https://www.academia.edu/127736523/Five_years_on_Identities_2001_

Five years on: 

Identities (2001)

 HB Paksoy, DPhil 

In a given polity, interactions between the Governed and the Governing Strata are symbiotic. The Governed desire, and indeed need, infrastructure services organized. If such basic foundations are not provided, the economic activity so deeply cherished by both groups cannot be realized. The Governing Strata cannot function without the Governed. After all, without the Governed, there will not be a polity; hence nothing to govern. Regardless of the politico-economic system in effect, this co-dependence is inevitable, inescapable, indenturing both groups to each other. This is the case, regardless of the designation, functions, or the style of the governance system. It matters not if the designation or philosophy of the said governance is a variation of pluralism or authoritarianism by a minority. Trouble starts when one of the two groups attempts to escape (or, neglect) responsibility. That is, endeavoring to break the symbiosis. If the group attempting to shed the previously prescribed responsibilities does so by forcing a change to the governance guidelines established over time, the conflict escalates. Just as in any other activity on earth with pre-arranged and agreed upon rules, when rules are violated, it is no longer the same game. Much of the governance mechanisms will revert to muscle power solutions and the beneficiary will not be the two main players. Both sides will lose heavily to small parties “in the middle” that will emerge in the form of arbitrators unintended by either. This middle group will establish new rules that will only suit itself, filling the ensuing vacuum, un touched by any other 

dogma than self interest. This third group (in the middle) will ignore the principle of equity and the inherent balance of power. A distinguishing feature of the in-between groups is simply that they will exists between the main players and between law and lawlessness. As nature abhors a void, for every such in-between group, there will be counterbalancing ones opposing it. All will be vying for the top spot to rule over the unintentionally created ‘system’ of checks and balances. Once established, the in-between groups will immediately begin feeding on both main parties, changing the principle values and those of key personnel. This will create corruption, devoted so lely for the purpose of jumping the queue, subverting the essential balance-of-power rules formed over time at great cost to humanity. The objective of the in-between groups is acquiring wealth without competition, and an endless income stream without inventories, production or standard (capital, labor, resource) investment. As more elements from the two primary parties are co-opted into the in-between groups, the legitimate organizations will also become corrupt. The return to the original functions and balance can never be possible afterward ―even if the in-bet ween groups are declared extinct. The only defense, therefore, is the prevention of the formation of the in-between groups. Unfortunately, Governance Stratas, especially operating in the interna tional venues, either establish their own in-between groups to circumvent rivals, or provide aid and comfort to those who can. Hence, the symbiosis is not confined to a single polity or ethnicity. Relations within human gatherings whether on this earth or on any other celestial body ―perhaps on the Moon or Mars in the first instance― will adhere to the human governance templates extant in the early ages of the Earth. Including the experiments undertaken to escape those arrangements. For the purpose, the re are primarily three main weapons the antagonists can wield against each other, when they att empt to divest 

themselves of the symbiosis. These are: production stoppage; withholding of resources; trespass to the person. When the indicated equilibrium is disturbed by one primary group, the competing group will retaliate in kind, according to the category involved, furthering the disruption of the life-balance. The blowback from such activities will further corrupt the legi timate organization and principles that were formed as a result of thousands of years’ worth of on the ground experience. This is where technology is abused for negative outcomes in the governance dynamics. For ex ample, a helicopter may airlift a human for medical treatment for a healthy life, or death; or medi cine may turn the life of another human into hell on earth. It must not be forgotten that those participating in the abuse of the rules will be abused themselves as well. The opposing side will always manage to take revenge. This is the ultimate guarantee that the previously agreed upon ru les will be enforced ―when this fact is prominently remembered by the observers outside the po lity. One method of maintaining balance and peace between the primary groups is to educate them. More they share common knowledge, better they will serve the mutual objectives that will be ob tained. Any extra greed on either party’s mind must be restrained by this knowledge. The out come will have to match the input in terms of effort as well as objectives and resources devoted to the enterprise. Therefore, this will be an offering to prevent any flares or resultant hellish fires. So, why the recorded bloodshed? Because some “players” have not yet learned the rules? Throughout history, it is possible to observe a continuous contention between the individual and the polity identities. This intra-communal bifurcation manifests itself in all activities of human endeavor, including economic, political and personal 

versus sovereign states rights. However, ne ver before the role of technology has been elevated to the present level, contesting all comers, to reach absolute supremacy. This contention is not only to replace previous holders of levers to rule or dictate, but to reach levels of control heretofore unknown. Obviously, technology, wi thout human guidance cannot achieve a result. Left unchecked, any governing strata can utilize the technological means to deny any segment of society the individual rights that have been at least philosophically established. (H. B. PAKSOY, “Leviathan: Identity Interactions between Society and Technology”, Entelequia. Revista Interdisciplinar, 2006, issue 2, pages 157-162  ). What is being presented in the following pages is not a series of artificial rules, nor are they mental peregrinations. Instead, the axioms are constructed from past evidence, results of action- reactions, indicators of continuous struggle between the two groups in their endless search for the life’s equitable balance against each other. Any human can be ambitious. No excess in any direction is justifiable under any excuse. I trust that the thinking public will express their thoughts on the subject matter as a counter- balance to the transgressions of overly ambitious individuals ―whatever their titles or stations. 

About the author

HB PAKSOY taught at the Ohio State University, Franklin University, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, the Central Connecticut State University and Baker College. He was a Faculty Associate at Harvard University prior. Before retiring, some sixty of his research papers have appeared in over forty-five periodic journals and scholarly collections, in countries situated on all inhabited continents. Dr. Paksoy also published (as author or editor) more than thirty books. Most are available on the web free of charge. Since his retirement, Dr. Paksoy has been writing novels. HB PAKSOY earned his DPhil from Oxford University (St. Antony's College), England (with a Grant from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom), M.A. at the University of Texas at Dallas (with a National Science Foundation Project Grant Assistantship), and B.S. at Trinity University (with Bostwick Scholarship). 

... Read more

Papers

93

Followers

424

92 more by HB Paksoy

Dastan genre in Central Asia
HB Paksoy