Influence against Fusion

    There is the opposition between influence and fusion. These concepts will be examined within a social setting, were there are members, who feel that they are equal to each other. Let the amount of human members be a finite number, so that we would not have to take a few months to analyze the results. So there are persons, who would like themselves to be made available to the public, while there are others who would like to collaborate on projects, where they themselves feel that they are a valuable member thereof.  So I understand these two concepts: influence and fusion within a sociological setting, where there is not a state of war but of peace.

    First, those who strive to make their influence known among their peers, have the problem of allowing their influence to be taken from them, so that those who have been influenced are now the heirs of the one who has influenced. This problem of leaving your mark to your followers is that of feeling that you have no place left with your community because once your influence leaves you, then your followers have the final say on the topic of what you were promoting. They have the right to say if what you have been doing was right or not. This choice leaves the one who had influenced in a position of a lack of influence if what he was promoting was wrong.

    Next, the question is about if what you were promoting was right or wrong. The moral question about influence is answered by looking at the amount of followers that the influencer has gained. If the influencer has gained a large following, then it would seem that what was being promoted was morally right. But what if the influencer promoted immorality and there was a large following gained by promoting perversion? Obviously, the followers have been deceived into following such an influence by allowing themselves to be influenced. So, we as those who are both influencing and influenced have the duty to discriminate between influencers.

    So, in addition to the problem of influence and its moral problem there is the second concept of fusion, which I would like to take a look at now. Fusion within a social setting, where there is wide spread agreement between what sources should be followed, is how group members relate to each other when the influence process breaks. If there is a disparity between the two sides, then the process of fusion will happen. The issue about who is being influenced is no longer in question because it is clear to the critic, who seeks to repair the disparity by deeming who is worthy to be called an influence. They have seen the disparity and seek to repair it.