Domination and Subordination

[Byron Orpheus]

Consciousness on our dear planet begins with the sovereign as the smallest notable entity. The sovereign is thrust out into the world at the head of his or her emergent state, and at this moment of national conception steps onto the world stage of consciousness. However, the sovereign’s consciousness, the essence of his or her being that defines his or her nation and identity, is dependent upon the existence of other beings (sovereigns/alliances). Thus we can state that the sovereign is not defined by its own consciousness but that its consciousness is defined by the consciousness of others. How a nation (nearly identical to a sovereign on our planet) measures itself is inherently against other nations, technologically, militarily, and intellectually. The sovereign/nation’s role in this world, then, is dictated by its recognition of what it is not, just as those it is engaging against/with are defined by the opposite. A sovereign in a vacuum is a meaningless, definitionless consciousness that can be scarcely called a consciousness because it has no outward stimulus by which to define itself.

Inevitably when two sovereigns meet in the wild for the first time, whether through communication or at a distance, they are forced to engage in a struggle for definition. In this metaphorical life struggle, each sovereign seeks to exert its dominance upon the opposing consciousness. Both bring with them at the onset of this struggle their previous conceptualization of their respective consciousnesses which are challenged by the other, even if that challenge goes only so far as to reaffirm the original identity. However, through this reaffirmation even those “stable” identities are forced to reappraise themselves and the consciousness reshaped though it may have the appearance of normality. This struggle for dominance between sovereign entities or alliance entities, or even alliance-block entities, may end in only one of three ways.

1) Domination/Subordination. In this death struggle between the two entities, the entity that most fears destruction (or is most willing to avoid destruction) will eventually subvert to the will of the dominator. The subordinate’s role in the world is thereafter defined by the definition applied to it by the dominator, and the subordinate is forced to operate within this definition so long as it is dominated. It may, however, over time as it operates under the dominate consciousness of the dominator works itself into a position to reengage in the life/death struggle against the dominator, in which the dominator may reaffirm its dominate position or the roles may be reversed and the cycle started anew.

2) Ignoring. The two entities may view each other from a distance but choose never to directly interact. Nothing is gained from the relationship but nothing is lost other than a more developed consciousness. Though definition is lacking, this discourseless/interactionless method allows for two entities to remain outside of the perpetual relationship change of the dominant and subordinate, but becomes a meaningless existence much in the same way that remaining an entity ignorant of other conscious entities prevents any concept of self-consciousness or definition, since the self is unable to find any other to show it what it is not.

3) Death. If the entities are unable to ignore each other or both parties are fearless enough in the life/death struggle that neither party will submit to the other, the only option is for the death of one of the entities. In this way the relationship fails much in the same way as ignoring, because the cycle of conscious definition is broken. In a way this is the total negation of consciousness, as the party destroyed is left with no consciousness whatsoever while the remaining entity is only defined through its capability of destruction—there is no understanding that arrives as a result.

I think it can be safely said that these relationships are constantly found at work on our planet, through any interaction that takes place between beings of sentience. It can be argued that there is a perpetual state of domination/subordination at work within the individual nation as well, with the dominator (sovereign) exerting its consciousness upon the subordinate (citizens) who in turn provide work within this definition. An example of role reversal on the national level would be the presence of a state of anarchy, in which the formerly dominant sovereign would be subordinate to the will of the people in his or her inability to have the citizens work for his or her ends, and would in fact be required to do perform the opposite and work within the parameters the citizens provide. This is an elaboration upon the ideas presented in Power and Morality.

While “Power” focused on the manner in which alliances and nations are all party to a world-wide institutional structure that rewards those who promote overall growth and survival of the institutional web, Domination and Subordination has its focus on the smaller-scale interaction that allows for the sort of domination discussed in the original essay.

[Paradigm]

I'm liking what you have going on here Byron with this series.

[Byron Orpheus]

I'm liking what you have going on here Byron with this series.

I have another one lined up but I am going to wait a while so that these aren't too frequent/overwhelming.

[D34th]

1) Domination/Subordination. In this death struggle between the two entities, the entity that most fears destruction (or is most willing to avoid destruction) will eventually subvert to the will of the dominator. The subordinate’s role in the world is thereafter defined by the definition applied to it by the dominator, and the subordinate is forced to operate within this definition so long as it is dominated.

I read it then look at your alliance affiliation and start to laugh... I don't know what's happening with me :lol:

3) Death. If the entities are unable to ignore each other or both parties are fearless enough in the life/death struggle that neither party will submit to the other, the only option is for the death of one of the entities. In this way the relationship fails much in the same way as ignoring, because the cycle of conscious definition is broken. In a way this is the total negation of consciousness, as the party destroyed is left with no consciousness whatsoever while the remaining entity is only defined through its capability of destruction—there is no understanding that arrives as a result.

A topic about me, thanks

[Byron Orpheus]

I read it then look at your alliance affiliation and start to laugh... I don't know what's happening with me :lol:

A topic about me, thanks

I have no idea of the politics/current events (if any) surrounding my alliance.

[TheStig]

Tell me what it's about so I don't have to read it.

[Diomede]

Tell me what it's about so I don't have to read it.

Or just don't bother posting too and find something more interesting?

[jer]

Tell me what it's about so I don't have to read it.

Something tells me it's about domination and subordination.

[Jack Diorno]

Something tells me it's about domination and subordination.

I read the first paragraph.

To paraphrase it, the first paragraph states that an alliance doesn't exist unless someone outside of that alliance knows about it.

Therefore, if everyone in the game joined NPO, NPO would no longer exist and a true reset would happen on planet bob.

Large words don't make logic.

[Byron Orpheus]

I read the first paragraph.

To paraphrase it, the first paragraph states that an alliance doesn't exist unless someone outside of that alliance knows about it.

Therefore, if everyone in the game joined NPO, NPO would no longer exist and a true reset would happen on planet bob.

Large words don't make logic.

That isn't at all what it says.

[Jack Diorno]

That isn't at all what it says.

tell me what it says then.

You state that:

However, the sovereign’s consciousness, the essence of his or her being that defines his or her nation and identity, is dependent upon the existence of other beings (sovereigns/alliances)

[...]

A sovereign in a vacuum is a meaningless, definitionless consciousness that can be scarcely called a consciousness because it has no outward stimulus by which to define itself.

How does that make any sense?

To draw a comparison you are basically saying if jack diorno lives in the middle of the desert and nobody but jack diorno himself knows he exists, he doesn't exist.

How are you able to draw any theory's of cybernations? the only way you can do that by your logic is by seeing what people outside of cybernations have said about it.

[Byron Orpheus]

tell me what it says then.

You state that:

How does that make any sense?

To draw a comparison you are basically saying if jack diorno lives in the middle of the desert and nobody but jack diorno himself knows he exists, he doesn't exist.

How are you able to draw any theory's of cybernations? the only way you can do that by your logic is by seeing what people outside of cybernations have said about it.

I am saying that jack diorno knows he lives in the desert because he knows the desert is not the same as him and defines himself in part through this realization.

[heggo]

My god, it's like someone took vladimir's rantings on francoism and then somehow made them less relevant. And less readable.

That said, at least GGA is working on figuring out what's happening to them.

[Spock]

Grave.. dig!