In response to your insights,
The major groupings of virtues and values necessarily argue for a radical reinterpretation of the organizational principles at issue. The key salient insight resides in viewing the individual as the rightful product of a diverse range of social and cultural influences. In addition to the most basic one-to-one style of perĀsonal interaction, the individual is further incorporated into a broad range of group contexts (e.g., work, family, country, etc.), as well as some all-encompassing universal context. These individual contexts collectively summate into a unified ethical hierarchy consistent with the theoretical principles governing Set Theory. Set Theory remains in full agreement with the three-level model of the ethical hierarchy: with the unit set, the group set, and the universal set equating with the personal, group, and spiritual levels of authority, respectively.The concept of a three-level style of set hierarchy is actually nothing new, proposed centuries earlier by German philosopher, Emmanuel Kant. In his masterpiece, Critique of Pure Reason, Kant proposes a comprehensive system of conceptual categories he considers crucial to the formation of the human intellect. Most notable is the relevant category of quantity: which Kant further subdivides into the concepts of unity, plurality, and totality. Indeed, these three fundamental aspects equate to the notions of the one, the many, and the absolute: equivalent (in a human social sense) to the personal, group, and spiritual authority levels.
This three-level style of social hierarchy, although appealing in its simplicity, differs from Set Theory in that interactions between individuals do not exist solely in a vacuum, but rather are specialized into authority and follower roles. For the personal realm, this amounts to the personal authority and personal follower roles, extending to the group realm as the group authority and group representative variations, culminating in terms of the spiritual authority and spiritual disciple roles. A brief description of each of these authority and follower perspectives is certainly in order here, clearly outlining the proposed grand-scale unification of virtues, values, and ideals.
The most basic personal authority level refers to the one-to-one style of interaction occurring between individuals, much as typically encountered in oneās personal friendships. This personal interplay is further specialized into either authority or follower roles: exemplified in the case of the master craftsman who remains dependent upon the services of his faithful apprentice. A similar scenario also holds true with respect to the hero and his sideĀkick, or the celebrity and his straight-man. Here the authority and follower roles flexibly complement one another in terms of such an equitable balance of power. The authority figure formally depends upon the attentions of his follower (as much as the other way around), resulting in an equivalent balance of power with respect to the personal realm.
This elementary personal foundation, in turn, extends to the equally pervasive domain characterizing the group authority perspective. The group set surpasses the unit set in terms of its expansion to a multitude of elements (or class members) within a group-focused context. Personal concerns now become subĀordinate to such a group power base, being that enough group followers remain to continue group authority whether or not any single individual chooses to desert. In a single stroke, the group authority rises well above any personal power struggles, an innovation exploited since ancient times as the well-established custom of tribal-based authority.
Group authority, in turn, is susceptible to its own unique form of follower counter-maneuver: namely, that expressed by the group representative. The latterās distinctive style of āstrikeā leverage is fully realized at this juncture, as witĀnessed in the modern-day trend towards collective bargaining. By organizing as a union collective, the rank-and-file nominates a shop steward to represent them in their negotiations with management. The group representative, in essence, reminds the group authority that the cooperation of the labor pool is crucial for mainĀtaining the group status quo. Consequently, the group authority (in concert with the group representative) shares an equivalent balance of power within the group power realm.
A similar pattern further holds true with respect to the spiritual authority level, although this sense of āspiritualā is restricted to the universal sense of the term implicit in Set Theory. The universal set clearly surpasses the multiĀplicity of the group domain: in essence, the sum-totality of all such groups within the universal domain. The universal set represents the āgroup of all group sets,ā a 3rd-order style of set-hierarchy (equivalent to the domain of all mankind). Indeed, whereas group authority surpasses the influence of the individual members, the spiritual authority figure similarly overĀrules the strike power of any of its constituent groups, whereby claiming authority over the sum-total of mankind.
It is true (in practice) that each of the worldās religions competes for the beliefs of the worldās faithful. In principle each religion vigilantly strives to convert all others, giving credence to the uniĀversal sense of the term. This claim to universality is traditionally made binding through an appeal to God or a Messiah-figure, a sanction dating to the earliest civilizations. Here a king could inspire the loyalty of his troops (in the name of a god of war) far in excess of what he might claim as a mere mortal ruler.
Taking this trend to the limit, even an authority role as abstract as the universal must (by definition) be susceptible to its own unique form of follower maneuver: e.g., that specified for the spirĀitual disciple. As spokesman for the spiritual congregation, the spiritual disciple reminds the spiritual authority that the blessings of the faithful are crucial for maintaining the spiritual status quo. Witness the power of the spiritual disciple for influencing such diverse historical events as the Protestant Reformation, and even the very founding of Christianity.