The Walls

Red: These walls are kind of funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough time passes, gets so you depend on them. That’s institutionalized. They send you here for life, that’s exactly what they take. The part that counts, anyways.
-[size=75]The Shawshank Redemption[/size]

• Institution: An organization defined by established rules and by its relationships with other institutions - constructing a web of interlinking entities, making up a greater whole: Society. The walls are set….

• The authority of an institution isn’t created by the unique characteristics of the individuals participating within it – they are replaceable and expendable machine-parts fitting into, or being trained and shaped to fit into, particular roles and functions - but it is created by the nature of the institution as it has been established by its place within the whole and by its necessity within this web.

• Bureaucracy – Each member must be able to do ones duty (job) in the mechanical, unthinking, uninvolved, unaffected manner essential to the institution’s function. Thinking or getting personally involved, beyond the training necessary to successfully do ones job, is unnecessary and, if it interferes, it becomes detrimental to the individual’s integration, status and, therefore, overall sense of well-being. Thoughts are strictly policed, and this is one more reason why dumbing-down becomes a natural by-product of any institutionalization. The less thinking mind is more easily assimilated, kept in line, placated and satisfied, and so the system makes sure it produces such minds in abundance. Stupidity is a sure way towards happiness….

• Specialization – Limiting a mind’s interests and place makes it both expendable and unable to function outside the parameters of its expertise - experts are produced in abundance, so that no one of them becomes too important to the system as a whole and, through the façade of ‘knowledge equals intelligence’, promotes the idea that possessing information means possessing awareness or the ability to analyze information – ‘information equals freedom’. In fact an “expert” can only offer you his opinion, as it has been shaped and guided by institutions which he becomes the spokesperson for, on a particular small piece of reality. The expert mind isn’t, necessarily, aware of any overview, since this would distract it from its speciality and its ‘special’ social position – an expert’s self-esteem is integrated within the systemic status quo, making him an agent of it. Why would he risk this?

• An institution takes over a social role, necessary in human group dynamics, and stabilizes it by making it inflexible and unchanging. The particular individual, taking on the symbolic position of its authority, is irrelevant, since the individual can be anyone that can successfully shape himself/herself into a close enough approximation to the institutional ideal; (s)he need only embody the image of the ideal figurehead and play the part sufficiently to be promoted upwards by those he convinces. Therefore an institution is a conservative construct, which forces its participating individual parts to adapt to its premises, and so gain the symbolic air of power, or perish in quarantined oblivion.

• Regimentation - All institutions use a controlled and strictly enforced regimentation to establish discipline. Time schedules, regulations, duties, responsibilities, constant distraction, training and physical/mental effort are used to keep minds fatigued, involved and in place - unable to consider any other possibility or lacking the energy to do so. Through this tyrannical control over an individual’s every moment, deciding everything from feeding time to recreation time, keeps the individual in a constant state of anxiety and imbalance; making it vulnerable and easily manipulated. Leisure is the systems worse enemy……It allows the mind to question. The roots of Nihilism……

• Assets – Resources and their control have always been at the root of all human power and sense of value. An institution’s authority resides on its control over access to resources, which it doles out as reward or restricts as punishment for individual ‘good/bad behaviour’. It was when nature was tamed that man became trainable, along with it.

• When did man lose his confidence in his own personal perceptions of the world? When did he become ashamed of uttering a word that was not popularly acceptable or sanctioned by some institutional authority? When did man begin fearing error or of suffering the consequences of his own evaluations - unburdening himself from personal responsibility in this way?

• The problem with institutionalization is that it replaces individual effort with communal effort and makes a mind dependant on common decrees and proclamations from popularly accepted authority figures, with the appropriate institutional proofs of dependability/respectability, until the mind ceases being capable of functioning outside its comfort zones – the mind loses the ability to think when thinking is done for it; it then becomes stuck in adolescence where self-responsibility is deferred to another entity, a mother/father figure, that now decides how each individual is judged.

• When information is plastic and can be interpreted or spun into whatever conclusion serves the dominant social environment’s stability, then it becomes important that whoever does the interpreting and explaining, on its behalf, be rooted in this very system’s framework and have a vested interest in its continuance.

• Truth – The ambiguity and imprecision of any assumption makes it all the more malleable and useful to a group. It is in how one asks a question and how one approaches a conclusion that determines its nuances and insinuations. It is because of this that ‘fact’ and ‘truth’ becomes invaluable constructs of institutional monopolies.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” – [size=75]Arthur Schopenhauer[/size]

• An institution takes on the dynamics of any clan or organization. It acquires its own laws and literature – It taken on its own language and communication code – It establishes its own holy figures and sacred scripture – It creates respectable and unrespectable information sources – It relies on faith. Has not, even philosophy, become institutionalized?

• Restriction – A sure sign of institutionalization is how it is unable to think outside its own premises (the box). In the effort to filter out unwanted inanities and destructive, often distracting elements, a mind forces itself to limit its breadth of exploration by limiting itself to specific, mutually respectable perspectives and sources of information. In the process it becomes dependant on cultural authorities and institutional power. Finally the mind ceases exploring nature, reality, truth, directly and simply becomes a commentator on established perspectives, which it endlessly deconstructs and takes position in relation to, thinking…that it is thinking.

• Initiation – Access to any organization is restricted and strictly enforced. The individuals allowed in must display their value to the whole by acquiring the correct demeanour and prerequisite attributes, from the correct institutions, that will enable them to be integrated and considered ‘peers’.

• The walls are not always physical. Mental parapets are erected when idols become authorities that tyrannize our thoughts and we fail to speak a sentence if it is not in relation or in reference to them. We no longer comment on reality, as we perceive it, but find ourselves obsessed with commenting on what others have agreed about reality, on our behalf. Like all walls, their bulk creates a screen between the observer and the distant, unknown horizons and, sometimes, dangerous frontiers; it makes itself the prevailing subject matter.

All alone, or in twos,
The ones who really know you,
Walk up and down outside the wall.
Some hand in hand,
Some gather together in bands,
The bleeding hearts and artists,
Make their stand.
And when they’ve given you their all,
Some stagger and fall.
After all it’s not easy,
Banging your heart against some mad bugger’s wall.
[size=59]Pink Floyd[/size]

Hi Satyr,

A very nice construction, but the all-inclusiveness of your argument locks up anything that could be said in your definitions. The only possible argument as an individual is to say, “or not”.

JT

Yes.
I’ve allowed for little commentary.
I prefer not to let too many lose strings hanging….but this is not conducive to discussion.

Hi Satyr

You are a deep thinker.

I’ve been debating writing a review of Simone Weil’s book “The need for Roots” that she wrote as she was dying and France was beginning to come back from the effects of Hitler and the War. But discovering a review already on the Internet, to go beyond it requires writing another book. There is so much here it is really a college course. It is more important that those who are interested in these things become aware of such books and read them. So much is either behind or ahead of the times (I’m not sure which) that it is unfit for majority consumption. There is much food for thought for those willing to think on these things However it raises an interesting question in the context of your post. Is this slavery necessary? Could a society be developed for the benefit of individuality in a societal context? My gut feeling is this is how it was in Atlantis or in certain old Egyptian civilizations but it is so outside are normal conceptions of society that we cannot fathom how it could work. Yet if you read Simone Weil’s outline of the needs of the soul in a societal context you can see how it could be possible. We have devolved so much from such quality of thought I believe society would have to hit bottom first before any real change could occur. Anyhow, with your ideas,you may appreciate this review of “The Need for Roots” beginning at 2.3

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_Wei … _for_Roots

Simone Weil wanted France to rebuild in a way that was impossible for it. I believe she also knew it but wanted her ideas pondered and maybe at least some good would come from them.

You are describing for her a person without roots and the natural results of a society of people without roots.

For a society to allow people to develop “roots” so that their humanity does not become consumed by institutions as you describe needs more than just our own efforts but a type of “help from above” Will it happen? Can it happen? Logically I say no under the assumption that we’ve become too psychologically corrupt to cooperate in such a fashion but it is possible so why be pessimistic and discourage those that try.

I don’t think it is at all possible to find a balance between society and individuality.

The group, the unity, the system, will always demand concessions from individuality and personal freedom.
The larger a unity becomes the more concessions its parts must make to be integrated within it.
The individual, in turn, will opt for survival, as it is its primary concern, over freedom.
Of course the amount of resistance each individual offers to indoctrination is proportional to its character.
From my experience, the less liberty an individual possesses (Intelligence, Self-Reliance, Confidence), the easier it becomes to give it up.
Proof of which is that – and this might sound sexist but it is honest – women are integrated within systems easier than men and the system promotes the absence of character (Stupidity, Dependence, Insecurity).
These are promoted by the institutions themselves, making everyone more malleable to its effects.
Those that resist, are quarantined (imprisoned), rehabilitated (re-educated), ostracized (labeled as sexist, racist, fascist or dysfunctional or using multiple ways of causing shame and a sense of uncertainty – peer pressure) or killed, when neither of the previous are possible or have failed.

We must keep in mind that fatigue is a tool often used by institutions to enforce conformity and discipline (Army, Prison etc.). The resistance of the mind is eliminated using attrition and the human spirit is debased – no matter what this spirit is or how it agrees with our own values and preferences.

The only resolution is deconstruction; a return to older smaller unities, within which an individual mattered and had more liberty to self-express.
An impossible solution.

Another possibility is the opening of frontiers which will offer alternative possibilities to each individual.

I haven’t read the book you mention, but it sounds interesting.
Maybe you should write an essay on it.

Interesting essay…and I can agree with most of your points.

Society begins as tribal herds…in which each family of the tribe is self-sustenant. As trade becomes more important, patrimonial societies develop…where trade becomes the ends rather than a residual activity. At this point, surplus becomes a primary goal, and a man becomes indebted to the State for its ownership of the land…resulting in the condition that you stated. That’s what my professors tell me, anyway…that what history tells me.

The Romans were all about following traditions through their well-established traditions, especially pertaining to their virtues and gods. It’s how they controlled their people…resulting, in perhaps the finest and most successful empire in history.

Do you propose a solution to this problem? Or are you just pointing out observations? Are you trying to provoke something?

Like you said…is going back to before a possibility? At the risk of progress or stability, I wouldn’t say it’s likely either…

Rebel against the system, at the risk of our self-preservation and well-being? I’m debating whether or not college is an experience worth my time (for similar reasons in the OP, actually)…but I doubt my parents will let me, and I doubt I’ll be able to sack off a prestigous education and show my ingratitude…all the while risking future security.

I am ignorant…I do not know any poor people, I do not know their lifestyle, and I might just be spoiled and foolish for demanding more freedom. I can imagine how ingrateful I would seem to my parents who worked so hard to raise me…only to see me rebel against their goals. But it raises a question: does rebellion become ingratitude, resulting from spoiled conditions? Or can I actually call it…progress? Evolution?

Can you detach yourself from the system entirely? Is there anyone still capable, do any such Thoreaus still exist? I don’t have a clue on how to survive on my own…thus my dependence on such an institution. Learning would take time, and resources, that might not be available. Are we stuck within the institution forever?

Maybe a little bit of all three? I’m running out of options.

October

I’m not sure the process in unavoidable.
Man is need and as such he’s attracted to what satisfies his needs.
The more a mind is dominated by its own needs the more it is willing to sacrifice to satiate them.
Reason becomes another sacrifice to instinct.

Awareness is a preliminary step to any acting.

The “solutions” or the resistances each individual chooses – if he/she chooses to resist at all - should be his or her own - otherwise I would be making my self the replacement authority for the authority I expose as limiting personal choices.

What I am trying to provoke is thinking and debate.
What each person does with information is, as it should be, their own affair.

Awareness doesn’t necessarily result in a head-to-head confrontation.
Adaptation often results in parasitism.

Gratitude is always accompanied with some resentment towards what you have become dependant upon.

Ingratitude doesn’t necessarily mean that you do not recognize the others help but that you want to break free from depending on this help.

What better gratitude can you show towards those that have aided you, than to become independent?
If the other fails to see this as his best reward for whatever help he’s offered, then he secretly wishes to dominate you with it and keep you dependant upon it.

We are not only stuck in the system due to our dependence, determined by our needs, as a natural consequence of domestication but also because there are no accessible frontiers to escape into.

These two factors force a feminization , where males, challenging, domineering and intolerant by nature (due to their procreative roles), face the question of ‘adapt or perish’.

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=143894

In those cases where institutionalization or domestication has failed to indoctrinate the mind completely and remnants of resistance persists (Here the symbolism of the ‘primordial’ resisting ‘modernity’ can be used.), the individual must either flee (But to where? Usually this fleeing becomes a self-imposed isolation {anti-social behavior} from the system or introversions.) or it must adapt by adopting more feminine survival tactics.

This ‘fleeing’ results in the suppression of natural emotional and instinctual behavior causing neurosis or at times breaking forth, in individuals with little self-control (will), as ‘criminal behavior’.

Here is where memes confront the genes and challenge them to evolve.

Aristotle wrote in The Politics:

Nietzche, referencing this portion of the Politics, wrote in one of the Maxims at the beginning of Twilight of the Idols:

And you, Satyr wrote:

Which brings me to these series of statements and questions. Both Aristotle and Nietzche were concerned with the master slave relationship in the way that it was the method of societal hierarchy which governed humanities interaction on the broadest scale. Aristotle had his eye toward the natural good of the stability within the status quo, which you disagree with or at least understand within roles, and Nietzche conceived the individual as one who steps outside of the walls of tradition and convention, to make himself in a new self aware image. In this way it is about three types of control. The control of others (having the contol or command of others), of being controlled by another (consenting to be controlled), or of controlling oneself (demanding to be outside of the institution, or of standing alone at least in principal).

And as you stated the institution is not at all concerned with the indivdual characteristics of the people which make up it’s whole. It, like a machine which needs certain operational parts so that it may function properly, desires people to fulfill these roles so that it may continue to exist in a effecient manner. Without this, like a parasite without a host, it is doomed to die. This is the current formulation of the human expirience within the framework of modern economics, and the institution of a corporately goverened world. Everyone is a slave who fits like a cog into their current position. These circumstances breed a weakness of the spirit so to speak, which is the desire to control ones own life.

It’s very disappointing.

I’ll stand by my first post to this thread. There is no disagreement with the description. As concordant points out, any number of philosophers have attempted to address this issue. Over the centuries, many utopian structures have been proposed, some put into actuality in one form or another, but the answers are always the same: one must make the best deal with the devil possible, or withdraw into isolation.