Re: the wheel turns, argument reincarnate

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_cs.ucc.ie>
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:52:20 GMT


David Cake exaspers at Peter Metcalfe:
> Comments on the state left me rather at a loss to reply directly -
> the argument seems to be that terminology can be redefined so that somehow
> all those peasants labouring at giant bridges etc are not working for the
> Kralori state, or perhaps that the size of the state has nothing to do with
> the number of people working for it.

One might question if it was the right -- or rather, 'most useful' terminology to begin with, though. For me 'state' is a tad too anachronistic, "and not in a good way", as Phoebė would say. (The terminology is also getting fuzzy in this wacky ol' post-modernist RW of ours, come to that.) If we stop worrying about what's 'state' and what's not 'state' in a sense you pair clearly (indeed, explicitly and repeatedly!) don't even agree on, it's much less clear what's materially at issue, if anything. (Other than the sharply decreasing change of our tentacious antipodean stalwarts sharing a beer at the next GCDU, perhaps.)

> Simply put, terms as I use them - the state apparatus is everyone
> who is spending their working hours in a way directly directed by the
> state

That's basically everyone, at least in the ideal model... I think Peter's essential point is, what are the typical means of this 'direction'? While Subtle means are the more common and the better thought of, Crude ones are not ruled out. Bear in mind that the effective rulers of Kralorela are _not_ selected on Divien Right, Ancient Mythic Claim, or anything like that, but on the basis of being a wily bunch of bastards, who if provided with a tail might with some accuracy be termed Weasels. (Though not in a Hsunchen way, as Bender would say...)

> They would also seem to have a large public service based on the
> Genertela book, but apparently this is Wrong

Since the terminology minefield is so carcass-strewn, I'll assay this one only (some unspecified time) after I see a working definition of 'public service' and 'large'.

> But physically turning yourself into a dragon is not a crime if
> accompanied by correct spiritual practice. So the POIM are being persecuted
> not for turning into dragons, but for incorrect spiritual practice. And are
> the POIM members who have not yet begun to transform themselves physically
> still criminals for studying Charismatic Wisdom?

They're still at risk (degree of risk left unspecified, and may vary considerably) of being publicly censured, fined, 'volunteered' for the army, or whatever. Whether it is technically 'criminal' or not seems by the by. ("Honoured Citizen, desist in thy plaintive yowls and forehead-beatings. Thy Inner Dragon has been placed in protective custody, necessitating -- 5 million pardons -- rest of mangy hide accompany same.")

Cheers,
Alex.


Powered by hypermail