That is, those who could (or who were allowed to) have made the rules (any different now) and have defined the culture (throughout our history). So, we have had two sets: the minor minority who exploited and the vast majority of the exploitees (even to the extent of carvers and carvees).
Of course, there was the set who withdrew from the gaming as set by the exploiters. Some were quite successful with this. If you have a question about how this is or can be, we can explain. Is not this third set the one that is the most progressive?
You know, for awhile, there was a nobility, priesthood, worker split. Usually the nobility was small; some cultures had this set with a larger cardinality. In a sense, the nobility is the top of the top-down. Of course, the workers are peasants to be exploited. The priesthood? Well, some of the more organized situations were of the two sets, too.
However, there were sufficient of the priest (minister) type who really were effective at rising above the fray created by the malevolent. Too, though, we'll have to admit that those who were most effective were martyred (all sides have their own -- we ought to respect that).
Clarification: nobility/priest/peasant (the rest) -- this was there for some, for awhile, made up by the toppers, of course. On the priest, the above is by no means meant to imply that we need this type. Rather, adult humans who are effective, don't harm others, and contribute to the well being of all is meant.
Clarification, further: the mature humans are to be recognized and encouraged, as opposed to the sniveling, snotty toppers who want us to clean their diapers (oh yeah, I've known many -- will characterize at some point). These toppers are not mature; rather, they're exploiters of many ideas, such as those of Adam Smith (oh yea, capitalism as the savior, the epitome of the human race --- give us a break). This would only be true if it were couched so as to enhance the lives of all (that would include those who labor (many definitions) as the real basis).
Clarification, further, again: of course, we have those who think that the ways of the vikings/mongols (that is, takers, trashers -- we can point to clans that did this) is the way for a male to go; that is, destructing as a way of life; the adage to apply for these types is that it takes much longer to build something than to tear it down; so, there is no glory in destroying; of course, some of this set act thusly just in reaction to the snottiness of the toppers.
So, we're talking the top-down view, that seems to think that there is a passive bit of idiots (of endless count) beneath them who love to be trod on, who just adore their masters, and who exalt in being a slave. Yet, from time to time, that seeming mass of humanity rises and throws (or attempts to throw) off the yoke (then, we get those waiting in the wings -- essentially, latent dictators awaiting their chance).
Nevertheless, the ultimate drive to a middle-out then advances a little. What is middle-out? Essentially, that which is at the core of successful engineering, product'ing. and more.
As we know, bottom-up leads to chaos, always. There has to be a tempering. Even science knows this. Without theory, to what would the lab effort lead? Too, though, we know that theory, alone, is a mobius situation of nose to rectum (image: a circle of elephants, nose to tail -- mutual admiration society, in other words).
The bottom up can endure for awhile. Not for long, though, as the top-down force is powerful, indeed. We'll have to explain why (it has to do with that which some of the intellects strive hard to deny - as if their denial weighs on any but their own being). For one thing, class structures were always top-down affairs.
And, as said before, the rules and definitions come from the top. But, there is more. The masses energy dissipates without focus. This is nature (ah, too, the importance of earnestness, essentially the imperatives in action).
We are seeing, with the OWS, an attempt to use the web as a coordinating agent. This may have some effectiveness, but the power of being is way more than anything captured by the abstractions founded on the web. In a sense, the social media is top-down, too. The social media cannot trump being, as we'll see when the infatuation wears out for this current generation who has gleefully taken to being collective idiots in public display (the nerve).
Some say that the OWS is over, has grown rancid (the Post, for one). The current thrust may have worn out (arguable). However, the reality (being) behind the thing is still there and will, in the end (expression only, as we're dealing with something that has no known completion state), prevail. We have seen this time and again.
Related to the motivations of the OWS are a whole of of financial shenanigans that need much further scrutiny and correction. Bush looked for WDMs in Iraq. He had them right there, under his nose, in the financial system that his views help propagate; these WDMs started to be problematic right before the coming end of his ruling period.
While looking at the grievance list of the OWS, it seemed to be a review of the views of this blog and its companions for the past four years. So, ought we do a mapping of the 20 points to posts over those years?
12/15/2012 -- Coase, on the subject.
12/03/2011 -- There are examples of those who rise above the fray. Which, by the way, motivates another in this series.
11/30/2011 -- Uprisings have been there from the beginning. Wiki has a nice list (peasant revolts). Mind you, these are the poor suckers trying to shake off the yoke that was laid on them. Not some conniving aristocrat trying to usurp the power structure. Yes, poor people. The salt of the earth. Striving for something better.
Wait, isn't that the appeal of America? Or was?
After a revolt, things were generally worse for the poor suckers. In the collective genetic pool will be inhibitors for acting thusly in order to avoid the consequences.
Mind you, the U.S. start was not of this type. Not. After the fact, those of the top want to 'crown' Washington. Lucky for us, he knew not to want this.
How many after him thought that their role was indicative of some sort of coronation (leading to canonization?)?
As said before, bottom up can be problematic. So, what would be a good middle out system? Ah, so much to discuss.
11/29/2011 -- Ah, Big Ben helped his friends more than he said, at the time.