The Stability of Cyclical Hierarchies

The images above are a pretty well-done layout of what are essentially cyclical hierarchies. The "rock-paper-scissors" arrangement of power. As you can tell, some arrangements are more complex than others.

I have this fascination with cycling a power structure. Ever since I started thinking about cyclical hierarchies, I have thought they were a much better arrangement than pyramid set ups, top-town hierarchies, or bottom up hierarchies. 

     Unfortunately, the United States, though it has degrees freedom, is still very much a top down hierarchal power structure. That's how human beings have arranged most power structures in history.

 Unfortunately, unmanaged and unregulated top down hierarchies always end up being oppressive, are vulnerable to decadence, entropy, and decay, and eventually blow out their foundation because of the oppression.

      Now cycling a power structure in a circle can possibly prevent this. Since the foundation often gives out the more weight you put on the bottom of a hierarchal system, cycling power would distribute the weight of the system in a more balanced way, allowing the hierarchy to sustain itself a lot longer, possibly even indefinitely if designed right. 

A good example of a cyclical hierarchy is rock paper scissors or the system of checks and balances of the federal government. Mutualism is not quite a cyclical hierarchy but it is a good arrangement between to people that comes closer to stability than oppression. Mutualism is defined by a mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services, like give and take paying for products and services.

I know its hard to test something like this, but I am arguing that if you arrange power in a hierarchy to be more like a circle instead of a top down master slave system and a bottom up "dictatorship of the proletariat" arrangement, you might be able to stabilize it and reduce violence, hate, and senses of oppression. That is the possible beauty of cyclical hierarchies. They create looooonnngg term stability in societies and governments, at least I think so anyways. I know for a fact I'm not the only one who thinks about this kind of stuff.

Imagine you have a very thin sheet of glass. You have two heavy objects. One is a heavy circle (or sphere if you want to make it more complex and multidimensional) the other is a heavy triangle laid on one of its sides (or a pyramid standing upright if you want to make it more multidimensional). 

      Between the two objects, which one is more likely to break the thin sheet of glass? That's right kids! The pyramid would break the glass more easily, and the ball wouldn't. 

       It would distribute the weight of itself more "evenly" or more balanced, making it less likely to break the glass. Now apply that to social and government power structures. 

The "heavier" the "pyramid" gets, the more likely it is to "break the glass." Which means the more like it is that that hierarchy will collapse. A cyclical or "spherical" hierarchy is less likely to break that thin sheet of class! Well, teacher, did I get a 💯% on this paper? I hope so.

A good example of a very basic cyclical hierarchy is the perfect arrangement of the basic family unit (men, women, children). Cycling power within a system like that can prevent abuse.

Have a good day everyone!