The phrase "Might makes Right" presents what can be called a monarchical logic that is based solely on justification by contest of physical force. In this way it differs considerably from the "Divine Right of Kings", which in history resulted in the recognition of a higher Divine authority and thus in many monarchs resulted in a limit to the behavior of the monarch. The believer of "might makes right" recognizes no such limit or authority.
1) What results from this is an order of thinking with regard to social truth- the truth of the action of free people- which is markedly different from those who live under the order and structure of the United States constitution and also under the order of authority that is dispersed throughout the different institutions of government, business and Universities in the United States.
Because there is no other authority recognized in this system except that which is allowed by the Monarch- the normal rules of thinking and reasoning over time can be completely ignored with the justification- "might makes right". Abuses from this structure of logic are strewn throughout history in the histories of Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Henry VIII, Genghis Khan, and on and on.. etc.
What can result from this monarchical logic are what we know as violations of reasoning in argumentation and in the imputation of responsibility, with extensive use of logical fallacies, the utilization of double standards, and even "self-fulfilling" logical sequences.
One example of a self-fulfilling logical sequence would be a declared assertion of a social truth about human behavior, an action by the Monarch that instigates or even forces the behavior, and then the declaration by the Monarch that the behavior that was acted from coercion or instigation "proves" his/her assertion about the character of the individual. This could even include the imputation of blame/guilt to the person who performed the action ordered by the Monarch. In this situation the Monarch would think that a person of sound character would act in a different manner.
In this way a Monarch, dealing with a person from outside this system and order of thinking, could present what would appear to that person to be an offer of reasonable compromise, only to have the result of the Monarch using the behavior of the compromise as "proof" against the character of the person.
In this type of introduction to other reasoning systems, outsiders to these systems historically found it necessary to take time and acquaint themselves with the structure of thinking and the priorities of the Monarch before attempting serious interaction.
All any outsider or any advisor of any kind could hope for in such a system, is to have their idea or proposal put before the monarch for consideration.
2) Logic Structure Mindsets, Operative Mindsets, and the Disconnects in the Evaluation of Feedback and Behavior of Those Outside the Groupthink of the Monarchy
One of the real inadequacies of utilizing might makes right as a cloistered Monarchical groupthink over time is the diminished consistency and level of accurate evaluation of data and feedback of the behavior of others outside the monarchy. This is because there is a disconnect in breadth and depth of thought system structure between the unlimited reasoning and rule parameters provided by the unchallengeable authority of might makes right, which can be unseen by those outside the monarchical group, and the limited and defined reasoning and action parameters of those that act under the order of authority outside the monarchy. Those that operate under a defined and limited system of rules and law can act in ways that are interpreted by the Monarchy contrary to actual motivation, because the normal rules of inference for evaluating data based behavior are discarded with might makes right.
In this way the stance and prism of a martial ideology has the same type of unseen logical disconnects. What would appear to be a normal action, a norm, in a martial ideology supported by might makes right, would appear as clearly defensive or overly aggressive as observed from outside the Monarchy group.
Adhering to the priority of might makes right, because of unchallengeable authority, over data-based evaluation as a group decision making norm doesn't lend credence to chaos theory, because it is literally "making chaos for yourself" in policy and action, and making "bad luck" for yourself over time.
What this means for the Monarch who utilizes Might Makes Right or a Martial Total War Ideology over time, is that these logic structure systems and operative systems create an unseen blurring mechanism that distorts or discards the effective understanding of the facts and significance of social behavior in individuals and in larger data pools.
The employment of Might Makes Right discards selected information because of it's subordination to the decision making authority of the Monarch, where the Martial mindset discards the truth of behavior and information because of the identification of other as “enemy”. In both cases, what becomes erected is an operative mindset that sees the behavior of others and events less objectively and clearly, and because of this and the disconnect that comes with it, the appearance is created through the use of these mindsets that the behavior of others and the events of history are much more chaotic than the objective truth.
Extensive utilization of these two thought systems also effects the consistency of evaluating what otherwise would be considered clear feedback and data over time, because the less defined norm and pattern of consistency of evaluation, present from switching from Might Makes Right, or Martial decision making, to data-based feedback decision making, and vice versa, results in a wider range of connotation that can be considered as provided by the sign. The result then is reading into what otherwise would be considered clear feedback, more or less than what is stated in the message. What this means is that there is a different- what would be called in the field of Philosophy- semiotic range. The connotation range can be both wider or wobbly within this wider range.
In this way, because the monarchy group does not adhere to the authority of objective data in the determination of the truth of behavior and events- reserving and exercising wide personal fiat(up to 180 degree contradiction range) as unquestioned method of truth determination- what becomes erected as policy can only be described as an ultimate 'idealism' (whether benevolent or despotic) that is disconnected from the truth of the behavior of people and the truth of events.
This then is a bad interpretation and execution of Hegel's dictum- "the real is the rational, and the rational is the real". This is so because Hegel's passage describes a common principle of the root of human belief that grounds the motivation of individuals to action, while the monarchy group in utilizing might make right consciously discards the truth of this principle by discarding any objective weight of the root and motivation of the behavior of all others. In effect the King is saying "no matter what the facts, what is in my head- alone in all the world- is right". An ideology gets no more idealistically disconnected than that.
Another aspect of the disconnect in communication employing a martial ideology system with others outside the group, is that the employment of a long term veil mechanism renders a norm of non-communication of real intent, whether it be benevolent or malevolent, with others outside the group outside of the veil mechanism.
What results from this is that when acts or communication carrying benevolent intent are communicated from a person within the martial ideology group, the understanding of that act from an outsider is formed within the appearance and context of the field of the veiled acts and aggregate history of communication presented. This then can and does distort the perceived view of the intent of the singular unveiled communication, the efficacy of that communication, and the view of the message and the person communicating by those outside the group.
Any such singular instances of true intent communication with others outside the martial group veil then are placed in an overall communication frame that has much less chance of success for delivering the intent, the core understanding of the message, and for achieving the non-martial aims of the person communicating. This lack of success in communication attempts then reinforces the norm of non-communication with others outside the group.
Elton John- 'Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLMotU8Tu9E
3) Historically "Might makes right" also has been used falsely by Tyrants to justify any reason that leads to acts that degrade, inflict unjust suffering, and unjustly kill their subjects. This self-fulfilling justification has been used by tyrants in history to justify, construct and inflict suffering through false physical "tests" like those in the Salem witch trials.
The most famous example of such a false physical test is in the Salem witch trials which utilized "if she's a witch she'll float, and if she drowns she's innocent". What this example did was to place the victim in a position where "bi-directional" inconsistent logic would be applied to the result in order to guarantee the death of the victim, and create the public spectacle of the degradation of a "trial".
The Romans also used such constructions in the torturing of Christians in order to disprove that the subject of torture was following the Gospel of forgiveness. Romans tortured Christians until they committed suicide or died, then if the result was the first they would claim that it was an example that the faith either couldn't be followed or that the subject of torture was not a true believer. If the subject died, then the Romans claimed that the Christian was merely a masochist.
In both examples, the physical test portion was merely a "distraction game" to engage and distract onlookers from the basic fact that it was the tyrant's act of placing such an individual in a "no way out" position that would result both in the death of the individual, and in the false use of logic to produce the public degradation of the person.
The end result of such public expositions was 1) the reinforcement of the policy of the authority under consideration, and 2) the implanting of fear in the minds of all onlookers that there was no objective consistent path of safety- they were all were subject to the contradictory whims of the power of the authority to avoid being placed in the no way out position.
Such tactics, through the memories of their victims and their families, are what earned tyrants the reputations associated with the memory of their name, like Ivan "the terrible". It was through the compiled history of the free acts of both the victims and the Tyrants that such tactics clearly demonstrated the nature of the hearts- the identities, of who they were- of both victims and Tyrants.
4) Self-fulfilling "justification dramas"
The self-fulfilling logical sequences and the public spectacle productions in the two sections above also serve as self-fulfilling "justification dramas" of the judgment of the Monarch/authority figure.
Such spectacles "demonstrate" for the monarch/authority figure and to all other viewers what the monarch perceives as the proof- the support in "reality" of the judgment. They thus serve to justify and demonstrate the judgment of the monarch/authority by making it "real" in action and in an event.
This is so even though the judgment: 1) has no basis in reality on it's own- the event does not occur without the coercion of the monarch/authority; and 2) does not follow any of the normal rules of the imputation of guilt associated with the attribution of an ACT. But because of "might makes right" supported by force, the judgment can't be challenged by others because of the absolute authority of the monarch/authority and the severity of consequences.
***Two movies present instances where the application of force through the false convoluted logic of the self-fulfilling "justification drama" of a false physical test, combined with the emotional provocation caused, are utilized to attempt to gain change in point of view and behavior.
1) The first is 'Return of the Jedi' in the Star Wars series, where the agitation of attack and combat by the Emperor is used to provoke anger and hatred, and then the false point/sales pitch is made by the Emperor to "surrender to the dark side"- attempting to persuade Skywalker that the Emperor's point of view is some type of profound epiphany that anger and hatred are the constitutional basis for a philosophy of life.
This then is a false self-fullfilling justification drama of the attack of others, plus the use of the emotional trigger of a buying decision (Tom Hopkins) in the decision to surrender to the Emperor's physical power. It is thus also presented falsely as the frame of the discovery of greater or undiscovered wisdom- and thus the false frame of aggressor as intellectual master.
This has all the profundity of some moron putting a cat in a cage and poking it repeatedly with a sharp stick, and then when it hisses and bares it's teeth, the person poking says "see!! that's how life really is!! Surrender to it and embrace it!!".
2) The second instance is the Natalie Portman film 'V For Vendetta', where the ordeal of torture by the character 'V' is used to produce extreme resistance in Portman's character at the point of exhaustion. As she discovers that the torture ordeal is over and experiences the emotional release from it, the false point/sales pitch is then made by the 'V' character- that the torture was necessary to instruct the Portman character of the nature of freedom from fear(again a false profound epiphany), and that 'V' was actually acting as her friend by TORTURING HER. Again, the false pitch is made to produce acceptance of the result; of the twisted logic of the aggressors point of view; by "surrendering" to the feeling associated with the emotional release by categorizing it intellectually as an experience of "epiphany".
This utilizes the same psychological warfare mechanisms listed in the analysis of 'Return of the Jedi'. In both cases the use of physical aggression is unilaterally initiated to gain submission and change of behavior by emotional provocation under the false guise (and thus "red herring") of intellectual master and a supposed profound epiphany.
5) Such tactics, of course, still go on as you read.
6) Nobility and the Groupthink of "Consecrated" Ideology
History is littered with organizations and regimes that made decisions and enforced order through the authority of monarchy and a small permanent group of "noble" elite. This includes the Catholic church.
One of the biggest pitfalls that arises repeatedly in these structures comes from the distance of vertical separation(in ability or character) between those consecrated as "holy" or "great" and those that are considered common. The distance arises because of the separation and is reinforced by the separation over time.
This separation and this cloistering of decision making by the "consecrated" members combine, as evidenced in history, to form a self-perpetuating closed belief system- an ideology- that is "locked" by groupthink.
Because of the "consecrated" nature of membership(members consider themselves "great", "holy", of "superior intelligence and character") the system is perceived by it's members as a "consecrated" ideology. These belief systems are notorious: 1) for the exclusion of objective thinking or information from outsiders and those considered "common"; 2) for decisions and policy that reflect this separation- the Spanish Inquisition, the crusades, the Taliban, the Nazis...etc.., and 3) for indoctrinating successive generations of members in what is perceived (falsely) as the "unquestionable certainty" and nature of the beliefs of the ideology.
Because of ALL these factors and conditions these belief systems are themselves not only vulnerable, but form THE model for the conditions that cause the undeniable dynamics of "groupthink" that are depicted in Irving Janis' important book of the same name, and that have led to so many fiascoes throughout history.
7) The dynamics of Monarchical Logic were the topic of discussion with Paul Ricoeur in 1989 or 1990 during one of his seminars at the University of Chicago- a few elements of which are discussed in this post.
One point that Paul Ricoeur made- in one of his seminars in 1989-1990 at University of Chicago- regarding the dynamics of truth and the Monarch in a system of Monarchical logic, I disagreed with and elaborated on in a way which was convincing. He said that in Monarchical logic, the Monarch was the final arbiter of the truth because of absolute authority within that Nation state- that the Monarch literally determined what was the truth. I disagreed, and still do.
Objective truth outside the thinking of the monarch is always at the basis of the operation of Monarchical logic and decision making- but it's value gets masked and obscured. What Monarchical logic claims in might makes right is the embrace of the principle to be wrong without personal consequence.
What really occurs in a system of Monarchical logic are the interplay of two separate systems of event(cause and effect) attribution. The first system- we will say sits to the right- is 1)the system of objective knowledge of the sciences. This includes physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, the behavioral sciences of free action & the applied sciences of engineering. The Monarch can do nothing to change the truth- the reality- of the effectiveness of the information and discoveries in operation. He or she cannot rewrite or change the principles and formulas of aerodynamics, nor or medicine, nor any of the other scientific discoveries that work in the world. These principles and formulas are what they are, and follow the development of verifiable scientific discovery.
What the Monarch controls absolutely is the utilization of these principles and processes in 2) the system of social order among people through the use of absolute force through execution and torture which can be used to a) defeat resistance of all others to these decisions and designations if they are false and harmful, and b) direct others in the production of events that an individual normally wouldn't do.
The Monarch merely chooses which principle and process of science and engineering to use if he or she wishes to be effective, chooses to misuse the process in error or through force in the social order without consequence, and then utilizes definition or proclamation authority- correctly or incorrectly- without consequence.
In might makes right the Monarch in reality is never the final arbiter of truth, he or she in reality embraces the principle to be wrong without personal consequence- uses the total accumulation of force to claim and enforce the "right to be wrong" without consequence regardless of the event, regardless of the harm done to others- regardless of the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAK1Nzi_zZM
&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60xFSoF-5WE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment