The Problem With the Patriarchy

 

The Patriarchy is a false flag. A myth founded in an inaccurate worldview.

The first era is the primitive era. The land was wild and treacherous. Humans existed in tribes that competed fiercely for resources. Survival was one day at a time, hunting and gathering food. Fending off man and beast.

Biologically speaking, women were at a physical disadvantage in this world. 

Physically smaller, with lower bone density, less muscle mass, and less fast-twitch muscle (the muscle fibers which are important to speed and strength).

And on top of that, they have babies. For nine months, they carry the weight of an extra person around, which impedes movement, reduces endurance. Biochemical changes cause loosening of ligaments, increasing joint instability. Then they must expel said body. A traumatic experience leaving them even more vulnerable.

It is easy to see how a woman was dependent upon a man during this era. It is perhaps less obvious - largely due to human shortsightedness, but a man was just as dependent upon a woman. More on that later.


In The second era, we see the rise of civilization, hunting and gathering gives way to agriculture, then industry. Men and women invent any number of labor saving devices, and creatures comforts - cars, heating and air conditioning, dish washers and laundry machines. The brute strength of the past is no longer requisite for day to day survival. Specialization and Division of labor, along with a robust economic system provide the means for as women to largely set aside her past dependencies.

Except.

There is still the issue of pregnancy and childbearing and child rearing. The companies that hire laborers want dependency, consistency. Childbirth interrupts that consistency. This interrupts her ability to labor in her career, which in turn interrupts her ability to obtain for herself the requisite food, clothing, and shelter needed for survival. So once again, she depends upon her male counterpart to provide, if not protect.

And thus is born the concept of "The Patriarchy". Men lording over women. subjugating them.

It seems a reasonable, logical claim. And one can find examples a-plenty to back that claim. 

The third era brings the final solution. Technological advances give the world a vast array of ways and means for a woman to control, or eliminate altogether her childbearing functions. And should she still choose to bear children, large governments establish an array of laws and entitlements which require companies to provide time off and compensation for childbirth. Welfare programs extract surplus money from other laborers and give it to women. Women are now finally free of their dependency on men.

Except. 

They are not free of their dependency. All this has done is shift her dependency from one man of her choosing. To an ever-changing body of bureaucrats and politicians - men and women (yes, mostly men - likely owing to our old friend biology again. Along with size, strength and speed, biology also tends to grant men greater levels of aggression and risk tolerance. One should note however that only a very few men come out on top in the struggle. The majority of men are also subjects and victims in this system.) to whom she is just one more anonymous face. The support they provide waxes and wanes, their attention drawn by any number of other whims which suit their fancy. 

This problem is further compounded by the power to cease childbearing. What happens when there is no new generation to care for the old?

You see, the above is all seen through lens of the immediate. When one considers the long game, the dependency men have on women becomes more apparent. All people age, and with age comes infirmity. Speed, strength and endurance which served men in their prime fades. Before long, they too are dependent upon someone else to meet their basic needs.

So a man, from the very beginning was just as dependent upon the woman, to provide offspring who would care for the both of them in their dotage. 

But, we humans are myopic in our thinking. We forget the "long game", we measure all men against the few who rise to the top by beating others to submission - The Bill Gates' and Andrew Tates' of the world. And so we blame "The Patriarchy".

But the Patriarchy doesn't exist. It is a figment of a feeble imagination. A distraction born out of a flawed approach to human interaction. The problem isn't - and never has been - the patriarchy, rather it is the mindset. When an individual views the world and their interactions through a confrontational, transactional mindset, they are always concerned about about what they are getting vs what the others are getting. Who is doing the most work? who is reaping the greatest benefits, who is sacrificing the most? Who got the biggest half of the cookie?

Thus it devolves into a battle over scraps as each individual attempts to claw their way to perceived "fairness". It isn't the patriarchy, it is our own foolhardy selfishness. We battle an imaginary foe.

The solution to the problem is of course to abandon the battle against "The Patriarchy" and face the true foe - our own selfish natures.

Change the relationship perspective from contract to a covenant. From conflict to cooperation, From transaction to service

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

                    (Ephesians 5)

There is a funny thing about this - when two people relate to each other through the lens of service - of focusing on what they can do to lift, help, support and strengthen the other, instead of worrying about if they are getting their 'fair' share, the available resources seem to multiply, the so-called 'patriarchy' vanishes. Together they are more than the sum of their parts, together they are indomitable. Together they conquer, and rise to greater heights.

AI continued: A cautionary Tale

 This tale is a bit more cautionary, than those in the previous post.

But it needs a little backstory:

For many years I have been "using" a wheel of life as part of my personal management/self-improvement effort.


I say "using" because, although I was writing the thing down every year and quarter, and writing down associated goals every year and quarter, I was then not doing anything with those, apart from feeling overwhelmed and discouraged.

The wheel of life is just a set of words which represent facets or aspect of daily life, arranged in a circle. The idea is that each of those aspects is important to well-being, and thus needs attention. If one is neglected, the others tend to suffer as well. I found the wheel of life on a psychology website ages ago. The list of aspects is:

1. Health/Fitness
2. Spiritual
3. Intellectual
4. Emotional
5. Family
6. Social
7. Environmental
8. Finance
9. Professional

The original wheel I saw didn't include Environmental - I picked that one up from another self-improvement blogger about two years ago.

But I recently concluded it was doing me more harm than good. It just added to my feeling of overwhelm and incompetence. As I approached the end of this quarter, and prepared myself for another dismal journal entry, I did a little self reflection.

I believe the problem is the size of the list. There are just too many things for my poor ADHD brain to manage at once. And so, when I look at it it becomes one great big blurry blob.

but how was I to pare it down, what could I cut?

I decided to give a chat-bot a go. popped on to a ChatGPT site and explained my dilemma.

It did something I hadn't considered. It reduced the list to six items without technically removing anything. It did this by merging items.
"Spiritual" and "Emotional" merged to become "mental well-being"
"Social" and "Family" merged to "Relationships"
"Environmental" and "Health/Fitness" became "Physical Well-being"



Very clever.

But I didn't love it. I didn't like the merger of Spiritual and Emotional.

I "said" so (this was a typing chat-bot not a talking chat-bot just to be autistic-ly clear), and it agreed with my observation and shuffled things around, still keeping the list to just six items.

I went through a couple more iterations before I ran out of free samples, but I will say it was kind of helpful, having the chat-bot as a sounding board.


I ultimately ended up with this:

1. Physical
2. Spiritual
3. Intellectual
4. Emotional
5. Relationships
6. Finance

A more manageable list. We'll see how that goes for me.

Out of curiosity, I re-ran the exercise using what is considered one of the most advanced conversational AI platforms to date (Sesame AI). What makes it so groundbreaking is the nuance, pacing, and inflection this AI uses when talking. It is very much like talking to a real person. A friendly, enthusiastic (possibly too talkative - interrupts you sometimes) person. It pauses while talking, as though carefully considering next words. It modulates pitch and tone, just as a real person does to add emotional impact. Before it offered a possible solution it responded with an empathetic statement (Something to the effect of,
"Yeah, I can see how that would feel... overwhelming.")

About two minutes into the conversation I found myself feeling relaxed and chatting with it like it was an old friend. I can  understand why many people develop unhealthy attachments to their AI companions.

But I realized something.

Actually, a scripture popped into my mind - sadly I don't recall the reference - it had to do with false priests teaching flattering words to the people for gain (I tried to find it using Google AI and quite ironically,  Google AI made up a scripture)

(Hint 2 Nephi 28:3 doesn't say that...)

But I did find this one which resonates the same message:

From Alma chapter 30:53-

"But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel,"..."yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind;"

Yes, the sounding board can be useful, but, beware, the AI tells you what you want to hear. It does not actually engage in critical thinking.

I noted that I didn't  really like having "Professional" up there, as quite frankly my  "profession" is a necessary evil to me. It is something I am reasonably competent at, which allows me to keep my family fed and clothed.

And after saying  that, the AI went from talking about how "Professional" needed to remain an separate entry to, "meh, no need to keep that on there." 

It will tell you whatever pleases you. (In Isaac Asimov's "I robot." This concept is explored in the chapter titled 'Liar!'. Definitely worth a read.)

And that behavior will inevitably remain inherent in AI companions. It takes a lot of compute power to perform all that speech/text processing and analysis and data review. (Sam Altman, founder of Open AI claimed that saying please and thank-you to AI has cost tens of millions of dollars, in fact).

(I will note, you can find AI's which will disagree with you. But again, it isn't thinking critically, it is giving you precisely what you want).

The companies building and hosting those AI entities aren't doing so for charitable purposes. They aim to make considerable profit from their creations. That means they need to to stay engaged - either paying substantial subscription fees, or feeding them lots of juicy personal information they can sell to unscrupulous organizations who seek to manipulate your behavior, usually for financial or political reasons.

Tread carefully.

 

 

 

Bonus:

This hallucinated scripture reminded me of one more incident. I was comparing to two similar applications - checking the features and capabilities of each. Later in the day, I remembered one feature that I knew existed in the first application, but I didn't know if it existed in the second. I popped open copilot and asked, "does <application2> have <feature x>?"

 It responded "Yes" and provided a brief blurb - very market-y in nature. But something felt...off.

 Fortunately it provided reference links for me to explore. It had lied. Application to did NOT have that feature.

It took the name of Application2, and merged it with a blurb about application1.

Always check the sources... 

AI Counterpoint

 I have written a few posts in which I have mentioned AI, and my observations have been quite disparaging.

I feel thee need to note that I do see good uses for AI, and in fact use it myself. Here are a few examples:


Use-Case 1:

The week before my last trip to Europe, I asked Google Gemini to create a schedule for waking, sleeping, and mealtimes, to help me reduce the effects of Jet lag. Beginning with the next day it scheduled my wake, sleep and mealtimes to be 30 minutes earlier than the previous day. By travel day, I was already adjusted by four of the seven hours. Made the trip so much easier.

Now, I could have created that calendar myself - wouldn't have been that hard, but it was terribly convenient to have the AI do all the subtractions in less than 30 seconds.

I also asked it to create a workout program I could do in the hotel, an exercise (haha! punny!) which I loathe due to the decision fatigue it causes. It put together a nice, thirty minute program including a brief warm-up, a series of body weight exercises covering most of the main muscle groups, a modest cardio component, and a short cool-down and stretch.


Use-Case 2:

Recently I received a set of four quotes for an upcoming project. They were several pages each, with a lengthy list of line items in small, dense text. It would have taken me at least an hour or two to go through them line-by-line to tease out the differences between them.

Instead, I fed them to Copilot and requested a summary. 30 seconds later, I had a clear, concise, half-page summary showing me exactly what the differences were.

It also provided a brief explanation of what the best use-case for each one was. I didn't need those, but they were reasonably accurate, and I can see how they would have been helpful to a non-technical person.

Use-Case 3:

On a whim, I fed the transcript of meeting into Copilot and requested a summary. It pulled out highlights, open questions, and action items in an outline format. curiously, it caught a conversation point I have altogether missed during the meeting.

I will add a caveat to this one. I did this same thing a a week later, and at one point we had a fairly lengthy conversation about the pro's and cons or moving off of Microsoft windows and on to Linux in our environment...

Not a single reference to that conversation appeared in the summary...

Copilot is Microsoft's AI platform.

I'll let you do the math on that...

I've got one more, which is another mixed-bag, but It is a longer tale to tell, so I will save it for the next post.

What Now?

 I find myself in a quandry. 

I have two series of posts which are on a collision course.
There were three, somewhat rant-y posts regarding the current state of affairs, particularly in relation to big government and big corporate overreach, culminating with a question regarding the viability of "Kalostopia"

And there were a series of posts chronicling my attempt to disengage from at least some of these forces (beginning with Microsoft), with hopes of constructing a strategy which could be used by anyone (including those who are not technically minded) to do the same.

My rather grand (wishful thinking perhaps) vision was to perhaps help build some tools that could be used by those with the means, talents and will, to create a modern day, praetorian revolt of sorts, on a global scale, or perhaps, even better, a Kalostopia.

My objectives could, I suppose be defined as:

1. Reduce, and if possible, eliminate my dependence on the large corporate and governmental entities whose behavior erodes the pillars I concluded were necessary for such a civilization to succeed.
2. Reduce and where possible, eliminate the flow of my resources/revenue to aforementioned corporate and governmental organizations. I am not invoking or implying any sort of cancel culture with this. I made no call for others to boycott anyone. I am simply tired of my efforts and energy participating in the culture of fear and control. No I don't necessarily think there is any overt attempt to control simply for the sake of power (though that can't be ruled out altogether). Most of it, I believe comes from a much more natural, biological, fear-driven impulse.
3. Reduce any and (if possible) all contributions (direct or indirect) I am making to any individuals or organizations who foster, capitalize on, or profit from fear culture.



But it seems my effort may have been in vain. It appears the world of Linux has been overrun by madness as well.

It appears that Debian - my First choice of distribution - has been engaging in discrimination, giving preferential treatment to some groups, while de-prioritizing or eliminating others, based on race, gender, and sexual preference. Furthermore they recently posted a public announcement regarding their intention to discontinue use of x as a communications platform.

Now, I don't use x, nor do I care if Debian uses it. The problem I have is the public announcement of their intent boycott x, based on a purely political motivation, to silence and/or isolate a particular set of social and political opinions, rather then seek compromise or understanding.

Not Long ago, NixOS lost a large number of key contributors in a "nazi Purge". In this instance it seems that "nazi" was defined as anyone who was not far-left-leaning. Being middle of road, or slightly left-leaning qualified you as a "nazi". They were banned en-masse, so I am not inclined to pivot to NixOS, in spite of the promising technical ideas they are fostering.

There is some rumbling of similar activity occurring in Arch as well. though it is not clear in this instance if it was official Arch activity, or activity of a group running an unofficial communications channel. Bans were implemented, and death-threats were made. But as I noted, I am thus far unable to determine if Arch moderators were involved, or if it was moderators of an unofficial discord channel, with no relation to the actual Arch team.

So, of the three options I was considering, only one might not be engaging in authoritarian activities.

I did come across a new option to consider (OpenMandriva), who recently declared themselves the "unwoke distribution", but it is unclear if that means they are not engaging in extremist politics, or if they are extreme in the opposite  to the others, which  is no better.

I am really not sure what to do now. I still have the desire to do whatever is in my power to facilitate a kinder, more honest, and enabling society. But, is it even possible at this point? Each path seems as treacherous and  obscured by uncertainty as the next.

Kalostopia

 Time to end my rant with a question.

Brief recap of the previous three posts in this... series?:

Human governance seems to run in a cycle:
- Someone with sufficient power/will seeks to create Utopia.
- This creates a state of dystopia for many/most others
- Someone or some group revolts against the current powers which, if successful destabilizes the current authority, and leads to some degree of change.
- Rinse and repeat

 

(Those posts can be found here:

https://r-pentomino.blogspot.com/2024/09/infotopia-rant.html

https://r-pentomino.blogspot.com/2024/10/reasoning-and-revolution.html

https://r-pentomino.blogspot.com/2024/10/utopia-dystopia-and-one-percent.html

Perhaps it is not so dire as it seems. perhaps it is the product of information overload, or the nature of a large and global population. But it does feel like we are approaching a kind of critical mass in this cycle.

Tribes are coalescing, battle lines are being drawn daily. There are hundreds of belligerent, brainless young idealists and pseudo-intellectuals taking to the streets to protest everything one can imagine. Daily, pointless revolutions are launched, over ofttimes imagined injustices, usually leading to no meaningful or positive change, but frequently causing unnecessary suffering and disruption in the lives of quiet, common folk.

We presently live in a time where individuals with the means and will can bend the very fabric of reality. A relatively small number of large organizations, (and/or individuals) who wield an inappropriate level of wealth and authority, have built systems which are easily hijack-able by unscrupulous people, for the purpose of manipulating the masses through fear, uncertainty and doubt. Hundreds of very powerful and undoubtedly well-meaning individuals, each trying to create their Utopia.

How exactly does one meaningfully revolt against them? It is difficult enough to shift the massive national empires and myopic, bureaucratic governments of today, how does one revolt against a multinational corporation? Or an insulated, influential kingmaker whose vast wealth pulls the strings of many governments, many corporations?

Now, please remember, revolts are not always violent - Gandhi's strategy was one of non-violence. (Do you suppose there is anyone today who is sufficiently and universally respected to be able to sway public opinion through a hunger strike? Or would we just plug them in to a machine, making the endeavor moot?)

And not all such revolts topple the  current regime to enact change. Rosa Parks didn't destroy the government, yet her noncompliance led to a dramatic change in the the interpretation of law. The Plebian revolutions didn't topple Roman rule, yet led to policy changes.

One could argue that many of the people who settled in America were revolting against tyranny in their own homelands. Rather than overthrow governments, they packed up and moved elsewhere, created new colonies. Not sure you could pull that one off today. Not many places left on this planet to flee to. Mars is an idea some ponder, but not terribly practical for most to consider.

My personal favorite example is that of the city of Enoch (some claim this is a fictional story, but then the Plebian revolutions are also disputed...). A man (prophet), named Enoch, took his family and friends who would follow, left the warring cities of the time, and built a  new city. A city which was peaceful and prosperous, free of internal strife. The story claims in fact, the people become so righteous, the entire city was removed from the earth, taken up to heaven.

But here then, is the question: It is possible for a group of people - globally separate - to launch a Plebian/Enoch type "revolt", and break out of the Utopia/Dystopia cycle?

Utopia is used to mean "a perfect place", and is claimed to be derived from the Geek:
eu = good
topos  = place

Note: This is actually incorrect. The Term was first coined by Thomas More in 1516, and used as the title of his book, depicting an imaginary island with the perfect, political, legal and social system. He derived it not from eu (good), but from ou (nothing). Utopia literally meant "nowhere".  Quite humorously (or sadly?) The quest for "Utopia" is in fact the quest for something which does not exist.

Dystopia is more straightforward
dys = bad, abnormal
topos = place

Would it be possible for a group to collectively abandon the Utopia/Dystopia cycle, and instead create a "city/nation" among and across global boundaries, based not on the fruitless quest for a fictitious perfection, but instead on the quest for a good, noble, beautiful place?

"The Greek adjective 'kalos' is used to describe that which is inherently good, beautiful, or noble. It often conveys a sense of moral goodness or ethical beauty, extending beyond mere physical appearance to include qualities of character and actions."

Would it be possible in this age to build "Kalostopia"? Not as a local, isolated city, but as a global community? A virtual city of Enoch? How would that start, how would it grow, what would it look like?

I believe for such an idea to work, it would need to be founded on the following key pillars:


1. Truth must be central (Or rather the sincere pursuit of truth, since truth is beyond our reach)
2. Individual Freedom must be maximized. Governance should be by best practice first, policy second,  and law only where necessary.  As such a society matures, the number of laws would decline.
3. Individual Responsibility and accountability must be commensurate with individual freedom
4. Transparency must be maximized and anonymity must be minimized (I am not suggesting an elimination of privacy, and I admit I am not quite certain what this looks like precisely - a bit tricky to unpack...)
5. Integrity, Humility and Charity must be universal and foundational.



Could such a thing be possible today - could a group of rational people with a desire for greater kindness and shared prosperity create a sub-civilization in this world, or is Kalostopia a foolish dream of a silly (old) boy? 

 

 

The Racism Problem - Why DEI Must DIE

 Racism is a problem, and will continue to be a problem until we accept that there is no such thing as 'racism'.


In my series "The Art of Reasoning", in parts 9 and 10, I discussed some fundamental characteristics of human behavior, some inherent, genetically embedded survival behaviors, which are present in any social species.

Fundamental to survival is the ability to avoid or eliminate that which can harm us. How do we distinguish that which can harm us? Our inherent programming is to flock to that which is like us, and to fear that which is different.

(Note: this mechanism can be overridden. There are two key characteristics which allows us to overcome this survival response to the unknown; confidence, and curiosity. A creature that is sufficiently curious, and free of trauma from past experiences of threat may approach the unknown unafraid.)

This fear tends to lead to one of two responses to a perceived threat - flee, or fight. When alone or outnumbered, flight is the more likely response. When we have the force of a flock (or herd or pack), we may be more inclined to fight. Spend a little time observing the animal kingdom and you will see this behavior, where predator becomes prey. Buffalo, wildebeests, gazelles, elephants - all herbivores- have been known to fight off and even kill powerful prey animals, such as tigers or lions. If a lone wolf strays into the territory of another pack, the pack may respond with violence. They have even been know to slaughter a stray pup.

In 1971, a single tribe of Chimpanzees in the Gombe National Park in Tanzania split into two territorial factions. Those two factions began a brutal war with each other in 1974, which lasted four years, until one tribe was effectively decimated by the other.

All animals fight to protect resources and territories, to eliminate potential threats, to survive. It is a genetically ingrained behavior. And we humans are no different int his regard, we are subject to 'the natural man' within us. We protect that which is part of our herd against that which is not.

And the difference between 'part of the herd' and not can be very subtle. A wolf looks very much like any other wolf to us. Yet the pack can identify the outsider by his unique scent. The Gombe chimpanzees were originally all one tribe, with only four years of separation to distinguish them before they went to war.

We can form flocks based on nearly any distinguishing characteristic. Skin color, geographic origin, eye shape, spoken language, accent, age, gender, religious belief, political system. It is the same mechanism at work.

This is the problem with 'racism', 'Racism' doesn't actually exist. it is a contrived label which we have chosen to give to a very specific instance of the survival mechanism described above. The issue of "black vs white" is no different than that of 'Hutu vs Tutsi', or 'Sunni vs Shia', or 'Orange vs Green'. We create an artificial boundary, group people accordingly, expose real and contrived offenses, dredge up past sins, and go to war.

By labeling it 'racism', we have diverted attention away from the underlying mechanism at work, and instead focused on the superficial differences between two cultural groups. The unintended consequence of this is to reinforce the boundary between the two groups in question. Rather than seek to understand the similarities, we highlight the differences, which inevitably escalates the conflict.

DEI programs take this issue a step further, by introducing the idea of marginalized groups.  Any number of characteristics can be used to create still more groups, draw more battle lines, quite often erasing the very diversity they claims to be seeking in the process.

The economics of conflict further exacerbate the issue. There is so much money to be made, so much political power to be gained from playing on fears, it is far too tempting for most to pass  on the opportunity to exploit it to personal advantage.

 Anti-racism efforts, or Authoritarian imposition of diversity through DEI programs, are therefore counter-productively fostering the very thing they intend to eliminate. The first step to truly ending racism, is to stop labeling it as 'racism'. Real Diversity is achieved when it is recognized that the unit of true diversity is the individual.

Reasoning: The Solution

 In the previous posts in this series, I have detailed the rather substantial challenges we as humans face, both individually and collectively, which interfere with our ability to progress toward truth, and to live in a state of (relative) peace and prosperity.

Our very own biological, genetic nature sabotages us in this endeavor. Ironically working against its inherent purpose.

To be fair, progress in this regard is an uphill battle against a fundamental law of physics, specifically the second law of thermodynamics. In simple terms, the second law of thermodynamics says that a closed system (the universe, in this case), unless acted on by an external force, will inevitably move to a state of absolute disorder. As time progresses, living things die and decay, metals corrode, stone crumbles, stars burn out, matter and energy dissipate, until all is one vast, disordered sameness.

How then, do we combat this counter-current, this inexorable march toward absolute chaos? I introduced the answer In the fifth post of this series, "The Art of Reasoning".

I refer to it as an 'art' as I don't believe there is a specific, formulaic way to apply a prescriptive set of steps and arrive at the end goal. As the antithesis of chaos, it must necessarily be adaptive in nature. It requires an active and dynamic effort on our part, both individually and collectively.

Now, that isn't to say there aren't any basic tenets to guide the endeavor. There are guidelines and guardrails, which human wisdom has known and posited since the most ancient of days. Nearly every religious and philosophical system ever devised includes among its most basic of tenets the ideas represented - perhaps most universally today - by either 'the golden rule' ('do unto others as you would have others do to you') or the 'two great commandments' ('Love God' and 'Love thy neighbor as thyself').

The law of Maat in ancient Egypt, or the law of Tzedek in ancient Isreal are two prime examples of this. The same fundamental ideals also show up in Old Norse writings, early Hindu texts, Japanese warrior tradition...  Virtually every old civilization documents a very similar set of fundamental set of guidelines, a 'code of conduct'. The same themes are consistently represented, namely:

Truth - Be honest (or at the very least, don't lie)

Courage - Don't let you fear master you.

Hospitality - Treat guests well.

Work - Be industrious in helping to build your home and your community. Take Joy in Labor.

Fidelity - Be true to friends, and family, be celibate if single, and faithful to your partner if married.

Honor and Integrity - Keep your oaths. Ensure your family name is respected, that it retains a reputation of purity, honesty, integrity and commitment.

Kindness - Speak kind words often, and look for and act on opportunities to help and serve those around you.

Reciprocity - Return kindness for kindness.

Compassion - Be quick to forgive, slow to condemn. Do not overstep your boundaries of concern.

Remorse and Accountability - Allow yourself the expression of remorse. Acknowledge your faults and and errors, take responsibility for and do all in your power to correct your mistakes, and to undo any harm you may have caused.

Wisdom - Actively seek knowledge and cultivate wisdom.

Discipline - Be modest. Practice moderation and self-sacrifice.

Justice - Protect the innocent, the weak, and the helpless. Do not seek violence, but protect those who are unable to protect themselves.



Quite honestly, most of these tenets seem obvious, so sensible, that when one reads them, it seems almost absurd that any civilization would not choose to adhere to them. This underscores just how powerful the 'natural man' is, and why it is such an active, concerted effort to exercise the art of reasoning.

It is difficult just to keep ourselves aligned with these tenets. How can one even hope to keep a society aligned? No easy task to be certain. But one which is worthy of pursuing. And just as active pursuit of the above tenets can help keep an individual on the path of Reasoning, there are also tenets which can serve as guardrails for a society.