Did you ever think that serving could be something desirable?
Servants: this is what we associate with people who clean the household or attend to the fine ladies and gentlemen in their mansions. Butler and maids, nannies and chambermaids. Can you turn being at someone's service into an attitude to life? Why would anyone want to serve anyone else anyway? Isn't serving a bad thing?
picture source: Gemeinfrei, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=899115
Nobody seems to want that anymore. On the contrary, you want to have servants to take care of you.
Do people see themselves as servants in the shops where you buy food? I don't think so. Even people with little to insufficient education do not want to serve under any circumstances. It is considered worthless, yes, contemptible.
I want to restore the image of the servant.
Starting with those who can afford their own business and who per se serve their customers.
In the context of earlier societies, such as the times of the kings who served their country and the people, royalty is closely linked to service. I will research this later and first give my own derivation and definition of royal servanthood.
From tribals to kingdoms
I imagine how it came to be that one had arrived at a time when people became royal rulers. It must have something to do with former tribal societies merging into clans and each having a leader who not only commanded his clan, but also protected it and served it. A tribal leader had to make decisions, but above all he went into battle with his warriors when other tribes threatened the clan. Certainly he could not simply resign if it became too difficult for him to fill the protectorate.
It is cinematically proven that there were times when the later kings themselves dressed in armour, went into battle and a cowardly ruler would not have been suitable as a protector for his people. But is it also historically recorded?
More on that later. I am still speculating or remembering what I have seen or read and which may reflect some kind of C. G. Jungs collective memory. In which we humans are inclined to see a protector as such an archetype who wants to serve not only humans but also the land, i.e. the fertile soil and plants and animals. By cultivating them and making the best use of their resources and defending everything in danger from the outside in case of need.
If I go further back in time instead of forward, I imagine even smaller tribal communities, each taking their territories and partially losing and winning them again, in a kind of wave movement in which people encountered other tribes that were alien to them and against which they showed themselves defiant.
With increasing mobility (shipbuilding, transportation) and the invention and use of weapons, strategies and a larger number of people, I imagine it, a ruler was not only limited to the defense/attack but also to the spiritual well-being of his protégés.
State and church apart from each other
Very quickly played in time, the separation of church and state power arose. I do not mean what we understand by this today. I settle this separation much earlier, even in the times when the church dignitaries were still crowning the kings. The mere fact that there were two different houses (physically): the royal house and the church dome, this separation has already occurred and has never been reunited. Actually, I am critical towards this separation. Funnily enough, one could now be upset precisely because everything cries out for this separation and one could almost accuse me of wanting to revive the past. It's correct to separate powers, don't get me wrong.
But I also want to ask: Who does believe that the separation "spirituality" and "secularity" in mind was a good thing? Rather, it seems that serving the ultimate higher was good as long as a spiritually developed man regarded heaven as one with earth. In my logic things got really bad after both houses were institutionalized and human history became quite tragic in parts after the separation of the divine from the secular.
It is a difference to give less power to an officiating person (or institution), because he should not be ruler, judge and executioner at the same time. But to separate him from his faith does not seem very wise to me, because it also separates him from his accepted ethics. The consequences of this separation can be seen today, because there is little talk in the political power structure of forming ethics commissions and in the economy even less so. People have to laboriously rebuild it and bring it to weight.
The third pillar, that of warriors, was also separated, because there were warrior camps in which the fighters were trained. Where before in a clan still all suitable men fought along, without belonging to a certain caste or a house, the separation also here found its way into the civilization of humans.
It is said that before there was official democracy, which split into legislative, executive and judicial separation of powers, there was royal rule, in which separation of powers into state affairs, church and army already existed. Which is basically not very much different from what we have today, in terms of the principle. Only that a king no longer held judgment before his subjects and served as arbitrators of the lower kings, just as he worshipped the gods or the god as a believing head. As it began to establish itself that even then he was no longer trained as a warrior.
I see a certain inevitability in this development and a lot would have to happen if this view of human history were to be different. Historians talk about the fact that agriculture was what mankind mostly was surviving through, up to ninety percent the land was providing through agricultural activities for the people, both aristocrats and the average folks in mediaeval times.
We tend to believe that the lords exploited their subordinates and that the past, and especially the Middle Ages, must have been a dark and troubled time. Certainly influenced by cineaistic elements and a general prejudice about backward times when the workers were considered stupid and uneducated. At that time as well as today (!) there were bad and good lords and both historical documents and narrative written traditions provide us with a far greater variety than our cinema fantasies make us believe.
By Evrard d'Espinques (Original at Bibliothèque nationale de France) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Lordship at its most basic level in twelfth- and thirteenth- century England can be described as the politics of food. The Norman victors after the Conquest of 1066 imposed a structure of lordship into England that was organised around the management of land. The Norman kings granted parcels of land to their Norman followers, which forged a new social hierarchy of those who held of the Crown and smaller landholders below them. The high importance that Anglo-Norman lords placed on hereditary succession, and the practice of providing for a single heir (rather than division among many) kept estates largely intact, and allowed even the lowest tenants to become effective owners of their own estates regardless of the size.
I quoted from an excellent peace of text, "The Culture of Food and Feasting in High Medieval England, c. 1066-1330" by Ross Staffin.
In any case, it becomes clear that the management of nutrition has always been connected with reconciling the highest (spirituality) and the most necessary (warlike conflicts).
There have always and at all times been decision-makers who have either focused too much on warfare, accepting the devastation of the country and the poverty of the population. Or who in turn achieved the same through greed and mismanagement. This shows how difficult it is for people to keep the balance between the mentality of a spiritually developed (sage), a statesman (establishing peaceful border relationships) and a warrior (protecting the people).
Depending on how wise or unwise I suspect the subjects, so does the ruler.
How does one imagine a current leader?
That he was an atheist, technically advanced, scientifically oriented? But which models should he have, which highest and best should he actually follow in order to serve the common good? And it is about the common good, isn't it?
How about no leader?
Or do we think that we no longer need a government and that we as individuals can govern ourselves? Isn't that presumptuous? Consider how difficult it would be if a consensus were reached or an important decision were to be made in a household of twenty or fifty people. To learn about self-organization, look at the examples that try and live it: The municipalities or eco-villages that have opted for an autonomous lifestyle.
By Michael Würfel - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=33591387
I have looked at their publications for quite some time and the general tenor is that a great deal of time is spent making decisions for the general public which should all be well thought through and have the least possible damage and the best benefit for those involved. That is a lot of work, it is a political reality that is very, very strenuous and energy-sapping. It becomes clear that the well-being and preferences of egocentric individuals do not play a role in this.
While the first generation of ecovillagers tended to adopt consensus decision-making as a governance method, some difficulties with consensus as an everyday decision-making method emerged: it can be extremely time-intensive, and decisions too often could be blocked by a few intransigent members. More recently many ecovillages have moved toward sociocracy and related alternative decision-making methods.
If we modern people do not want to have a government, then what would be an alternative? That we make the important decisions by individual voting, for example via online voting procedures? This is an extremely dangerous and negligent view because, in fact, opinions on important matters should not determine community life. These should always be discussed and processed in committees and led by experienced people. Such a form of new democratic considerations are certainly present, for example with the idea of the "citizens' parliament".
But as long as there are no other forms of organized coexistence than the present one, one should be careful with what one wishes for. In fact, the government fulfills what you want much more often than you think.
The "Referendum" is a key word. But you also ask yourself the same question: how are we to implement what the people want? Then there is the difficulty that they do not trust the people, while the others do not trust the government.
I believe that there are both intelligent and less intelligent people everywhere. I don't think much of advocating political disenchantment and I am basically annoyed with this media slaughterhouse. However, I doubt whether anything like "truth" can be conveyed on screen. Everyone nowadays feels filmed and quoted, and who knows whether quality journalism ever existed and whether it is not as much of a myth as historiography itself, which, unlike mathematics, has to do with subjectivity and human feelings. (... No, I am joking, I actually believe in quality journalism to a certain extend).
Moreover: for a very large part of life, the modern individual already rules himself.
How's that?
First of all, no one is forced to swear unconditional loyalty to anyone, you do not have to belong to a denomination, not even to a political party. You don't need to have a political interest and you don't even have to commit to military service anymore. Actually, this is all the case in my country.
What remains is that people are encouraged to work and earn money for a living. If this is a problem for you, you should think about, why.
Perhaps it is not because you are governed by elites (which you are, and so what?), but because you find nothing of importance in yourself for which you want to serve and work. This meaning cannot be created for anything in the world by itself; it is still created by serving others on oneself.
Imagine what it would be like if not a single milestone in your life was noticed and honored by anyone. Your schooling, your degree, your passed driving test, your marriage, the birth of a child, a survived illness, a death.
But if I am the only Lord left to serve, where do I get my strength, my advice and my wisdom from?
A mental support is omitted if I don't have spiritual signs, such as an ethically motivated education. In my physical reality, the church and the temple no longer play a role.
My political life is atrophied when there is no community within which I can learn how to reach consensus, because as an individualist I believe that meeting in the community hall has become unnecessary, not to mention intra-family negotiations. Politically I am only interested in my mental reality, not in my physical reality. I face the injustice at my workplace with little courage or with flight.
What about being a fighter? Do I commit myself to endangering myself in combat and killing others who pose a threat? I can indeed say "No" to all this, but at the same time how can I demand that others say "Yes" to it?
Whose servant do I want to be when I cannot serve only myself as an individual?
Individualism is a construct; there is no one on earth who can actually live independently of others. So whose service do I put myself to?
It seems that as a modern person I am obliged to educate myself and then to follow the laws of this education. Since I am neither a farmer nor a craftsman nor a merchant (even though I learned this profession), there is nothing more of a merchant than theory, for I am not a trader but a consumer. Business today is done by others, mostly corporations, and it's boring to be in some franchise shop where I don't design anything anymore, just make sales. What remains is the academic world, research, the advertising and film industry and the huge sector to which the "help system" is ascribed. So everything related to the risks of poverty, old age, illness and death. Which is a lot.
At least, that is what one could think. Of course, it's not overall true. I can still think about choices.
A true business character always is a servant to others.
Believe it or not. If he is not, his business is either going down or is run by pure determination to make profit as there are enough willing workers to put themselves into a boring and monotone life, thinking of themselves as slaves or abused people.
...I beg to differ: As long as not someone is putting me in a working camp and use pistol or whip to make me work, I am not a slave. I maybe only humbled or frustrated as it is a damn complicated world I live in.
People at all times knew that. Here is a quote from a transcript of a letter of a former king of Poland,
"If I also possess one and the other royal qualities, I am indeed assured that I worked against my true interest in the bliss of my loyal inheritance when I accepted the royal dignity. Poland, what a kingdom! What unrest for a king to rule a nation as proud, as uncivilized and unfaithful! A nation that believes that its greatest asset is not to obey and to let itself be governed in its own way!
What sorrow for a king to be called ruler of a country and yet not be able to fulfil the noble duty of a regent to make the country happy and to be prevented from doing so himself by those for whose welfare one wants to do, but who view everything with suspicion and regard every movement that one takes to pull them out of their labyrinth as a cliff on which their pride and freedom should fail! Wouldn't I have been happier as Elector? I am surprised that I could have some affection for the crown of Poland, as my father's sad example was still vividly in my mind."
Out of: "Intimate conversation between the Lord and the servant: or ... History of Frederick August III and the Count of Brühl" - published in the year 1764
By Louis de Silvestre - http://www.bialystok.ap.gov.pl/index1.html, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6608779
There was always complaint; not only the "lower" ones but also the "higher" ones suffered from the very fact that you cannot please everyone.
Servants are not available when misery reigns around you - only employees.
Then you have only those who despise you or exploit you and yet say that you exploit them. Just because you may own the bigger and nicer house. That this house houses people, cares for them, gives work to others, has gone through many hands or has to be cared for and improved and offers numerous sources of income ... well, complete the sentence.
When the coexistence of people threatens to become devoid of any ceremony or symbolic meaning, a void arises.
At worst, some people are inclined to say into it:
https://giphy.com/gifs/animation-loop-3d-3ov9jFsf1xjQ2oMeeA/links
How can I assume that the past has always been exclusively backward? With this I disparage the interpersonal structure and I rise as a judge of a past of which I know nothing or little about. It is not necessarily the case that future life always means improvement. Anyone who sees everything in the present as bad and in need of improvement misjudges what was and is already good.
The newer ethnological view of one's own past offers new opportunities to study stagings or rituals no longer as cultural techniques of civilisational backwardness that have finally been overcome. The'sociological project of modernity' in the sense of a continuous development process of intellectual systematization and practiced desensualization prolonged into the future, based on Western sovereignties of interpretation for world history, is currently coming to an end. The new recourse to older ethnosociological and ritual-theoretical approaches is therefore no coincidence. It no longer understands history as a contingent process of refinement for humanity, but leaves its own value to both past and other anthropological masteries of reality. Historians must interfere in such debates with ethnologists. They will no longer be able to do this only in their proven epoch or European centricism, but may also give the worlds of the ancients their own dignity.
source - translated from German to English
Where will one draw the meaning when there is no higher consecration from which one can get it?
What occasions can modern man celebrate?
I remember my first important training period. After I had passed the exam and returned home - the written exam papers were held in a hotel about a hundred kilometres from my home town - there was no reception, no welcome from the official side. My parents had also forgotten me. Since I had been the only trainee in my year, I didn't even have a comrade-in-arms to celebrate with back in town. So my training period ended rather without a sound or a hitch. I had worked very hard and intensively and prepared myself for the examination phase for months.
By Artist is Charles Sprague Pearce (1851–1914). Photographed 2007 by Carol Highsmith (1946–), who explicitly placed the photograph in the public domain. - Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, LC-DIG-highsm-02028 (original digital file), uncompressed archival TIFF version (98 MB), cropped and converted to JPEG with the GIMP 2.4.5, image quality 88., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4040818
So I always felt a certain envy for those whom I experienced as students or saw on television, how they threw their hats into the air after successfully completing their studies and especially individually called and came forward to pick up the certificate and to be applauded by the crowd.
Then I felt more honoured myself as a confirmand who had completed her two-year confirmation classes. At least we confirmation children were included in an official ritual and accepted as worthy of the evangelical communion. There was a group photo and a later celebration or relatives came from all over and gave envelopes with congratulations and money.
I understand such and other rituals as a service to people.
Through them, the generations learn to understand service and to be integrated into a community that internalizes and visualizes living togetherness. As a child, you feel that you are involved in a larger context of meaning, even though you don't really understand the value it may have for you. This is also not necessary. What counts for children is the act of coming together and celebrating. It is only in the sum of these significant events that an adult is later formed, who naturally feels integrated into the community of people.
But if I have neither a spiritual world of experience nor experience myself as effective in secular matters, what remains?
We humans seem to be deeply dependent on others serving us and that we serve others.
It is difficult to create meaning when the bond is torn to the historically lived ceremony.
When I recently asked my family for a meeting to honor my son for the completion of his seventh school year, the unusual nature of this occasion weakened the intention that I associated with it. Yet it did not stop me from deciding this with my son's father and creating an occasion. But how little vigour this had compared to spiritual and historical ceremonies is something I am also aware of. I felt a little strange when I addressed some official words to my son in the presence of everyone and I wondered - partly consciously, partly unconsciously - if I had kept the order of things. This shows how inexperienced I am.
There is the saying, "one should celebrate the festivals as they fall". But as more official holidays are abolished, the occasions marginalized and their importance diminished, these services are invalidated. Meanwhile one is even ashamed that one was or is dependent on such stuff.
I always kind of liked to prepare the food and to decorate the place for my family. But what I realized this time is that I indeed felt a deep respect for the feeling to be of service to my family members. When you become aware for the first time that hosting and serving to people is something dignified it's wonderful. You won't complain as much as before and the unwillingness to do the shitty work will vanish. It becomes an honor to be of service and you'll start to love it. Actually it is not important to be acknowledged by the visitors. It's quite enough when I see how they feel well and relaxed.
Who speaks to whom?
I have probably received enough honour and ceremony for my part, for I see my life and work as meaningful and I am ready to act and speak as an authority figure. Just as I speak for government affairs when I do my job. The social benefits available under legislation and the existing system are not necessarily easy to obtain. I don't even know why this is expected. The state administration does not feel responsible for the salvation of its citizens.
After all, this was the intention long before that governors should not interfere in the peoples faith and mental well being!
It is a consequence of the separation of powers.
The financial administration therefore is not in charge for the psychic health and mental satisfaction of the people. This is exactly what many people wanted. I am sometimes a little dry in communicating this fact because I meet an astonishing number of people who still believe that the state apparatus responsible for finance should also take care of their personal and psychological concerns.
But stubborn people still want them to be. At least they want somebody to act as a role model and authoritative figure. That's human, actually, isn't it?
As an individual I am facing the difficult task to search for appropriate leaders and role models, I must search for rituals and ceremonies which give meaning to the system I live in.
And when you really get inside yourself, you will see that you most admire those people who unite the honorable qualities that correspond to the mentality of a WARRIOR, a SOVEREIGN and a SPIRITUAL SAGE. So nothing is really separate, just intellectually divided.
We humans cannot be fed solely by our rationality without any symbolism in the sense of a culturally rich food.
Achieving this ideal is much more likely if I am willing to serve others.
Have fun to become a servant!
Pictures (those without subtitles in the text):
- Café: Paul Hoeniger - Unbekannt, Gemeinfrei, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=214677
- Noble man armoured: By Paris Bordone - Metropolitan Museum of Art, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6390233
- Ancient tribe culture: By Skinner Prout. - Edwin Carton Booth (1876), “Queensland”, in Australia [...] In Two Volumes, volume II, London: Virtue and Company, Limited, OCLC 903574116, plate facing page 164., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5989795
- King Arthurs Round table:
- Animated gifs: https://giphy.com
Texts:
The Culture of Food and Feasting in High Medieval England c. 1066-1330 by Ross Staffin (University of Exeter)
source
Servants and labourers on a late medieval demesne: the case of Newton, Cheshire, 1498-1520 by Deborah Youngs
source
Inszenierungen und Rituale des spätmittelalterlichen Reichs. Die Goldene Bulle von 1356 in westeuropäischen Vergleichen
(Stagings and rituals of the late medieval empire. The Golden Bull of 1356 in Western European Comparisons)
source
In Their Majesties’ Service - The Career of Francesco De Gratta (1613–1676) as a Royal Servant and Trader in Gdańsk by Michał Salamonik source
Medieval People - Titles, Positions, Trades & Classes source
Excerpt from King of Poland: source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_(servant)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diener
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffeehouse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_committee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecovillage#Governance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremony
Another thought provoking post, Erika.
I do agree with the need for government, inspired leaders and being servants to our fellow beings. Also, that there is a great need and desire for ritual.
I like very much that you organized and officiated a celebratory ceremony for your son. Even if you felt a bit self-conscious, I am sure those in attendance appreciated the holiness of your intentions.
Like you, I have been self-conscious in my offering myself as holder of the container of ritual/ceremony in the past, but have been so moved by the way in which participants respond--not in their thankfulness in me as a facilitator, but in the places this serving brings them--back to their own hearts and to the camaraderie of the group--we all being connected.
And, in humbly serving, we allow ourselves to be open to the teachings of those in whom we serve and these often enough find joy in serving us--circled unions in the energy sense. Making LOVE and not the FUCK You straight arrows of energy directed in only one direction.
Oh, very much so! "Camaraderie" I like in this context. What a waste of time it would be not to create this atmosphere in a family or group gathering and instead let win competition and righteousness. Or resentments towards one another.
What a powerful wording! Fuck YOU is indeed directed one sided!
I often thought that people unconsciously seek the right leader when they are in need and not approach those who actually fuel the fire even more. Except their intentions are corrupted in the first place. A governing person should not play into this game.
I hope, we all will create new ceremonies and rituals. Being open is the first start to learn and to teach.
Thank you, Kimberly!
Hi, Erika ! Love to see your work again :)) Hopefully I'm not too late to join the discussion on this topic.
I'm so glad that you managed to discuss the issue from several perspectives, including a historical one! Wow!
What I would like to add from psychological perspective is that some people actually are becoming or should I say more properly expressing themselves as servants in order to be noticed and appreciated by people who they admire or consider as an authority. Sometimes this urge or need to serve and be appreciated could cloud their judgement about events, problems and even the value of their own life.
We are all familiar with the statement that leadership is in our nature as species but we can't speak about leaders without servants so I think that it is safe to also state that "to serve" is a part of our natural behaviour.
That being said I personally find statements and desires which are related to "No government" or "No leaders" etc. to be really silly ones because such "practice" would never be healthy and stable on the long term.
The sad thing is that people mistake the term "leader" with "ruler" or even "dictator" and do not understand that all these terms have nothing to do with each other except that they are all related to "superior position". This misconception probably is in the root of such silly statements which imply that we need nobody to be "in charge of us". We actually do.
You are never too late to join the discussion. Thank you for taking your time.
Yes, good point you made. It's always an act of balance to stay pure about whom I want to serve and not mistake a role model as someone who is in charge to give myself meaning and otherwise I cannot establish this inner feeling. Within the systems it's a back and forth movement, a mutual feeding. Leaders cannot lead without being served by others and servants cannot continue their work without seeing the value of their services being acknowledged. This should not determine though their ability to stay critical.
Here on the blockchain there is much talk of "decentralization" and even "slavery" which I find immature. Also, this discredits those people who are and were slaves indeed. I often go against this view in my comment behavior when I face articles who show a certain victim mentality. I even get upset about it - which is not very good for me - because my family members were themselves imprisoned and forced by dictatorship results into labor camp. So I have not very much understanding hearing modern people in consumption societies naming themselves "slaves". Language should be used accurately.
As always, we do understand each other. I wonder if we ever will have a disagreement? LOL! :-)))
Bringing the "slavery topic" is another thing. We have to discuss the topic of freedom and free will, which I presume are out of the scope of your current paper but a possibility for a second chapter? ;)
Oh, I can recall a few times we had some small disagreements on several topics but they were all resolved in a constructive discussion, which I find as a main purpose of this comment section.
Yes, it would overstretch this one:) - a second chapter of "service and division of powers"? Hm... not a bad idea but I am already struggling with making a translation back from English to German on my history-article which is related to my family story and not yet decided whether I will do that...
Yes, you are right, we had slightly disagreements but I forgot about them. Comment section can be really great, yes.
Ah, it was just a suggestion in case you would like to expand the topic. I am always looking forward for your content!
you the right of the king is supposed to be a servant of his people, but unfortunately in some countries the ruler owns the country and the people slaves to him.
i really enjoyed reading your article while drinking my coffé, thank you very much
You're welcome! I hope your coffee tasted fine:)
Yes, there are dictators in the world. But we should not forget that unless we ourselves are not slaves to make the best of this life in serving what one calls "good".
Great text and I agree with a lot.
The whole thing has a dark side as well: I think some of the more dangerous ideologies of the modern era have been so successful by giving people the picture of some "greater good" they could serve instead of their ego.
Thank you.
yes, the "greater good" is an abused term, I agree. When it comes to humans psychology there is always to be find a darker side, that's for sure. I think it helps to emphasize therefore the bright side of leadership and to what one connects a good leader. From what I think we people have in general some good detectors but should more often listen to them.
I think you have a lot of reason, man must always serve, is his purpose in life, the meaning of his existence is in this simple action. Just as a car serves to transport people, and without fulfilling its function, it has neither meaning nor purpose, or just like a chair in which nobody wants to sit is useless, because it does not serve, does not fulfill its function. The human body, which is the material manifestation of man, has no value if it does not serve.
Now, there are two things that man should serve; the first, to other men, and the second, which is the reason why the first exists, to ideas.
While we live in society we must serve other men, otherwise, we would not group, the reason for society is to seek the benefit of all, that is, the common benefit, pursuing our own interests. And this individualism does not contradict it, but if it does the degeneration of individualism in isolationism, the belief that man has an existence apart from all other men, and that he can live without them, very common in modernity in people who are antisocial, ergo, people who live in a society without associating, a contradiction, and a destructive existence for the same society.
The man serves others and is part of society, because he wants to serve something greater than himself, to an idea, because when the man served a king, to set an example, they did not serve the man who wore the crown, but that it served a guide, a man who was supposed to be more capable of guiding, by divine nature, others towards the truth. During the liberal revolutions, which were essentially idealistic, this also continued, men no longer served a guide who would show them the way, but they would follow God himself, from there to declaring themselves servants of God.
But if you eliminate God, the leader, the nations, and even the very truth as many want to do with relativism, then man does not find a meaning for which to serve, and does not find a purpose for his existence, which, as I said before, It is in itself to serve, to serve an idea.
Moreover, the man will not go anywhere, but will stay in a mental prison, stagnant and without direction through which to travel.
My main differentiation with what you propose would be that the leader in itself is not necessary, because this only occupies a role, which can also be occupied by other ideas. It is not true in modernity that men are ready to govern themselves, and this is evident in their actions that often show irresponsibility. More I believe, that in a society, perhaps it can be called utopian, although it is practically possible, men can govern themselves without problem, of course, serving not a leader but the truth.
A leader is only necessary, because there are times when he is, when men can not see the path they must follow, that is, when they are slaves (in an ideal sense), but when everyone knows where to go, the existence of this ceases to be a necessity, and becomes a weight, as they were in the liberal revolutions.
Liberalism posed a very different model to what reigns today, today its ideal bases lie dead.
Despite some disagreement, I mostly agree, this was an excellent publication, which leaves a lot to think about. Thanks for that, greetings.
Thank you for engaging and delivering an extended perspective.
What I find is that terms like "greater than oneself" and "ideas" can be totally misunderstood. Indeed, people have a strong longing towards something or someone greater. As I interpret it it doesn't have to be lift up but only to be accepted as reality. We talk about here is that we know of the connection of things, be it people and all other matter. The knowledge about this connection could be called "Devine" as to ignore it means to ignore reality. One could also say life on earth is organic, the earth peoples like an apple tree apples:)
When you think about group dynamics and have practiced democracy in a small group, let's say a class of students who must achieve a certain goal by group effort you soon realize that this group needs a lead. I experienced this during my education where we focused on group dynamics and easily found out that there is always someone who acts as a leader and people willing to follow when the majority of the single minds want also to achieve the goal. If the task is changed it is also happening that not the same person holds the lead but another one who seems to be more competent in a particular matter. This requires physical togetherness to be sure of to whom giving the lead. So I would say in small groups this works best.
I think there is actually no difference between what you and I say. I did not say that we are ready to govern ourselves but that we already are supposed to to so. As loyalty is not being demanded from the government of mine. I am not forced to join a political party, no military and also no church. So I am left to my own devices. This is good as it gives me freedom but on the other hand its not so good as it gives me the impression to be left alone and as if my life and voice has no meaning. Which, of course, is not true.
To be left to my own devices means that I am responsible for my choices, decisions, actions and omissions. But I need an ethical conduct. Without it I am lost. I don't know when I would be ready to go through life without the strengthening through a ritual or a ceremonial act but I think people in general need that and lack it in modern civilizations. It's the visualization of serving in an ethical manner which has a strong narrative character.
Oh, this sentence means so much to me :) Recent years I feel like I have become too pragmatic, too rational, too "scientifically proven". Suddenly I realized that I have lost my sparkle in life, something was missing and the world looked too gray and somehow dead. Then I realized that I have left somewhere behind my spirituality, my ability to see more of the world, to dive deeper into it. Now, I am trying to get it back, because I realized that I need symbolism and spirituality to feel happy and fulfilled.
I always liked celebrations and rituals. They give you a sense of belonging. I try to create some in my own family and now, as I read your post, maybe I will put some more effort into this.
You gave me a new perspective to serving to others, Erica! I have always liked to do something special for others - invite people over and cook for them, buy an unexpected present or make a surprise. I have never thought of it in the meaning of "serving" to others.
Thank you for your interesting post!
Thank you too for relating to this topic. I was hoping to counterbalance what I feel is dominating my life, too. In particular what you call "scientifically proven". It makes me happy that you also see value in celebrations which give meaning and create a sense of togetherness. "Serving" became such a bad term as it is also an abused one and I find it deserves better:)
Do you have some particular ceremonies or occasions you celebrate in your country?
Oh, yes, we have plenty. Most of them come from pagan times and were later adopted as "Christian". We are losing some of them, but others are still alive. It is interesting how this ancient holidays are more powerful and are celebrated more than national holidays from our modern history. For example, during the spring St George Day is celebrated more vividly compared to the Union Day. In the first case people gather, eat lamb and put oak sheets on their front doors in order to protect their families from diseases and evil forces. In the second case, people just have an extra day off work. The celebrations which date thousands of years back have so much more power and spirituality in them, that they are still celebrated.
Here is an example and a video
Here is another example and a video.
And another example and a video.
I hope you enjoy them! :)
Thank you so much! That is really interesting, I already read the links and will watch the videos later.
I have never heard about that before and that makes it more valuable because there are so many fests out there we don't know of. I like the young men jumping into ice cold water to find the cross.
From what I think several historical traditions do often have a connection not only to the higher spirits but also were supporting the health and strength of bodily powers.
Maybe I will pick some of my own childhood traditions and some other of the European ones to write an article about them. Many are indeed lost and I never see that kind of welcoming a baby - for instance - here in Hamburg as in my hometown, where you hang baby clothes and stuff on a Laundry line so all the neighbors and bypassers can see that a new earthling has come into life. We called that "Let the baby pee" - a more ancient form of the modern "Baby Shower". Also, we had a celebration for women turning 25 years and men turning 30.
I am looking forward to some more exchanges with you!
Oh, that would be a very interesting post! I hope you find the time to write it.
This is what I looooove about systemics. It lets you analyze society, investigate into the meaning of "togetherness" and "individuality". You can dive into traditions and explore what they ment to the individual, to the core family, to the extended family, and to the community. All these "celebrations" had their metaphorical meaning and helped communities share their lives. The process of individualisation, which began during the 19th century as a result of industrialization, separated the core family from the extended family and the community. Thus, some of the traditions died. But the celebrations which survived are extremely powerful, as they give the individual the opportunity to connect to a broader self - to the community and collectivity (I started to sound like a Jungian now :D )
Anyway, I know you are very familiar with all these and you are far more competent at these matters than me, so I will be extremely happy if you write something about traditions - dead or alive! :D
P.S. I hope you find time to watch the videos I sent you. I think they are quite spectacular :)
I am glad I met you here on Steemit, @erh.germany! See you!
I remember reading about this whole concept of "alpha" and "beta" males/females and how misunderstood it was.
For example, we usually see alpha male as someone physically dominant in the group, while in fact it is not true - hierarchies that are supported only by physical dominance of "alpha male" fall apart very quickly, usually taken down by 2+ males.
Therefore, if you are an "alpha male" that only means you have slightly more authority in that narrow circle of people that help you maintain power (and of course more power outside of it).
It was proven by observing wolves and chimpanzees - alpha wolf walks last in pack to make sure everyone else is safe, fights with outsiders and in exchange eats first and gets to mate - but the personal risk is huge, as walking last makes you prone to being killed (no one is covering your back, if something happens to you probability of others noticing is lower) plus fights with outsiders come with obvious and quite severe risk.
So, we give leaders food and mate, because we want them to:
a) protect us (therefore we keep them well fed)
b) keep their genes in the pool (because, I assume, they were decent leaders and there is good chance their offspring will help us too)
The above is "servitude of leader" at its prime if you ask me - since "protection" is a very broad word and it includes internal and external dangers.
That have a very interesting consequences - we absolutely DESPISE people who accept perks of being a leader and don't provide the above.
And to warp things up: Females periods synchronize not to make "alpha male" couple with every single one of them, but to make sure when "alpha female" is out of the market, everyone is. :)
Cheers!
Thank you Sim.
But I don't go along with the wolf comparison when it comes to humans.
I got this sentence from this source: https://thinkgrowth.org/the-alpha-myth-150121d3868f
There is no source to be found where the hierarchy (alpha, beta etc.) is named in the context of humans, it only counts for animals.
When I talk about a former king I also considered the social structure and that the king stood as a strong symbol in protecting and caring for the people and the land.
I think we all can agree on the fact that once the leaders become decadent and stuff themselves with luxuries while the folk suffers, this can be what produces revolutions like the French ones against the aristocrats.
Nowadays we face much more complex circumstances and power structures and I wonder where humanity will go. ...
Well, question is, are we really more complicated than animals when it comes to basics ? Maybe it's just outer shell that makes it seems so?
What I'm also saying is that there is no "alpha", "beta" or whatever and never been. There is just role that you are accepting and they come with different shapes and sizes - so happened that hierarchy often comes with similar needs and we get similar behaviors on certain levels.
Also, saying that because we are too socially complex we can't define "alpha" is also untrue - we could if we consider that role of one human being differs among those circles - we can't define it because in the shape that it is defined now it does not take that differences within one being into account (someone could be alpha in situation X, but not alpha in Y and so on).
"I think we all can agree on the fact that once the leaders become decadent and stuff themselves with luxuries while the folk suffers, this can be what produces revolutions like the French ones against the aristocrats."
I don't think folk need to suffer - resentment, jealousy is not necessary a suffering and still produces similar outcome. Let's go with modern example though: how do you feel about bankers getting fat bonuses for layoffs?
About the last part: Do we really face more complexity or we just exchanged one type into another ? I also do wonder what will be, but the thing is, world doesn't care and just go on :)
Hi @erh.germany!
Your post was upvoted by utopian.io in cooperation with steemstem - supporting knowledge, innovation and technological advancement on the Steem Blockchain.
Contribute to Open Source with utopian.io
Learn how to contribute on our website and join the new open source economy.
Want to chat? Join the Utopian Community on Discord https://discord.gg/h52nFrV
Thank you! I very much appreciate this.
This post has been voted on by the steemstem curation team and voting trail.
There is more to SteemSTEM than just writing posts, check here for some more tips on being a community member. You can also join our discord here to get to know the rest of the community!
Great article! Service is the foundation of cooperation, which is essential for true liberty.
I wrote a little opinion piece on my vision for block-chain's ability to facilitate positive change and some veiws on the relevance of Alan Watts' philosophy in the Blockchain era.
Anyone who's interested in these subjects can please check them out. ...
Hello, i just upvoted your post. Also, $10 - $160 Reward is waiting for you in GBYTE crypto, please
follow instructions in this post:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@cryptomonitor/airdrop-how-to-claim-tutorial-byteball-bytes-airdrop-to-steemians-hot .
Join our Discord & enjoy happy STEEM community: https://discord.gg/qQZ7Eng