Was the age of legends really egalitarian?

[Some_random_novice]

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

I'm almost positive in the last book(s), one of the Forsaken made a comment about how the Age of Legends was not the "Utopia" they thought it was.

That’s what kind of what I was thinking with the whole Utopian trope.

[Elendir]

On 3/1/2023 at 4:17 AM, Some_random_novice said:

I might be missing the point but I always thought the Age of Legends was a utopian society. And the thing with most utopian societies especially in storytelling is that they aren’t really utopian something is always wrong even if that wrong this wasn’t on the surface. So while the whole idea of AOL was Service and, from what the books tell the audience, most people value service or have their lives based around service to the greater good ie. AES Sedai or AoL Aiel. And when I was reading the books I just saw the whole inequality between channellers and non Channellers to be one of the major parts of that utopian but not really idea. It definitely took a few read throughs but that is the general idea I picked up. And I also might be completely off about this. 
 

just my unwanted .02 cents

 

Perfect utopia isn't interesting subject for belles letters. So only theological teaching deal with it. Utopia, as far as fiction go, is struggle without perfection, but with some success.

Dystopia is, on the other hand, a grateful subject, and many dystopias are camouflaged as utopias.

 

On 2/27/2023 at 8:38 PM, KakitaOCU said:

3: I'm not sure I know what you mean, elaborate?

 

If we promoted only intelligent highly competent leaders. Would it be discrimination of incompetents.

 

On 2/27/2023 at 8:38 PM, KakitaOCU said:

1. You don't go off of lack of evidence as proof that it could exist, you go with the evidence available and make reasonable guesses.  That there is no record or knowledge of any single authority figure being a non-channeling person is telling.

 

There is It is big difference between lack of evidence in yesterday event and event thousand years ago. Your conclusion is in contradiction with the foundations of Socratic teaching.

That we don't know something has zero validity for disclaiming, if our knowledge are so negligible.

[KakitaOCU]

On 3/3/2023 at 3:48 AM, Elendir said:

If we promoted only intelligent highly competent leaders. Would it be discrimination of incompetents.

That depends on a hundred other factors that will be in play.  Fun fact, did you know there's a US Federal law that prevent a bank from deciding to only offer Loans Over a certain amount?  And it's an Anti-Discrimination law?

It makes no sense on the surface.  If a Bank is only looking at working in high dollar amounts isn't that their choice to limit their risk to their appetite?

Well, turns out the reason this was happening is because certain demographics statistically are less well off than others and by putting that type of wall in there they effectively got to keep refusing to give loans to said demographics while appearing not to be discriminatory.

If we promote only intelligent highly competent leaders in itself is fine.  If we promote only those with X years of experience to a position in order to quantify that highly competent piece and X years is near the end of the lifespan for a non-channeler, you are effectively discriminating against them from a legal standpoint.

 

On 3/3/2023 at 3:48 AM, Elendir said:

There is It is big difference between lack of evidence in yesterday event and event thousand years ago. Your conclusion is in contradiction with the foundations of Socratic teaching.

That we don't know something has zero validity for disclaiming, if our knowledge are so negligible.

 

Considering the modern Socratic Method of for Teaching is not for the student to come up with the answer but for the Teacher to guide the Student to a specific outcome via curated questions that help the student reach the "right" conclusion on their own.  It has no place in a situation where no one knows the "right" answer.  

The method is largely touted in Law and Medical fields.  Because it's main benefit is less coming up with a right answer and more developing critical thinking, public speaking and confidence in your ability to lead a room.  Something Lawyers and Doctors need.

Now, back to this situation.

We only have facts that every known leader from the Age of Legends was a Channeling person close to 3 centuries in age in a world where non-channelers aren't likely to live beyond 1 century.  We have no knowledge of how leaders were chosen.  

The question isn't even really "was their discrimination" so much as "Was it deliberate discrimination?"  and "Was it malicious discrimination?"  

I'm not arguing "We don't know so we can't assume"  I'm arguing we have facts that SHOW that only channelers had leadership and authority, now let's talk about the scenarios that lead to that.  

Edited March 4, 2023 by KakitaOCU

[bringbackthomsmoustache]

12 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

If we promote only intelligent highly competent leaders in itself is fine.

Assuming that opportunities for education are provided on an entirely equal basis (divided solely on merit).  

[DojoToad]

7 hours ago, bringbackthomsmoustache said:

Assuming that opportunities for education are provided on an entirely equal basis (divided solely on merit).  

So it is okay to put an idiot in a leadership position to make up for education inequities?

[KakitaOCU]

4 hours ago, DojoToad said:

So it is okay to put an idiot in a leadership position to make up for education inequities?

Depends, is it an election or a selection?

That joke aside, it's not about not picking the best candidate it's about the criteria, which we don't know.  How do you judge "Highly competent and skilled"  Most situations go off of experience or a resume.  What chance does someone with a decade long education and 20 years in the field have against someone with the same education and a century?  

How likely do you suppose it is, given real world comparisons, that there were positions that said "Must have 4 decades experience in X"?   I mean we see that today with positions wanting years of experience and college degrees when they don't need em.  Heck, we see it in real life when certain political leaders are constantly put down because they're not old enough.

I'm not arguing the discrimination was automatically deliberate or malicious, but it's pretty clear it was there.

[DojoToad]

10 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Depends, is it an election or a selection?

That joke aside, it's not about not picking the best candidate it's about the criteria, which we don't know.  How do you judge "Highly competent and skilled"  Most situations go off of experience or a resume.  What chance does someone with a decade long education and 20 years in the field have against someone with the same education and a century?  

How likely do you suppose it is, given real world comparisons, that there were positions that said "Must have 4 decades experience in X"?   I mean we see that today with positions wanting years of experience and college degrees when they don't need em.  Heck, we see it in real life when certain political leaders are constantly put down because they're not old enough.

I'm not arguing the discrimination was automatically deliberate or malicious, but it's pretty clear it was there.

Criteria for sure.  I might have two centuries of experience, but be a dull blade.  Whereas you might be fresh out of school but be brilliant.  I imagine you could surpass me given the chance, but would you get the chance?

[Elendir]

I know, that there is tiers like 20/40/60 years or 30/50/70 years. You need all 3 generation for keeping progress as well as stability. How would it work with peoples of so different life span?

 

But experience and time for career advancement isn't only influences.

For example, doctor of medicine who can use channeling will be more successful in work than non chaneler doctor. Patients would support first and visit second only if forced.

This would make channeler to be in more prestige position by their merit yet it would still be result of how they was born.

 

I believe that there was none channeler leaders as well.

They lead non-channeling agendas most often. Maintenance of public transport for example, but some exceptions in science or health care was as well.

 

We know only channeler leaders, because that was leaders DO was interested in and some Forsaken wasn't leaders in their society before DO.

Aiel-Rand memory-line has channeler leaders, because their task needed channeling as well, but we know less then promile of Age of Legends leaders.

At the end, Aiels never see channeling as important part of Dragon.

[bringbackthomsmoustache]

22 hours ago, DojoToad said:

On 3/4/2023 at 4:06 AM, bringbackthomsmoustache said:

Assuming that opportunities for education are provided on an entirely equal basis (divided solely on merit).  

So it is okay to put an idiot in a leadership position to make up for education inequities?

My point was more that it is only "fine" (in the sense of not being indirect discrimination) to select based on intelligence and competence if you have provided genuinely equal opportunities for education - otherwise only those who received the best education will be of demonstrable intelligence and competence.  I most present systems the best education is provided to the children of the wealthy rather than based on merit.

[Aan-Alone]

Actually, I don't know about Egalitarianian, but I think it was much a much more Enlightened period than most are giving them credit for. Most especially among the 2nd Age Aiel.

 

What's got me thinking this way are a few things. The Way of the Leaf philosophy, Brandon' disclosure of Nakomi's backstory, the servitude nature of the Aiel and their "true purpose', and the significance of earning a 'third name' through acts of service in the 2nd Age.

 

All these things seem to me to point towards a much different society than most are envisioning. A society where the Channelers, occupy positions of Power, are the ruling class, and live seemingly forever. But they are the 'excluded ones'. For some unknown reason, the ability to Channel precludes one from following the Way of the Leaf.

 

I think this is significant when combined with the emphasis of earning a third name through service. It leads me to believe the 2nd Age Aiel were the actual 'Elite or Upper Class' of the period, just in a way that's so different from most of Today's societies that it's hard to imagine or describe. I'll do my best tho...

 

A subset of people who practice no violence, are in no way materialistic, and only want to be helpful to those around them. I have always seen so many elements of Daoism, at least as I understand the philosophy, in the 2nd Age Aiel. Their joy and excitement in being able to join in Singing speaks to a deep connection to Nature, and I would think a deep understanding of Self. A highly Enlightened group of individuals who live only to serve the Wheel.

 

To me, Channelers of the 2nd Age were trying to emulate the Aiel as best they could. But having access to the OP somehow caused the Channelers to always adopt a self-serving lifestyle to some extent. Maybe access to the OP corrupted them in the way that power always does? Even with access to the OP, they are still only human.

 

Thoughts?