audio // 20

[neargenius]

Yesterday, I was building a card castle, but I ran out of playing cards. It was the biggest castle I have made yet, so I suppose running out of cards was inevitable. I began building with flashcards instead. I had bought them once by mistake, but they turned out to be useful for building the addition to my card castle. Written on one was the

Comments

text;

[illusionomicon]

It's truly deplorable when a group such as this begins to fight within itself, when those who should be allies turn upon each other like animals.

However, I've come to believe it's no surprise when such things happen. There is a limit to how cohesive any group will remain, and the true closeness and reliability of a group such as ours decreases as the size increases.

Even the outliers may serve a purpose, though.

text;

[neargenius]

So it's a directly proportional arrangement, in your opinion. Also, a small or decreased population would have more of a cause to band together--necessity.

With this model in mind, what purpose would "outliers" serve.

text forever;

[illusionomicon]

Proportional, yes. The existence of structures such as armies might weaken this claim, but these societal edifices are also well-compensated in many ways and are not always reliable. There is also a system in place for punishing traitors.

Such a variable serves for one part as a reminder, that there are actual menaces that exist without the safe bonds of the group and our mutual agreements not to harass or harm each other unreasonably. A lion prowling in the grasses pushes the animals of the herd that much closer together. We are not so defenseless ourselves, but it is somewhat comparable. Such variables might also serve as scapegoats for group members, eventually; useful in that bringing them down might bring the group closer together.

[neargenius]

Would it work, then, to set up such a system within the system that is already in place, here?

Scapegoats don't seem necessary in this place. There are plenty of other threats to deal with: plenty of causes to band together over. Yet people still seem wary of doing so. Even before our number increased, that wariness was a factor. No cohesion. In this case, scapegoats and threats of that nature would seem to weaken the structure, if anything.

[illusionomicon]

We have a similar system already, don't we? The night watch, and the organizations set up to aide our newest group members. They might not be aggressively accoutered in all cases, but they do rely on altruism and interest in maintaining the health of the group.

They may not be necessary, but in the case of group members who are persistently violent, sociopathic and destructive, it might be one possible use for them. It would at least represent an attempt to formulate some kind of ultimate good purpose to them, rather than simply rejecting them, or hoping the problem goes away.

[neargenius]

A more permanent system, perhaps. The efforts are organized, and there is funding to support them, but something about them still seems impermanent. Perhaps it's the nature of volunteering that gives it that feeling. After all, not everyone is a participant in these organizations. There is not total representation.

Then everyone requires some "ultimate good purpose"?

[illusionomicon]

In most examples I believe not all people are engaged in the army, to name one example. In some cases some military service is compulsory, but in the modern day, it is not so prevalent - like the limbs of a body, the offices of a group are distinct and divided, although they all join at one center.

That may be a matter of opinion, as to whether it is required. I find the thought an ideal.

[neargenius]

But there isn't really a center where things join.

It's an interesting ideal. I think I would disagree.

[illusionomicon]

True enough. A deplorable state of affairs.

What would your ideal be?

[neargenius]

Then it would make sense to create some center. That doesn't seem possible, here.

I don't really have ideals. But there are people who don't serve a good purpose: just a necessary one.

[illusionomicon]

It would.

You don't think of necessary as good?

[neargenius]

Necessary means it has to happen. Not that it's good that it happened. There's a big difference.