On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 09:07:17PM +1000, Charles Haynes wrote: > Seems to me that this particular priest represents a certain amount of > centralization of authority. Not as much as the Vicar of Rome perhaps, > but centralization none the less. (Unless of course there's some kind > of mechanism where you can appeal to the entire temple community - > whatever that might be.)
this is like the discussions i have on the organisations of free software communities. no, decentralisation does _not_ require that there be no authority figures, just as it does _not_ require that a free software project be governed in any sort of consensual way with a voice for all the participants. all decentralisation requires is that authority is accepted voluntarily; and that anyone can become an authority assuming he/she can persuade others to follow. there is no "entire free software community" and doesn't need to be one; indeed, i like reinterpreting thatcher to say that 'there's no such thing as community'. but there doesn't _have_ to be since free association makes the notion of assent and dissent moot. linus torvalds only has authority over people who agree to accept his authority; if i disagree with him, i'm free to set up my own kernel, picking and choosing what i want to take from linux, and free to hope that people follow me. you may not be able to take all the stones from that temple, but his authority is over the temple, not over "hinduness",you, your ability to call yourself hindu, or your ability to claim you are an authority on hinduness (indeed, that you're a priest of your own temple). -r
