Most of humanity does not know what it is in their interest to know. They dislike what would eventually benefit them.
- Al-Nasafi
This command is in the part of the cycle that deals with self-evaluation and ego-death. It reminds us that all relationships are based on mutual need. Just as no man is an island, the island isn't the man. Most problems in life can be traced to inequalities in some aspect of human relationships, both personal and social. When operating more on a societal level than on the personal level, this command states the following formula: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and the needs of the few may be the needs of the many.
The first part is borne out in the pursuit of social justice, and security. Living in an ordered society provides quite a survival advantage to it members. As a result we can't allow rape, murder, theft, etc. This is obvious, however, even more destructive are the acceptable activities that unbalance society. The uncaring use of business strategies that you know will undermine the political and economic security of your homeland; The mistreatment and cruelty to ones subordinates for one's personal gain, the abuse of charity, all of these add to the entropy of society.
The second part is illustrated by the exercise of individual personal liberty, endless legitimate charities, philanthropists, and even simple acts of kindness that may in truth only be a sympathetic gesture. Let us remember the words of a great prophet: "Let he who has two coats impart to him who has none."
Because while kindness, freedom and charity may reduce social entropy, too much can cause it also.
The unenlightened run amok uncaring about the social order they live in never realizing that when it reaches it's entropic critical mass, they are the first to get swept up in it. Social orders rise and fall in result mainly from the principle of balancing needs. When the presiding social power fails to fill the needs of its people, it tends not to continue to exist. The history of China's Will of Heaven philosophy can give much greater illustration than I can here.
The corollary to all this is the secret of directing change. If everything works to balance, then to oppose something can give it strength. I will now present an example.
Consider one of the rabid animal rights activists that you see on TV. The activist tries to draw attention to their cause by spraying ketchup onto a celebrities fur coat. The result is the celebrity buys a new coat, which gives the fur industry some money it wouldn't have had before, and the activist goes to jail for criminal mischief, causing not only hardship for themselves, but also giving the average person the negative impression that the activist might be part of some subversive group. Compare this to the individual who operates through the legal system to get stiffer regulations passed on the fur industry. Who had a more lasting and effective change?
