Politics of Eremitism (8)

A model microcosm of society is a group of people arguing. We may recommend a certain openness, tolerance, or mindfulness to them, but it is likely that most people will not want to accept that because it suggests a dilution of their moral principles or suggests the wrongness not of their behavior in arguing but of their point of view, especially if the argument involves specific actions defended, advocated, or planned.
If we extrapolate this scenario to society itself, as a macrocosm, we see that the issue is not the bringing of tolerance or mindfulness to one set of people or the other (or to multiple sets) but rather the issue is power and authority. Everyone accepts some source of authority — be it mere convention and ignorant conformity –in that everyone claims a guiding principle to their outlook and actions. But different people accept different authorities, and these authorities or sources of authority conflict and oppose one another, contradict and make war on one another, regardless of whether the authority has been empowered by material means or not. Nonviolent resolutions are proposed to a group of people arguing because the resolutions reduce the negativity of certain points of view or actions, but as long as certain points of view or advocated actions exist and are empowered with authority, is it possible to say that mindfulness will defuse them? Are we trying to defuse the behavior or the idea behind the behavior? Are they intrinsically linked? And what about the equivalent conflicts on the scale of macrocosm?
These reflections have great importance to the solitary and the hermit who, regardless of education or awareness, has instinctively grasped the fact that society deals not with relationships in the neutral sense but with power and authority relationships. To accommodate others, it is necessary for all to renounce authority and power. But with this renunciation, we renounce moral authority and the power or energy of good as we may see it. To go beyond good (and evil) is essentially mystical and will not work universally, with all peoples or in every circumstance. Society — which is power and authority that contradicts the higher instincts of human enlightenment — cannot coexist with renunciation of power and rejection of contrived rather than natural authority.
This is why the solitary and hermit will not get involved with society. This is why the hermit or solitary is often the better candidate for a life empowered by mysticism or its particular spiritual or insightful equivalent.