papasha: (Default)
lovable crook daddy ([personal profile] papasha) wrote2020-10-05 09:04 pm
arkitect: (18)

[personal profile] arkitect 2020-10-07 04:05 am (UTC)(link)
So I have, yes, and it does not require a lack of differences between individuals. Each still has their own particular ideas and talents, but applies them to best support the whole-- nothing is kept to a single person alone, shared among all instead.

[there's a subtle shift in his tone, not so harsh.]

They place the good of all above all else, and in this way each is content.
arkitect: (16)

[personal profile] arkitect 2020-10-07 04:40 pm (UTC)(link)
They would not work with most mortals, no.

[always too concerned with individuality, with their own wants.]

All are, individually, important parts of the whole. If one is troubled, they would not ignore it nor be ignored by others-- they do not matter less, for society would cease to function if enough individuals did. Yet there is no dissatisfaction with the arrangement, for those within such a society have the foresight to see what will come of all contributing to the greater good, rather than losing sight of the eventual results of their work and becoming disillusioned.
arkitect: (38)

[personal profile] arkitect 2020-10-09 05:15 am (UTC)(link)
This sort of disruption could well be what comes of disturbing a balance, yes. But it is yet too early to say.

[those theories are a work in progress.]