The chairman of the bank. We can give him a lifetime of free access to every film and allow him to bring a guest. Investor: And what if he is a pack animal? Developer: Then he is likely to pick movies our citizens are not, stirring things up. But don’t worry, friend. Management has control of what days and time slots the movies play on and in.

R ecreation Director: Given the convenience, if the theater is very attractive physically and has excellent amenities, do you think we have what amounts to a nearly captive audience? Developer: Yes, I think we do. Let’s serve food and drinks and have several lounges. Let’s make it grand and show them what they are getting for their money. Investor: What else do they get from the office off recreation besides movies, Director? Director: A firewall that separates the community from the rest of the internet. Investor: As part of recreation? Director: Yes. Investor: Do we censor what comes in? Director: Possibly. The office of recreation has to decide if it wants to put that up for a vote. But perhaps of greater concern is what goes out. Do citizens want details of town life widely known? Do they filter them out for privacy, security, or some other reason? Investor: What do they want to protect? Director: Well, anything really — citizen names, who holds what office, how many people attended the last council meeting, how many lots are for sale, films now playing, school reading lists, pictures of anything from within. Investor: But they can just get on the phone and tell people, or meet with them outside and inform them. Besides, do you know how hard it would be to filter for all of those things with a firewall, or anything else for that matter? Director: Oh, yes. It seems all but impossible to keep information from getting out. Perhaps the citizens already know this and vote to keep outbound communication open. Either way, it’s up to them. Investor: Why not have the information technology head manage this firewall, or even the head of security? Why the recreation officer? Director: It helps ensure that the security and information technology teams do not have too much power or influence, and it introduces technology limitations, concerns, and possibilities to those who might otherwise know nothing about them. Developer: What else is the office of recreation in charge of? 132

The Community

Director: Guests. Developer: Why is that under the heading of recreation? Director: It seems friendlier than having it under security, no? Developer: But security must be involved. Director: Of course. But it operates under instructions from the officer of recreation. And the policy is up to a vote of citizens. They may challenge the notion that people are absolutely free to bring whomever they want into the community whenever they want. They may say that every outsider who comes into the community is everybody’s concern, at least to some small degree, and not just the concern of the host. People with the best intentions can unwittingly let in undesirables. Our citizens know they belong to something very special. They do not want anything to jeopardize its quality. I think they consider the regulation of guests to be a protection of their investment.

G uests Investor: Do the citizens keep pack animals from being guests? Director: I don’t know. Perhaps they do, and perhaps they want to keep out the herd animals, too. But before the council draws things up to put to a vote, nothing stops an advisor from coming in and making a few recommendations. Developer: And what does this advisor recommend? Background checks on all potential guests as well as interviews to determine what sort of creature they are? Investor: That requires an unacceptable amount of lead time. We need to allow for spontaneity. Director: Let’s recommend to the council that we forego background checks. This way the process is less intimidating to guests, less burdensome on security, and more agreeable to spontaneity. Instead, we propose a rotating shift of citizens at the gate. Every guest simply steps into the guardhouse for a quick chat with one of them. Investor: Alone or with his host? Director: Well, if the host is not with the guest the citizen may feel more free to question, in a friendly way of course. Investor: Do we keep some sort of log? Director: I recommend we do not. This gives the citizens and guests a better sense of privacy, which is needed in a community like this. Investor: Is there a limit to how long a guest can stay? Director: No, and there are no special times of entry and exit. As long as we are fairly confident that the guests are alright, the rest is up to the individual citizens. Investor: But then someone, say the guardian of education, could bring people in to live in his house and no one would know how many or for how long. 133


Director: Does it bother you if anyone does this, or is it the guardian in particular that does? Investor: The man already has mystique enough. People wondering who he has up in his mansion only makes it worse. Surely you agree. Philosophy and mystique have nothing to do with one another. Director: Yes, philosophy is the sworn enemy of mystique. But mystique attaches itself to philosophy at times, and philosophy is not above making use of mystique to serve its purpose. And so it is ironic, or so it seems to me. But what is the effect of the guardian having untold guests? Developer: I am not sure of the effect, but it is possible he has remarkable guests, perhaps the outside governor, for instance. And he might invite select citizens to come and dine with him, to meet these remarkable guests. Investor: Yes, but if someone famous comes in, the person who interviews him at the gate almost certainly spreads the word. Director: Do we swear the interviewer to silence, under some sort of penalty? Developer: Yes, but what penalty? Director: Let’s advise the council to hit him where it hurts — no access to the town theater for a year. Investor: But how do we even know who talked when we have no log to show the time the person entered? Developer: Witnesses, if they come forward. Director: Alright. But let’s look at what I think is the more typical case — guests who are not concealed. Where can they go within the citadel? Do they have unlimited access? Investor: I think they do. This counters the town’s mystique. And there is much mystique to counter. Anything that excludes generates mystique. Wealth, ownership, in and of itself, is emphatically exclusive. Developer: Mystique sells. People want it. Investor: But is that the sort of citizen we want, someone looking for more than the inevitable mystique? We know ways to fight outside mystique, even if we can never eradicate it. But inside mystique is insidious. Director: So what about the guardian and his guests? Is his mystique any different than the mystique any citizen might have for secreting guests in his home? Investor: No, but it is a question of degree. Director: Do we authorize searches of his dwelling? Investor: Of course not. Developer: And that is the dilemma. Unless we demolish privacy itself, mystique exists in the minds of those who choose to read it into things. 134

The Community

A thletics Investor: No one is saying we go that far. But let’s circle back around for a moment. We never answered the question as to how the ones are compensated for having no say in the choice of movies. They only get the firewall and the guest process. That hardly seems to be enough. What else is there? Developer: Surely there is some sort of physical recreation. Director: Yes, there is. The recreation office is responsible for all town athletic facilities, including those of the school. There are many details to work out, but here is the important part. For the allotment of equipment, development of new fields, and so on, the council prepares the items for a vote, but it is the ones, and only the ones, who do indeed vote. Investor: What makes the threes and tens stand for such a process? Director: They can always go around it by raising their own money for what they want. But the underlying rule for athletics is that the funds must be allocated proportionately across the three classes based on population, not weight. So the tens and threes never get nothing. In fact, they can often get what they want. The castes are allowed to bargain, to trade. Perhaps the tens agree to vote on the movies according to the desire of the ones, for instance, in exchange for some equipment. The ones may derive some satisfaction from that. And there are many other things to trade, my friends. Developer: But, as you say, they can always use their own money — and the fundamental shareholders are happy to sell them what they want. Investor: Do the castes ever share things pertaining to athletics? Director: They share one thing. The question as to what this thing is goes to a general, weighted vote of the owners. There are three basic choices — a field, an enclosed space, or gear. Whatever they choose inevitably becomes the focus of class competition. This spurs people on to excel, to train harder and with zest. Investor: Yes. But there is always some bitterness with the losers and some haughtiness among the winners. Developer: There is not much we can do about that. Investor: But are the ones not consistently better due to their larger pool of talent? Director: That seems likely, and means that the threes and tens likely want to play some sports that the ones cannot afford. The fundamental shareholders can sell them what they need.

L and

and

S pace

Investor: So let’s talk about the land and space for these sports, or whatever else anyone wants to develop. Do we really want to launch the community with lots of vacant space?

135


Developer: I think we need to have nature areas — grass, trees, what have you. They are preserves, for a time, and serve as our reserve. We need an office of land and space, to be run like a typical community office. If a class wants to use some of the land, they go through this office and attempt to persuade their neighbors to approve their request. If they win, they buy the land from us and engage us to do the job. Director: What if the weighted majority wants to condemn someone’s home in order to put a facility there? Developer: I suppose we have a process for eminent domain like anywhere else. Director: We may exercise it quite a bit more than anywhere else because of the limited nature of space within the walls. Things could get interesting. Besides athletic facilities, owners might want to increase the number of stores, and so on. I would not be surprised if some of the them want to have their business offices inside the gate. Developer: Well, all of that challenges any idea the owners have about an absolute right to property. Investor: But do we want to set up a situation where a pack of owners can force people out of town? Developer: We can make sure that those who are forced out receive generous compensation. Investor: But what about the pack mentality, the safety in numbers? Developer: That is indeed hard to fight. But perhaps out of those who vote to condemn a property we choose one name randomly. We condemn the property of that person, too, and either find some use for it or set it aside for future use. We might even seize his property without any compensation. I suspect there are many who like this, the circus atmosphere it creates. Perhaps they cannot resist and begin to propose projects for the sake of the spectacle. Investor: So we fight a sameness with vice? I cannot even tell if you are serious. Developer: Just think, my friend. The pack now feels no safety in numbers, other than that which comes from long odds. Investor: But that is exactly what safety in numbers is.

T he P ack Director: Let’s shorten the odds, give them fewer numbers to hide behind. Investor: What do you recommend we do, seize fifty homes from yes-voters after every condemnation? Director: Why not make everyone who votes yes to a condemnation pay a percentage of the compensation to the owner, along with a condemnation penalty fee that goes to the fundamental shareholders. They pay for being part of the majority. 136

The Community

Developer: We can extend the principle to other votes, all other votes. Each time someone votes yes on something his annual community tax goes up a certain fraction of a percentage. Investor: How do we explain that to the owners? Director: Why not tell them what we are saying here — that we are wary of the pack mentality and are implementing measures to counter it? If we recruit the right sort of citizens then we know they understand. But why limit ourselves to taxing yes votes? Do no votes not have not have equal pack potential? Developer: Yes. So anytime someone is on the winning side he pays a victory tax. Director: Perhaps the fundamentals want to reinvest this extra tax money into the community infrastructure instead of taking it as profit. You have to invest in the infrastructure anyway, so why not tell the citizens their tax is all coming back to them? People seem to like that sort of thing much better, even though it makes no real financial difference, unless there is some tax advantage one way or the other. Investor: I am not sure this victory tax is a good idea. I prefer limiting the tax to yes votes. Voting yes on a proposal means you want to change something. Voting no means you want to leave things as they are. I know this is not always true. Sometimes things are changing and a yes vote puts an end to the change. But in general a tax on the victorious yes means less risk of endless, disruptive change. Director: So you think the city is in need of more conservative measures. Investor: In a new city as different as ours a long period of stability is required for the foundation to set.

C onstitutions Director: What is our foundation? Do we have a constitution of the community or something like that? Developer: We have the property transfer contracts to which we can attach whatever riders and appendices we like. Director: We can have different constitutions for different owners, and not only based on caste? Developer: Yes, we can sell certain rights. For instance, some of the owners might negotiate with us that their property is untouchable by eminent domain. Director: What other foundational matters need to be in these contracts? Developer: The fundamental shareholder’s monopoly on the infrastructure and its operations. Investor: We must put in a section that assures the owners that we cannot charge them excessively for these things. 137


Director: What else needs to be in the constitutions? Developer: The class structure, both the number and types of classes, and the population ratio and voting weight. Investor: And the taxes and fees and the methods for assessing and increasing them. Developer: And the basic educational structure, including the guardian of education. Director: Are those all of the basics, the things that cannot change? We can always add more if we think of them. Now what about things that can change, but that we do not want to change very easily, things changed by the general vote? Investor: What do you mean? Director: I mean that we require super-majorities for certain things, constitutionally. For instance, we may want it to be hard to change the names of buildings, streets, and parks. Developer: What about things like basic security policies and procedures? We do not want them to change very easily. Do we put them in the constitutions? Director: You want to make those hard to change? Frequent changes in security can make the community more secure by keeping troublemakers off balance. They also make the jobs of the security team more interesting, no? Developer: Well, if they do change easily the fundamentals make the changes, not the people. The constitutions must articulate who changes what and how. We need to work all of this out in some detail. Investor: Yes. But what sorts of things do you see varying in the individual constitutions, Director? Director: What sorts of things do you think people want and are willing to pay a high premium for? Developer: I think they want certain rights for their kids. For instance, maybe their offspring can use the athletic facilities of any class. Or maybe the curfew does not apply to them all the time. Or maybe the child of a one can attend school with the threes or tens. Director: Do you think we have to limit the amount of exceptions we sell? Developer: Certainly. Let’s say no more than three percent of the population can buy them. Director: And let’s say the tens can buy the right for their children to attend school with the threes or ones. They pay the highest premium of all for this privilege. Investor: What do you think makes the parents of tens want to school their children in another caste? Director: Some of the very rich, and especially the self-made, think their kids need to start from the ground up, and see being with a lower caste as a way to do that.

138

The Community

Investor: But how do we look out for these kids and make sure the change between castes is not too hard on them? Director: The teachers are aware of the situation and can provide advice or encouragement, if that seems helpful.

O utside

the

G ate

Developer: There is much more we can say about the constitutions, the foundation. But we must also think about a second foundation. You see, we intend to buy up great amounts of the property outside and adjacent to the citadel. Director: For what? Developer: Property rental. Think of all the parents who want their grown children to live near them. Perhaps it’s too expensive for them inside town. Perhaps nothing is for sale. We give them an alternative. Director: How do we provide security to those not protected by the wall? Are our reconnaissance patrols enough? Developer: Renters pay an annual security fee which gets them full coverage on a level comparable to the inside. Director: Do these people belong to castes? Developer: No, nor do they have any weight in the general vote. Director: But can the general vote bind them? Developer: No, they have their own government. Director: This is interesting. Are you hoping for a creative tension between the thinking of the inside owners and the outside renters? That can help fight sameness. What sort of access do the renters have through the gate? Are they treated like citizens or guests? Developer: Something in-between. They have access to all public places — the stores, the movie theater, the restaurants. But there are two exceptions. They are not allowed in or near the school. Nor are they allowed in or on any of the athletic facilities. Director: Is it just people coming from the inside who can rent the property outside the wall? Investor: Yes. This is organic growth. Director: I take it that it’s more than just grown children. Investor: Anyone from within can rent. Developer: Some rent simply because they want to have a different style home. Director: Because all the homes on the inside are of a standard style, by caste. Developer: Yes. Though for a large premium we allow a few minor variations. 139


Director: May I make a suggestion? Do not allow artists to have any lofts or studios within the city. All artistic production, outside the school or the privacy of one’s own home, is outside the gate. It does not matter if it is pottery. Keep it outside. No doubt very simple facilities can bring in high rent. Investor: Do we really encourage artistic freedom by keeping the artists away from the heart of the city? Director: If an artist wants to capture the heart of the city perhaps it’s easiest for him to lay a trap for it from the outside. Investor: Do you worry about sending a message that art is not important enough to include within the walls? Director: Do I worry? No. I am sure that our artists can create some relatively important works. And this art has its place in town. But is there not a sameness today that artists, in and of themselves, are somehow important? Developer: I think being outside the wall encourages creativity, lets the artists see their city from a new perspective. Investor: Alright. But let’s institute annual fairs for their works, with awards for the best of each sort, without too much honor to the artists themselves. Developer: And let’s encourage them to set up shops in which to sell their goods, to both insiders and complete outsiders. I bet there is much demand for these products. Insiders want to know what the renters are doing and can take pride in their success. Outsiders, intrigued by the city’s mystique, want to know as much about it as they can and figure the art is a good place to start.

T he S econd W all Director: What happens if the crime and violence from the further outside spill over into our adjacent territory? Do we just keep on increasing security? Developer: We can, but we have to raise their security fee if we do. Director: What if this heightened security is not enough to make the renters feel safe? Can we build a second wall, a ring surrounding the territory, and extend our reconnaissance patrols accordingly? Developer: The cost to do that is huge, much more than that for the original wall, given the perimeter to be enclosed, and assuming the quality is the same. Who pays? Director: Both the renters and the citizens. Citizens contribute because this wall puts another buffer between them and the nastiness outside. Renters pay for obvious reasons. Developer: It is difficult to get the county and state to agree to something like this. Director: Does it help if we offer free support to their police from our security working on the outside of the second wall? The forces can coordinate efforts. Developer: Perhaps. 140

The Community

Investor: Would you care for another glass? Developer: Thank you, yes. Tell me, Director, what does this second wall do to the merchants operating outside the first wall? How do they sell their art, and music, and so on? Director: I think they sell even more of it once that wall goes up. How do you think outsiders feel about having to pass a security checkpoint at the second wall to get inside and buy things they cannot get anywhere else? Developer: I think they feel inconvenienced. Investor: No, friend. I suppose they feel that there is something special inside. That, and I think they feel drawn by the mystique of the inner wall and what they imagine lies behind it. Director: How do you think we can fight this mystique, Investor? Investor: Without sacrificing privacy, security, and exclusivity? We can send someone from the inside to the outside, an ambassador. Director: Who do you have in mind? Investor: I’m not sure. Director: Why not send more than one ambassador? Let’s send the guardian of education and the three teachers of the lilac to hold a series of talks on education with the best students from all of the schools on the outside within a seventeen mile radius. They briefly explain our educational system and then simply answer questions and converse for the remainder of the time allotted. The groups they speak with must be small. Developer: This may well create even more mystique. Suppose the students are taken by what they hear. They talk about these things with anyone who listens. Can these enthusiasts, who have never actually seen what they are talking about, possibly convey the truth cleared of its aura? Mystique is nothing but ignorance about something thought to be desirable. Investor: But what about those who are not at all enthusiastic about what they hear from the guardian and teachers? What if they are disgusted and spread that word instead? Developer: When they share this disgust they are likely to be passionate. People, who are always amazed by passion, assume it’s out of envy. They marvel at what creates such envy. And so grows the mystique. Investor: Then you think there is there nothing we can do to fight the outside mystique? Developer: Even if we throw the gate to the city open wide to all, we are likely to find many people trying to understand what on earth we are doing, why we are doing this. When we tell them we are simply hoping to dispel mystique, they never believe us. So there is mystery, mystique resulting from the desire to eliminate mystique. 141


Director: It seems that once created mystique takes on a life of its own. Investor: Probably best not to create it then. Developer: You prefer not to build the city? Investor: No, I want to found it. But why does philosophy bother to fight mystique if it’s as inevitable as it seems? Director: Because not everyone wants to read it into things.

T hird W all Developer: Since it seems there is nothing to be done about mystique, except in a limited fashion by the odd philosopher here and there, why not build a third wall when the time is right and make even more money? Director: Can you acquire enough land for this? Developer: There is always a way when there is a strong enough will-to-profit. Director: Then I suppose the same holds for the enormous cost of this new wall. What is inside this third ring? Developer: For one, a less expensive school for outsiders. It does not have all the features of our inside school. And most importantly it does not have our youths. So this school does not cheapen the inside experience. But this school is different enough from the outside schools, and similar enough to ours, to make parents want to send their children there. I think the biggest selling point is that each outsider student is assigned a mentor from the inside. Since all insiders, even those of the lowest caste, are wonderfully rich by even high outside standards, there are not a few parents who want their children to make this connection. And they have a different connection for each half of each of the years they are in attendance, so lots of connections. Investor: Why do insiders want to mentor? Developer: They get a credit for their taxes and fees in doing so. Investor: Is that enough? Developer: If not, we need to turn it into an honor. Let’s allow all elected public officials within the seventeen mile radius to send their children to this school for free, on the condition that they attend a day of activities with all of the inside mentors each semester, culminating in a banquet of recognition. Investor: That is the honor for the mentors? Developer: Yes. But there is another benefit beyond the honor. Think of what all of these political friends can do for a mentor, and by extension the city. Investor: Yes, but many of our citizens let their lawyers and agents meet with such friends. They stay above that sort of thing. Developer: Well, I’m certain the outside officials want to get know our residents, even if only to pick up some of their mystique. But getting back to the mentors, 142

The Community

there is one last thing to persuade them to take on the role. Each of them receives a small silver key, the key to the city. For as they work with their mentees they open the metaphorical gate and show them all that is inside, or as much as they think fit to share. Director: That sounds fine, Developer. What else is inside this third ring? It encloses much more land than the school requires. Developer: What do you think we can do with it that maximizes profit? Director: Are we trying to get more money from the inside or from the outside? Developer: Let’s get it from the outside again. Director: Then let’s create athletic fields and facilities where our kids play outsider kids in a whole variety of sports, school and otherwise. We can make these the best possible so that when kids come here to play they get the feeling that it is something special, even though they are aware of the fact that they are only being let in to the third circle. So there is more mystique. The parents feel it, too, and this helps drive up demand for those articles of clothing which are conveniently available for purchase both before, during, and after the games. Investor: What else can parents do while they are here other than shop? Director: They mingle with insider parents. We can build a hall and every time there is a game or contest we invite all outsider parents to a cocktail party and dinner with the insider parents. We assign seats randomly so there is a nice mix. Investor: What do the kids do during this? Director: They are in a separate section of the hall where they eat and are entertained. Investor: What is the benefit of all this? And why do insider parents want to attend? Director: Some are motivated by simple friendliness and the prospect of a nice meal with pleasant conversation. Investor: But what do we do if there is on average only one insider for every ten outsiders? Director: In that case we may have to require all parents to attend at least one third of their children’s home games and go to the hall afterward. We tell them that the rule is meant to be family friendly and good for relations with the outsiders, which is true. That is part of the benefit. Another part is that our kids get nice sized crowds watching them since the cocktails and dinners are likely to attract many more outsider parents than otherwise. This can help to build a sense of pride which encourages them to train harder. They can also take pride in being good hosts to their rivals. This encourages sportsmanship. There are many benefits. Developer: Are some of those benefits financial, other than selling garments and such to the parents?

143


Director: Yes. All outsiders who attend a competition receive a business card with a phone number to call to arrange to come in and see about purchasing a home within the third ring. Investor: Do we screen for pack animals out here, too? Director: Yes, we are still every bit as selective. We are simply giving non-pack animals of lesser means an opportunity to join our community while making lots of money on the property they buy. Developer: Do you have to have one of these business cards in order to qualify for purchase? Director: Yes. No exceptions. But friends can pass them on to friends.

R ecords Investor: How are we going to track all of this activity? I’m not just talking about who attends what games. I mean all activity in the community. I take it we do not do it the way any other town might. Developer: Agreed. This is not just any other town. Investor: What do you recommend, Director? Director: The sameness on the outside is to document certain things. I say we fight that. Investor: We have county and state requirements to meet. Director: Maybe the bank can lobby for some exceptions once again. Investor: Maybe. But how do we fight if not? Director: We simply document as little as possible for these things, the bare minimum, and sometimes less. We make these documents difficult to access. Unless required, we keep no computerized records. If we have to, we make them difficult to understand. Developer: We can also break the records up. Everything pertaining to tens, for instance, is stored in one format at a certain physical location. The other groups have different formats and different locations. The same holds for the records of every office. We can even take it further and use inscrutable handwriting when possible. And if the penalty for not following the rules is merely a fine, let’s just budget for that and break them as often as we can. Director: Excellent. We rely on oral records whenever possible. Developer: Outside authorities cannot get an overall picture of our community affairs without much effort. This means the privacy of our citizens is enhanced. Investor: And it means the mystique of the city increases. Director: Well, on the other hand, for insiders, the records we do keep are easy to call up, records those on the outside typically do not have access to. For instance, any citizen can retrieve all of the grades of any student in our school. 144

The Community

Investor: What about medical records? Director: We can make them open to the citizens of one’s own caste. People can go to outside doctors if they don’t like that. But then they do not have access to these records. Developer: What benefit is there to sharing that information? Director: Aside from receiving interesting information about one’s peers in turn? Do you not believe that knowing what fellow citizens are going through can foster understanding and thus greater harmony? Developer: Do you not believe that can foster unwanted pity or abuse? Besides, not everyone wants to be part of some greater harmony. Investor: Let’s at least bring it up in council and see if there is any interest in openness here. Director: How do we best argue in favor of it? Investor: We tell the council that openness and honesty about the body comes as a relief. How much of life is spent in concealing the body’s truth? Developer: Are we getting rid of clothing, too? Investor: Of course not. But the truth about the body is such an elemental thing that even a small change here affects all aspects of life in the city, makes that life more open and honest. Developer: And people really want that much openness and honesty? Investor: We have special people in this community, Developer. We might be surprised by how much they want. But even if no one wants open medical records, who knows what thought the debate over this stimulates and with what results? Director: What is really in these medical records, anyway? I think we need to make this clear to the citizens before they vote on the matter. Our doctors and nurses are emphatically not pack animals. We screen aggressively for that. The last thing they want is for people to pounce on the weaknesses of others. I think they can find ways to record information so that no one is at risk of harassment. They can use code words and phrases. They can omit certain things, but in a way that makes clear, to those who know, what is left out. Why, we can require that they get the approval of the patient for anything that is going to be published, and work with him to craft it in a way that he can live with. Developer: They can even keep two sets of records, one public and the other secret. Investor: But what is the use of making the records public if they are not accurate and complete? Director: They are for some. And those who are not comfortable with openness and honesty at first may come around in time. Nothing like this starts out working perfectly, my friend.

145


A rrogance Investor: So the accuracy and completeness of our records, even beyond the medical, is always something of a question mark. Director: Yes. Accuracy and completeness is a sameness of the outside. Investor: And that sameness is the basis of all modern science. One must have accurate data, and one must have all the relevant data. Developer: It is one thing to have it, and another to report it. Director: Everything depends on to whom one is reporting, no? Some get one presentation, others get another. Or does everyone deserve everything? Investor: Of course not. Director: Now, our medical records, if seized, do not serve modern science very well, do they? Investor: No, not in the least. Director: If the records are private, do you think it likely they serve modern science better, if seized? Investor: Yes. Director: Since we do not know who these modern scientists are and what they really want and do with the information they collect, their protestations aside, does our conscience bother us if we do not serve them very well? Investor: But we do know who they are and what they want and do. Developer: Are they like you? Do they want and do the things you want and do? Investor: But what they do serves the interest of health. Or are you saying that health is a sameness we can do without? Developer: No more than privacy. Director: Getting back to the honesty of reporting, there are two schools. One thinks you must vomit your guts out down to the bile to the person demanding information, in the interest of accuracy and completeness, concerning your guts. The other prefers discretion, with concern for accuracy and completeness when warranted. Developer: I prefer that our citizens be of the latter view. Director: Yes. There is an arrogance, you know, that goes along with the demand for accuracy and completeness. People assume that accuracy and completeness means quality, and that quality means excellence, and that excellence means superiority. Now, who are those who serve the arrogant? Developer: The slavish. Director: Faced with an arrogant demand for information, does a discrete man have qualms about making intentional mistakes or omissions? 146

The Community

Developer: Of course not. Such a man makes an art of it, in fact. Director: Yes, and he cannot possess that art unless he knows how to be accurate and complete in the first place, or at least as accurate and complete as possible under his circumstances. Investor: You know, there are many who are arrogant who care nothing at all about accuracy and completeness. I suppose we must deal with them in a similar fashion. Director: What do they demand of us? Investor: Respect. Developer: But to the ones demanding information, our giving all of it to them is actually a mark of respect that they demand for themselves and their cause, more than anything else. It’s different, of course, if someone we know and trust asks us simply, politely. He knows that we can decide to give it to him or not, and that if he tries to force us what he gets is likely no good. Why do the arrogant not see this? Investor: Blindness is always part of arrogance. Director: Investor, who did you have in mind when talking about the arrogant who do not care so much about accuracy and completeness? Investor: People we may find in our community, I fear. People for whom sumptuary laws are made. Director: Laws like that only push arrogance into something else. Developer: Laws like that keep people away from our shops. Investor: What if we try something a bit different to fight this manifestation of arrogance? Let’s put a luxury tax on the most expensive goods, a tax on purchases made in town by our residents. If people want to get around it they can just go outside. Perversely, the arrogant may shop in town just to flaunt how little the tax means to them. Now here is the thing. These taxes, all of them, go to the poorest school district in our seventeen mile radius. We build good will. We remind the rich about the poor. And we hope that the purchasers of the luxury goods feel more pride in how the tax is used than vanity in what they buy. Developer: I recommend one thing. Keep half of the tax money for the school district, but devote the other half to a fund for an annual ball for the top fifty citizen purchasers, with guests, so that the more they buy the grander the affair. Now they feel good, both ways, for spending their money in our boutiques.

C ommittee

of

S taff

Director: I wonder how much of whatever arrogance exists is directed toward staff. Developer: Our staff is an able and aware group. It can keep management apprised if anyone treats any of them poorly on more than one occasion. 147


Investor: What proof is there but the word of the staff? And how do we deal with the offender? Director: First, we make a rule that no customer facing staff member is ever alone, not even for security patrols. That way someone can always corroborate. Now, when a pair witnesses or experiences poor treatment they explain what happened to their manager. If the manager receives two such complaints, he sends all of the witnesses, the two, three, or four of them, to a special body of citizens formed for this purpose. Let’s call this the committee of staff. It consists of four owners who have no children, two from the tens and one from each other group. Investor: Why two from the tens? Director: To maintain the dignity of the tens and prevent the possibility of the other two castes ganging up on them out of spite. We do not want to encourage false accusations. Anyway, the committee hears the complaint from the witnesses, dismisses them, then deliberates. If they think the charge has merit, they make an appointment with the alleged offender, to be held in a public place. Investor: What happens then? Director: The committee explains the charges in detail, and that is it. The meeting is over. Investor: There is no further action? Director: No, none. Investor: Then what is the point? Is it just that touch of shame the accused feels for being called to meet with the committee in public? Director: No, it’s more than that. He gets no chance to explain himself. Developer: And why should he? It’s hard to argue against a process that includes two people accusing you on two occasions, a manager who screens the accusations, and a diverse committee that screens what the manager has screened. It’s not at all likely that there is any conspiracy against the accused here. So the accused learns what people think of the way he has been interacting with those of inferior station. He likely feels some shame. And he learns that we do not tolerate such behavior in our community. Investor: What if he keeps on doing it? Developer: Then we keep on bringing him back for a little chat until he understands. If he feels no shame, then I am sure that his fellow citizens can find other ways to make things unpleasant for him. Investor: How can we make sure that his fellow citizens find out what he has been doing?

T wo Y ouths Director: We employ two special youths to spread the word. 148

The Community

Investor: Who are these youths? Director: They are chosen at the beginning of the summer before their final year in school. The process is simple. Every member of the staff, all the way up to the highest level of management, gets one vote. There is no campaign or formal nominating process. Each person simply writes in the name of someone he knows from direct interaction, or by reputation. Developer: When these youths come around spreading the word, do you really think people are surprised about who the offenders are? Director: No, I think it is very likely they know who warrants such distinction. But they may be surprised now and then. Some people treat their peers and superiors one way and their inferiors in another. It’s not always easy to recognize that character type. Investor: So are we saying that everyone is to receive the same treatment in our city? Director: No. People are not to be treated the same. They are to be treated well. Different people require different treatment to be well treated. The character in question treats peers and superiors well, but he treats inferiors poorly. Developer: What else do these two youths do? And what are they called? Director: They are the youth of staff. We give them a small silver pin shaped into a wing. We ask them not to wear these pins until their thirtieth birthday. At that point it’s up to them if they wear them or not. During their summer they spend a full day in each of the staff stores and offices. On that day the office or store is closed for business. This creates a festive atmosphere. The staff explain their work to the youths, the good and the bad, what they think is important, what they think should change. In turn, the youths describe to them their education, from when it began all the way up until the present. This all takes however long it takes. When all the talking is done, both staff and students are at leisure. Investor: What comes of this? Director: For one, an improvement in the educational system. The highest ranking staff member on each one of these days writes up a one page recommendation for anything that should change or should emphatically remain the same within the school. The principal reviews these recommendations then distributes them to all of the teachers. That coming school year he must introduce at least three of the recommended changes, and get word back to the entire staff that he has done so. Of course, these changes cannot touch the fundamental structure of the school. They affect minor, but important, details. Developer: What do the students do after the summer, during the school year? Director: They continue to spread the word about citizens who treat staff poorly. But they mainly serve as messengers between the principal and chiefs of staff. All of this communication is verbal only. 149


Investor: How does anyone know that they accurately report what is said? They might intend to report faithfully but not understand the importance of a particular word or turn of phrase. Developer: Or they just might not remember everything. Director: They simply have to learn the importance of these things and do the best they can. Developer: Do they run messages together or separately? Director: Both. They carry messages to the principal together. But they carry messages from the principal alone. This reverses midway through the year, so both sides of the dialogue get the best of both. In effect, this means that if a single youth appears with a message, he cannot carry back a reply until his partner arrives on the scene.

C ommunications Investor: How else do we communicate in our city, other than verbally by messenger? Director: We can either push or pull information, I suppose. But we need to determine what we want everyone to know, what we want some to know, and what we want one to know. Developer: We want everyone to see the movie schedule. Director: Push or pull? Developer: Both. We also want everyone to know what is new in the shops without having to go there. Director: Pull or push? Developer: Both? Director: Does everything that relates to money coming in to the fundamental coffers need to be communicated as much and freely as possible? Investor: Not if we annoy our citizens thus. Developer: Many people like to receive catalogues. Investor: Even when they have not asked for them? Developer: Yes. They can be a pleasant surprise, depending on what is in them. Director: I take it that we push certain things to certain castes. For instance, it seems to make sense to push information on the most expensive goods in the shops only to the tens. Developer: Yes. Tens tend to like anything that separates them from the other two groups, that builds their prestige. Director: So do we go all the way and have these shops open only to tens? That communicates something, does it not? 150

The Community

Developer: Why not? We can experiment. Director: Perhaps we also have exclusive shops that communicate nothing about their goods. The only way to know about them is to go there. Investor: I think that is the direction to go. But let’s go further and ban commercial communication from our city entirely, except for face-to-face communications. And we do not allow door-to-door marketing or sales. Let’s experiment with that. Director: So much for commercial communication. What about important things that affect the entire community? Developer: Like security information? We push that. Director: Is that so there is no excuse for people who don’t know what we think they need to know? Do we really want to be on the defensive like this? Investor: Excessive concern with liability is an outside sameness. Developer: So people just pull critical information all on their own, with no prompting from us? Director: Why not? We can trust our citizens to look after their own interests, right? Developer: We are still subject to the outside law. Director: Then how about this? In the fundamental documents of the owners we provide that they surrender any right to sue because of failure on our part to push things to them, that they themselves are responsible to get the information they need. We still have the duty to provide the information, and make it very easy to access both from home and from the relevant headquarters and offices. Think of it as the ignorance-of-the-law-is-no-excuse principle, except our laws are clear.

G eneral V otes Investor: What about communications for the most important community information of all, that concerning the general votes? Developer: We can put all of the voting information online — what is being proposed, when the vote is, and so on. People can pull it. Investor: Do we post the council minutes, reports, and whatever other relevant documents there are? Director: We are keeping reports and other documents to a minimum, and keeping them very short, right? We can post what we feel we must. As for minutes, though, people who want to know what is going on in council can go to council meetings. And if our council members cannot remember what they talked about in their last meeting, then I do not think anyone has a duty to remind them. Nor do I think it matters much to have in writing what was said a year ago. The lack of documentation here can allow people to change their 151


minds more easily, without fear of having their words thrown back in their faces, no? This can encourage the evolution of opinion. Developer: What happens when it’s time to actually vote? Director: Well, do we want to make the voting process easy or hard? Developer: What do you see as the effect either way? Director: If it’s easy, say online from home, more people likely vote. But it may tend to make people take the process less seriously, perhaps making them less likely to think things through. Developer: So, assuming we want them to take it seriously, we make it harder by making citizens go somewhere to vote, somewhere inconvenient. Investor: Anywhere in town is convenient. Director: Then it seems we have to take the votes outside of town, outside of all the walls. We can make arrangements with an outside hotel and keep a function room constantly reserved for the purpose. The hotel and room are, of course, among the nicest available. Perhaps we have an open bar and buffet. We want to remind people that what they have, the community and its general vote, is something truly special, is something to celebrate. Being on the outside for the votes heightens the contrast between inside and outside, shows our citizens the samenesses they are free of, or are working to be free of. Developer: So how do we vote? Secret ballot? A show of hands? Director: A combination of the two. Everyone casts a secret ballot, on the one hand. Investor: But who counts the votes? The officer of the council that put the proposal to a vote? Can he ever stand above suspicion? What then? Do we enter the votes into a computer? But we fundamentals run the information technology team. Developer: So then we do not stand above suspicion. I can live with that. Director: There may be another way. Let’s have the officer, the manager of the hotel, and three women chosen from the threes annually by lot, if they accept the role, witness the counting. They must approve it unanimously. Investor: And if they do not? Director: They keep counting over and again until they approve, no matter how long that takes. Investor: What stops someone from disapproving endlessly, to kill a proposal, in effect? Director: The needs of the body. People get tired, and so on. Developer: What happens when the vote is approved? Director: The officer releases the results by posting them on a sheet of paper in the town square, on a pillar erected for that purpose. Investor: You said that we have a show of hands in addition to the secret ballot. 152

The Community

Director: Metaphorically, yes. We keep track of how each person votes. At the end of the counting, the officer in charge takes the record of these votes and delivers them to the secretary of the town at the town hall. The next day, anyone who wishes to know how others voted simply goes to the town hall and asks. But each person may only ask for up to seven names, and only twenty-three percent of the vote may be released, no matter how many people wish to know. The voting information is available this one day only. After that, all records of individual votes are destroyed, once any taxes have been assessed.

PART TWO O ld W ine Investor: You know, I bet the ones suspect the results based on group interests. The three women are threes. The officer is likely a ten since tens have the most money and he bought his office. The hotel manager is likely under the influence of the fundamental shareholders, since we choose the hotel and he does not want to lose the business. But the ones have no representation, except on the odd chance that the officer is a one. Developer: But if the tens and the threes vote together there is no need to falsify the count. They win easily. Investor: Still, the ones don’t like to be left out. Developer: Well, we can add a one to the counting group. Director: True. But what if, instead, the manager is under the sway of the ones? Developer: What are you suggesting? Director: You two plan to live in town. One assumes you intend to live as tens, if not some special, higher rank. But why not live as ones? Developer: It’s easier to add a one to the group of counters. Director: And it’s also less interesting. Investor: You think we live as ones, fully as ones, subject to all of their restrictions, and that our children are to be raised as ones? Director: That is what it means to live as a one. Investor: I think it’s time for more wine. Developer: It most certainly is! Investor: I have two very old and very fine bottles I have been saving for a special occasion. Let’s drink those. Director: What are they? Investor: Both are deep reds. The first is a coastal, the second from far inland. The former is much more highly rated and expensive. But I prefer the latter. The grapes are from fields running down to a lake. Let me get them. 153


Director: Thank you. Developer: Thank you, friend. Director: So, tell me, Developer, do you want to live as a one? Developer: Investor and I almost certainly have much more money than anyone else who becomes a one. If we join the caste perhaps we can have a great deal of fun. Director: That makes the tens suspicious. Developer: Yes, of course. Director: How do you allay their fears? Developer: I think we tell them it is the only way we can earn the trust of the ones. Director: What if they ask you to alter the voting process instead? Do you do it? Developer: No. I am tickled by the notion that they, in desperation one day, try to persuade Investor and me to pressure the manager to look the other way on a critical vote while they and some threes cheat the ones. Director: Do you ever do that? Developer: No, of course not. Ah, but that poor hotel manager! They no doubt approach him directly at some point. Investor: Here we are! Please hand me the corkscrew. Thank you. Now, while Developer and I are trying to swallow the idea of living as ones, let’s consider where we are. We are talking about institutions for our gated community, our walled town, our citadel. And we now have some wonderful ways to shape the city, ways Developer writes up in some fashion tomorrow, doing what must be done to make them presentable to the bank. But I feel we are only scratching the surface. Director: What more do you think we need? Investor: We must address spirituality. Director: Well, our institutions lend shape to the souls of those whose souls are flexible enough to take shape. Investor: Yes, but let’s take on more immediate and direct concerns.

R eligion Director: What is more immediate and direct than the shaping of souls? Investor: Religion Developer: Oh boy. Director: What, do you think the bank does not want to address this subject? Developer: It depends on what we have to say about it. The executives and board members I know might keep an open mind, but I don’t know the chairman. I have no idea how he reacts to anything touching on this. 154

The Community

Director: The ones you know do not care what the provisions are as long as they are part of a package that they know can sell, right? Developer: Right. Director: So what sells, religiously speaking? Developer: Tolerance. Keeping the peace. Investor: What better way to promote these things than by banishing all religious institutions or gatherings from the city? Let’s not even allow atheists, per se, to gather. Nor do we allow the dissemination of any religious materials, in any way, shape, or form. Of course, how we determine what is religious is a different question. But this fights an outside sameness. We do not separate church and state. We get rid of church, pull it right from the community. Do you think the bank can go with this? Developer: I think we first need to consider what potential buyers think. How do we explain to them what we are doing? Director: I think we tell them that this is our policy, with no reasons given. We let them figure out what it means, what the ramifications are, and whether they like them. And we can remind them that they are, of course, free to leave the citadel at any time and attend outside meetings and services. Investor: I think the key ramification is the effect on the youth. Director: What do you think that effect is? Investor: Among the curious, it is wonder why the ban exists. But some wonder whose idea it is. And some may even wonder about its effect. Developer: That is the only effect you can come up with, wonder? Investor: Do you still take wonder, as a principle, to be good? Developer: It is good. But is this where you think spirituality springs pure from the ground, in wonder? Well, I wonder if our potential buyers share this view. Director: Even if they don’t, there is so much to this place that attracts. But as for the ban, who complains? Who says I want to build a church here? It seems unlikely anyone does. Besides, I suspect that many of the buyers have at least one religious group they do not like, and being free of their organized presence within their own city sits well with them.

W onder , A gain Investor: So tell us, Director, why wonder is, in and of itself, good. I mean, it’s fine to wonder how much weight you can lift if you train hard. But if you never bother to lift a weight, what is the use of the wonder? Director: As you say, wonder can be a starting point, the necessary starting point, for many things.

155


Investor: But can we not simply say that youths, no matter the circumstances, always have plenty to wonder about, at least the ones so disposed? Is it a sham if we say we do things for the sake of wonder, when wonder is nothing more than the excuse for something else that we want? Director: Is it a sham? I believe there are ways to encourage wonder, ways that lead it to something. Much of what we are working up tonight can do just that. It’s one thing to wonder how much weight an ant can carry on his back, and quite another to wonder why one particular ant with a load on him walks up to you and calls you by name. Investor: So we have to call these youths by their names. Director: Yes, but their real names, in the full sense. We want to suggest to them that things are not always as they have been told, that certain things warrant investigation, and that they are the sort capable of such investigation. Investor: If they really are that sort. But what about their parents? Director: Many parents want their children to develop critical thinking skills. Who wants to raise a fool? Investor: So we do not make our institutions as crazy as possible on the off chance they spark wonder, as the sense in which they are justified or make sense. Director: They make more sense than that. Investor: But they need to make good sense to the bank, and to the buyers. Director: The buyers may be focused on other things that attract them. They may be willing to overlook some things that do not make perfect sense. Investor: Maybe. But what about the bank? Director: Do we need to persuade the bank to really only care about things making one kind of sense, money sense? All we know right now is that it is open to funding a gated community, intrigued even. Developer: If we can get those letters of intent from potential buyers, and maybe even sell, on the strength of the business plan, options to purchase, before we have broken ground, that can easily tip the scale in our favor. Investing: Suppose the scale does tip in our favor, and we can make institutions that lead to wonder that leads to something — what is that something? Director: I think there is more than one thing, my friend. Perhaps philosophy is one of them. Philosophy is more than investigation, more than discovery, more than articulation of the whole, even. Investor: And what is the effect of philosophy? Director: To know that, consider attending one of the courses to be held on that subject at the college. Investor: Really, we have such a course? And just who do you think teaches it? 156

The Community

Director: Are you looking for an instructor? Developer: Ha! You! Director: Very well. I have one condition, though. I get to hold one special, year-long seminar for ten tens and one three. Investor: But the tens and the three are already off at college outside the gate. Director: That is why the students in the seminar are in their last year at the school. Investor: How are they chosen? Director: The guardian of education and I select them. I make recommendations and he decides. Investor: How do you have any idea whom to choose? Director: Perhaps I have to live in town to see who is who. But I cannot even afford a room in the attic of a house of a one. Maybe I can make do with open access to wherever a citizen can go, including inside the school, where I can sit in on classes and observe. Investor: How do we write this up in the plan? Director: We state it the way we are talking about it here. No reason need be offered why, just the facts of the arrangement. I think there are tens, perhaps many, who think it’s good for some of their own to spend time in the college of the ones. Oh, I almost forgot one thing. The students chosen can refuse the honor.

T he C ollege Investor: So what is the effect of this special seminar group? Director: At best, one or two of the students carry a spark of philosophy to the outside world the following year. Investor: How does that benefit the community? Director: Those who can appreciate what these youths bring with them marvel and long to learn more about us. Increased interest drives up, or at least maintains, property value, no? Developer: All it takes is for a handful of the right people to take an interest. Investor: If there is enough interest, do we open the college up to outsiders? Director: Let’s consider what the college is, what it does. It trains our youth in philosophy and the hard sciences. Now, part of philosophy’s effect is to render these sciences softer, more supple than what they otherwise are. This is because it lays open the founding assumptions and limitations of each branch, each discipline. There is nothing all that unusual in the idea of this. But we differ in our thoroughness of application. Our students come close to getting a real feel for what philosophy is in practice. Because of this it may not be necessary for the ones to have a course specifically on what philosophy is, what is its effect. But I seem to be talking myself out of a job since I lack the 157


expertise needed to teach one of the hard courses. Still, the students in the special seminar and the regular ones may be of some use to each other. If they converse about what they are learning and how, things may get interesting. Investor: What sameness does the college aim at? Director: The sameness of the sciences, the standard branches, for one. We take a creative approach. Investor: But you said it is not all that uncommon for outsiders to lay bare their assumptions and limitations. Director: Yes, but it is one thing to uncover one assumption and another to uncover ten. It’s also one thing to know an assumption or limit is there, but quite another to do something about it. Our students will be learning how to dig them up and do something about them. Investor: What do they learn on the soft side? Director: You mean philosophy? The sameness we aim at is doctrine. We look at what is being said, but also how it is being said, which is to say what is being said, once again. We also keep an eye out for what is not being said. We consider how the how affects the what, and how the what affects the how. It can be quite difficult to know what is being said. Many people do not have the reading or listening skills needed to see or hear clearly. And even if one does know what is being said, it can be very difficult to state what is being said clearly. These are good skills to have in life, yes? Investor: Of course. Developer: Are we going to let outsiders enroll? Director: Do you think allowing this dilutes the educational experience? Developer: Not as long as they are a small group compared to the ones, say less than twenty percent. Director: Then I see no harm in having them. In fact, our inside students may learn quite a bit just from observing the reactions of the outsiders to the material and our ways.

P opulation Investor: This talk of youths in college makes we wonder about our youths in general, our population growth. An increase in affluence, it’s often observed, results in a decrease of offspring. But we have room for many offspring in the second ring. Developer: There is much money to be had filling that ring. Director: Are we to encourage as much population growth as possible? Investor: How can we encourage our citizens to have more children?

158

The Community

Director: To start with, we make it as easy as we can for them to have them. We offer every service imaginable. And then we offer financial incentive. We either reduce the amount parents pay in taxes or fees, proportionate to the number of children they have, or we pay them a bonus. Investor: Why do other owners, especially those without children or children who no longer live with them, go along with this? Director: It comes at no cost to them. The tax and fee difference, as well as the bonus, comes from the profits of the fundamental shareholders. Developer: Ha! Tell me how that works! Director: Just make some projections. Let’s say that one in ten children wants to live within the second wall when grown. Perhaps the true number is much higher. Anyway, calculate the profit to be made from that grown child over time then figure out how much to spend encouraging him to be born. Investor: Those projections extend many decades. Director: Of course. But when the time comes for the bank or one or both of you to sell your shares, this neatly projected revenue, with the experience and results of the past years to back it up, helps in the valuing, no?

S oul Developer: What do you think makes some of them want to stay? Director: Their souls. The community can shape them in a very special way, a way that only works well within it. Investor, how comfortable do you think someone raised in the community feels living outside? Investor: Probably not very. In fact, it does not seem clear how he can function outside. Imagine what it takes for him to hold down a job. Director: Are you forgetting just how wealthy our citizens are? Most of these youths don’t need to have normal jobs. But even so, they are equipped well enough if they do choose to work outside. They all have game faces. Developer: And they can take them off when back in the community, or rather, the second ring, where they can relax. Investor: Do we tell the owners what sort of souls we aim to produce through our institutions and education? Director: No, I think we just show them the plan, and maybe walk them through it so it’s clear. Most of them mostly get it, I think, or get a good enough idea to be satisfied. Developer: What kind of soul does the community tend to produce? Director: First, just to be clear, we know that for the great majority of owners it’s too late. Their souls are fused beyond change. They may be persuaded into new things, but not into a whole new soul. But most of the youths, those born 159


in the community and perhaps those who arrive as late as their mid teens, are shaped. But here is the most important thing. In this shaping we are not looking to create uniformity of soul. Nor are we simply looking to create a soul type for each caste. We do not want the community to finish the job it starts. It must shape and release, shape and release, working the clay. Eventually, a youth might develop the knack for this sort of shaping of himself, himself. Developer: I understand the shaping. But what about the release? Director: Why, it’s nothing more than gentle forces tending in near opposite directions, working back and forth, back and forth. This, when it works, teaches the youths to let go and grasp, grasp and let go. Developer: Does this not set the youths at war within? Director: No, not at war — in dialogue. Developer: For some, that is the same thing. Either way, what comes of this? Director: If it works well, gentle, thoughtful men. Developer: If it does not work so well? Director: Resentful recalcitrants. Developer: What do you think is the typical case? Director: A type of gentleman peculiar to our city. In other words, our typical case is success. Developer: Do tens, threes, and ones tend to turn out differently? Director: I think they do, to some extent. The weighted voting seems to be the most significant factor in this. The threes, for instance, who hold the balance between the tens and ones, are used to being courted by both sides. This sets the tone. They develop a relatively strong sense of give and take. And since they have less weight as a caste than the other two they become good at making allies. Developer: Yes, but that is true of either of the other castes, who alone cannot carry anything. So do these other two groups not develop the same traits as the threes? Director: Even though the difference is small, the fact is that the threes have less say than either of the other castes. Certain effects follow from this. And there is something about being in the middle, the middle child. Developer: So the tens develop more gravity due to their heavy individual weight in the voting? And what about the ones? How do they develop? Director: To know for sure let’s make this city real.

D ignity Investor: We never talked about how to encourage people to have children by means of dignity or pride. 160

The Community

Developer: Yes. So what do we do, reserve the front seats at the movie theater for those with the most children? Director: We certainly can do that. But how about this? Every third year we hold a special ceremony in which all parents are called up on stage to receive a small pearl, one for every child they have. Every officer of the community attends. Developer: I like that. Let’s have the guardian of education hand them out. Investor: What do they do with the pearls? Director: How many pearls do you need to make a pearl necklace? Investor: You can make one with one, if you want. Director: Well, we instruct our best town jewelers to make up necklaces for the mothers, with however many pearls they have, for free. Investor: How can we make these necklaces stand out? Director: We choose a special color for the pearls. Do you prefer a cool or warm hue? Investor: Cool. Director: Then let’s make them a reddish purple. Red is the color of blood, the color of life. Purple designates nobility. Thus, ones with many pearls are, in a sense, more noble than tens with few.

P ilots Developer: This wine is very good, Investor. I like them both. Director: Yes, they are very good. I prefer the coastal. Say, how far is the community site from the airport? Investor: It’s about a two-hour drive. But we want to build a private airstrip immediately outside of town. Some of our buyers fly their own planes. Most hire pilots, of course. Developer: We need to make sure we have room for them in the staff quarters. Director: Yes, and while they’re there, they may well pass on some interesting information to the staff. Pilots see things, after all. The staff may, in turn, pass it on to the owners they are on good terms with. Investor: Some of the citizens may even invite the pilots to stay with them. Director: What if some prefer to stay outside of town? Is that okay? Investor: I see no reason why not. They can get an apartment or stay in one of the outside hotels. Director: Men always traveling can appreciate a good concierge. Too bad we don’t have some of our own. Developer: Oh, we certainly do. That is one of the many amenities we provide. Director: Too bad we have no hotel for them to operate out of. 161


H otel Developer: Now that is not a bad idea! This way, citizens can have guests in town that they don’t want staying in their homes. Director: Yes. But what if we have two hotels — one small and prestigious within the gate, and a large luxury hotel outside? The latter can be placed so that it’s within the area to be enclosed by the second wall. When the third wall goes up the hotel becomes that much more desirable, being more of an inside thing. Developer: The hotel inside the first wall makes sense to me. But how much demand can there be for the second? Director: Surely we can work up some sort of popular weekend shopping package. Our goods — clothing and jewelry especially — are not available on the internet or in any other remote manner, right? So to the extent we let people buy things they have to come here. And they want these things. Developer: But what more than shopping? Director: We can have conferences and festivals to bring people in. I think these sorts of things may be especially attractive to wealthy foreigners, fascinated by our reversal of the sameness outside, of which they, too, to some degree, are outside. Developer: What sort of conferences are we talking about? Director: We can have one on education. We can have one on security. We can have one on firewall use and abuse. You two can hold one on the economics of planned communities. I am certain there are other things we can pull together. In none of these do we give away too much information about our city. We are, primarily, hosts and facilitators, talking about other people’s situations, with a few well chosen bits about our own to spice things up. Investor: And what about the festivals? Director: This is where the artists and musicians within the second wall shine, beyond the fairs we talked about before — but on the condition that they adhere to something we put in their rental agreements. They, like our merchants, must rely on the physical presence of the customer. No remote sales. Period. So these festivals are their big chance to reach the greater outside. We can have a festival for each type of music or art. Developer: Of course, that all depends on our having good artists and musicians. Director: We invite good outside artists to participate, as well, which helps draw the crowd. Developer: What else can we do with this hotel? Director: We are holding all of our community votes at a hotel outside. Is ours not a nice place for outside government functions, corporate retreats, and the like? We can host board meetings and other regularly occurring events. People have 162

The Community

a strange belief that success rubs off. If money means success, our city has it to spare. Developer: And that is saying nothing of the mystique. Let’s take advantage of both, if only to disillusion those who are taken by them. Director: There is one more use for the hotel. Young athletes from outside come to our city to compete. Let’s make a point to invite them from all across the land, and even from other lands. They must have a place to stay. Our hotel is convenient, prestigious, and very well run. It puts them up nicely.

W hisky Developer: We need something special to serve at the hotel, something not available anywhere else. Director: You mean like our own whisky? Developer: Sure, something like that! We can contact a renowned master craftsman of the art and tell him we want him to create a signature brand of the spirit to be served only within the walls of our city. I’m sure we can find someone to take this on. Director: To really do it right, why not make it ourselves, within the inner wall? Developer: Ah, yes! Good. The brand is even more exclusive that way. Perhaps our whisky guy sends a junior craftsman to open up operations here, and the master comes in from time to time to inspect and instruct. How well do you think something like this can sell at our hotel and inner taverns? Director: I think it sells well, as long as it is good. And a case of it is an excellent gift at holiday time for friends outside, or for those we want as friends. It’s a relatively subtle way of advertising the excellence of the community to the outside world. Investor: What if our owners prefer that it be available exclusively on our property? Director: Why not make two batches, one for on-property consumption and one for off, differing only slightly, but different nonetheless? Investor: That sounds fine. I wonder, though, what our youth think about all this, the whisky. Director: They may wonder why we take the trouble to make it. They may wonder who benefits, and what that benefit is. Investor: Aside from the fundamental shareholders, who does benefit? Director: The owners do, in both the drinking and the giving. Investor: What about the ones who do not drink and don’t care to give such gifts? Director: Who knows? The whisky might make their property value go up. But do you know what I think the really interesting question is? Investor: What? 163


Director: Which youths take the whisky as a metaphor and wonder what it means. Investor: What does it mean? Director: Let’s make that a closely guarded secret. Who keeps it? Developer: We three do. Director: So those youths have to get to us to find out? Developer: Yes. Director: How do they get to us? Developer: Maybe we sponsor an essay writing contest in the school each year, for students in their final year. The topic is, what does the whisky mean? Director: Do we tell the winner the secret? Developer: Yes. What is the secret, by the way? Director: Whisky releases spirit. Investor: So why does our community want something uniquely its own to perform this function? Director: Maybe it needs its very own touchstone for the truth.

C ontracts Developer: Do you know the custom of a certain ancient people? They come to no decision without first deliberating both when sober and drinking. Wise men. Director: So when we engage in contracts with outsiders we drink with them? Developer: Yes. Investor: Literally or metaphorically? Developer: How do you drink metaphorically? Director: Let’s bring these men in to spend some time with us. We insist that they be at their leisure and not in a rush to shake hands and sign on the dotted line. Let them see what this community is, through all its many reaches and wonders. Let them see what they are touching upon in their dealings. And it might not be a bad idea to have a few real drinks with them, too. Investor: How are they to see all its many reaches and wonders? Director: All potential business partners from the outside must commit to spending one week, Monday through Sunday, as guests in the inner hotel. During the week they sit in on classes at the school, attend a variety of council meetings, frequent the shops. The heads of security and information technology give them tours. The potential partners dine at the restaurants and drink at the bars. They attend sporting events and use our athletic facilities. They visit with two owners from each caste at their homes. Investor: Do they see the college? 164

The Community

Director: No, nor the guardian of education. Investor: And what does all this drinking-in do? Director: Once they see what is at stake, they want to hold up their end of the bargain, and more — and feel good doing so. If, however, they are not the sort who feel good about us, we do not feel good about them. How they feel usually becomes obvious during the course of the week. Investor: It’s a lot to ask someone to take a week off to stay within the citadel. Director: Is it? It’s an all expenses paid vacation in one of the unique places of the world. We give them excellent accommodations, wonderful company, and the opportunity to see and learn new things, things many on the outside long to know.

C ommunity H ead Developer: Perhaps we need a mayor, a man whose main job is to host these business partners. That gives our people responsible for the contracting some room to review things coolly and dispassionately, at a remove. Director: That is a fine idea. But is the mayor, or community head, or whatever we call him, limited to showing people around town? Developer: What else can he do? Director: Perhaps we expand on the theme and have him show potential buyers around. Developer: That is a very fine idea, friend. Director: What special knowledge do you think he gains in the course of his duties, and how do we put it to use? Developer: He gains personal knowledge of the outsiders which we put in a database. We prepare the mayor with questions for the week, the things we most want to know about those who deal with us. Investor: Potential buyers stay for a full week, too? Developer: Sure. The more they see the more they like, if they are the right kind of people. We do not want as citizens people who don’t bother to get to know the place where they are thinking of living. Their week with us, on the other hand, also gives us time to screen them more thoroughly. Investor: What else can the community head do? Director: Well, he is the head of hospitality. Maybe he visits the hotels and checks in with the guests. Developer: Yes, and he is the head of all outside information gathering. Investor: So he is the mayor and chief of intelligence? Developer: A nice combination, no?

165


W all Director: There is an important thing for us to discuss now, the most immediately striking thing about the community — the wall. What is it made of? Developer: I think it’s made of stone, all stone. Investor: Yes, so do I. That exudes a certain sense of cool strength and power. Director: Yes, and it is the material of choice for many a medieval wall. We have good old history on our side. So, how tall is this wall? Developer: How tall are walls from the middle ages? Director: They vary. But twenty feet seems common enough. Developer: How wide are they? Director: Eight feet, often enough. Developer: That makes for one expensive piece of masonry. Investor: True, but we cannot exactly go with a chain link fence with razor wire atop. Developer: No, we are not skimping on the wall. Stone it is, with nice landscaping on both sides, all the way round. Director: Do we have security patrol the top of the wall? Developer: Of course. But let’s also make it a walking circuit for the citizens. Twenty feet up gives a nice view of both the town and surroundings. Director: What of the traditionally most heavily fortified place — the gate? Am I wrong to assume there is just one? Developer: No. There is only one. That heightens the sense of being walled off from the outside world. Director: You know, the more the citizens feel secure like that the more some feel they can afford ideas from the outside world. Investor: Are you saying that with many gates, either literally or metaphorically, our citizens shy away from the outside world because it’s too close to them? So what do we do, forego a wall completely so that the people have nothing to do with outside ideas, outside samenesses? Developer: If we do that we can forget the whole project. Let’s look at it this way. People who feel more secure are willing to try strange, new things. We are introducing such things inside the wall. A single gate means our forms are adopted more readily. Director: How wide is it? Developer: For vehicles, there is one lane in and one lane out. There is a walkway on each side for pedestrians. Director: How do we defend it? Developer: Why, we use guards. 166

The Community

Director: And what about cameras? In keeping with our guest policy of not logging comings and goings, it does not seem that we want to use security cameras to track them, and everybody else, as they come through the gate. Developer: No, we do not. Director: So the guards must have good memories in order to help us if we ever need to know if someone came or went at a certain time. Or do we instruct the guards not to remember these things? Developer: Of course not. Privacy is never perfect. Director: So do the guards at the gate do anything besides keep the outsiders out? Investor: They enforce the curfews. Director: And how do the guards know who needs to be inside the gate when? Investor: The youths have to carry identification cards that the guards can scan. Or we can keep a database of their fingerprints, retinas, and so on. Director: Now, as for the gate itself, how do we secure it if we have to lock down the citadel? Developer: We close a huge metal door. Director: I see. Is the security team armed? Developer: The guards at the gate have to be, as do those who patrol on the outside. Director: But the ones working the interior go unarmed? Developer: Yes. That emphasizes to our citizens that you need force on the outside but on the inside you are safe. Director: But I suppose there is an arsenal at the ready inside, just in case. Developer: Of course. Director: Getting back the gate, are we sure we do not want some sort of back door to this place, a service entrance or emergency exit? We can hide it, make it as inconspicuous as possible, so residents feel like they just have the front gate, even though they know about the other one. Developer: I think we need to keep it at only a single way in and a single way out. Residents have to feel a sense of near complete security, with only one place of vulnerability. Investor: I agree, but for another reason. I think it’s good for them to be able to see all the traffic of goods coming in, as they must if there is only the front gate. Director: And all of what goes out? Investor: Yes, all of it. They need to be aware of how their community works, what its needs are, especially the young. Director: What happens if we have a fire or other disaster and we need to evacuate?

167


Investor: Maybe we have a series of portals that cannot be opened from the outside but can from within. They set off an alarm and turn on a camera when opened. We can reinforce these doors to make sure they are stronger than the wall on either side of them. Developer: We don’t need those doors, and having them hurts the citizens psychologically. Director: How do these exit doors hurt the citizens? Developer: Citizens need to know that the way out is always the way in. This encourages them, metaphorically, to be responsible for their actions. If they get themselves into it, they have to get themselves back out. It makes it easier when there is only one way. Director: With our one gate, how often, outside of an emergency, do we seal the citadel off from the outside world? Developer: I suppose we do so on some day important to our community, during some ceremony. Why not mark the day construction of the wall is complete? It can be an annual event. Investor: Yes, let’s call it Founding Day. And let’s have it in the summer, on the last day of the work week in the middle of the last month.

F ounding D ay Developer: A well run celebration can boost the desirability of the town on the outside. Director: How do outsiders know about it? Developer: They are intrigued by the closing of the gate. Word of mouth then spreads fast, scattering the odd detail around and giving a rough idea of what the day is like. Besides, we can set off fireworks in the evening that our outside neighbors see. Director: How do you envision the day? Developer: I suppose we have food, drink, music. Investor: We need more than that. Director, what do you think? Director: I think the celebration takes place between noon and midnight. If it starts any earlier it takes away from what can be a nice, leisurely morning. If it ends any later we are into the next day, and our celebration is intended for one day only. All the shops and services are closed and unavailable, except for absolute essentials. Those who have to work this day must receive something very nice by way of compensation. Investor: Who plans and manages the event? Director: An officer and council. That way the whole town has input. But the basic structure of the day is in the citizen constitutions. Investor: You think it that important? 168

The Community

Director: Oh, yes. Never underestimate the power of celebratory events on a people. Investor: What is the basic structure? Director: First and foremost, only citizens and staff who live in town may take part. No one from the second or third ring of the extended city attends. No outsiders may be within the citadel this day. If a citizen is caught with an outsider guest, there is no punishment, but there is shame that comes from breaking the celebratory covenant with his neighbors. That said, there is one very important exception to this rule. One guest from the outside world stays at our inner hotel — a comedian. This man, regardless if he is renowned or not, must have the wit it takes to size up our little city and serve as our mirror for a day. Choosing him is one of the highlights of the year for the Founding Day office. He likely needs to be in town for a minimum of seven days to make observations and formulate his material, perhaps longer. During this time he has free reign to go where he pleases — anywhere, even to the house of the guardian of education, and perhaps especially there. Investor: When and where does he perform? Director: Let me tell you about the rest of the day first, to put it in some context. At noon the eating and drinking begins. To minimize the amount of staff who have to work, all food is prepared the day before or that morning. It is no sumptuous feast, but no meager picnic either. The food and drink are available, in several locations, throughout the entire day — except for one important period of time. Investor: When the comedian comes on. Director: Actually, there is more than one comedic act. But yes, that is when the eating and drinking stops. In fact, everything stops when it’s time for the comedy. We wish to have everyone present for the performances. But let’s talk about the other parts of the day. There are many side stages, and on them there is dancing of all sorts, both by performers and the audience. There are many and varied types of musical performances. There are movies and diverse multimedia creations of the youth. There are performances and games for children. There are galleries and stages reserved for the artistic creations of the adults of the community, giving most of them the only opportunity they have all year to show them. I expect to be surprised at the amount of talent on display. Investor: So when does the comedy start? Director: It starts at dusk, on the main stage, the first time it’s used this day. Locals perform first, a troupe assembled by the office during the year. They are free to present whatever material they like, poking fun at themselves, at the community, at the outside world. When they finish their performance, as darkness falls, the fireworks begin. Investor: You make the comedian from outside follow the fireworks?

169


Director: Yes. We need someone who is up to it. Well, when the fireworks are done he mounts the stage and presents his critique of the city. He is under strict instructions to make fun of nothing on the outside, only things from inside. Now here is an important thing. There is no applause, throughout or at the end. Of course, people laugh during the performance, and this lets the comedian know how he is doing. But at the end — silence. Investor: Golden. This lets the critique sinks in. What then? Director: Then everything starts back up — food, drink, music, dancing, and so on. At eleven-thirty we have the final event on the main stage — the school valedictorian address, on the theme of the character of the community. Developer: You give him an impossible act to follow, friend. Director: Well, he has time to make any adjustments to his speech based on what the comedian says, if he feels he needs to. But I do not think it’s too hard on him. How many people want to stay to hear a serious sounding address after a great comedic performance? And at this point people have been eating and drinking all day, and many are tired and not likely to come. And those with young children are not likely to come. Some simply continue to eat and drink and don’t come. Only the people who really want to be there are there. Developer: Why not put him on a side stage, with room only for a small audience? Director: There is something about all the empty seats at the main stage, with the few people there likely crowded up front, that compels. Besides, the comedian may sit and watch from far in the back seats, not wanting to be part of our group, but not wanting to miss this discourse.

S tudent M ovies Investor: You mentioned something about youth movies. Director: Yes? Investor: Are they screened for content? Director: Probably. Investor: Who does the screening? Director: The Foundation Day office. Developer: I assume many of these movies are made in school. Tell us how they are made. Director: We start the students out as soon as they are old enough to hold a camera steady enough to shoot. Developer: Which caste does what? Director: Suppose they all do the same thing, with the same teachers. Do you think it’s good for us to cut across the caste lines like this?

170

The Community

Developer: Yes, from time to time. And this makes movies take on a special significance, if it is the only subject the castes study together. Let’s recognize this by showing prize winning student movies at the community movie theater. Investor: Director, what do you think the competition for those prizes is like? Director: There are two sorts of movies — those made by individuals and those made by teams. On the individual side we reintroduce the class barriers and have tens only compete against tens, threes against threes, and ones against ones. So everyone wonders which of the three caste champions is best. This creates a healthy diversity of opinion, allowing for or reflecting different ways of thinking. On the group side each team consists of one student from each caste. The youths learn to cooperate with those of a different number. But it is important to note that each youth works both in a team and as an individual. Investor: Then we never judge which is better, the individual or the group effort? Director: Yes, that is the point. But, again, people form opinions on which is best. Investor: What do you think tends to be better, individual or group productions? Director: I think some people are better alone, and some people are wonderful leaders and catalysts in groups. Some are both. Investor: I wonder if we can capture the dynamic between the tens, threes, and ones somehow. Director: Does the end product not do exactly that? Investor: Yes, but maybe we ask each person in the group to keep a brief working diary. We collect these diaries and at the end of the school year give them to a student known for creative writing who is about to enter his last year of school. His summer project is to write a short book about tens, threes, and ones working together on whatever he might dream up with whatever crazy complications he likes, based on what he gathers from the diaries. If it’s any good we can have someone make a movie of it. But let me ask you this, Director. Does every student study movies, or just certain ones? Director: If every student does, we soften the caste boundaries as they intermix in class. If not everyone studies movies, we leave the class boundaries more alone. Now, it seems clear to me that we want these boundaries neither to be completely hard nor blurred to the point of being meaningless. So the question is, do we need to weaken or strengthen the boundaries? Investor: What do you think is more interesting? Director: Let’s limit the study of how to make movies. The others can study movies the way they study literature, within their own castes. They cannot make movies on school time. Limiting the students who can creates a tension between those who have more cross-caste exposure and those who have less. This may well be a creative tension, with results to be seen both in the movies and other things. For instance, think of a three who really comes to like the tens and 171


ones he works with. He is almost certainly exposed to prejudice against the other two groups from his caste mates. When he is among them he has a basic choice — become a proponent and defender of the other two castes, or keep quiet while knowing the truth in his heart. Developer: He can also speak ill of them, no matter that he knows the truth in his heart. Investor: And he can also feel people out and see if they are receptive to hear, in private, good things about the other two castes. Director: I think we have to keep the number of movie making students quite small, small enough that they cannot too much influence the opinions of the castes of each other. Otherwise, we overly water down the whisky we are making in each of them.

M ore R ed Developer: I wonder what the weather is doing. Investor: Let me go up and see. Director: Well, what do you think so far, Developer? Can you write something up? Developer: Yes, I believe so. But you know how banks are. I am prepared to make changes, and go back and forth over and again, modifying until the plan is just so in order to make this work. Director: At what point does the chairman get to see what you have? Is it wise for him to see it in the roughest draft form, or do you wait until everything is nearly set? Developer: I don’t know. I do not know the man. Director: What sort of man do you show the plan in the rough? Developer: A man of ideas, one who takes an active interest in shaping the community, one who takes risks. Director: What sort of man do you hold off on until the end is already in sight? Developer: One who leans heavily on his subordinates. One who has no interest whatsoever in sameness or difference. One who only cares about profit. One who approves as long as he has no personal exposure. One who makes heads roll if things don’t work out as he hopes. Director: Which sort of man lets us have more of what we want for the city? Developer: As for keeping things interesting, the former type may have an interest in fighting sameness. But there is a good chance he has some sort of ideological agenda that we want nothing to do with. So I prefer the narrow minded man. What does it look like out there, Investor? Investor: It’s still coming down. You are both welcome to spend the night here. I have people coming in the morning to dig us out. What were you talking about? Director: What sort of man we hope the bank chairman is. 172

The Community

Investor: What kind do we hope for? Director: A cruel one bent on profit. Investor: Ah, very good. We are building a money making machine, after all. So let’s talk about how else we can profit from this thing. While you think let me get another couple of bottles. Director: What do you think, Developer? Do we try to get more from the owners or do we try to get more from visitors? Developer: We can also try to get more from outsiders who never even come to our city. Director: You mean we are not sticking to our rule of no remote purchases? What have you got in mind, exports? Developer: Why not? Director: What do we export? Developer: How about our own wine? Director: Friend, you know wine making is a touchy business. Do we really want to get into that right away? Investor: Here we are. These two are of foreign vintage. This is from a northern clime, that is from the south. The man who sold them to me says that there is a certain mystique to the southern winery. I think it is best for us to travel there and attempt to dispel it ourselves! Developer: That is what we can sell! Mystique.

S elling M ystique Investor: What, our town? I assume philosophy objects to this, Director. Director: Philosophy clearly attempts to wreck such transactions, despite the fact that the sales amuse on a certain level. Developer: But it sure is an expensive commodity. Investor: Oh yes, very expensive — to purchaser and seller both. Director: How does one go about selling it? Developer: We consult with our customers on its cultivation. Director: We as in the three of us? Developer: Of course! Director: Who are our customers? Developer: Any city, state, company, or club. Any entity that longs for its own mystique. Director: What about individuals? Or is there not enough money in that? Developer: I’m not sure we are qualified. Director: Why not? 173


Developer: None of us cultivates his own mystique. Director: But we do not cultivate our city’s mystique either, right? Developer: Yes, but I suspect some of our citizens do. Director: Then why not let them consult with these corporate entities or individuals? Developer: Setting aside the question of the entities, it’s a leap to think that the mystique of a town is the same as that of a person. Director: You mean our citizens don’t nurture their own mystique? Investor: Those are not the sort of citizens we want. Developer: Let’s forget about individuals and just sell to entities and then let philosophy smash it all up. In the end no harm is done and we make some money. Director: But is the true reason we sell to entities and not individuals that individuals can abuse their mystique while entities cannot? Developer: No, both can. The point is that if an individual does not know how to generate his own mystique, he does not know how to use it either. Director: How are entities any different? Investor: They are no different. Director: So if we sell, we are always selling something that is not needed or cannot be used. Developer: That does not change the fact there is a strong market for it. How much do you think we can charge? I say the more prominent the entity or individual the more they pay. Maybe we can get a percentage of their revenue or income so we, too, benefit from their success. Director: While we go out and sell mystique are we not lessening the mystique of our own city, the basis of our supposed expertise? Are we giving away the secret? Those who learn the tricks of a trade feel no aura of mystery, you know. But do we even know what we are about concerning our own mystique? Can we clearly explain its conditions? Developer: Do you think it difficult? We have done this tonight. And I think we can consult without giving too much away. Investor: But we do want to give it away, destroy our mystique. Developer: Not to the extent it affects property values. Director: I think we all agree that we at least need to make sure we do not help anyone set anything up that is anything like our city. Competition can drive values down, right? Developer: To reassure our owners we can put something in the fundamental documents that says we cannot go and set up little walled towns all across the land, or other entities too close to theirs for comfort. 174

The Community

Investor: But competition does not have to result in a lowering of prices. I believe we can allow for the creation of limited, quality controlled franchises that in no way take away from the demand for and prestige of the original city.

C olonies Director: Why not call these offshoots colonies? It sounds better, no? Investor: Yes. I like that. Director: So how do we get the original owners to go for them? Investor: We have to establish P3N — prestige, pride, profit, and necessity. Director: How do the colonies give them prestige? Investor: They show the world that the way of life of the mother city flourishes, is good. Of course, we have to ensure that the mother city always has more prestige than the colonies, unless we want trouble. Director: How do we do that? Investor: We make the colonies dependent on and subservient to the mother city. They pay it a tax. That goes to the profit in the formula. The more colonies, or the greater they become, the more profit and prestige for the motherland. Director: What about its pride? Investor: It is proud to fight sameness all across the land through its satellites. Developer: For the pride of the colonies let’s invite some of their citizens each year to the Foundation Day celebration here in the citadel. Owners can put them up in their homes as honored quests, each caste staying with its own. Director: A nice idea. And maybe these colonies send some artists to show off their accomplishments, too. But what do the denizens of the second and third rings of the mother city think when they cannot attend but colonists can? Developer: We only allow inner circle colonists, so the principle for Foundation Day attendance is the same for parent city and child. But we can bring in any sort of colonist all throughout the year to discuss all sorts of things. Security. Business. Information technology. Education. Sanitation. Why, anything and everything. Director: Do we try to make a profit off of them by putting them up at the inner hotel at their expense? Developer: No, it’s probably wiser to put them up with their counterpart owners, with whom they can develop good relations. Director: Does that make them feel better about paying those taxes? What do they get for them, anyway? Developer: The taxes? The right to the franchise of course, and consultation with their mother city peers to get the knowledge they need to run their colonies. 175


Director: Is that all? Perhaps we can offer them more services beyond mere consultation. Developer: We can maintain their technology infrastructure out of the mother city. Director: I think we need more. Developer: We can give them our architects for their homes, businesses, public buildings, and wall. And we can manage the building. Director: Surely that helps. But can we support them financially, loan them the money they need to found? Investor: Before we get to that, who are the people that actually found the colony? Developer: Citizens from the motherland who receive the right to do so from the fundamental shareholders. Investor: So the citizens of the mother city have no say in whether a colony is created or not? Developer: That is correct. We must be clear about this in the constitutions. It’s just part of the deal. Director: What do you think makes someone want to be a founding colonist? Developer: We give them a special status for a number of years, until everything is fully up and running. They each have within their colony a weighted vote of twenty-seven. That, of course, goes toward their prestige and power, making our formula now P4N. As for pride, they feel good about spreading the anti-sameness cause. Profit? We give them their property for free, or at a significantly discounted price, depending on what the demand is at any given time. Necessity? That happens when room runs out in the mother city. Not all the offspring who want to stay in the community want to rent outside the wall, assuming there is even any room left there. This, by the way, opens up another opportunity for profit. Parents almost always want to visit their children, and the other way around. We can build an airstrip at each colony and make the mother city the hub. Besides these family visits we can expect business travel, too. Director: What is the name of this hub, the mother city? Developer: Investor? Investor: Maybe something classically informed. Developer: No, there is too much of that as it is. Director: Let’s give it a temporary name, something simple and descriptive — The Community at Broken Ground, for instance. The citizens can come up with the permanent name once we are more or less established. Investor: Yes. We can have an office of names that names whatever needs naming — streets, buildings, parks. But once the city name is chosen, that is it. It can never be changed. 176

The Community

Director: Do the colonies come up with their own names? Investor: What do you think? Director: If their names derive from mother city names, that keeps up the prestige of the parent, right? Investor: Yes, and that creates some important psychological ties. Developer: And we cannot forget that the colonies borrow the prestige of the mother city, want that prestige. Director: Along those lines, how similar do you think we make these colonies to the motherland? Developer: I think we make them share our fundamental laws but leave everything else up to them. Director: And what role do they play in the affairs of the mother city? Investor: Let’s be bold and give each colony a vote in every general motherland vote. Director: Every vote, no matter how small? Investor: Yes, why not? That builds a sense of connectedness. And it lets the mother city know it cannot simply eat its young. Developer: How much say are we thinking of giving them? Investor: I think all the colonies combined have a vote equal to ten percent of the vote of the tens. I think that works out to around three percent of the overall vote. This is not much, but is quite significant in close votes. So the colonies can feel themselves a part of the action. Developer: But then, colonies do not want other colonies formed because their vote is diluted. Investor: I don’t know how to get around that problem without increasing the percentage of the vote that the colonies have as each new one comes along. The mother city almost certainly does not want us to do that.

S ameness

at

H ome

Director: But perhaps it understands that the more colonies there are the more diversity there is to bring to bear against any sameness that forms within its walls. Developer: Does any city ever willingly undergo something like that? Director: It is no doubt difficult to eliminate samenesses. But the overall P4N balance of the situation may compel the city to swallow whatever the colonies promote by way of diversity. And it may be that some simply value outside-the-wall thinking. Investor: More wine, Director? Director: Yes, please, so I at least make a show of keeping up with you two. 177


Investor: Well, you are putting on quite a show! Developer: If people in the mother city are looking for outside-the-wall thinking why do they not just go outside the gate and forget about complications with the colonies? Director: Our citizens may well prefer outside-the-wall thinking that comes from within another wall, a wall different than their own, but a wall nonetheless. In other words, they are looking for a certain sympathy. Nonetheless, I recommend that the fundamental shareholders meet with outside officials from time to time. Developer: What do we do when we meet with them? Director: Ask them what they think about the city, what they know about it from their perspective. Developer: And then? Director: Listen. Investor: What do the outside officials get out of it? Director: When they are done you tell them what you think about their entities. It’s just a neat exchange of views, my friend. I suggest it take place at our hotel outside the inner wall. Developer: And what do we do if it seems we need to make some changes? Director: If they are infrastructure changes, you can take care of them relatively easily, yes? For other changes, you two citizens have to introduce proposals in council and work them from there. Or do you think that you, as fundamental shareholders, need some sort of special powers concerning community matters? Developer: No, that sort of thing breeds resentment. We already are atypical citizens enough. Investor: So we are in council, and we are working the changes, fighting the new samenesses as observed by our outside friends. How exactly do we fight them, by reintroducing the old samenesses? Is that all there is to this whole thing? A series of tacks against the wind? That is our whole educational philosophy, is it not? And the problem, over time, is when they start to become their own wind, their own sameness. Developer: I’m not sure they become a wind. I think the wind changes and they find themselves with it at their back. Investor: Either way, the question is, who turns around and fights the other way? Developer: Our very best. But then I fear our tackers end up going nowhere. Director: No, my friend. The wind does not blow evenly in inverse relation to itself when it changes. A tacker does indeed go somewhere. 178

The Community

C reativity Developer: Do you think he tires of the constant resistance? Director: It depends on his strength and conditioning, and maybe something else, too. But I think we are taking things too far in this direction. Our educational approach, or our legislative approach for that matter, is not this simple. For one, it’s not necessary to fight new sameness with old sameness. One need not tack in this sense. One can fight sameness on something much like its own terms, or on something much like the old terms, or on terms that are wholly new. Either way, doing so sometimes results in the unexpected, in new possibilities. Creativity, my friend. That is what we are encouraging in our adults and youth. Investor: What do you see as the biggest obstacle to creativity? Director: Inertia. Investor: So our philosophy is some sort of dynamism? Director: Our philosophy? No. We have absolutes in our cities, the fundamental laws of the constitutions. There is nothing at all dynamic in that, in and of itself. Developer: Do you know what I think the biggest obstacle is? Cost. Director: What do you think that cost is? The samenesses creativity annihilates? Investor: The cost is to the destroyer. Creativity is hard work, and brings with it many penalties and risks. Director: I’m not sure what risks and penalties you have in mind. But I am inclined to agree with you about hard work — a reason to inure the youth. Hopefully enough of the adults are accustomed to it when they arrive in the citadel. Developer: I think one of the risks is that our city comes under attack. Director: What form of attack, my friend, and by whom? Developer: By the outside authorities, in the form of legislation that supersedes our own. Director: The bank helps us with that, right? Or do we need something more? Do we donate to outside campaigns, lobby, and keep a stable of lawyers? Developer: We must defend our city by whatever means. Director: Developer, are you suggesting violence?

P olitical S ervices Developer: We do have crack security and the ability to grow the intelligence group under the mayor, or elsewhere. Director: What, do you propose a secret council that meets at night to plot outside assassinations — professional, character, or otherwise? Investor: That is a last resort. 179


Director: So we agree to work with political donations and so on? Most of our citizens are not naïve in these matters. They can understand the need for an annual fee for political services. Developer: Once politicians learn we are willing to pay for protection from legislation there is no end to their demands. Director: How do we avoid this? Blackmail of public officials? That gets ugly very fast, no? Developer: There is a colossal amount of money involved in what we are doing here, Director. Director: How does the bank do its dirty work? Developer: As far as I know? The usual — lawyers, lobbyists, consultants, and some others. Director: Why does that work for them but not for us? Developer: The bank takes the offensive and pushes preemptive legislation. Director: And we cannot do that? Is that because we have the defensive mindset so typical of those within a fortress?

M ore M oney Developer: To play that game we need more money. Director: We can make money consulting. We three can advise on communities, business models, financing, governmental issues, and so on. I think there is a significant amount of money to be made by having our staff consult within their areas of expertise as well. They all are to have reputations of incomparable excellence, no? Developer: So you mean education, security, information and so on. Director: And so on, yes, of course. We must compensate staff for their efforts here. Developer: We still need more money than what all this can possibly bring in. Director: But, friend, here is something I don’t understand. The city rests on the assumption that there are enough people who want to live there who are wealthy enough to support everything financially and allow a more than healthy profit to you two and the bank. Your research shows there are enough of these people. And from the reports you showed me, they have enough money that an extra fee for political services, even a big one, cannot alone deter them. So what really is the issue here? Developer: I just do not know how much of the plan the bank can go for. Beyond the outside legislative issues, what if it wants to make changes to the basic law? Money is our only lever to stop them from making them. Director: Ah, friend! Your emotion shows you are already attached to the city as it now stands, even before it’s finished. But are you losing your nerve? If the bank 180

The Community

wants basic changes we simply have to persuade it otherwise. Do we not have great mechanisms for profit built into the city? As for changes we can live with, we have to keep working them with the bank until we are both satisfied, relatively so. What we have now is loose enough to allow for flexibility in everything except in the warp of our weave. Developer: I no longer feel I can write all of this up on my own. I am not even sure where to begin anymore. I need your help. Director: You have it.

S pirits Investor: Director, you said we are making whisky in the three castes. How do the spirits differ, and how are they the same? Director: Well, what do you think the still, the thing that separates the alcohol from the water, is? Investor: Our institutions. Director: We have different institutions for the three castes. But you don’t make different whiskies only by using different stills. Investor: True, there is more to it than that. Director: Yes. The ingredients matter, as do the malting, mashing, fermentation, and maturation. You know what they call whisky, right? Investor: Firewater. Director: Yes, and that is because it’s at forty percent alcohol, eighty proof. Is beer, at a mere proof of nine or so, firewater? Investor: Of course not. Director: What about wine, at twenty-seven proof? Investor: It’s not firewater, though it has some heat. Director: So what do you think the ingredients are for our whisky? Investor: The youths themselves. Director: What do you think they are made of? Investor: Whatever it is, we call it their nature. Director: Do you think certain natures tend toward a higher proof? Investor: I think that depends more on the process than the ingredients. Director: I see. And what of nurture, or is that the process? Investor: Nurture is process. Director: So high or low spirit depends more on nurture than nature.

181


Developer: The metaphor is not so good. Certain natures really do incline to low or high spirit. Director: How can we know that is so? Developer: If all the youths of a caste go through exactly the same process, and some turn out high spirited and others low, we know it’s not the process alone that accounts for the difference. Investor: But maybe there are variations, inconsistencies in the process — accidents. We have not even said anything about the effect of parents, siblings, or neighbors. Developer: Then I suppose it is hard, if not impossible, to know. Director: But if we compare our youths, in general, with youths from the outside what do you think we see? Developer: I think we see a big difference. Director: What sort of spirit predominates outside? Developer: The spirit of beer. Director: And what of wine? Developer: Good wine is hard to find, friend. Director: What about within our city? Developer: Firewater predominates, and wine is only found here and there. Director: What makes you confident that our youths are of higher spirit than those outside? Developer: Their education encourages them to develop a fiery pride in themselves and in their city. Director: Is that because they see the contrast between themselves and the outside and think that they and their city are better? Developer: Yes, I think that is a big part of it. Director: If you ask them what it is about themselves and their city that makes better, what do they say? Developer: They talk about the importance of fighting sameness, of keeping things interesting, of appreciating wonder and the wonderful. Director: Really, in so many words? Do we give them these words or do they come to them on their own? Developer: They have to find their own words. They have a feeling about these things that they struggle to articulate, a feeling that things are simply better inside the wall than without.

182

The Community

P ride Director: So how do our parents feel about their spitfire kids? Developer: The whiskies among the parents likely feel pretty good. Director: And the beers feel like quenching the flames? Developer: Yes, and the wines want to turn them down to a low, steady burn. Director: I assume most of our parents are not whiskies, judging from the fact that they come from the outside. So what makes them approve of our educational scheme? The fiery-inside educated children must seem somewhat shocking to most, no? Developer: True. Investor: Well, we can all but burn them out with school, sports, and other activities, to make it easier on the parents. Developer: The flames only burn all the brighter when the youths recover. Director: Can we somehow lower their proof? Can we make our own wine after all? Developer: Assuming we have the grapes, what do we need to change in the process? Investor: If their spirit largely comes from pride in themselves and the city, we can try to lessen one or the other or both. Director: But what if their spirit does not come from pride? Maybe the higher proofs simply derive primarily from excitable natures. True pride may be a quieter, nobler thing. Perhaps its proof is more like that of wine, twenty-seven. In that case, the proof of beer is too low, while whisky overshoots the mark. Investor: So how do we lessen excitability in some and diffidence in others, bringing them toward pride? For the excitable I still think keeping them on the verge of exhaustion is all we can do. But I know that this builds strength and endurance. So we have to keep on giving them more and more. Perhaps these youths live at the school, visiting their parents in small doses. We can work them harder and their parents are less exposed to the fire. Director: And with the diffident? Investor: We help them with their self-confidence. We find something they are good at and focus there, again and again. Developer: And if they are good at nothing? Investor: We make something for them to be good at.

O utsider I nsiders Director: However that may be, we seem to agree that the ingredients of pride grow on a vine. Investor: Yes, and they have to be taken from that vine before anything can be made of them. 183


Director: Taken? Perhaps it’s better to make apple wine, catching the fruit as it falls all on its own. Developer: That may be. But we want to make wine of the sort we are drinking right now. So who prunes the vine? Who harvests the grapes? Director: I suppose just about everyone in the community wields the knife from time to time — parents, teachers, friends, citizens in general, staff. But are we to take the metaphor all the way through to the crushing of the grapes? Investor: Why not? It’s just a metaphor, right? But not all of the grapes make it to the press. Some parents don’t want their children to have the standard education. They send them to school outside. Developer: I doubt many do. Director: Well, these outsider insiders can serve to ventilate the city a bit. But where do they fit in, if anywhere? Developer: Perhaps in more than one place, partly. Investor: But this creates mystique. What do we do about that? Developer: Maybe some of these youth try to dispel the aura themselves, because it makes them feel awkward or embarrasses them. Investor: And maybe some of them are comfortable with it, cultivate it. But there is something we can do about it. We let their outside friends know more about the inside. Director: Tear down the barrier of ignorance that separates them from their friends? Investor: Maybe tear is too strong a word, but yes. Director: Do you think our youths must be brave to stand before their outside friends without that wall protecting them? Investor: I do. Director: Do we start by bringing the outside kids in as guests? Maybe our youths pick five of their fellows to come for a day of touring through the citadel followed by dinner at their homes and a movie at the town theater. Developer: That sounds good. Director: There may be another problem besides mystique. Our kids may feel more at home outside than inside. How do we handle that? Do we just leave them alone or do we make them mix more with the inside kids? Developer: Maybe these are simply the sort who leave the community when they grow up, the sort who have no desire to rent outside the wall or become colonists. I am inclined to leave them alone. There is nothing we can do. Investor: I disagree. I think we can make them feel more a part of things. The remedy is to have all of them study with Director. Director: Well, I am honored. But what do you think I can possibly teach them? 184

The Community

Investor: You can help them see the purpose of the inside education. If they can see this they have, in effect, received the education of the insiders — and perhaps more.

N ight S chool Director: So when do they study this purpose, summers? Investor: No, nights throughout the school year. Director: What is the formal subject of the course? Or do we lend it mystique by having no articulated topic? Investor: I think we call it general studies, or something to that effect. But we really want to give the outside educated a dose of the inside medicine. You have to send the syllabus to the parents to make sure they are in support. Director: I see. When do they take up these studies? Toward the end of their schooling? At the beginning? All the time? Now and then? Or is that up to their parents? Investor: The parents say when. That way we know they are good with it. Director: What tells them their kids are ready? Investor: The parents sense that their kids are drifting from the inside way out toward the sameness beyond the gate. Director: But what if what they are moving toward is not sameness? Investor: I believe you know how to deal with that. Director: You set a difficult task before me, my friend. Not only do I teach the students, but now you are asking me to teach the parents, too! Developer: How do you begin teaching the students? Director: I ask them what they are studying on the outside and what they find most interesting. Then we study it anew, with the necessary supplements. Developer: You give it the inside twist. Director: Twist? I am straightening, no? Investor: The students learn the material better with you and thus do better on the outside. Director: That is fortuitous. But who teaches outside-inside general studies in the colonies? For that matter, who carries on for me when I cannot teach? Developer: When can you not teach? Director: Death sometimes gets in the way, friend. But if not that then suppose I’m taken with something else. Who knows? Developer: Then you have to pick your successor. And you pick the ones we send to the colonies.

185


Director: Okay. But does this night school work justify a full-time position for whomever we send? Developer: No, probably not. Director: What can we add to the role to fill it out? Developer: We can give the night school teachers a position at the school proper. And that gives them increased standing in the eyes of the inside-outside parents, right? Director: What do you have in mind? Are they to teach both day and night? Developer: We can stagger their schedules. During the day they teach courses on the fundamental laws of the city. That, too, raises their standing. Who better than a teacher of this to work with kids tending toward the outside? Director: To whom do they teach this topic during the day? Developer: To two groups — those midway through school, and those nearing the end. Director: What is the difference in how these two groups are taught? Developer: The only thing that differs is the discussion. The first thing those near the end get is a copy of the syllabus from their midway course. It’s their syllabus for the present course, too. They also receive copies of the things they wrote in their papers and on their exams midway through. They get to see how their thinking has developed.

I nfluence Director: So what is the effect of the inside-outside students? Investor: It depends on how much they intermingle with their inside peers. If they don’t much mix they might pique the curiosity of the insiders. Director: You mean the inside-outside students may have a sort of mystique with their inside peers. Developer: If they do, I think there are insiders who don’t like that very much. Nor do I think they like it if the inside-outside students have mystique outside. The brave or curious of the insiders want to get to know the outside better and dispel the aura on both sides of the wall. They go and meet the friends of the inside-outside student. Director: Without the insider-outsider? Developer: No, I suppose they need the introduction. Otherwise there may seem to be something threatening in it. Investor: What if these insiders are not friends with the inside-outsider? Do they make friends with him just in order to wipe out his mystique? What sort of friendship is that? No, let’s require that the insider-outsider take five inside friends with him into the outside world, just as he brings five friends from the

186

The Community

outside in, to dinner at the homes of his friends and all. In addition to fighting mystique, what the insiders learn outside creates new possibilities. Director: And our city can handle these new possibilities. Investor: Yes. We are making it strong. And it remains so as long as there is no change in the fundamental laws. Director: What do you think the effect of the five insiders is on the outsiders? Investor: Perhaps it makes them better disposed toward us. Developer: I am not so sure about that. Director: Why? Developer: They may not like the characters of our kids. Director: Is there a certain sort of kid who you think is most likely to offend? Developer: Yes, a ten. Director: And then the threes? Developer: If they have the character of peacemaker, as middle children often do, maybe not. Perhaps they accommodate the outsiders. Director: How do the outside parents influence our youth? Investor: It depends. If they are sympathetic they can help temper the inside in our kids with the outside, in a gentle way. They make clear, if our youths are receptive, that not everything good is within the gate. Director: And that not everything within the gate is good? What do you think the inside-outside kids think is good behind our wall? Investor: That is what your night time meetings are all about, my friend.

P ro B ono Director: Night time meetings and money aside, what good do you think comes of all of this, of our community? Investor: Do you mean our city’s contribution to the greater good? I am not sure there even is such a thing. Director: You do not believe that fighting sameness and promoting the interesting can go toward or amount to something great? Investor: Only for those who are willing to embrace the interesting and the fight. Director: And they have to be within, a part of the city to have something to embrace? Investor: It does not seem that way to you? I am inclined to believe that all good must, of necessity, be enclosed, that it is not possible for there to be a general good regardless of bounds.

187


Director: You mean to say that all good is a sort of surplus, and trying to share this with the outside amounts to spilling water in the sand — it all gets soaked up with nothing to show? Investor: Yes, exactly. All cities seem to be designed to protect this water from the thirsty deserts without. Developer: What is it we mean by surplus? Director: Space. Developer: The surplus in our enclosed city is space? Director: Why not? Everyone has his own land. We do not allow the splitting of parcels. That is fundamental law. The parcels are large and comfortable, as are the homes. So yes, there is a surplus of space. But there is another space, one we cannot simply create a law to protect — inner space. Developer: What is inner space, freedom? Director: Yes, something like that. Developer: Freedom from what? Outside authorities? Director: As much as possible, yes. Investor: Freedom from outside ideas? Director: To the extent one has a choice in the matter. Investor: But what about freedom from inside ideas? Director: What do you think it means to be free of an idea? Investor: Let’s say it means to have the choice of believing it, living it, or not. Director: Believing is living? So, the idea that the tens have more weight can be lived or not, depending on one’s belief? Investor: A citizen has to live that idea. But that does not mean he has to believe it, believe that tens actually have more weight. Developer: But they do have more weight. Investor: Only because enough people believe they do — the judge enforcing the fundamental contracts, for instance. That is the way of all institutions.

I deas

and

S ameness

Developer: So if an idea comes to life, is believed in by enough people, the right people, does that make it a sameness? For instance, is it a sameness to say the interesting is good? Or, to say that space is the good our community produces or guards? Director: Do you think three people can form a sameness?

188

The Community

Developer: If we embody the idea in the city, yes. But you must know there are others out there who think the interesting is good, who desire space. It cannot just be us. Director: Yes, but opinions vary as to what is spacious and of interest. Investor: What are the opinions of those we want to attract to our community? Director: We want people of the opinion that our plan is good. Investor: What do you think they like about the plan? Director: Some like the idea of a walled town. Some like the properties. Some like the services and conveniences. Investor: Of course. But if that is all they like are they the kind of people we want? Director: What attracts our kind? Investor: The fight against sameness, Director. Director: Are they attracted by the fighting, or by inner space? Investor: The fighting is for the sake of the inner space. So how can you separate the two? Director: They separate the day that inner space, which may well be the keystone to our city, becomes sameness. Developer: How can we prevent that? Director: I may be wrong, my friend. Perhaps inner space is the one idea that is untouched, necessarily, by sameness — always. Investor: We have to get clear on what sameness is. Is it sameness anytime more than one person lives an idea? Or does it require some sort of majority? Director: Let’s look at it a bit differently, in a way that, perhaps, guarantees inner space itself never becomes sameness, or at least delays that transformation for as long as possible. Sameness is something imposed that fills inner space. Investor: But we impose our fundamental laws. And the weighted majority imposes the outcome of the votes. Developer: Does any of that really affect the inner space of any citizen? Investor: Maybe not in the first generation. But over time I think it does, as it’s internalized, as it becomes an empty way of life and not the means to live. Developer: That, my friend, is why we must equip our youths to resist sameness. Director: Whom do they train to fight? Developer: Why, us — the lawgivers. Who else? Investor: So they learn to fight the basic ideas of the city. But what can they do? They cannot vote or participate in council. Not that doing so helps much. While it is possible to counter or weaken the effect of the basic law to some degree 189


though general votes, the fact of the caste structure, and all that follows from it, remains. Director: Yes, but once they are of age and means they can buy the fundamentals out. Indeed, any individual or group can thus overcome the basic law.

PART THREE O pting O ut Investor: That assumes we are willing to sell. Developer: But even if we are, what does buying us out accomplish? The buyers control the infrastructure, not the basic law. That remains in force through the individual contracts of the property owners. Director: That is why we need a provision in those contracts for a citizen buyout that allows for changes in the basic law. Investor: But then the citizens have no permanent guarantee about the first principles they live under. Developer: Does anyone anywhere really have such a guarantee? Investor: If people want to be out from under our basic law they can simply sell out and move. What does allowing a buyout like this accomplish? Director: You don’t want to profit from the selling of your shares? Developer: Of course we do. And we can profit when individual owners sell out. How? Their property is not freely alienable. When an owner wants to sell, he has to notify us. We then start looking for a buyer, one who can pass the screening for pack animals. When we have one, the seller sells to us, and we to the buyer. We give the seller ten percent less than what we get from the buyer, due to a search and transaction fee. Director: Does the seller take part in the general votes after he declares his intent? Developer: Ah, good catch. No, we don’t want sellers causing trouble on their way out. Director: What do we do if someone on the inside wants to buy the property? Investor: That violates the population ratio. Director: Even if a parent is buying for a child? Investor: The child must own, not the parent. Director: So the child buys the property from the parent for a cup of coffee. Developer: Since we are on the topic, what does happen if we violate the population ratio? What if a citizen buys up ten properties in his own caste and does nothing other than use them for himself?

190

The Community

Director: The dynamic of deliberation in council changes. The social and academic dynamics in the school change. The demand for goods and services changes. Why? Developer: I wonder if we can fight a sameness, the idea that votes belong to the individual citizens. Maybe our votes belong to the land, and the owner of that land gets to use all of them. Investor: I think we have to save that change for our next city-state development. To do this now we have to start our plan anew in order to accommodate it properly. Director: Perhaps it’s possible to run the city as we have said for a period of so many years, until it’s well established, and there are colonies, and so on. Then, per a special clause in the fundamental law, we introduce the land vote and let people have at it. Or maybe we make the change in a colony, as a more or less controlled experiment. Investor: The colony change is interesting. Do you think potential buyers go for it? Developer: There are always those who want more land, more votes, more sway. And there are always those who let them have their way, one way or another. We may as well get ahead of this desire and channel it where we want. Director: Yes, and we can drive up profit. We can place a significant premium atop the market price for inside buyers. But tell me this. When people want to sell out, do we make them give a reason why? I think people want to know. Developer: What, you mean some sort of public declaration? Director: Yes. Let it be available at the town hall. The seller writes as long or short an explanation as he likes. Then anyone who wants to know can take a walk over and read it. I recommend we do not put this document online. We don’t want it to be too easy for people. I think this makes it more likely that someone writes up something significant. Along these lines, there is no formal review process. We don’t want to intimidate the authors. The community can learn something from their candid statements. Developer: What if these statements are scathing? Director: No need to worry. The palate of the people can detect a sour grape. So can those of many prospective buyers, or at least those of the right kind. Developer: We show them these documents? Director: Oh, yes — especially the one from the person whose property they are considering. Our buyers can appreciate openness from a closed community. Investor: How many sellers do you think leave town as soon as they give notice, or even before? Director: It’s hard to say. But what happens when they are gone, when they are out? Do former citizens have a say, a stake, or both in the community? Or is it as it is with the general vote once they declare intent to sell, and they are cut off? 191


H asten

the

E nd

Investor: Just as it is a sameness that you have a stake and a say up until the moment you sell, so it is a sameness that you have no stake or say once you are out. Director: How do we keep them in the game? Investor: Well, there are a few possibilities. They can vote, much like the colonists. We can give them, at most, ten percent of the weight of the threes. Developer: But think of the trouble we have if they harbor bad feelings about the community. Investor: On the other hand, what if they really care about the community and vote for its best interest, seeing things more clearly from the distance? Director: There is another way, one that does not involve the general vote. Instead of giving them cash for their property, give them fundamental shares. Developer: Are you serious? Suppose we do this. What happens if we have lots of turnover and have to give out more shares than we like, enough for their votes to cause us difficulty? Director: Then we do not give them voting shares. Investor: Regardless what kind of shares they get, how do they cash out? These shares have no liquidity. Do they just have to wait for the big buyout at the end? Director: There is a market for these shares — our citizen-owners. Investor: What do they want with them? Director: Why, they want to vote with them. Once transferred to a citizen, the shares become voting shares. We can work that out legally, right? Developer: Probably. But how do we stop the citizens from having too much say in fundamental business? Director: We give them the option of trading these shares in for a percentage of the fundamental operating profits, a nice stream of income. I think many go for this. But many of those who do not, push to make the big buyout happen so they can cash out. So we set in motion a dynamic to help bring about the end.

L oyal

and

S tubborn

Investor: But what about those who hold shares and do not want a buyout, do not want to see a change in the fundamental law? What can they do to slow the momentum in that direction? Director: They can do everything in their power to make their neighbors want to stay. But when neighbors do leave, the citizens loyal to the initial form of the city can buy their shares and sit on them. Developer: All it takes is one citizen to buy everything up. His votes can make things difficult for us. 192

The Community

Director: Why not make him a better offer for those shares than the percentage of operating profit he declines? Developer: And if he is stubborn and does not care how much we offer him? Director: Can you limit the total amount of stock you can transfer to sellers? Let’s say that the three of you can hold no less than fifty-one percent of the shares. At that point, sellers receive cash for their property. Developer: But in practice that still means a stubborn, loyal man with a significant chunk of shares can get whatever he wants if he can only win one of us over to his side. Director: Well, you can always lower the percentage of shares you transfer. Make it so that the bank and citizen shareholders combined don’t have enough to outvote you two united. Say the bank has thirty-six percent, you each have twenty-seven, and the others have ten. Do you have enough money to get in that deep? Investor: Potentially, but it depends on a number of things that are up in the air at the moment, other investments.

F undamentals Director: I guess we just have to see what can be done. But I want to get more clear on the fundamentals. You own the whole infrastructure — the unsold land, the stores, the hotels, the services, security, the wall. Is there anything else? Developer: No, that pretty much covers it, unless you want to get into details like water, sewage, and power lines. Director: In addition to all of these things, the fundamentals draw up the basic law and the constitutions, right? Developer: Yes, and that can be done before there are even any shares in existence. Director: And those things cannot be changed, not even by the fundamentals. Developer: Indeed. It takes the buyout. Director: Now, what money do you make? You have the profit from the initial sales of the properties. Then you have the operating profits of the community. And then, potentially, you have the proceeds of the sale of your fundamental shares. Investor: Is there something you are trying to get at, Director? Director: Yes. What if all of this is not enough? What if one of you, the bank, say, wants out, wants to sell its shares prior to a citizen buyout? What do you do? Is that even allowed? Developer: We have to work that out with the bank. I suspect no one wants any of the others to get out and bring in someone new, at least early on. Director: It’s too great a variable when there is so much at stake? Developer: Exactly. 193


Director: But what sorts of things do the fundamentals vote on if they are drawing everything up beforehand into contract and plan? Developer: Operations, expansion. Director: But you can also vote on additional shares, bonds, or even a public offering, right? Developer: Depending how we set things up, yes. Director: Do you think the citizens care if important parts of the community are publically owned, from the outside? Investor: Nothing we are talking about makes any sense if the answer is no. Director: But why? What can those public owners vote on that really affects the citizens? The basic law is the basic law. The constitutions bind with outside legal force. What is left? Expansion? Do the fundamental documents not regulate how this happens? The shareholders just decide where and when. Investor: Maybe they expand too quickly, out of greed, and in the wrong place. Developer: Or maybe they expand too slowly. Director: But they are governed by the same economic concerns as the original fundamentals, right? How likely is it they are wildly off the mark concerning what works and what does not? Can they not seek your advice if they are uncertain? Developer: Of course they can. Director: If the way of doing is clear and the only question is when to do it, is the decision to move forward strategic or tactical? Developer: It seems strange to call the founding of a colony tactical, but yes, I think it is. We determine the strategy in advance. Director: And what about choosing where to put the colony? Developer: That is a tactical decision with strategic implications. Director: What about operations concerns? Are they strategic? Developer: Not really. The operational outline is drawn up in the fundamental documents. We give our owners guarantees about how things run, so there is no room for strategic change. Director: Then we have tactical votes here, too. As for day-to-day operations, do the outside fundamentals go it on their own or do they hire managers? Developer: They hire managers, and these managers are subject to our standard hiring process. Director: So why do our citizens care if outsiders hold the shares? Investor: They object on principle. Director: What principle? 194

The Community

Investor: A negative principle. They object to public ownership, the idea of public ownership. Director: Why? Investor: They want to know and trust the owners. That is one of the reasons why we are going to live in the community, after all. They appreciate our discretion. They don’t want their affairs to be the business of just anyone. And they very much care who is in charge of tactics. Tactics affects everyday life more than strategy as far as many are concerned, even though they are on some level aware that strategy can dictate tactics. Director: Then maybe we put it in the basic law that you and Developer are in it until the very end, the big payoff. You go down with the ship if you have to. But if the ship outfloats you both we have a provision allowing the citizens to select the successor fundamentals, if they do not just buy the whole thing out at that point, proceeds to your estates. Investor: What about the bank? Director: What do you mean? Investor: The citizens don’t know it and trust it. Well, maybe some do. Still, can you see the problem? Director: Yes. Well, it’s privately held. That is a good start, no? Investor: True. But we don’t know the chairman yet. A lot depends on what sort of man he is. Director: A lot, or everything? Do you go forward with the project if he is the sort that cannot be a citizen, someone who cannot make it through our buyer screening? Or do the citizens figure that two out of three fundamentals is alright? But suppose we are in luck and he is sympathetic. How wonderful if he becomes a ten, no?

D ual R esidencies Developer: What if he turns out to be the sort who can be a citizen but wants to split his time between our community and somewhere else? What if anyone wants to do that? A lot of those interested in our community have multiple abodes. We cannot exactly tell them to sell them all. Investor: Maybe they have to make those abodes vacation homes because we have a residency requirement. People are buying into a community here, not just picking up another property for their real estate portfolio. Director: Perhaps the votes persuade them to stay in town. People have to vote in person. Can we say in the basic law that there cannot be an absentee process? Investor: Let’s take it further and say that voters have to be in town one week prior to the vote, on the ground that they need to understand the issue, to understand

195


what is happening in or around council. Being in town is the only way to do that. Director: If we want, we can draw this out by having no more than one general vote per week. All the offices have to wait their turn, according to a set schedule. Developer: So the maximum number of offices is fifty-two, if they vote at least once per year. Director: Do you think we need more than fifty-two? Developer: That seems unlikely. Investor: If there are less than fifty-two do we cycle back around? Director: Yes. Investor: Then we have politics between the offices for the early slots, so they can get more than one vote per year. Director: We can always just keep on going at the end of the year instead of starting from the top again. But if we do start again, and some offices get more than one vote, perhaps one of the main functions of the officers is to negotiate the voting order. Perhaps we have an office for this very purpose. Investor: Yes. So what we have is a system in which the councils have to plan for votes and not just whip them off on single items whenever the spirit moves them. They have to put together a package of many items, a package that involves many compromises. But is the idea of a legislative package not a sameness from the outside? Developer: Even if it is, do you think we need direct, immediate votes on everything? That seems likely to spark a great deal of conflict. Is it worth the risk? Director: There are exceptions to this general process. The movie schedule is one. Investor: Why? Because only the tens vote? Director: Yes. Any time one class votes and binds them all we have an exception. Developer: Such voting is a powerful tool. What other things are so voted? Director: We either come up with them and establish them in the basic law or we leave the matter to the general vote. Investor: I say the basic law only pronounces on the movies, to set the example. From there, we manage these exceptions through an office of non-general votes, with a general vote on its proposals. Developer: That sounds fine to me. But let’s get back to the question of multiple residencies. We have a process in which those with the most individual weight, the tens, feel more compelled to be present for the general votes than the other classes, because there is more at stake with the action of any one of them. They may feel compelled because of community conscience, selfinterest, peer pressure. Regardless, the ones with the most means, by and large, 196

The Community

to have the most other, outside homes, are those who seem least likely to leave town and stay at them.

O ffice

of

O ffices , N on -G eneral V otes

Director: Who determines what offices exist in the first place? Is this a function of the basic law? Investor: Let’s start with nineteen offices in the basic law that cover all aspects of life. If the citizens do not think that is enough they can create more through an office of offices, one of the nineteen. None of the new offices can encroach upon the scope of any of the originals. Director: What happens if the citizens create an office but then repent and wish to uncreate? Or maybe they don’t repent but the office has simply performed its function and is no longer needed. What then? Investor: Either way, we have a general vote on the question. Director: If it is not that the people repent, does the office to be dissolved put forward its own proposal of dissolution, or does that come from the office of offices? Investor: Let’s say that it can be either. That way an office can have the honor of calling for its own end when it completes its function. But if it seems inclined to go beyond its charter, then the office of offices steps in. Director: Is it harder to create or uncreate an office, or are the processes the same? Investor: You mean do we need a simple majority or a supermajority for either? I think that the outside sameness is that once something is done it is very hard to undo. So let’s say it takes a supermajority of two-thirds to create and a simple majority to uncreate. Director: Alright. Let’s get back to the non-general votes for a minute. Do each of these votes need an officer and a committee? Investor: Yes, of course. Director: Are these officers and committees newly created for each new non-general vote, or can existing committees and officers take them on? Investor: Since many of these votes are for small things I think we can use the existing offices. Developer: So an office that might not particularly want a certain non-general vote can have that non-general vote thrust upon it by a general vote. Investor: Yes, why not? When an office has new responsibilities there is new life and interest among the citizens taking part in the council. What office do we want not to want that?

C ouncil Developer: How do the councils function? 197


Director: We are saying that any and all citizens may join in the proceedings. Developer: So that means we have to have a space large enough to hold all of the citizens. Director: Yes. Or do we have to create many large spaces because there are simultaneous council meetings? Developer: Perhaps we limit how often they meet. We don’t have the space or resources for many such halls. Investor: But we want free and frequent deliberation. Developer: Then that means not every council can accommodate the whole community. So it matters which space a council gets. Investor: What if we allow virtual participation? Developer: That helps, but does not address the problem of councils meeting simultaneously. Suppose there is a very popular and important topic being taken up by a council one night, and another group decides to transact some important, though quiet, business at the same time. That group might be quite small and yet able to dominate the important business while everyone else is at the popular meeting. Investor: Then no two councils can meet at once. We can schedule them throughout the day and evening, starting at seven in the morning and running until ten at night. Developer: But people are busy during the day. Investor: Too busy to care about the affairs of their city? Developer: How do we decide which meetings are during the day and which at night? Investor: Perhaps we determine this by lot. Developer: And we change it up every so often so we have less trouble? Director: That seems good. But we have not gotten to the most difficult part. The councils draw up items to be voted on. How do they do this? Investor: I think they decide what is to be voted on by weighted vote. Developer: Fine. But who actually draws up the proposal? Investor: Well, the officer leads the council in a discussion of the topic in question. Developer: What then? Investor: The council forms a drafting committee. Developer: How many people are on this committee? Investor: Five. Developer: So someone in the council raises his hand and says he nominates so-and-so, and then the council votes? Investor: Yes. 198

The Community

Developer: So one must nominate his candidates quickly. But what if the officer only calls on his friends, who then nominate other friends? Investor: Maybe we choose committee members by lot. Developer: Suppose we do. The committee, once chosen, then goes off on its own to draw up the proposal? Investor: Yes. Developer: Is the say of each member equal or weighted according to caste? Investor: This is the only time the three classes have an equal say. Otherwise it’s very difficult to produce the document. Developer: So they produce a draft proposal. Must they agree on it unanimously, or by majority, before presenting to the council? Investor: Let’s say they must agree unanimously. We don’t want dissenters trying to dissuade the council from accepting the document. Developer: What happens if the council rejects the document? Investor: The committee goes off and produces another draft, and so on until the council accepts their work. More wine?

M ore W ine Developer: Please, yes. Investor: Let me go upstairs and see what it’s doing outside first. Director: What do you think of all this, Developer? Developer: I think we can both make good and do good with this thing, friend. Director: And what about being good, old friend? Developer: Ha! I am not so sure about that. Director: You really intend to live in this city, for good? Developer: Yes, I do, even if I have to go down with the ship. Investor: Oh my goodness! It has gotten worse. It’s a complete whiteout. I better get the wine. Director: Well, Developer, we better not forget the snow removal equipment for the city. Are we leaving anything else out? Developer: No, not that I can think of. Let’s just drink away the storm and speak of other things. Director: Of what shall we speak? Developer: How about cities in general? Are they all, essentially, the same as ours? Director: You mean are they all trying to protect a surplus?

199


Developer: I think they are. But do they all aim to counter an outside sameness, at least at first? Investor: Here we are! Two of my very finest. The bottle in my left hand is one of the deepest, most complex flavored wines I have. The one in my right has some bite still and tastes of cherry and vanilla. Director: Thank you, Investor. We were just talking about cities and whether they all are born in strife with outside sameness. Investor: Sameness is the desert. Director: What about colonies? Must they, too, struggle against the sands? Investor: Their struggle is similar to that of the mother city, though not quite as great. Director: But there is also struggle within cities, yes? Each, in time, develops its own samenesses. Investor: Yes, and those struggles create the potential to birth new cities, eventually. Developer: Since the fundamental law governs our colonies, are we talking about buyouts there, too? Director: We certainly can put something in their basic law that allows for that. Developer: What stops these rebels, or even those in the mother city, from going off and starting their own city, one that has nothing at all to do with our larger community? Director: Perhaps they don’t wish to sever close ties of friendship and family. Being in a colony, instead of a new city, keeps them nearer, if only because of the votes and airstrips. It lets them keep more things in common. Moreover, a colony has the advantage of support from the motherland, both financial, potentially, and otherwise. You know, it is not easy to start a city from scratch. We saw that very clearly at the county board meeting tonight. And it no doubt gets worse. Investor: They say it’s easier and more effective to create something new under the guise of something old. Director: If you think that is true, why do you think that is? Investor: Fewer feathers get ruffled. Many people focus on the facade, the paint, the windows, the yard, the roof, the size of the rooms — and miss what has changed: the foundation. If we keep all of those other things more or less the same, we have more leeway when it comes to the basic law. Developer: So we can change the number of classes in a colony if only the stores, public buildings, and homes look the same? Investor: I know it sounds crazy. But if we keep those things the same I think we only need a plausible reason for a fundamental change. I am sometimes surprised at how superficial people can be. 200

The Community

Director: I think there is a way we can have a real reason instead of a plausible one. Suppose the city we are talking about starts out as an essentially new city, an experiment conducted by the mother city. There is no insurrection, no fundamental rebellion against the basic law, just daring colonists exploring new forms. Investor: Let’s put a section on experimental colonies in the fundamental law. Developer: But what of dilution of the mother city brand if these colonies do not turn out very well? Director: Is there really a problem as long as it’s clear to all that the colony is a grand experiment? The very fact that our city can undertake something like this probably increases its prestige with the outside world. Developer: Suppose we create a colony that has, for instance, no restriction on the number or schedule of general votes. Or a colony whose voting weight ratio is ten to seven to three, instead of ten to three to one. Suppose one of these changes meets with great success. What happens back in the mother city? People there want these changes then, too, no? Director: Perhaps some of them do. But if they are serious, they, short of the great buyout, can sell their property and move to the colony they so admire.

E xperiments Developer: Few people are likely to do that. Director: But our citizens have great means at their disposal, and we know they are at least somewhat adventurous based on the fact that they joined our community in the first place. Developer: If many people file their intent to sell, and offer as their reason the belief that the way of life in a colony is better, how many buyers does that encourage to purchase property in the mother city? Director: Are they not buying the established name and reputation? Do they really care very much about something new and strange happening in one of the colonies? Developer: But are those the type of citizens we want, ones who don’t care that there may be a better way of life available elsewhere? Do we not screen people like that out? Investor: Director, how do you think we can have experimental colonies without undermining the mother city and other colonies? Director: Let’s look at it this way. What if the experiments fail? What does failure look like? Investor: People are unhappy. They want to sell. Director: What is it like trying to get people to buy property in a failed experimental colony? 201


Investor: Not so good. Something like that is a near total loss, for those who take the risk. Director: Is there anything we can do to prevent failure? Investor: Failure cannot be made impossible, or else there is no true experiment, which means it can never really succeed. Director: Do we let these colonists have the option of changing their basic law to that of the mother city through means of some extraordinary general vote? Or maybe they can tweak their own experimental basic law through such votes until they get something that works. Developer: What do they do, tweak the number of classes? Tweak the voting weight? Investor: Why not, if everyone, or mostly everyone, thinks it’s a good idea? Developer: These are no small modifications. If everything is changeable, no one feels like he has solid ground to stand on. Changes like this are massively disruptive. Investor: People have to understand that as the risk they take in going to an experimental colony. We can have them sign waivers to this effect. But not everything is changeable, you know, only certain things. They still have their constitutions, contracts enforceable by the outside authorities. Director: While we are on the topic, is there anything we can do about that outside dependency? Developer: What do you have in mind, having buyers sign contracts that are deliberately unenforceable on the outside? That is a pretty big leap of faith, my friend. How much can someone depend on trust and mutual interest alone? Investor: We just have to find our own ways of dealing with problems that normally lead to an outside enforcement action, ways that give purchasers confidence. Developer: However that may turn out, who draws up and approves the experiment? Director: Why who else but scientists, political scientists? Investor: Who are our political scientists? Director: The three of us can pass for such, provided we adequately disguise our non-scientific traits. Perhaps the bank qualifies as one. But who from the community? Investor: How about the teachers of political science at the school? Director: A good and obvious choice. Let’s say we pick one of these men to join us. But who called for the experiment in the first place? Citizens, or us? If citizens, they can determine among themselves who they want to represent them. If us, we represent ourselves. In either case, these people all come together in discussion and then draft the experiment. The fundamentals have to approve unanimously.

202

The Community

Investor: So even if the citizens initiate, we dominate the discussions and drafting since we have final say? Director: If they do initiate, I think it’s a mistake for us to do that. We want to help shape the experiment, help shape whatever ideas they have into something that has a chance of success.

S parks Developer: So we create an experimental colony based on their ideas. It grows and prospers. And it is fundamentally a different thing than the mother city, a different city. Yet it’s still part of our greater community. How long can that last? Its tendency is to create its own community, a community that gels on its own. Now, it does not take much to imagine the sorts of spats that arise from time to time between child and parent. I believe that, inevitably, one of these little fights becomes more than the colony can take. Now it wants a formal break and buys itself out of any ties to the motherland. Director: And so we turn a profit on necessity. Investor: And that is that? We have nothing more to do with them? Director: That is that. We have the details for the buy-out worked out in their charter. We can provide consulting services to help them with the transfer, and even be available for them after the split if they want help. Investor: What is the process for their deciding to split? Director: It’s a general vote with a high supermajority requirement. They can work out the money arrangements on their own. Investor: It seems so sad. Director: Oh come on, Investor. We communities can still be friends, or allies at least. How many walled cities are there these days, after all? But tell me, what do you think weighs most heavily in their decision to leave the community? Investor: Aside from their desire for independence and complete control over their fundamental law and infrastructure? The tax to the motherland. Director: What do you guess is the spark that finally lights the blaze? Investor: Oh, I say there are sparks on Foundation Day, when everyone is eating, drinking, and merrymaking for twelve hours or more — and the colonists are staying in the homes of the owners. There is trouble in that, eventually. But, still, let’s not make them stay in the hotel.

O ther T hings Director: It seems we have abandoned our plan. Investor: What plan?

203


Director: While you were away, Developer and I agreed to drink away the storm while speaking of other things than our city. And yet here we are talking about it again. It seems we cannot help ourselves. Investor: Well, we are helping ourselves rather well to the wine. What other things are we supposed to be talking about? Director: Cities in general. Investor: What can one say about that? Director: All cities have a birth, life, and death. Investor: The death of cities is a terrible thing. Director: Not all of them go out in fire and flame. Some just fade away. Developer: Tonight we are talking about the life of our city. Tomorrow we start working on its birth. Is now really the time to talk about its end? Director: Not even the big buyout? Developer: I prefer to think of that as a new beginning. Director: But not one of which you are part? Developer: Who knows? Just because a man sells out does not mean he cannot play a role in the new endeavor. Director: Suppose we get the city up and running. And suppose all the properties are sold, and everything is working according to plan. But then suppose that, for whatever reason, we come to think that the city is vile, that it makes people act in a way we do not care for, not at all. Suppose we decide the city must die. How do we kill it? Developer: We attack the vital organs, the arteries, the veins. We can also kill it off by starvation, thirst, or suffocation. Investor: Or we simply open the gate to the enemy during the darkest hour of a moonless night.

M ore O ther T hings Developer: Enough of that. What else can we talk about? Investor: Wine cellars. Director: In which to have conversations like this? Investor: Yes, for rooting around for samenesses like pigs for truffles. We can have awards for the best sameness discoveries and explications. We can be like that people that comes to no decision unless the matter is considered both when sober and drinking first. Director: Which of those two states, in decision making, do you think belongs first?

204

The Community

Developer: The sober state. You need to hear all the arguments and facts and weigh them coldly. Director: But then you later weigh them when heated? Developer: Yes, you need to make sure you are listening to your gut. Director: Why not listen to gut first? Developer: I don’t know if the colder side of many people knows how to make sense of what comes from the warm. It tends to shush it, play it down, and then ignore it altogether. Of course, the opposite problem exists. So maybe we take turns, one state ahead of the other, on and on until the way is clear. Director: Yes, why not? But is it the same with samenesses? Do we need to consider them in both states, or is this really just for decisions to be taken? Developer: Perhaps we have to be a little loose to unearth them, the really difficult ones. Then we consider them carefully later. Director: But friend, here is what I want to know. Is it possible to get at samenesses while stone cold sober? Developer: It’s hard to say, Director. I think it is safer to say it takes a bit of encouragement in the form of libation to get someone to talk about them with others. Investor: To talk about or to attack? Developer: We are begging the question as to who is party to these discussions. Must they be friends who trust one another? Can they be people who attack one another, however politely? Investor: No, they are friends. Director: As friends, are they the same kind of people, or do they differ? Investor: I think they differ. The more diversity, the greater the chance of digging up sameness. Director: What is one of the greatest differences in our city? Investor: The difference between castes. Director: I’m thinking of one greater still. Investor: What? Director: The difference between young and old. Investor: The young are party to the sober discussions? Director: Yes. But I wonder if they do not take part in the drinking, too. Do we dare break in our cellars the outside law concerning the age of drink? Investor: You want to give wine to underage youths and hear them out on what they know, or think they know, about sameness? Director: Is it a bad idea? 205


Investor: You know that word of this eventually reaches the outside. Director: Yes friend, but it’s only as a rumor, most likely. Besides, we have friends among the outside authorities. Investor: So where do we hold these gatherings, in public or private cellars? Director: It seems more a private thing, no? I mean, if it’s in public and found out, the outside authorities have grounds to cause trouble for the city. If it’s private, the trouble is private, too. Investor: Are their parents present? Director: I think not. We want uninhibited views. There is much one can learn from the youth when they feel free. Investor: But you know what the problem is. They need to stay the night. We cannot have them roaming around after hours drunk, in the dark. Director: The parents must trust the host and other drinkers, must know them well enough to be comfortable with that. Investor: Are they all from the same caste? Director: I think the host and the drinkers are all of the same class. Investor: But not the youth? I assume there is only one. Director: There are always two youths, actually. And two out of three times the youths are not of the same caste as the adults. You see, each youth has three cellar sessions in his time, one with each class. The one with his own is last. He can inform them of all he has learned from the other castes. Investor: Is it one session each year? Director: I’m not sure. When do you think they start? Age fourteen, running through fifteen and sixteen? Investor: No, I think it’s sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen. Developer: Let’s say fourteen, sixteen, eighteen. Director: So be it. Investor: Do you think parents want it to start that young? Director: Maybe not, in some cases. But this is not a hard and fast rule that we commit to writing. This is more of an understanding among some parents and other adults. We have some flexibility here. The youth begin when they are ready.

U nofficial Investor: How do the youths overcome their nerves the first time? For some it’s their first time drinking. And it’s in a room full of people from another caste. Developer: The wine helps.

206

The Community

Investor: Yes, but what if they drink too much and become incoherent or even get sick? Do they get to try again, or do they have to wait two years? Director: No, they get to try again. But if three hours pass there is no doing it again. Nine to midnight is plenty of time. But we set no hard ending time. The symposium ends when the dialogue completes. Investor: Let’s start at ten instead of nine. I like to think of them discoursing through the arrival of a new day. Director: A fine touch. Now, the point is to discuss sameness, inside and out. The conversation always starts there. But it goes wherever it goes, agreed? Investor: Of course. Do we somehow record or document the talk? Developer: No. We do not want to pressure the youths in any way. Investor: But maybe someone writes up a summary the next day. Developer: And what do we do with that? Officially, this conversation never takes place. Investor: Yes, but the host can keep the summary and sometime later, maybe when the youth is done with school, give him that record. Developer: To what end, friend? Some things are meant to be said, and only said, and to live on nowhere but in memory. But what I want to know is what we do if we have a youth who knows about the cellar dialogues and wants to take part, but his parents are opposed. Do we go against their wishes and bring him in? Director: What do you think? Developer: I think it depends on whether we can trust the youth. Fourteen is old enough to be worthy of confidence. So we must judge.

To

the

H eights

Investor: Let’s climb out of the cellar now and ascend to the heights. What is the tallest building in our little town? Do we give the school the best and farthest view? Developer: If we do, who gets the top floor? Director: A statesman once said the one who can see furthest back can see farthest ahead. So let’s give the floor to our history classes, across all grades. Our history is history of any topic imaginable, after all. Developer: That works for me. Investor: But what is the preeminent historical study in our school? Director: The medieval walled town. Investor: Do the youths study that throughout their education, or early on, or at the end? Director: Let’s give them a foundation early on and then let them examine it near the end when they are more equipped to do so. But speaking of foundations, we 207


must make the school’s strong, for there is someplace higher still than the highest floor — the lookout tower. Investor: Who ascends to that? Director: The worst seven students going in to their final year. Developer: Ha! Excellent.

M iddle , D ark

or

L ight

Investor: The cellar is the low. The tower is the high. What is in the middle? Director: The middle ground of our picture? From what perspective shall we look? Investor: Do you mean inside or outside? Let’s start from the outside. Director: Okay. But let’s begin with the foreground. What is it from the outside perspective? Investor: The wall. Director: Then what is the middle ground? Investor: Our activities in the second and third rings? Director: And what is the background? Investor: I do not think outsiders see the background, or if they do, it’s only very little of it. Director: What is the background from the inner perspective? Investor: The whole outside world. Developer: But it can also be limited to one’s own narrow history outside. Director: Either way, do we want this to be a dark or light background? Investor: Are you suggesting one paint his own background? Director: To what extent is that possible? Certainly one can darken a light one. But is it not much harder to lighten a dark one? Developer: Everyone gets a new start in a newly founded city. Investor: And that includes a new start for history, in general, too? Developer: That seems to be the way of these things, my friend. Investor: But there are, no doubt, youths who want to know the true history, the original history, that is, or anything as close to it as they can get. Developer: That can be the lore of the cellars, an oral history. Investor: Assuming the drinkers are not just telling stories. Developer: Is it even possible to avoid having the original history degenerate into stories as it passes on across the generations? At the outset, where does this history come from? Us? The school? Citizen parents to their children? Do 208

The Community

any of these give a complete and accurate history? Do parents ever tell their children everything? Investor: It’s extremely unlikely there are any parents who tell their children everything. But some tell them much. And some want them to know but do not want to be the one telling. Developer: This is where our symposiums are of use. Investor: Perhaps. But you know what I think? Our city is not a painting. Director: What is it? Investor: A song.

N otes

and

C hisels

Director: What are the low, middle, and high notes? Are they our castes, or are they things that happen in our city, things that people do? Investor: The low notes are the workings of the fundamental laws, a sort of rumbling that underlies all else. The middle notes are the day-to-day activities of the citizens, as organized by the forms made through council and vote. The high notes are the culminations, the honors, the things toward which the citizens strive. If we think of the notes in terms of caste, however, we have a harder time. Are the tens the lowest because they have the most individual weight and therefore sink to the bottom? Or are they the highest because they are the wealthiest and fewest? But since the overall caste weight of the tens and ones is equal, and the threes have slightly less, are the threes highest, being lightest? It is not clear. Director: Your first articulation of the notes works well enough, friend. But what lies between the notes is just as important — silence. And we are creating silences in our city, are we not? Space, both physical and inner. Developer: Do you think ours is the only city designed for this kind of silence? Director: Probably not. Investor: Well, I go so far as to say that desire for space drives, at least in part, the creation of all new cities. Developer: The desire for outer or inner space? Or do you think one always goes with the other? Investor: I think it can be either. And no, they don’t always go together. Developer: Which is harder to obtain and maintain? Investor: Inner space, no doubt. Director: What can those who lack the means to create a whole new city dedicated to the cause do in order to have inner space? Developer: They can start with a wine cellar society and proceed from there. 209


Director: Yes. So much for the silences in our music. What is the percussion in the ensemble? Investor: I think it is the staff. Director: Do we honor or reward those who play very well? Or do we not want people from this section to stand out? Perhaps we hide them behind the other players at the back of the stage. Investor: I think we honor them among themselves, quietly. Citizens need not be involved. Developer: What if a citizen wishes to honor someone on the staff? Investor: The citizen pays to have that person’s name chiseled into one of the stones of the wall, with the price rising as one approaches the gate. Developer: What about the staff that works completely behind the scenes, the ones the citizens never interact with directly? Can management confer this honor on them? Investor: Yes, there may be names on the wall that no citizen knows. Developer: Who pays for these honors? Investor: We fundamentals. Director: Can staff nominate an owner, to have his name chiseled in the wall? Investor: Yes. In that case the person receiving the honor pays. Director: Must more than one of the staff nominate? Investor: The process requires a petition with seven staff signatures. Developer: What happens when a couple of years go by and there are many staff names on the wall and none from the citizens? Investor: Well, teachers are considered staff, right? Developer: Sure. Investor: They can help keep things balanced. Director: Do you think that because you think our teachers are peacemakers, more so than the rest of the staff? I don’t know that they are. I think we leave it alone and let things play out the way they do. After all, the longer we go without the name of an owner on the wall the greater the honor when one is finally there. But let’s get rid of payment for proximity to the gate as too divisive. Instead, let’s chisel all the names in small letters in an out-of-the-way area, one following another. And let’s chisel the names of the owners right along with the staff, mixed.

210

The Community

C rimes Investor: To knit the community together even more I say we allow citizens to nominate other citizens for their contributions, with an emphasis on crosscaste recognition. Director: Very good. But what of those who rend the fabric of our polity? What do we do with them? Developer: We do not want the outside authorities involved if possible. Investor: We need our own code. Director: Is there an office of crimes in the basic law? Investor: The code itself is part of the basic law, something not to be tampered with. Director: Perhaps a little flexibility is good here, to allow us to adjust to unexpected circumstances such as new offences or punishments that no longer seem to fit the crime. Investor: I think we must at least have certain fundamental crimes in the basic law. Director: Are you thinking of crimes that are covered by the outside codes? Investor: No, I’m thinking of community specific crimes. Developer: But as with our civil laws the youths eventually fight these fundamental, community crimes as sameness. Let’s keep all of our criminal laws open to change through an office of crimes and the general vote. This way we can adjust to the youth as they evolve. Investor: But some samenesses are necessary. Developer: Yes, and we get them from the outside authorities. Investor: No, we need our own sameness. Director: Have you got a particular crime in mind, Investor? Investor: Yes — disrespect. There are four classes of offense. Disrespect to peers. Disrespect to those of another caste. Disrespect to elders. Disrespect to staff. Director: No disrespect to youth? Developer: How can we possibly define and prove disrespect? Investor: If five witnesses testify that there is disrespect, then there is disrespect. Developer: So disrespect never happens one-on-one or in a small group. Investor: Yes. That allows for some flexibility. Director: What penalty do you envision? Investor: I think the first question is whether the penalty is the same for each of the four offences. I am inclined to say it is. We convey that all forms of disrespect are equally bad. As for the punishment itself, those convicted must, on a Sunday morning, sit in front of the town hall for all to see, wearing a black robe and tall 211


red hat. They remain there from nine until noon and then they leave. During those hours we allow them water and the chance to relieve themselves. If the weather is bad we reschedule. If it is winter we wait for spring. Developer: I can go along with that being in the basic law. Now what about the office of crimes? What do we say its jurisdiction is? Does it extend to the school? Investor: Yes. We want to keep questions of crime and punishment out of the hands of the teachers and principal. They have other things to think about. Director: Does the code created by the office of crimes apply to staff? Investor: Perhaps management submits its own code to the office of crimes for approval. The play of forces is too different between citizen and staff for the same rules to apply. Director: Under what circumstances do we bring in the outside authorities? Investor: I think there are two situations where we must. First, whenever a citizen requests that we bring in outside force. Second, whenever failure to report the crime to outside authorities itself amounts to a crime. In either case, we hand the offender over at the gate. Director: Suppose outside authorities imprison one of our citizens. Do we allow him back into our community when he is released? Investor: It depends on the crime. Director: If he kills another citizen does he lose his citizenship? Investor: Yes, certainly. Director: What if he steals from another citizen? Investor: That is a harder question. We have much to work out. Director: How long do you think it takes the office of crimes, once the city is established, to complete a code and have it approved by general vote? Three months at best? What do we do for internal criminal laws during that period? For that matter, what do we do for any area regulated by the community during the time it first takes to make the law? Developer: If we can sell all or most of the properties before the city is ready, we can have our far-flung soon-to-be-citizens set up temporary codes and regulations. This is not as good as what we can do with officers and councils. But it’s better than nothing. Director: True. But there may be a better way. Perhaps we can come up with these things ourselves and explain that they are merely temporary measures, in place until we get our permanent apparatus working. I think some of what we lay down as temporary survives, if only in the form of shaping future debates.

212

The Community

A dult E ducation Investor: I wonder how those debates go, what with many bringing in their preconceived notions, prejudices, habits, and ideals. Director: Investor, you surprise me. Is our whole project not founded on the special sort of people we are bringing in, people whose views are not like what you are suggesting? But supposing that some of them do come in that way, do you think they can, over time, get themselves into the habit of challenging sameness? Developer: I believe they can. And our code evolves accordingly. Director: Developer, do we need some sort of adult education for those who don’t yet know how to challenge sameness? Developer: Yes, I think we do. Investor: Are you serious? If people can indeed learn how to challenge, they can do so from the proceedings of the councils. Even if there are few at the outset who know how, perhaps their example tells. Director: Now here is a suspicion of mine. Those who don’t know how to challenge sameness are often quite meek. How likely are they to attend council meetings? Investor: Well, there are always the cellar sessions. They are much quieter and have fewer people. Director: And what if these people shy away from even this? Developer: We can persuade them to attend. Director: How? Developer: We can find out if they have an interest in any of the youths. I don’t mean anything inappropriate. I simply mean someone they genuinely care about — a nephew, for instance. When the time comes for the youth’s cellar session we ask the meek to join in. I think there is a good chance they do. Investor: So when they hear the youth uncovering sameness they feel ashamed at their own lack of involvement? They start to feel it’s not enough not to force sameness on others? They feel they must join the fight, must step out and challenge sameness in order to make things interesting both for themselves and the youth? Well, if that is the case, then what better place for them to start than in the council meetings? Director: But do we want to play on shame? What have they done to be ashamed of? Is not pushing sameness not every bit as difficult as attacking it, if not more so? Is it not praiseworthy? Developer: You don’t think that fighting is better than mere passivity, than being abused, than through silence giving consent to the invasions of your inner space by the pack animals?

213


Investor: It’s a sameness that silence equals consent. Silence equals silence. At times there is strong reason to be silent. Let’s not assume we know the circumstances of a man until we make the effort to know, and even then we must doubt. Besides, one can be silent while doing. Actions do not always speak for everyone to hear. We have to be very careful not to scare the sensitive and meek off. If we can gently persuade them to participate, great. But nobody pressures them in our city. Director: The man with the money has spoken. Developer: Suppose we cannot persuade them, gently, to get involved. Maybe we really do need some formal adult education. Investor: We punish the meek by sending them to remedial classes? Developer: No, the education is voluntary. We have to make them feel good about going, make them want to go. Investor: How do we do this? Developer: We have our top teacher lead them in a special, prestigious seminar. Director: You mean the teacher with the highest score on his review? Developer: No, you! Director: I am honored once more, my friend, but beginning to anticipate feeling crushed by my teaching load. What good comes of a seminar consisting entirely of the meek? Should we not group them with some of the overly bold? Developer: Yes, let the meek see how you deal with the brash. They can learn a thing or two from that. Director: Where do we hold this seminar? Developer: In your home. Director: Outside the walls? Developer: Yes. Let’s put everyone off balance a bit by convening someplace unfamiliar. This lets the participants see each other in a slightly different light, one that affords them a better view of what you are trying to show them. Director: What am I trying to show them? Developer: That on the one hand they have no reason to be so meek, and that on the other they have none to be so bold.

S ubject Director: What is the subject for these meetings? Developer: The founding of a hypothetical city, one subject to outside authorities, so it is not some utopia. Assume there are a few founders with enough land and money. Forget about any bank. Ask your students what is to be done. Walk them through the effects of their decisions. Talk about sprits, too, and how 214

The Community

they are influenced, what to do with them. Make no mention of our city. Let them come to that on their own. Investor: And take them out to dinner after the meeting. Developer: Better yet, have the meeting over dinner! Director: Are the castes mixed in these meetings, or do we have one symposium for each? Investor: Let’s keep them in their castes so they are more comfortable, however off balance they may otherwise be. Developer: It is settled. Investor: Director, I have been meaning to ask you, what is the subject of your class and seminar on the effect of philosophy? Director: You mean the subject cannot be the effect of philosophy? I think the real question is not the subject but rather the matter. How can the matter be the same for a group of tens and a three, and a group of ones? Investor: I suppose it cannot, if you hope for the students to understand the subject. Director: And that is because the matter must be tailored to the students? Investor: Of course. Director: So the same thing cannot speak across all of the castes, or what has our basic law dividing the citizens accomplished? Investor: If the matter is the same for all, there is no true difference between them. Developer: How can we ensure the difference? Director: There are many ways. For one, we can introduce segregated restaurants. Developer: What? Do we have any integrated restaurants? Director: For every ten that are segregated there is one that is integrated. Develop: So let’s say this, and other measures like it, ensure difference. What do all of these different students learn? Investor: It’s not what they learn, but rather what they unlearn. Developer: They unlearn the effect of philosophy? How can they do that if they do not understand what the effect is in the first place? Director: Perhaps Investor means that they unlearn what they have learned about the castes. Developer: You mean that ones unlearn that they are somehow lesser, and that tens unlearn that they are somehow greater? Investor: Yes, that is part of it. Director: Setting aside the other parts for another time, do you recommend I take on the understood greatness and inferiority directly, head on? 215


Investor: Of course not. You know to speak of other things that they can, on their own, relate to their situation. Director: But relation through analogical reasoning, through metaphor, can be gravely misleading. How do you think I can keep my charges from harm? Developer: The only real way is to talk about things directly. Director: Can that happen in a classroom or dinner seminar? Developer: No. Director: Where can it happen? Developer: One-on-one. Director: Not in a small group, small enough to fall beneath the law of disrespect? Developer: Alone, the two of you. Director: So what do you propose? Do I call each student out into the hallway for a little talk? Developer: You know better. You have to improvise. Director: Yes, but such candid communication can seem inappropriate to some, regardless where it takes place. Developer: You just have to be careful, friend.

T ouchstone Investor: So you work with them on the opinions that derive from our fundamental laws and the samenesses they produce. But, Director, do we only give the full philosophy treatment to the ones in the college? Director: Oh, no. The work in the college is not the only means of treatment. Treatment goes on all the time. Students philosophize with students. Students and owners philosophize. Teachers philosophize. Staff philosophizes with anyone who listens. In fact, does not everyone in this city philosophize with everyone else? I think that is the ideal, no? Investor: If there is nothing special about it, why do you need to teach what you teach? Director: Each of the people mentioned approaches philosophy somewhat differently. Think of me as someone who makes sure that nothing important is missed. But you can also think of me as the touchstone of sanity for the community. Developer: Ha! You? I love it. Investor: What sort of touchstone? Director: The sort that shows true believers. Investor: What is a true believer in our city? Director: Is it not the same as in any city? A true believer is one who allows external things to take possession of his mind. 216

The Community

Investor: So you are a sort of exorcist of external things? Director: Not exactly. Developer: What does it mean if someone allows the fact that he is a ten to dominate his brain? That is sameness, no? Investor: If by dominate you mean occupy inner space, I suppose it is, according to what we are saying about sameness. Developer: So what starts out as a difference can become a sameness. Investor: But a sameness can never, ever, become a difference. Director: Is that because each difference springs forth wholly new and distinct, and struggles to stay that way, to stay alive? Investor: Is the idea of our city not to encourage such births? Developer: But to what end, Director? Director: I have no idea. Are we not of the view that the interesting is worthwhile for its own sake?

M odest C ities Investor: Do you think it is possible to make a city that promotes the interesting without immense wealth? If so, do you think it has to be an essentially different city from ours? Director: I’m not sure if it is possible. What do you think is the biggest obstacle? Investor: Dealing with the outside authorities. Director: How much less wealth are we talking about? Investor: Let’s say each owner has around one hundredth of the wealth of his grand city counterpart. Developer: So we have to create a hundred of these cities to turn the same profit as the one we are working on now? Is it worth it? Investor: Maybe not for us, but possibly for others. Director: So let’s assume someone thinks it is indeed worth taking on, someone playing with one hundredth the wealth of you two. Developer: He keeps the castes as they are, just brings them down in scale. He builds a much less grand and imposing wall. The dwellings are much more modest. They have less security, fewer services, more modest shops, more modest hotels, and so on. Aside from all that, they can keep the forms the same. Director: They keep the same screening process? Developer: Yes, why not? Non-pack animals exist across all walks of life. Director: Are people really essentially the same at opposite ends of the wealth spectrum? 217


Developer: I guess we find out once someone is bold enough to found these cities. But even if not, the people in the modest cities are able, through their offices and general votes, to make forms that suit them well. The only problem, I think, is if the basic law turns out to be oil to their water. But if they can make things work, it’s interesting to see how the non-essential forms they create compare to those of the grand city. This makes good material for our political science teachers, no? Investor: But how do the modest cities keep the external authorities at bay? If money is what they need to fight this fight, how can they possibly have enough? Director: Maybe the great mother city looks out for the rest. Developer: Why does our city want anything to do with these epigones? Investor: Our city has an interest in fighting sameness, in keeping things interesting — everywhere. Developer: Well, yes, but there has to be more material benefit than that. Why not set out to fight sameness anywhere in the world if that is all that matters? But I suppose we can enter into some kind of league with these modest cities. They can pay us a tax and look to us for guidance. Of course, they are on no equal footing with our colonies. Still, we can keep an eye on them.

L eague

of the

U nsame

Director: Do you think the resistance from the outside authorities increases with the size of the league? Developer: Perhaps. But the bigger the league the more power we have to strike at them. Director: With tactics much the same as those of the mother city alone? Developer: Yes, much the same. Director: Let’s step back a minute and consider where all of this goes. Are we trying to make money or change the world? Developer: I think we can change the world while making money. Director: Despite the fact that money is the greatest of all samenesses? Investor: Can we change the sameness of money? Developer: I do not even know how to begin thinking about how to do that. Investor: Recognizing something as a sameness is a start. Who knows? Maybe one of the youths figures it out one day. Developer: But money is intertwined with the basis of civilization. Investor: What does that mean? Developer: Money and civilization are, essentially, agreed upon value. Most everyone agrees a coin is worth just so much. Most everyone agrees there must be a law against stealing coins. 218

The Community

Investor: Yes, but to some people a million coins is much too much for a painting or a song, while to others it’s a bargain. Is the million worth less to the latter or is the song or painting worth more? Developer: Perhaps it is both. But the point really is that you know at the end of the day that a certain coin buys you a loaf of bread and a bottle of wine. Investor: Except in times of famine. Developer: Barring extreme circumstances it really is no small thing that we agree on values for things like bread, milk, and meat. Director: Maybe the way to attack this problem is to forget about money, to consider it to be a tool like any other, and to go after the ideas of the value of things, non-staple things, themselves. Our students can study marketing from this perspective. They can practice making things seem valuable that usually are not, or do not have a monetary value attached to them. They can make things that are conventionally valuable, or even priceless, seem worthless, or worth little. Investor: Is this the value basis of our league of the unsame, the simple turning of things on their heads? We value the unsame and devalue the same? Constant agitation? Director: Is it that simple friend? What is the point of flipping things about on principle? Investor: It makes things interesting. Director: Ah, but there must be more to it than that. Is the point not to encourage people to value things themselves, on their own, amidst the tumble? We three cannot seriously believe that the opposite of what others think is valuable is valuable simply for being that opposite, can we? Developer: No. The point of valuing yourself is that you keep your inner space, right? You disgorge imposed values. Investor: But is the price of bread not imposed on you in a way you can do nothing about? Developer: If enough people value bread differently the price changes. Investor: As it does if there is an outside force operating on the market, which takes much less time. Developer: Yes, but let’s not forget there are breads of different quality. Investor: But our ability to value bread, the most basic bread, is strictly limited by necessity. Can our league be an exception to the basic law of supply and demand? Developer: A definite answer to that is well beyond me, friend. I guess we just keep putting that question to the youth and see what they come up with somewhere far down the road. 219


Director: What are the primary things in demand in our cities? Developer: Food, water, power. Director: And if the law of supply and demand is still in effect on the outside, and we cannot produce enough of these things for our needs on the inside, we are subject to this law, even if we find ways around it for other things within, somewhere far down the road. Developer: Of course. Director: So if we want to be free of this law we must become independent of it. Developer: Or launch a campaign against it outside our gates. Investor: Do you think such a thing has ever been done before? Director: It’s possible it has. Investor: Well, a campaign is beyond our means. We need to find ways to produce enough of what we need inside the league. Director: Does our extremely wealthy citizenry go outside the walls and take up farming and such? Developer: Now there is a sight to see. Director: If the goal is for every city in our league to have its own water, food, and power, we have two problems. First we must find the right locations, properties with access and rights to the resources. Second, we must find people to do the work.

E ighths Investor: Assuming we can find the land, are we creating a sort of peasant class? Director: We offer them good homes, good wages, and good benefits. Investor: But they live outside the walls. Director: Yes. Let’s call them eighths, because they have one eighth the wealth of our modest class of ones. We don’t want destitutes. We want solid workers. Developer: But they are not citizens, right? Director: I am not sure about that. Perhaps it’s best to give them some rights, attach them to the city. Why not give them an eighth vote each in the general vote? Developer: How much overall weight do they have? What is their population? Director: If we invest in the best equipment, I think their ratio is ten. Ten eighths, to ten ones, to three threes, to one ten. A weight of one eighth times a population ratio of ten makes for one and quarter weight in the general vote, which is around four percent of the overall weight. Developer: Why do these people get a vote but staff does not? Why not just make them part of the staff?

220

The Community

Director: It seems more interesting this way, no, another level of complexity? But the effect is that the eighths tend to keep the insiders from drifting too far away from the realities of life outside the gate. Even if their own initiatives never pass, they can attend council meetings and help shape the proposals. And four percent is quite significant in a close vote. Investor: Do their kids go to school with the inside kids? Director: Let’s give them a separate education, but let the best of their students into the college with the ones. Developer: Do the eighths have their own taverns, and restaurants, and stores? Investor: I think they do. Developer: Do they come to the inside movie theater, have their own, or go to outside theaters? Investor: Director, what do you think? Director: How attached do we want them? Developer: Let’s keep them pretty well separated and not let them come to ours. To do so insults the staff. They have around the same level of wealth, after all. Director: Is there anything we can do to make it so the staff does not mind that it has no vote, that it does not go to the theater, that we make no effort to attach them to the city, other than through professional attachment, dining with the owners, and the honor of some of their names on the wall? Developer: I think simple friendship, camaraderie, and a lack of insults goes a long way. Investor: What happens over time as the city evolves and adopts new outlooks, new ways? Does the staff remain unchanged? Director: Management makes the rules they operate by. It can shape them in the direction the city seems to be going, if that is what we want. Investor: What about the eighths? We have a similar issue with them. Developer: They are in the council meetings and vote. That is an important difference. Director: It might not be bad for the eighths not to change at the same rate as the inside. Remember, they can be our outside barometer. This is especially so if we don’t give them their own stores, and so on, and do not let them into town for these things. Rather, let’s have them go to the outside for what they need, and learn from them as they learn what is happening there.

On

the

A ttack

Developer: True, it’s best to go out to meet the enemy instead of waiting for him to come to you. Investor: Do you mean something more than reconnaissance? And are you talking about more than the action of our eighths? 221


Director: Perhaps he means we use our consulting services to attack their samenesses, the way evangelists might. Investor: We sell faith in nothing. Director: Not even faith in the way of life behind the wall? Investor: Not even that. Developer: Maybe not to the outsiders. But buyers are another story. Director: Well, getting back to the attack, we do have art, music, books, and so on that we can launch against the samenesses outside, do we not? Developer: That sort of thing does very little in the grand scheme of things. Investor: Perhaps the most immediately productive attack is to take things over and run them for the outside ourselves. For instance, a city might outsource to us the management of its services. Developer: Yes. That gives us some influence on events, especially if we run things exceptionally well. When we are called on to make recommendations to their oversight and legislative bodies we can recommend both what we take to be in their interest and our own. Investor: Because we consider fighting sameness to be in their best interest, too. Director: Do you doubt that it is in their best interest? Investor: No, but we cannot come right out and tell them that is our point of view. Keeping things interesting seems to be the last thing that many people care about. Director: So what do we do when we work with people like that? Investor: We focus on money. If we can get them paid we have a chance of making things interesting for ourselves. Director: And we are paid, and paid very well, for our efforts to get them paid, are we not? Besides, are we not also getting paid very well for creating an interesting city for our citizens? Investor: Yes, but that is what they want. Director: But surely people on the outside want things to be interesting, too. Investor: What if what they find interesting is precisely the sameness we fight? Director: Are you suggesting there are two types of people in the world, and two types of interest, one of which is actually sameness? Investor: Yes. Director: Do you think there are always, necessarily, more people attached to sameness than those who are interested in difference? Investor: I am inclined to say yes.

222

The Community

Director: So the differents are always, essentially, rebels. Or does that depend on something else? Investor: What? Director: Whether the sames always have more power than the differents. Investor: I suppose they must, by definition. Director: You and our friend Developer, here, command immense wealth and are looking to wield it to good effect against the sameness, yes? Investor: Yes, but wealth and power are not always the same thing, and I am afraid Developer and I are the sort who have more wealth than power. Director: But are you not creating and managing power within our walled city? Investor: To some degree. Director: Why do you think power tends to be with the samenesses? Investor: Because of the power of inertia and those who take advantage of it. Director: But you don’t want to take advantage of it, though it seems you are in a position to do so. Investor: I want to fight inertia. I want to create.

F lag Developer: Let’s create a flag to rally to in the fight. Investor: Literally? Developer: Yes, of course! It flies atop the wall at the gate. Director: What is on this flag? Developer: A blue flame on a white field. Director: Why a flame? Developer: It can symbolize keeping the faith. Director: Can? What faith? Developer: The faith in the interesting. Director: Why a white background? Developer: It can stand for purity of intent, purity of heart. Director: Does this flag fly only at the mother city or in all our cities across the league? Developer: The flag is for the entire league. But each city, except our own, has a second flag, all its own. Director: Which flag flies higher? Developer: The flag of the city, with the league flag beneath.

223


Investor: It’s better for the mother city to have its own flag, one the league cities don’t fly. The league flag seems less imperialistic that way. Director: That is a thoughtful gesture, Investor. But I think the league flag must be the mother city flag. The cities must buy their way out of the league in order to have the right to take that flag down.

U niforms Developer: Since we have flags, do we have uniforms? Investor: For whom, the staff? Developer: Sure. We can have one for each of the services, for each shop. Director: Is there a uniform for each level within the management hierarchy? Investor: We can always work these things out for the staff and its management, and change them if we like. But what about the castes? Do they each have a distinct uniform, one more grand than the next? Director: If they do, perhaps they only wear them on certain occasions. Investor: Yes. Do you think this is something for the basic law? Or is it a matter for the general vote? Developer: People may have a hard time with the idea of uniforms in the basic law. Investor: Because they amount to a sameness? Well, having three castes is a sameness they can do nothing about. That sameness is in contrast to the sameness of the casteless society outside. Why not stand in contrast to the sameness of the non-uniformed society? Director: What if we have uniforms but give people the choice to wear them or not, even the students and staff? Is it not interesting to see who wears what when? Investor: But if it’s so casual a thing then the uniforms are of little consequence. Director: Little consequence? What if we notice that in certain council meetings everyone wears a uniform, while in others no one wears one at all? Is that of no significance? That begs looking in to. Investor: Yes, but the uniform is the symptom of something else. Director: What else? Those who wear the uniform are, in general, interested in reinforcing position, role. Those who do not wear them generally prefer to blur the lines. The consequence of the uniforms is that everyone gets to see who is who more clearly, more quickly, yes? Developer: We have some fancy designers working for us. Let’s have them come up with uniforms that differ in style, and maybe even differ wildly, from the outside mode. Director: Perhaps there is a range of difference to suit people’s comfort and taste.

224

The Community

Developer: So people first decide if they want a uniform at all and then how radical a uniform it is. Director: Where do you think people wear this garb? Developer: Anywhere. Inside the gate. Outside the gate. Investor: Outside the gate? They truly stand out there, no matter how low on the difference spectrum they choose to be. Director: I wonder how those in their understood uniforms — the businessman in his suit, the artist in black, and so on — react. But what about our league cities? Are their uniforms optional, or do we dictate something else into their basic law? Investor: I suppose it does not seem very league like to dictate anything else. Developer: Let’s just make the uniforms in the mother city and then ship them out to the league cities to do with as they like.

T he F uture Director: So, the league is up and strong. We have many colonies, many modest cities, a number of independent, former experimental colonies. Where do we go from there? Developer: It is a long, long road to that point, friend. Director: Yes, but when we get there do we just keep on going? Investor: No. We start tearing down the walls. Developer: To what end? Investor: Who knows? But that is more interesting than going on in the same way, no? I think it needs to be done. Developer: So the league no longer consists of walled cities, come what may? I assume our security apparatus is otherwise intact. We don’t want to expose ourselves to outside crime, do we? Investor: Walls are always a sign of weakness. We cannot tear them down until we have sufficient strength, strength that protects us from the elements outside. But once we reach that point we must act. Director: What else would you take down, take apart? Investor: Over a much longer period of time, generations? Why, everything. The league dissolves. All of the cities buy themselves out. The schools and colleges close. Developer: Why? Sameness? Investor: Of course. The league is bound to create its own, and in many respects. Once the league has enough power and prestige the sameness from within even begins to affect the outside.

225


Developer: The league designed to fight the sameness becomes the sameness. I can imagine witch hunts in the name of difference. Oh, but we can have a very good and long run with our cities before it comes to that. Investor: Yes. But taking it apart when mature allows for new possibilities. Developer: Much depends on that last generation of league youth then. Who knows? They may have a hand in the founding of new regimes of interest. Investor: Let me go up and see what is happening outside.

E nd Developer: So, Director, is our city a metaphor for how a different lives? He closes himself off, develops his difference, then opens up and goes forth into the world. Director: Perhaps for a certain sort of individual. But tell me, friend, do you think this thing can really be a success? Developer: I believe it can. Let’s write up a rough for the bank and hear what they have to say. Director: We also need to find a way to meet the chairman. But are there other banks we can turn to if this one does not work out for whatever reason? Developer: None as receptive as this. Director: We may have to go outside the country. Banks and investors there may see things differently. Investor: It’s starting to ease off. But digging out is going to take a while. Shall we have breakfast before turning in? Developer: That sounds wonderful! What have you got? Investor: Fresh fruit. Developer: What kind? Investor: Strawberries, honeydew, and apples. Developer: And coffee? Investor: Are you kidding? I have a special extra dark roast made just for me. Director: What else have you got? Investor: Eggs, bacon, steak, potatoes, muffins, and bagels with cream cheese — flavored, if you like. Director: I like it plain, thanks. But do you have sausage? Investor: Of course! Developer: And ham? Investor: Friends, whatever you like. 226

The Community

Director: But you are not going to wake your chef, are you? Investor: No, no. I am the chef this morning. Come.

227

'Aristocrat'', and ''The Community'' - Two Philosophical Dialogues

Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences

Dialogues concerning two new sciences

Philosophical Papers: Volume Two

Philosophical Papers: Volume Two

On Awareness. A Collection of Philosophical Dialogues

Controvert, or On the Lie, and Other Philosophical Dialogues

Developing Dialogues: Indigenous and Ethnic Community Broadcasting in Australia

Dialogues

Dialogues

Asian-Arab Philosophical Dialogues on War and Peace

Talks And Dialogues Saanen

Talks And Dialogues

Meno and Other Dialogues

Grammars and the community

Philosophical Discussion in Moral Education: The Community of Ethical Inquiry

Dialogues and Essays

Meno and Other Dialogues

Talks And Dialogues

Dialogues With The Devil

Whose Community? Which Interpretation? Philosophical Hermeneutics for the Church

Dialogues of the Dead

The Commitment Dialogues

Dialogues of the Dead

Dialogues of the Dead

Dialogues of the Dead

Dialogues of the Dead

Five Dialogues

Dialogues about God (New Dialogues in Philosophy)

Three Dialogues

Three Dialogues

'Aristocrat'', and ''The Community'' - Two Philosophical Dialogues

Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences

Dialogues concerning two new sciences

Philosophical Papers: Volume Two

Philosophical Papers: Volume Two

On Awareness. A Collection of Philosophical Dialogues

Controvert, or On the Lie, and Other Philosophical Dialogues

Developing Dialogues: Indigenous and Ethnic Community Broadcasting in Australia

Dialogues

Dialogues

Asian-Arab Philosophical Dialogues on War and Peace

Talks And Dialogues Saanen

Talks And Dialogues

Meno and Other Dialogues

Grammars and the community

Philosophical Discussion in Moral Education: The Community of Ethical Inquiry

Dialogues and Essays

Meno and Other Dialogues

Talks And Dialogues

Dialogues With The Devil

Whose Community? Which Interpretation? Philosophical Hermeneutics for the Church

Dialogues of the Dead

The Commitment Dialogues

Dialogues of the Dead

Dialogues of the Dead

Dialogues of the Dead

Dialogues of the Dead

Five Dialogues

Dialogues about God (New Dialogues in Philosophy)

Three Dialogues

Three Dialogues

Recommend Documents