On Information II

You can't mechanism-design your way to the City of God

This follows on from On Information.

Policy and Virtue

We concluded above that choice i.e. the zeroing in to instantiate a specific universe is what’s important, that intent is the act of symmetry-breaking.

How do we then make sense of ritual, of rule, of policy, of etiquette, of norm, and of law? Surely, these constrain the set of possible states at the outset, and thereby limit the complexity (i.e. number of possible states) available to you? And if the set of possible states is limited, then did we not assert that the extent to which virtue can be expressed is also limited?

This is the primary question. What do we do here?

The key idea here is the scale-dependence of complexity. i.e. recall the example of the army and the mob. An army is rigorously structured locally: each soldier has very few degrees of freedom, there’s not much they can do independently of the rest of the army. An army exhibits very low complexity at the level of a single man. A mob, on the other hand exhibits very high complexity at that level; each man is free to move in any direction, at any speed, and do anything. However, speaking macroscopically, an army is capable of falling into formation, of manoeuvring, of executing an intricate battle plan. Not so much can be said of the mob.

So, now that we have complexity’s scale dependence in mind, let’s return to the question.

I assert that the introduction of structure (i.e. rules, policy, norms) that locally limits the scope for behaviour actually expands the ability for complex activity at higher scales, and therefore, allows for virtuous activity to take place at ever higher levels of generality.

Consider the Tawaf, the circumambulation of the Kaaba. With the clear and oft-prohibitive set of rules (counter-clockwise, starting at the eastern corner, 3 hurried and 4 leisurely, in the state of Ihram), we see the magical, rhythmic motion of a million bodies draped in black and white at even pace about the Axis Mundi.

Consider the feeling you get when your forehead touches the floor during the Prayer during the Friday Congregation, in time with dozens and hundreds of others, unified not only in intent and devotion, but also in physical manifestation.

Of-course, this is true for many (certainly not all) rules in society, i.e. that they organise behaviour in such fashion to permit complex activity at greater scales, everything from traffic lights to financial regulation, public transport schedules to zoning laws, family traditions and filial etiquette.

Importantly, allow me to highlight here what I mean by scale.

An event consists of a happening determined both spatially and temporally. Most of the examples above (eg the army and mob) concern complexity at different spatial scales, but structure (ie policy or ritual) also permits greater degrees of complexity across time.

Consider marriage (friendship is a weaker example): it is a structure or set of rules governing activity over a fairly small physical scale but over a long period of time.

While marriage restricts behaviour (and therefore complexity and therefore the scope for virtue) immensely at any given moment in time, it permits incredibly coordinated and complex activity over long periods of time, most notably ofcourse the opportunity to welcome new life into this world, but even beyond that, it also offers one the opportunity to demonstrate virtues of companionship, love, integrity, patience, and beauty. i.e. marriage conceived of in this way increases the temporal scope for the manifestation of the Jamaali (Merciful) Names of God. Contrast marriage with friendship, friendship with acquaintanceship, acquaintanceship with strangerhood, and it ought to become clear that it is precisely because of the deeply enduring nature of strong relationships and bonds that the capacity for coordinated, complex activity and further, the capacity for virtue is elevated.

All in all, this leads us to want to assert that policies, rules, norms are largely virtuous to the extent that they permit the higher scale exemplification of virtue.

All of this should of-course remind you of the importance of mechanisms to solve large-scale coordination problems (i.e. economic development, societal defence, law enforcement, the production of goods) a la a means to combat Moloch.

The risk, however, is the impulse to entirely off-load personal responsibility, to forego personal choice to systems so that individuals don’t have to do the choosing at all.

This is something that I have been historically guilty of, i.e. the belief that with a sufficiently well-designed series of policies, rules, mechanisms we don’t necessarily have to concern ourselves with individual virtue and vice. The “system” will take care of it.

You can’t mechanism-design your way into the City of God

All of this leads us to the punchline: you can’t mechanism design your way to the city of God.

We’ll demonstrate with an example (although this is by no means the singular example).

Expounding the merits of Capitalism is beyond the scope of this article, but consider the miracle of Smith’s Invisible Hand, of Hayek’s Spontaneous Order. Capitalism, when well-designed, ie with organised, free markets, rich competition, and informed participants, can launder private selfishness and vice into a public virtue. This is the mechanism par excellence, as the Social Welfare Theorems never fail to remind us: it is something that transmutes local vice into public virtue.

Importantly, though, no matter what the libertarians say, this will never take us Home.

Why? Because the paradox at the heart of capitalism is that by sanctifying the individual it fundamentally gives up on it. Its sanctification is no more than a rationalisation for our deepest impulses, for our greed, short-termism, competitiveness. It doesn’t elevate the individual, it subserviates, instrumentalises the individual in the name of efficiency.

This may remind you of Nick Land’s accelerationism. i.e. that capitalism is an autonomous process of intensifying complexity and technological progress to which individuals are means, not ends.

This is all very dramatic but this simply exemplifies the broader point.

Virtue is in-fact scale dependent in a fairly complex, emergent way. i.e. I do believe it is possible to have a society where each individual is virtuous but the systems are not, and vice versa, a society where the systems are virtuous but the individuals are not. (A basic example is to contrast Indonesia and Sweden. Indonesia is the highest per capita charitable country in the world and most charity goes towards healthcare. Sweden is among the least charitable countries in the world. Sweden is lonelier than Indonesia, with smaller families and isolated individuals, but also exhibits much better measurable health outcomes than Indonesia does.)

Ultimately: you need both the elevation of the individual, and the elevation of the institution. This is virtue expressed both as Batin (Hidden) and Zahir (Manifest). The natural universalism of the Faith necessitates **the elevation of boththe inner (soul) as well as the outer (matter).

Ofcourse, this is not an argument to forego material growth and development, not a call to asceticism, but rather a question of enlarging our ambitions to encompass both.

I simply note that there is simply just no escaping the elevation of the individual on the path to the City of God.

Appendix:

As hopelessly banal as it feels to reiterate, this is why you see in every tradition of wisdom everywhere the following:

• “To put the world right in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must first cultivate our personal life; and to cultivate our personal life, we must first set our hearts right.” — Confucius

• “Yesterday I was clever, so I wanted to change the world. Today I am wise, so I’m changing myself.” — Rumi

• “It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles.” — Buddha

• “Let him who would move the world, first move himself.” — Socrates

• “If you want to awaken all of humanity, awaken all of yourself.” — Lao Tzu

• “Never have I dealt with anything more difficult than my own soul.” — Ghazali

• “Do you wish to rise? Begin by descending. You plan a tower that will pierce the clouds? Lay first the foundation of humility.” — St Augustine

• “The outward work will never be small if the inward work is great.” — Meister Eckhart

• “Your own soul is your first and greatest battlefield; if you prevail there, everywhere else shall be victorious.” — Rabia Basri

• “The greatest struggle is the one against your own soul.” — the Holy Prophet (pbuh)

• “Acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved.” — St Seraphim

• “Sanctify yourself and you will sanctify society.” — St Francis

• “The sage does not busy himself reforming the world. He instead perfects himself, and the world follows.” — Chaung Tzu

• “Whoever knows himself knows his Lord.” — Ibn Arabi