Hierarchies and Sin

Hierarchies are the root of most sins. For example, take the man and the woman. In the past, a man was above the woman on the hierarchy. Do you know what this does? It means that the man doesn’t have to put any effort forth to improve his character or skills over the woman - he will always get dominion over her, regardless of whether she is better than him or not.


This leads to abuse, I would argue, almost every single time. The value that the woman adds to the system is completely discounted because of the hierarchy in place. In fact, the man could drain from the system, and still have authority over the woman who is the only one adding to the system.


This does many things. For one, believing in a hierarchy gives man free reign to sin without even knowing it. In my opinion, this will add to the karmic debt that the man owes to society, and he might have to repay it either in this life, the afterlife, or another. In my opinion, the man (and those on the higher end of the hierarchy that he represents) need to be held accountable for their sins in this world in order to bring the world back into a balanced state.


The hierarchy also sets up a system where those on top leech off of those below. This means that most of the rewards are getting funneled to leechers at the top, which is a waste of societal energy. Since they hold management positions, those higher up the hierarchy will be prone to abuse their power to funnel resources they did not earn to themselves. In addition to that, they will become delusional and believe they have more merit than those below them, which I believe to be false almost every single time.


Instead, we need a system where one’s worth is based on their merit, and fair accounting is done. For example, if I put work in to improve myself, I should be rewarded for my efforts, not have the rewards that I earned be siphoned up the hierarchy to my superiors.


A hierarchy based on something like gender, wealth inherited from your parents, skin color, or anything like that is by its very nature NOT a merit-based system. These systems need to be thrown out entirely.


One problem with all hierarchies, meanwhile, is that those on the top abuse their power to sabotage those below them and prevent them from rising up in the hierarchy, even if those below them have more merit. A hierarchy gives a green light to abuse and mismanagement of resources.


Instead, I would recommend a system where every individual is in charge of themselves, and themselves only (for the most part). In other words, if a person is a drain on the system, they end up harming themselves instead of leeching off those inferior to them on the hierarchy.


At the moment, the real leeches in our society are those at the top of the hierarchies. While I think a hierarchy could exist, I believe that it should work from the bottom-up: those in charge should be serving those below them.


In The United States, all humans are created equal, and royalty was abolished. I believe that this was an attempt to abolish corrupt hierarchies and replace them with merit-based hierarchies. In addition, in America, it is believed that the President serves the people, not the other way around. I believe that this is an attempt to create bottom-up hierarchies and abolish corrupt, top-down hierarchies.


Therefore, it is in the spirit of America itself that I say that we should all be individuals in charge of ourselves and that any hierarchies that do exist should be merit-based and bottom-up.


How can this be implemented? On a personal level, I would recommend doing something similar to what I do spiritually. Drop out of society completely and learn to support yourself and be your own person. Approach any and all social interactions ready to hold people accountable for equal and fair interactions. If you need to, improve your own power so that you have content to trade to others for resources.


What will happen? One day, you might interact with someone who is used to being in charge of their hierarchy and a leecher. However, since you are not a part of their hierarchy, they will have no power over you and will be forced to engage in trades with you as an equal. If you have something they want, they will be forced to give you fair compensation instead of ripping you off because you are lower in the hierarchy. If they don’t like this, screw them and walk away.


There are actually technological advancements that synergize well with dropping out of the hierarchy. For one thing, the advent of the internet means that information is now easily available for everyone, and cannot be gatekept by those higher up in the hierarchy as an abusive tactic. For another, the internet allows one to make money working at home as an individual.


There are also some emerging technologies that seem to suggest that the archaic hierarchy is on its way out. For example, the blockchain provides decentralized currency and in addition to that, has the potential to decentralize many other things and get rid of corrupt and abusive managers. The amount of societal energy that is wasted on managers who steal it is immense. Being able to redistribute that energy to the people who actually earn it will bring balance to our society and has the potential to lift almost everyone out of poverty.


In the future, there are other technologies that have the potential to do the same thing. One being AI - AI could (although this is potentially dangerous) act as a manager, sort of like Plato’s philosopher-kings.


I believe that there may be wars in the future between those leaders that are used to leeching off their followers and want to keep the corrupt hierarchy in place for their own benefit, and those who wish to be paid for their work in a fair manner. These wars will be brought about because technology is developing which makes ditching hierarchies entirely feasible.


On the one hand, you have a new system that has the potential to entirely eradicate poverty by dealing with the corrupt manager class. On the other hand, you have the few elites who are leeching off of everyone else’s hard work. Since they are, of course, content with the status quo, they will fight to keep it.


In America, you have Trump supporters who want to keep the male/female, white/black, rich/poor hierarchies in place and so of course they are going to be going against Democracy and everything that the Founding Fathers set in place for our country. That is why they are trying to use voter suppression and even overturn an election in 2020. They don’t believe in giving the people power, they believe in concentrating power within the elite so that the elite can leech off the hard work of the people. Trump supporters want a fascist system.


This is a dangerous situation, one that needs to be dealt with and addressed with full force. However, with the advent of technology, I believe that these archaic hierarchies are on their way out, and the elite will have a hard time putting the genie back in the bottle.

Hierarchies and Sin

Interesting concepts but this is thread is destined for the mudpit or just simply put in the can. Dissing the "chosen one" is fraught with peril.

I don't know much about hierarchies but I'm very familiar with sin.

Didn't some drunk hairy man and his trusty rich sidekick write about this sort of stuff before? A little... class analysis type thing?

If one's worth is based on one's merit, how does that not also set up a hierarchy?

To illustrate, I'll go to athletics because I was legitimately the top of a hierarchy there during my time. I was the best hurdler in my entire state for a few years enough to a win national award for it. I was among the top three best in the high jump.

That's a hierarchy and based on merit.

And you have plenty of people today arguing against meritocracy as being white supremacist because not enough BIPOC excel at the kinds of merit they would have them excel at.

So where do we go now?

Interesting thread but lot of sweeping generalities. For one example do not underestimate the historical power of women, even when in some ways men held nominal power. Do not forget queens and empresses. Even in Russia, where women were traditionally confined in almost Islamic manner during medieval times, Catherine the Great arose as one of that nation's greatest leaders. Look into Empress Wu of China or Himiko of Japan, the latter a shamanic sorcerer-queen from the epoch when only women were allowed to rule. In ancient Sumeria the royal property was held by the queen. Meanwhile the king was human-sacrificed when there was a bad harvest year. Many such examples all over the world. And do not forget it was far more pleasant to be "chained to the kitchen" than to be forced labor in a salt mine or turned into human hamburger in some grisly (all male) medieval war.

Your post also has pronouncements like "we should have a system where..." But how to enforce it without hierarchy?

a reply to: ketsuko

I actually stated in my essay that I support merit-based, bottom-up hierarchies. Trump has no merit. He inherited hundreds of millions of dollars and is now hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to foreigners and has provided nothing for society. Trump is a leecher. He represents top-down, non-merit-based hierarchal leadership.

a reply to: Never Despise

You are right, I forgot to mention the few dozen times women were considered important enough to be people /s

originally posted by: ketsuko
If one's worth is based on one's merit, how does that not also set up a hierarchy?

To illustrate, I'll go to athletics because I was legitimately the top of a hierarchy there during my time. I was the best hurdler in my entire state for a few years enough to a win national award for it. I was among the top three best in the high jump.

That's a hierarchy and based on merit.

And you have plenty of people today arguing against meritocracy as being white supremacist because not enough BIPOC excel at the kinds of merit they would have them excel at.

So where do we go now?

White supremacy is the opposite of meritocracy. White supremacy is rewarding people not for their merit, but their skin color.

I'll use your example of athletics. Let's say that you are a great athlete. Except... all of your trophies and awards go to a fat man who sits in a chair on the sidelines because he considers himself above you on the hierarchy. Maybe he thinks he deserves the rewards because he's the one who got you the position as an athlete. This is our current system.

Yet... you somehow worship him and think he is a better athlete than you because he is higher on the hierarchy. Everyone in this situation is completely delusional.

I do believe in merit-based, bottom-up hierarchies. This means as the leader of your athletic team, you have an OBLIGATION to help and improve those lower than you on the hierarchy. If you abused them instead, you would be sinning. And it could potentially result in the entire team sucking due to your own faults. But of course, you would blame them instead.

a reply to: Never Despise

To say nothing of systems where women might not have held titular power, but were still held in a great deal of esteem and respect for one thing or another.

Sparta, Persia, Maya, Viking women for example all had very strong roles in society.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Never Despise

To say nothing of systems where women might not have held titular power, but were still held in a great deal of esteem and respect for one thing or another.

Sparta, Persia, Maya, Viking women for example all had very strong roles in society.

That is great! But it doesn't give a free pass to societies that don't follow this example. In addition, hierarchies do not just apply to men/women. They can apply to master/slave, manager/employee relationships, or any other of a myriad of cases.

a reply to: darkbake

Ah, I'm telling you that today the idea of meritocracy which you espouse here is considered to be an idea of white supremacy.

The ones who have decided this do so on the idea that they see too many whites in power positions, so obviously ... meritocracy is white supremacy.

I'll remind you again that you are the one arguing for meritocracy.

a reply to: darkbake

Hierarchies apply everywhere.

I have three cats, and *they* have a hierarchy.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: darkbake

Ah, I'm telling you that today the idea of meritocracy which you espouse here is considered to be an idea of white supremacy.

The ones who have decided this do so on the idea that they see too many whites in power positions, so obviously ... meritocracy is white supremacy.

I'll remind you again that you are the one arguing for meritocracy.

I am arguing for meritocracy and I appreciate your insight. However, saying someone has merit just because they are white is not meritocracy at all.

In addition, white supremacy actually advocates sabotaging blacks and keeping them from succeeding, which means that although their performance is less, their merit is higher.

Look at slavery, which takes white supremacy to the extremes. The slaves are the ones with merit who are actually producing goods. The slave-owners are leeching off of the slaves' hard work. This is not a meritocracy.

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: darkbake

Ah, I'm telling you that today the idea of meritocracy which you espouse here is considered to be an idea of white supremacy.

The ones who have decided this do so on the idea that they see too many whites in power positions, so obviously ... meritocracy is white supremacy.

I'll remind you again that you are the one arguing for meritocracy.

I am arguing for meritocracy and I appreciate your insight. However, saying someone has merit just because they are white is not meritocracy at all.

In addition, white supremacy actually advocates sabotaging blacks and keeping them from succeeding, which means that although their performance is less, their merit is higher.

So then, critical race theory is white supremacy. Good to know, but it was only what I've always suspected.

a reply to: ketsuko

Let's say a white supremacist owns slaves who do all the work for him. You are saying the white supremacist is the one with merit?

originally posted by: ketsuko
The ones who have decided this do so on the idea that they see too many whites in power positions, so obviously ... meritocracy is white supremacy.

I see. Just having a position of power does not give you merit. That is one of the main points of this essay. Merit is NOT based on your position in society, but the value you personally bring to society.

You seem to think that because a slave-owner has a position above his slaves (who actually do all of the work) that he has more merit. This is entirely false. The slave-owner is actually draining from society and has negative merit. He is leeching off of his slaves, even though he probably is delusional and thinks his slaves are the leechers.

I believe we shouldn't even be talking in terms of individual rewards due for whatever reason. Reward based systems are entirely normal, and we have no other option available to us other than a semi-UBI system, where those at the lower end of the hierarchy would be supported by those at the upper end, without any discussion of whether it is deserved or otherwise. In general, our fundamental approach to life ought to be altruistic, with no inappropriate discussion of each one's individual merit.

Sure, if a person holds several degrees they ought to be at the upper end of the hierarchy, deployed in a position which enables them to put their skills to good use for the benefit of society. A natural outcome would be that he or she would then receive a salary commensurate to their high position of responsibility, in which they work selflessly, without greed leading to corruption. Those with lesser qualifications would by definition have less skill & could not be entrusted with the high office that the muli-degree person, simply through lack of capability, therefore they would be in a position which offered less in the way of rewards. This is entirely normal, and logical, and reasonable. Those in higher office would carry a burden of responsibility that the persons lower in the hierarchy could not bear, and some would say there comes a balancing point where the majority would not want to be saddled with that high burden of responsibility.

There is no need to talk of the hierarchy in terms of gender, other than to say that of course, in a just & democratic society, women should have equal opportunities to perform duties in a role which puts them on an equal footing with the men. There is no natural order of abuse, that's nonsense in my opinion - altruism & sharing of natural enjoyment of the dynamics of the relationship between men & women should naturally land where it will, and only those who are particularly unbalanced would in any way abuse the woman they are with. All I'm saying is that there is no 'natural' state in which all men are in some way abusive towards women. Cooperation & enjoyment of each other is a far more likely & natural outcome.

Only in a young sophisticated society is there even any discussion of unnatural tendencies on the part of men towards women, and this occurs because of the excesses & addictions which a technocratic society makes available over a very short period of time in which technology is evolving quickly. If we were to pay more careful attention to bringing up children to avoid addictive tendencies, perhaps by active therapy at a certain age to check each student's outlook & tendencies as part of a semi-formal subject taught at school as an enhancement of their maturing capabilities. In normal society one might consider that people are generally balanced, engaged in productive work, enjoying each other's company & the benefits of sharing a life together. The idea that mem are naturally abusive is nonsense, quite frankly, and it is merely the over-generalistic pseudo-proposition of a shrieking feminist outlier community.

Most men are perfectly decent towards women (in Western society) for which we can thank our 2000 year Christianised culture for our attitudes towards each other, which were further enhanced by the enlightenment period, and so really there is no justification for what you are proposing.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

If a man thinks he is superior to a woman just because of his gender, I guarantee this will result in abuse. Maybe you don't believe men are superior to women just because of their gender, and this is great. But some people do. Jehova's Witnesses, for example, think this way, as do Mormons. And Islamic folk.

I still think that a lot of evangelicals believe this as well, I have seen them write descriptive essays about how the Bible supports male dominance regardless of the merit of the man.

I have personally seen how this philosophy in religious families has resulted in fathers and brothers raping their daughters and sisters. On multiple occasions.

If you believe man and woman are created equal, then I'm not worried, I think you will treat the women in your life just fine.

Or maybe you still think men are superior, but believe in respecting and caring for the inferior women in your life. I take issue with this, but it is better than nothing because while the hierarchy in this situation is not based on merit, it is still bottom-up.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: darkbake

Hierarchies apply everywhere.

I have three cats, and *they* have a hierarchy.

Your cats don't have the blockchain or internet to disrupt hierarchal tendencies. My essay was about changes in technology giving us better options and disrupting societal structures we consider normal.

My point is that the majority of men do not believe themselves to be superior to women, so your argument is nonsense. In fact, the shrieking anti-male ultra feminism has in recent years made it so toxic to be male, particularly if one is white & middle class, that swathes of the male population have had to involuntarily withdraw from the dating game entirely, becoming the involuntary celibates (in-cel) who have simply closed down any efforts to get together with women, leaving them sad & lonely, hoping against hope that one day they will find a woman with whom they can begin a relationship as the equals he had always wanted to be. Your entire method of posting also makes it very plain that you are on a hyper campaign to increase the toxicity which poisons the environments of our modern age, including forums like ATS. You are wrong, and it needs to change, in my humble (non-superior) opinion.