USH'S MATRIX GAME 2006 FOURTH ASSIGNMENT (PHILOSOPHY)- 'The Door'

"Yes, and what is the consequence of that?"

"He would no longer have someone to compare himself to..."

"Very good! Indeed, although it seems to be the route forwards, to kill the other is in fact counter-logical, because it removes your ability to self-identify by comparison. Your superiority becomes worthless.

"Let's say our victor does kill his enemy the first time, but then is lucky enough to meet another, and once more they fight. Having realised his error, what does he do this time when he wins?"

"He spares his defeated foe, naturally."

"And then?"

"Attempts communication?"

"Too sophisticated. We need an alternative to killing that nonetheless maintains the presented logic of the scenario so far."

"He helps him up but keeps a close watch."

"The answer is relatively straightforward but it is a general answer, rather than a direct step-by-step narrative."

"He demands submission?"

"Absolutely. Which in turn leads to what?"

"Creation of hierarchy, and first society?"

"I suppose that is one way to put it, though this tale is an allegory for society, not a direct reference to it.

"The victor enslaves the loser. The victor becomes the Lord, and the loser becomes his Bondsman, slave to the master. Now both are interdependant; the Bondsman depends on the Lord for life and security, whilst the Lord gets the recognition and identity he desires from his slave.

"But this situation is fundamentally umnstable. There are two problems. The first is psychological- the Lord has achieved his goals of recognition, but all the Bondsman is doing is surviving. He is not achieving satisfaction.

"The second problem is one about purpose. Beings are driven to fulfill purposes. Now, in this situation, the Lord now has only one purpose- having achieved his gao, he just needs to maintain and survive. The Bondsman needs to maintain and survive as well... but what other purpose does he have?"

"Bondsman may find a purpose in trying to overthrow his Lord.Or he may lack ambition and seek other purposes- like creating a family for example."

"No, that's nonsense; there are no other people in this scenario. Only the first thing you say holds."

"Alright, no expanding this single scenario. So struggle remains, as at the same time Lord needs the Bondsman and is potentially threatened by him."

"The position is not equitable. All the Lord can ever achieve is to maintain. Whilst the Bondsman seeks to maintain- and also to overrthrow. At some point, the Bondsman will be successful."

"Only if you keep it in such a simple example. Otherwise there is room for Lord to expand as well. But I agree with your reasoning."

"There is a lack of wisdom in those who question dialectics like these based on the simplicity of the scenario. It's like criticising Plato's Cave because there is nowhere within for anyone to eat.

"Besides, expansion is just maintenance. He keeps the situation, with him as Lord, as is. All he can ever do is succeed in keeping things as they are, no matter how many times he makes successful efforts towards it. Whereas the Bondsman seeks to overturn. He only has to be successful at that but once. Sooner or later, it will occur."

"But then it is the Bondsman that becomes lord and the lord that becomes Bondsman. Then it the roles switch and a cycle is produced of over throwing the other."