The Laws Older Than Laws: How Structure Prevails in the Midst of Chaos

The human brain is the most complex system in the known universe. As such, we who wield it hold an unrivalled capacity to think across all dimensions. We peer into the secrets of the universe, and in doing so we move evermore toward obtaining command over it. We are both the discoverers and developers of the structures that permeate our universe. From unknowns we uncover knowns, and of course, that is as much so for what lies within as what lies without. I have suggested that we endeavour to consciously examine the ordered structures of the universe, but that does not mean that we are perfectly structured ourselves. We are not God, far from it. We are irrational, emotional, biased and contradictory. As the proverb goes, “we are our own worst enemies.” Why? Because our brilliantly complex minds house a conflicting plethora of desires, thoughts and interpretations that we can barely comprehend, let alone reconcile.

The eighteenth century philosopher David Hume famously said that “reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions.” We are not rational, but rationalising. We, without distinction from the animal, are governed by feelings and sentiments of fear, hope, aversion, pride, love and so on. It is these, and only these, that supply an impulse to act. The complexity of his brain has not broken man out of his shackles, it has merely made him aware of it. We won’t always accept this, but we have known this clearly for thousands of years, if not more.

In the story of Genesis, Adam eats from the fruit of The Tree, and in doing so gains himself the boon and bane of awareness. Good, he is no longer blind. But now he sees his vulnerabilities. As reads the excerpt:

“And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. 

And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 

And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 

And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?”

He has gained judgement and awareness. As such, he will figure things out on his own. Regardless of literal truth, this is a symbol of man’s conscious becoming. We are thrown into chaos, searching in the dark. So what must we do? Of course, it seems wise that we begin with developing some resemblance of structural order. To do this, we have taken many roads, but I would argue none more productive than banding together into a society.

To band together in a society was to establish something of a meta-individual. Our mecca of directorship shifted from the individual to collaborative, higher-order political structures: democracies, councils or kingships. Out of this our individual pursuits could shift to specified roles, such as hunters, foragers, or craftsmen. Unsurprisingly, this heightened specificity allowed for greater production and security, even when distributed among the masses.

As I discussed in an earlier article, it is what is relevant that survives in the sphere of nature. In other words, that which is optimally suited under the given circumstances will persist and outdo competing alternatives. Society is simply more effective than the individual. As such, it is no surprise to see that societies have taken hold of all existing human endeavour. They are a spectacularly stable structure. Sometimes they are prosperous, other times tyrannical, but we never wholly let go.

For all its flaws, society is a structure worth maintaining. But how do we best do this? In the hope of outlining this, my aim in this article is to lay out a set of moral axioms that are demonstrably residing in the foundations of any legitimate society. They should not at all be surprising, but they are undoubtedly worthy of conscious recognition. First of all, it is worth noting my use of the label legitimate society, for many so-called societies are instead untrammelled manifestations of our most misaligned passions. To that end, let me begin in stating a definition of society with which we may reference:

Society may be defined as a structural order arranged around the chaos and complexity of our existence, aiming toward the collective betterment of our lives and their security.

I need not elaborate on this, and I would advise any sceptics reconsider again in the light of the preceding argument. Moving on, it seems now appropriate that I endeavour to lay out, in reference to the definition, our underpinning axiomatic principles:

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

This is the Golden Rule. It appears, in some variation, in almost all major religions, including Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. This is of no surprise for, without this rule widely recognised, how could society successfully move toward the “collective betterment of our lives?” Society demands sacrifice. All the fruits its tree provides are directly emergent out of collaboration. To this end, there must be an assurance of getting one’s fair share. The necessity of this is not only moral, but legal. It is the basic means of social stability.

“Do not remove a fence until you know why it was put up in the first place.”

This is Chesterton’s Fence Principle, and it is worth developing with a clear background. Firstly, if we are wise, we aim to construct all of our buildings on pillars of truth and reality. For instance, we develop our technologies on the basis of verifiable scientific truths. But what certifies this to be true? Surely, it is a continual and functional existence informed by experience. This is induction: the methodology of science.

Given the broad definition of science as the observation and investigation of nature, it will apply no less appropriately toward human nature and their actions than it would toward anything else. As such, it should be so that our societies too are built on pillars of truth, in accordance with our above definition. If so, is it not then appropriate that the fence that remains intact throughout the torments of time be respected for its distinct pillars of truth? Sometimes it will rot, crack or even fall, and this is a sign. It is a sign of emerging misalignment, and must of course be dealt with. Yet if not so, to tear down that fence becomes an act of tremendous folly, at best.

“Fortune favours the bold.”

 

In this proverb lies a piece of wisdom that has been well-regarded and recognised for millenia. When one is hunted, complacency and passivity will serve only to kill oneself. To survive — nay, to win — one must find a path toward hunting the hunter. One must venture into the unknown and endeavour to learn. This is not to preach temerity, but rather to preach recognition of a simple truth: to progress, one must move forward.

As a final remark, it is befitting that I connect these axioms now in relation to our aforementioned definition of society. Firstly, the latter two axioms serve to delineate the conservative-progressive harmony. Without proper foundations, we cannot construct a lasting structure. However, once those foundations are developed, building upward is paramount. We must be ever moving forward, yet we must be ever watching for traps.

This addresses the first half of the definition. The second is to be a matter of positive moral alignment. Society loses its value when we cease bearing our load, and then we descend into Hobbesian chaos. As such, the maintenance of our collective concord rests on the legal and moral precedent of fairness and reciprocity. None of this should come as a surprise. The axioms presented in this article contain wisdom traceable to the dawn of civilization itself — they are truths as old as society, and of no lesser importance today. In this spirit, I will leave the reader a final truth for contemplation.

“Chaos was the law of nature; order was the dream of man.”

 - Henry Adams