The Rundown: A modern nation is defined to stand by its laws, its borders, and its people. Upon investigation, we find this exact format also resides within the individual. The analogues are morality (laws), the body (limits), and the participation of the self (the involvement of the person). Self-governance makes a Self-Nation.
Nations at war! “This group of people” battles “that group of people”, each divided by geographies, both on the soil and in ideological space. Bombs and trade sanctions fly back and forth. Caught in the fray are innocent bystanders, riddled with shrapnel, oppression, and hunger. Where are their voices? What is the nation of the afflicted?
When defining a nation in the modern world, we might think of a nation as the borders which separate one area from another in geographical space. We might think of a nation as the laws and ideals that govern that particular land. Or does a nation consist of people who share common values? All three are correct.
In order for a nation to exist, it is required that those three principles be in place. Simply, the three principles that make up a nation are:
- Laws, or guiding morals.
- An area in which these laws take effect.
- Those beings who uphold the first two principles.
If any of these are to fall, the nation would fall. Consider these axioms:
- If there are no common moral terms, there is nothing to enforce within the territory, and therefore, no substantial ideological direction. It simply would be locals in a territory.
- If there is no area in which morals can be defended, then there is no area in which the morals exist. This applies to a physical presence as well as a conceptual presence (the active existence of an ideology in reality). Simply put: out of mind, out of existence.
- With no people, a nation's laws and borders could not be upheld or defined (in regards to construction of a nation).
These prerequisites are interchangeable in size. A nation can have many laws, a small geographical size, and a few people. It can also have many laws, small geographical size, and many people. The permutations of these combinations are infinitesimal in their details. Though, there is a single permutation that grabs my attention.
What if there is only one person? Is an individual a nation? Does it require that there be more than one person? Does a nation require that rulers be present?
It doesn't seem as if it's necessary. Here is why:
In a nation of a single person, the mind is both the ruler and the subject. The mind both makes the laws, and can adhere to the terms of those laws. Conversely, the mind can repeal these morals through logic or just plain insanity (what a dictator). The geography, in which the laws are enforced, is the body. The laws, or morals (the term becomes interchangeable here), are the individual's code of conduct.
This is what I call the “self-nation”. It is the enforcement of morals and dogmas to the edge of what is physically possible to control (the edge of the body). If this is true, then what becomes of the classical definition of a nation upheld by multiple people?
A nation upheld by multiple people is what I call (in an extension of the term “self-nation”) a “cohabination”. It's a combination of the terms “nation” and “cohabitation”. A cohabination is when two or more self-nations have agreed, amongst themselves, to coexist under a decided code of conduct. While their individual reasons for the agreement may differ, the agreement is based on the communicable set of concepts in which they collectively share opinions. For those territorially inclined, geographical borders are chosen as a physical space in which the code of conduct will be enforced.
Though it may seem that this type of interaction is beneficial for interpersonal coexistence, I argue that enforcing a cohabination as a singular authority is politically inefficient. The problem I propose is that with life, comes unpredictable changes. These unpredictable changes can spark ideological discoveries which can derail a single individual's faith in, or support regarding, any shared set of principles. Any process that requires the individual to wait for approval that isn't readily available to the self (a cohabination, or anything not self-approval, really), places a social barrier in the way of the individual's power to act upon such changes. Specifically, it is that the individual is prompted to deny themselves, under fear of persecution (given that they succumb to this fear), for as long as it would take for such external approval. If it took 2 minutes or 2 years, the efficiency of the process does not change the fact that for that period of time, the denial is pressured. If denial happens, then that is time which has been wasted. Approval regarding a moral standpoint isn't even guaranteed during that time of denial-support conflict. Take this a step further, and consider that a new ideological discovery is incredibly appealing (and convincing as a “proper” code of conduct) to this individual, but it does not meet the approval of those who are in charge of the cohabination. The individual is expected by the involved parties, then, to act in accordance with seemingly outdated and illogical codes of conduct, perhaps in the face the penalties. It is a classic case of “overshadowing the little guy”.
Every day, this type of overshadowing happens, and every day, this is contested. Crimes against common law are committed because morals conflict between individual to established cohabination. This type of scenario can give us insight to how the “criminal mind” is formed. When a man commits an act felt by common law to be inappropriate, it is not necessarily that a common law is being broken for the sake of pure defiance. It is possible, however, that a personal law, logic, or moral is being enforced, which just happens to conflict with the common law. A “criminal” could even be enacting morals that would be accepted by the cohabination, but if it conflicts with a common law as it stands, it is possible that the person could be wrongly convicted of a crime, when none has been committed. Why? Perhaps it might be due to the defendant's inability to accurately convey the logic behind such actions. Perhaps the defendant did not possess the ability to convince their accusers of the sound motivation behind their logic. There are a multitude of reasons that can stand in the way of individual expression to established common law.
On a side note: The “criminal” could even be acting in accordance with personal logic, even if the goal was to be relatively illogical, whilst under the assumption that they would be wrong in their faulty logic (a logical double-negative which, strangely, equates to a positive).
So what if every one has the power to act out their innermost logic and morality? We'd live in a world where expression takes precedent over commonality. Commonality, though, would surely emerge. We have seen that today, even in the light of those who understand individuality, people have molded their internal morals to form and/or support a shared ideology. Within these attempts to reach consensus, though, there are some who have reached disagreements with strong passions. Sometimes, when there have been disagreements between people and/or cohabinations, war has been declared.
War, in the current conventional sense, can be defined as a hostile conflict between two cohabinations regarding two sets of conflicting ideals. Ideological pressure can be enacted by use of a mental or physical force, or both. A mental force would be some sort of subversive, influential, social behavior. A physical force would be a violent or forceful physical activity, which is designed to antagonize the recipient's status of physical comfort and/or safety. A combination of the two would be a something like a military campaign designed to destroy resources, as well as intimidate.
With regards to the concept of self-nations, war is any attempt from one individual to manipulate the safety and/or morality of another individual without consent. This doesn't mean that speaking to another individual counts as war, though. The reason for that is simple. It is because the recipient can not consent to such messages being transmitted, because there is no prior knowledge of an intended transmission. This also doesn't mean that the information contained, in such transmissions, is considered war. It is when communication is actively rejected and continually pursued, that an “attack” or “aggressive action” is actively taking place.
Though, there is another side to communication. A voluntary (all parties considered) conversation and/or debate is a peaceful exchange of information. When the conversation is in an attempt to about a common code of conduct, the action is “interpersonal diplomacy”. When that sort of thing succeeds and produces an established code, it is then that a cohabination is formed. Examples of today's cohabinations are all around, and include, but are not limited to: America, Japan, Spain, and South Africa. Moral gatherings such as the democratic party, the republican party, the socialist party, gun activist clubs, racist organizations, pro-choice [abortion] organizations, and pro-life [abortion] organizations, also count as examples of cohabinations.
Since there is no universally wrong answer when it comes to the conditions of a personally relative morality, there is no wrong answer, then, in conjoined morality. But with some seven trillion minds on the planet, this means that moral diversity is a super-power that can't be ignored. When everyone is making their own moral observations and living up to their own standards, it becomes a world, nay—a universe, split into as many self-nations as there are hosts for morality.
The problem is that the details of these moralities may not be so easy to communicate in totality, however. This is because personal experiences, more specifically, empirical experiences build the support structures of our memories, experiences, and the conclusions in which we draw from them. This subsequently provides a unique “weight” to the actual value of the moralities expressed. This is a level of understanding that language alone can not always reach, if it ever can. Because these personal experiences vary by individual, and communication can't always express with accuracy the values understood, it is never guaranteed that an accurate consensus, regarding any particular ideology, can be made. Only we, as ourselves, can full y understand our own standpoints, because only we will have experienced our individual history.
This being the case, it will only be detectable to ourselves, then, as both ruler and subject in our own self-nation, how honest we are truly being to what we've experienced. It will take self-discipline to fulfill the terms of our own morality, to be a self-nation of integrity.
Self discipline, from a self-nation standpoint, is the cooperation between the ruler and the subject. Though new discoveries can sometimes bring conflict to the internal “parliament”, internal debate does not have to be the end of a great nation. Debates can help a nation grow stronger by incorporating more effective strategies for self-governing and diplomacy. These debates can be peaceful or painful, or both. The peaceful debates are the ones where we express comfort and honesty in the process. The painful debates are usually those instances where we feel we have to make a decision that conflicts with our core beliefs, or when the debate itself is wild and torrential. A strong self-nation is one that perseveres through both the simple and complex debates. A strong self-nation will weather its own revolution, or prevent an unworthy one from succeeding. A strong self-nation is the ruler that treats its subjects carefully and fairly.
But when it comes to dealing with others, does this mean we have to hate when we have a disagreement? Does this mean we have to hurt? No. It is possible to form personal laws and morals that allow us to live together here, in this shared terrestrial environment, with respect for one another. If we can make this a reality, then I think the United Nations will get a whole lot bigger.
To the free souls and oppressed alike, heed this call: Your voice is yours. Your nation is yours. Fly your flag proudly.
C. Thomas
p.s. There is more to come on this topic!
(Title photo by Agata Urbaniak)
