Ideal Society
Now that the metric for optimization has been laid out, practical expectations will be considered. It is expected for readers to be extra critical from this point on to ensure that the perception bias of the author aligns with the points laid out above. In the event that a conclusion is reached that contradicts expectation or that a conclusion is expected but not expressed, it would be beneficial to reflect on why this happened and which assumptions caused the conflict.
The guidelines laid out below will not assume that all needs can be met within a group. That in itself would assume that all communities have the same needs to begin with and would contradict the axiom of perception bias. As such “utopia” can never be fully realized. Any advocating for a stagnant “best” society is an appeal to a supreme civility which will inherently exclude others.
For this reason civility must be rejected as a method of imposing normality. By definition, legacies are self promoting; therefore civility is the defense of a collection of legacies in spite of others. Using civility to delegitimize others without constructed consent is invalid (since it directly contradicts point 6 in the value system: ought to use excess to increase normality). While there are valid uses for civil consent – which are listed in the next section – the demand for civil radicality ought to be fundamentally rejected allowing only radical civility to exist. The entirety of society ought to be constructed around the promotion of this ideal.
It is also important to note that there may be gut reactions to what is promoted. Amplifying others can be seen as conflicting with the natural tendency of humanity via preservation of legacy, but this incorporates an unrecognized mythos: competition is necessary. This need for competition will occur in any non-egalitarian civility, otherwise it would advocate for everyone being promoted without bias. As an alternative, if competition is unneeded due to all absolute essentials being relative essentials (i.e. living in a post-“scarcity of needs” environment), then preservation of legacy is optimized when the disempowered in a community can be securely protected under the community’s civility (i.e. radical civility is foundational).
The only way for civil consent to be utilized under the authority of radical civility is to promote unestablished legacies while rejecting the infrastructure (eg. mythoi or virtues) that they align with. Recalling that these infrastructures are defenses of legacies and not legacies themselves, it ought be up to the constructed consent to determine which legacies can coexist within the current society and which fundamentally contradict. This of course takes a strong community consciousness in spite of praise or damnation that comes with civilities of the past.
Two embedded viewpoints must be pointed out before we continue:
First – a hope: if mythoi are torn down then it is assumed that constructed consent will find a way to allow all legacies to coexist (under the condition that normality includes “survival”). It is only with this belief that ongoing critiques of situations are useful and radical consent ought never be opposed (since there is a single shared reality we can all operate under). In this way, internalizing the experiences of the subnormal will allow everyone to become radical and normality can be universally met. In short – under this assumption, subcommunities will promote each other. Alternatively, if this existentially incorrect and multiple realities essentially exist, then constructed consent will dictate a partitioning of these realities; both thriving independently even though – in spite of being the most optimal solution – they will periodically clash. Nevertheless, even if this hope is flawed, the following restrictions on civility will optimize normality to ensure everyone has the greatest chance at liberty and preservation of legacy.
Second – a warning: civility will always exist. Even if minimal, local communities cannot be stopped from protecting themselves and fighting for metaphysical resources (including absolute essentials) when lacking. Even when appealing to point 8 (promote the value system) and point 2 (critique situations), we should always employ point 1 (don’t critique people) since no one single accuser knows all the information. It should follow that in the ideal society there are institutional reminders that limiting individual legacies is exclusively the responsibility of constructed consent and the undercurrent of local civility should be rebuked when possible.
Most of the following expectations will be fundamentally unrecognizable to how governments currently are implemented and ultimately the amount of power that comes with these prescriptions should be answerable to the community via unapologetic expectation for transparency and data driven honesty. Any and all evaluators – from media to united groups to individuals – ought to be given the means and expectation to verify the propaganda they are given (assuming it is not causing harm to the community) without recourse. The only reason these are considered “civil expectations” is due to the amount of effort and coordination that is needed to accurately provide the necessities listed.
In order to allow constructed consent to be the dictating factor of society, there must be an ability to establish normality for a population as a baseline. In the same way, establishing normality relies on the ability to differentiate between relative essentials and excess. For that reason alone, communities must have accurate descriptions concerning the resources relative to the population. While it is easiest to identify the status of material resources, it would be assumed that identifying the distribution status of metaphysical resources (respect, community acceptance, ethical inclusion, etc) should also be attempted.
Without this being reported for the entire community, normality can never be established beyond local knowledge (if it can be known at all). Lacking trust in this knowledge will lead to the combination of assumptions and apprehension of the future; necessitating competition at the expense of cooperation. Further, having segrigated normalities will ensure that communities will fracture when different ways of life are justified as appropriate and deserved – from solitude to slavery to excess. Therefore, a community cannot exist without a trusted normality that everyone in the community can achieve.
To ensure that all unilateral trust is not without merit and can be verified by the community if in doubt; the production, logistics, means of distribution, and means of exchange must all be verifiably transparent. Further, a predefined benchmark – which undergoes mandatory regular review by the community for critique – should be the extent of which the reports ought to be condemned (lest excessive expectations can be used to promote individual legacy and point 7 is violated). So if the holder reports that an element can or cannot be distributed, the population can depend on the knowledge provided to indicate what ought to be expected or (alternately) to which community the conversation of distribution ought apply and why others were neglected.
In spite of the optimal situation – i.e. the community appropriately distributing relative essentials in an efficient and effective manner – part of the reporting of elements should include redistributing empowerment for arch holders. No other entity in the community could verify this knowledge nor ensure that arch holders were restrained from institutionalizing themselves via manufactured limitations. In the event that an arch holder consistently neglects distribution to subnormal communities, it should be those neglected communities that are given the means to promote a new holder. Which brings the next point…
Regular announcements need to be distributed about the status of different subgroups with the intent of identifying those that are subnormal or have excess. The categorization of the “subgroups” should not be stagnant, but statistically driven based on an “official” publicly scrutinized rubric that goes through regular reviews and is adjusted appropriately (as with the review of resource reporting). Any statistical outliers found either to have increased or decreased normality will be highlighted so constructed consent can be informed and can best figure out how to increase normality for the entire community.
Those with excess will be expected to platform members identified living in the least comfort and normalize their voice – not by speaking over them – but by submitting to their narrative and normalizing their language (since it is only through that which their plight can be fully expressed). The more normalized the communication of subnormal communities becomes, the more they can be understood and the more their legacy construction can be amplified. The rubric for identifying these outliers ultimately needs to be accepted by the larger community which are – at the very least – represented by experts to ensure that exclusive or excessive communities do not end up being amplified.
The reason for this need is simple: subcommunities of civility will seek to become metaphysically stable. As such traditional appeals to perception bias and legacy preservation of authorities will naturally create locally exclusive civilities. These will vilify and dehumanize those less “civil” than themselves. Since the justification of the metaphysical protection is only knowable by the constructed consent (regardless of what civility may claim), it is the job of the global civility to treat all subcommunities as valid and equal which will limit the exclusivity of the subcommunites (since these civilities must conform with the greater one). Legacy analysis dictates that this will lead to a strengthening of radical civility’s virtues (community cohesion and influence of constructed consent).
In the event that local civilities cannot coexist in the same ideological space, it is important to identify shared legacies. The more that cooperation can be achieved between conflicting local civilities, the more the conflicting mythoi and structures will be forced to adapt to avoid conflict. For this reason, universal diplomacy and cooperation should be advocated for.
Of course, this will only apply to the “citizens of radical civility”. There may be external civilities that either choose not to conform to radical civility or have yet to adopt it. While individuals can and should cooperate with these external groups, it is a responsibility of civility to inform the public what to expect and how to best interact with them. Therefore…
Assuming that civility can appropriately manage the expectations of absolute essentials and the perception of others, it is assumed that constructed consent will best analyze how to optimize normality if left uninfluenced. For this reason, there is one last expectation of civility: protect the community from conflicting external civilities. It is not up to the institutionalized mythoi or virtues of the community to dictate which new legacies are conflicting, therefore – like all other expectations – the scope will be to strictly inform on the relationships of other civilities based on a predetermined rubric and to have a method laid out of how to defend if attacked (either physically or ideologically). Without this, outside civilities are empowered to influence the inner analysis, either by manipulation or force, to conform with their own metaphysical needs.
While this cannot happen at the local level (since perception bias will cause them to neglect other subcommunities) it is necessary for individuals to report their own experiences. This will keep civility from becoming stagnant, ensure any historic civil mythoi can be deconstructed, and remind local civility holders that trust should not be betrayed lest their legacy become one of mistrust.
While including new legacies should universally be promoted so that the liberty of the community can continue to grow, a forced inclusion will strain the local metaphysical stability which will cause exclusionary civil mythoi and structures to form. Since new legacies are always promoted by civilities with preformed institutions, virtues, and mythoi; it must be made clear that the legacies will be accepted while the exclusive aspects of civility are invalid. Much like an invasive species, a community without pre-established defenses will easily be overtaken. The population must therefore be prepared with information; constructed consent cannot evaluate how to best react to the legacies without knowing the expected metaphysical resources and where there is a conflict to existing legacies.
While it is ideal to unite with these external communities and allow constructed consent to reestablish normality for everyone (hopefully – but not necessarily – through increasing it), the acceptance must always come from the community with a lower level of normality and submission from the higher. The more comfortable the community, the more stable, and – therefore – the more institutionalized their civility and mythos will be. This will often not be obvious since it is harder for the stable community to understand the needs of the subnormal and – like always – radical civilly ought to be universally employed.
The product of any collaboration with an external community should always be considered excess so constructed consent is never manipulated into being dependent on an invasive legacy that aims to influence inherent civil consent. In this way, there will be more desire to construct a common non-harmful civility that both communities operate under which will – foundationally – increase normality for everyone.
Identifying civility optimization is relatively straightforward: provide information and an avenue for community organization if needed. Addressing public optimization will be a bit different since subcommunities all have internal struggles, changes of needs, unforeseen experiences, and so many other events that can manipulate legacy construction. The following, therefore, will not be a subscription based on needs, but on the empowerment of the most suppressed communities so that analysis via constructed consent will include as many as possible.
As initially stated, it is assumed that once civility has been adequately suppressed from influencing constructed consent, an equilibrium of metaphysical security can be obtained for every covered legacy. Using this understanding, the clashing of subcultures will not be solved by promoting civil responses to disagreements, but the destruction of civil structures and mythoi that are initially the source of the radicality.
Knowing which communities are the most subnormal is vital. For that reason communication within the community, especially those that share different legacies, needs to be both normalized and expected. The experiences of these communications should align with the expectations that are produced within civility. When they don’t, it is important to express the radical critique thereby influencing constructed consent. While initially this critique of civility is necessarily based on anecdotal experiences and communal trust in civility will not be affected; if constructed consent is to remain the authority of the community, each individual should desire to prioritize appealing to the misrepresented subgroups directly so that the radical critique can become a radical consent. Multiple independent verifications via first hand experience of the misrepresentation is necessary for constructed consent to hold civility accountable and remove the holder if necessary.
By extension, neglecting to voice a subnormal status will ensure that constructed consent cannot advocate for an appropriate corrective action. As stated initially, radical consent cannot be individualistic, and therefore necessitates community advocacy to be considered within the social analysis. Once normality has been established – it is vital for ALL people who live in subnormal conditions to have both the opportunity and ability to express their situation so that radical consent can grow.
Unlike the prescription of civility (which is to amplify knowledge and expectation of normality), it is the duty of the community to ensure civility will institutionalize as few mythoi as possible. With that in mind, civility ought always be rejected if a radical consent becomes known. This will not always result in constructed consent promoting the legacy living in subnormal conditions (there will always be legacies harmful to the particular community), but – without the chance to be evaluated – liberty will stagnate.
Even though this is expected within radical civility, it is important to see continued justification for it.
It is important to point out that scarcity of needs necessitates authority. The reasoning for this is built into what has already been discussed: scarce elements are definitionally excess even if they are universal essentials. Excess isn’t naturally deserved by anyone, so – without an authority to dictate civility and holders – people will acquire excess through competition. In that situation, survival will render constructed consent invalid since perception bias and preservation of legacy (the axioms of life discussed originally) are expected to dictate actions within a competitive environment. To put it more simply, the community would devolve into a competition for the excess element (ie life), which is definitionally a deathmatch.
To be clear, competition is a valid means of excess acquisition between communities or persons where – and this cannot be stressed enough – normality includes survival. It is up to communities to decide if the motivation, inspiration, and other virtues that competition leads to will benefit society and whether those benefits are unique to a competitive environment. It is important to note, if survival is normalized and everyone accepts that excess ought not be demanded then the competition is fundamentally voluntary and arch has little material power to influence the community. Without the ability to influence the constructed consent – there is no reason to view archy as a threat.
Contrasting this, when survival cannot be distributed, if a community is to retain any cohesion, an agreed authority must exist to optimize and regulate distribution. As with all hierarchies though, in an ideal society the archy must exist to eliminate the need of it’s own position. Beyond – and often in spite of – the distribution of the scarcity in question, authorities will strive to institutionalize their own legacy, which is in contrast to point 7 above (one ought not strive for excess).
Regardless of what ought to happen, it is ignorant to expect arch holders to deny their axiomatic driver (preservation of legacy). Therefore, once arch is acknowledged, it is important to establish how much of a dependency can be created by the archy. The bigger the dependency, the sooner the mandatory removal of the holder. It is not unreasonable for a community to change holders every few years. The more the holder is seen as necessary to the position, the more reason they have to be removed since they are institutionalizing themselves. This doesn’t mean that the new holder cannot utilize the old, but just that the ability to influence constructed consent must be negated as much as possible.
Additionally, it is important to realize that – at the point of identification – the position (holder) is definitionally excess. In the same way that no one is singularly equipt to be a cook, no person is singularly equipt to be a holder. The best cooks train for years under other experts, but they aren’t afraid to use their own experience to create a better outcome; the same goes for holders. The position of holder should not be conflated with a person’s identity for the population or the holder themselves. If this is conflated then this will necessarily harm the community since any opposition will be seen as an attack and civil institutions and mythoi will be constructed. It is the community’s responsibility to reject this conflation and to demand the holder be removed due to lack of trust.
Due to the nature of civility, it is expected that the most influential historical legacies are going to have the most luxury and privilege. Rejecting this trend is as necessary as it is difficult. There will always be a desire to reference hyperbolic exceptional success stories from subnormal groups in order to individually blame subnormal communities for systemic civil failures. While completely in line with the expected response to an unaddressed civil mythos, these references are ridiculous since – by definition – outliers are not representative of those that are harmed. While every individual is accountable for their own influence and responsibility within constructed consent, many will still empower overlooked civility due to ignorance. Understanding this, we can see that it is necessary to systemically ensure the civil structures are explicitly limited.
It may be redundant, but the emphasis is needed to ensure that the following point is justified: those in sub-normal conditions must have the most influence. Even the most egalitarian society will fall prey to protectionism and stagnation left to its own design. To offset that inertia directly, promotion of those which have the direct knowledge of radical critiques need to be prioritized. While excess ought not be demanded, it is part of radicality to promote representation that can correctly identify the changes needed to offset the civil harm and increase normality. This – fundamentally – is how radical civility and the systemic increase of normality is accomplished.
While it is ultimately up to the community how to best implement this promotion of the subnormal, it is important to recognize the following: normality will be increased when those with the most influence have the motivation and interest to do so. The best way to ensure this is for those with influence and direct ability to make changes to be personally promoted when normality is increased. Also, representatives shouldn’t have large platforms; they should be dictated by constructed consent, not helping civility to institutionalize itself further. This leads us to the following suggestions:
The best indicator for the optimization of a community is how often representation will shift to align with the recommendations above. If normality is achieved by everyone then there will be no need to appeal to these restrictions since civility is trusted and holders are held accountable by the representatives that promote their community. Alternatively, If normality is not set or society has been divided fundamentally into different categories, then it will be impossible to abide by the recommendations at all (since civil “reality” will conflict with the virtues of radical civility).
It cannot be denied that the mythoi and civility of a community is promoted most in the youth. Indoctrination is unavoidable and undeniable. It creates an ideological direction that will take decades to overcome assuming that it can be at all. For this reason, cooperation with those of different communities and ability to question civility must be part of that indoctrination. Beyond encouraging the acceptance of others through education (which should be universally supported), any type of civility must be rejected when possible to undermine intentional bias. That said, there are specific topics that need attention to ensure that radical civility is ingrained into the worldview the children create (which is necessary via point 8: instruct the population).
Conversational – Language is the only tool that grants the ability to differentiate others from our own existential selves, values, beliefs, plights, and anything else that gives our identity meaning. We cannot respect those as independent and equal that we cannot identify, so language is necessary for cooperation (as opposed to assimilation or rejection). The more language we have to identify differences, the more respect we can have for things that are not ourselves. The ability to communicate in as much detail and with as many concepts as we can capture, the better. It should not only be proposed that language be expanded during indoctrination, but also (using local and forgien texts) during the lifetime in which we are constructing our world view.
Logic – The ability to reason should be treated as a language. Utilizing it as a way to experience the metaphysical should not be refined to a system of rules, but an exploration of the unknown systems to be discovered. All of practical mathematics or other rule based systems should be treated in this same way. These structured descriptions should be recognized as a fluid way of describing the world that may not accurately represent the way the world is, but instead extremely useful descriptions of metaphorical objects and supplemental precise explanations where conversational language fails.
History – Narrative history is ripe with the potential for propaganda and for this reason it should be avoided. Instead of dictation of stories of great men and actions, there needs to be a more objective focus: how history was captured or discovered, what led to the narratives around our understanding, and the skepticisms that both came with it and were identified later. It may be questioned why the risk is worth it, but practical knowledge of the past is one of the best ways to understand how legacies can be tracked and how they can be expected to proceed.
Analysis – Just as much as knowledge of the past is needed to understand reality, so is the ability to understand the situations that surround us. It is necessary to be proficient while constructing, consuming, and presenting statistics and reports (especially those that will be produced by civil sources) for the sake of critique and the ability to be well informed. Being both comfortable reading and skeptical of any lacking data is valuable for analyzing the reality around us through combatting the internalization of perception bias, propaganda, and general fiction.
Critical Thought – While it’s never possible to combat personal civility internally; being able to find evidence conflicting to one’s own narrative, determine it valid, and critically utilize it to remove our own bias is as close as we can come. Without learning this skill, we are doomed to be trapped by the perception bias our beliefs create.
Social Expectations – In the same way that a community needs to have an understanding of other legacies, so do students. This includes their own community (spoken about without praise or promotion) as well as others (without unfounded criticism). Students should be trained with the ability to determine what a community values and how to identify the norms that are often assumed. Biology should also be expressed as a way of contrasting other animals to ourselves and an indication that analyzing biology/social processes requires an identification of conflict and the ability to dissociate.
Religion – While religions should not be imposed nor treated as the single truth to follow, it is important to see how religion is reflected in culture. Since these structures tend to define knowledge and world views more than – arguably – any other institution, it is just as important to have an understanding of how they originated, what they believe, what caused them to succeed, and how culture affected them throughout their lifecycle.
Morality – Similar to religion, the civil morality that has been institutionalized by different cultures throughout history is important to recognize to see how it helped to influence communities over time. Comparisons and contrasts of values can help to establish what causes some cultures to flourish and others to bring about internal and global conflict.
Social Legacy Analysis – Understanding that persons are driven by legacy, it is vital to be able to decrypt the different levels of legacy influence that persons will encounter in their day to day lives. For the sake of increased ability to recognize and avoid civil entrapment as well as being able to identify the combinations of legacies that will create the “self” as opposed to “others”, it is important to learn to be both knowledgeable and critical of the legacies we are influenced by.
Mental Health – Perception bias will always dictate that any given person is the most normal person that person can know. In fact, the only solid truth that any person will ever be able to depend on is “I am real”. For this reason it must be taught to reject this idea and treat yourself as atypical so that we can treat others as equals. This takes reflection and – more importantly – trust in multiple external evaluators. This trust must come from a place of basic training and the expectation to be able to be understood without judgement.
A Posteriori – Our perspective on reality (like everything) is dependent on our perception bias, which makes it a delusion. Without proper focus and training, it is extremely easy to reject shared experiences that are in contrast with that delusion. Testing of shared experiences and the exploration of the non-delusional world must be promoted if perception bias is to be countered efficiently. This practical adjustment to our own constant delusions to help it align more with the delusion of others is practically useful and necessary for cooperation (as well as advancing the predictive and developmental knowledge that the community has).
A Priori – While practical critical evaluation using an a posteriori method is necessary, it will also inevitably result in self contradictions. These contradictions on their own are not problematic and people tend to live with them constantly, but they are often used to protect perception bias that needs to be disregarded. Only through the assumption that reality is non-contradictory does any discovery or reflection have meaning. Indoctrination to this mindset (internal consistency is a “good”) is preferable to the alternative, since – without it – cooperation is meaningless and legacies cannot be preserved. Therefore, axiomatic systems – no matter how impractical – must be a topic of discovery to ensure that one is well versed in philosophical exploration.
The greatest hurdle for empowering an egalitarian society will always be combating the fear of domination from an outside force. Whether metaphysical resources are lost due to forced replacement or changed internally, the fear that legacies will be abandoned is ever present. It is nice to believe that the acceptance of radical civility would combat this fear (since civil critique leads to the normalization of metaphysical subjectification), but questioning the commitment to being protected by acceptance will always be an expected philosophical doubt.
The reason this is fundamentally a challenge is the metaphysical resources that the legacies have become dependent on will be put at risk. Other civilities (that may not ensure as much protection) could become more influential. This “paradox of tolerance” must be recognized as a rejection of the fundamentals of legacy analysis operating under radical civility: all subservient civilities necessarily will be forced to adopt the metaphysical resources of the dominant civility. In the case of a society that promotes radical civility, all subservient civilities must adopt inclusion.
If – on the other hand – the threatening civility denies the dominant metaphysical resources of radical civility (i.e. acceptance) then it will be forced to recruit a radical community under an exclusionary metaphysics. This will inherently be rejected by community consciousness (as long as those being excluded are part of the analysis). So the “threat” is only a risk if it can become the dominant civility which cannot happen in an ideal society (i.e. when normality – which includes survival – is knowable and achievable to everyone).
Due to all this, it is a worthy – but ultimately impossible – endeavor to combat perception bias directly, the best way to react to the threats of other civilities is to identify the potential harm that is caused by your own. Reflecting on the radical critiques (especially those that are the hardest to support) will identify unfair perception bias you may hold and what aspects of reality need reevaluation.
Through cooperation, the civil mythoi will adapt and the civil structures will be deconstructed. This will take time and the ability to relinquish the metaphysical needs will vary causing conflict, but this contrast of metaphysical resources can be separated from the civility that protects it. Through cooperation (whether operating under radical civility or not); civility becomes impotent, enemies become peers, and perception bias becomes less influential.
As a final reminder, it again must be reemphasized that – within a predefined conversation – those below the state of normality or that in which normality doesn’t include life cannot be expected to act in accordance with the value system proposed. The comfortable – and therefore stable – must always succumb to the sub-normal (as long as no absolute essentials become excess) lest the subnormal become justifiably radical.
