Addendum
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 he made 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, that 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.
Ivan "The Terrible" & the Martial Ideology of Aggression: the Effect of the false tenet of the Individual Perceived as Enemy, Might Makes Right & The False Justification Drama of Torture
Historical literature indicates that with absolute power over Russia, the Rurik Dynasty Czar 'Ivan the Terrible' eliminated through serial mass murder as much as 10% of the population of Russia until his death at the turn of the 15th century.
With the two decision making systems of "Might makes Right" and the false tenet of Martial Ideology that the human individual is absolutely evil, not capable of being trusted and thus the ultimate "enemy", these two systems implant blurring mechanisms(indicated previously in posts on this subject) that lead to inaccurate assessment of events and the behavior of others. They also ingrain a distrust of all other individuals in the most extreme way that causes a type of ultimate total war thinking in the sovereign towards others- towards his own citizens.
(new), 1/31/09
The distrust in the assessment of the behavior of others in the thinking of Martial Ideology is so severe that Ricoeur stated that it overwhelms any and all objective data based evidence to the contrary. This distrust is then compounded and exacerbated by the blurring mechanisms in the evaluation of the external and internal data of the behavior of individuals, which causes events to appear much more chaotic than they are. The behavior of the individual under both these systems this system is not trusted, and very often also not understood clearly, literally causing what Ricoeur called a "war of suspicion and confusion/chaos" that exist only in the head of the sovereign.
These are the mechanisms in operation that lie at the basis of the mindset of the torturor. This is why the literature of the documentation of torture describes over and over again a type of questioning that extends beyond the barrier of behavior and it's attribution to intention.
It is because of the ingrainged false presumption that the human individual is ultimately evil, and thus "guilty", that regardless of all evidence of benign behavior and all evidence of the absence of negative behavior, that the torture continues and the questioning continues until the "ultimate" distrust of the individual is confirmed and satisfied in the mind of the torturor- regardless of the truth. This is then how torture becomes the terrible and false "justification drama" of the torturor- in the forced and false confirmation of "guilt" through the administration of pain and the use of pschological techniques that will not be stopped until such a false "confession" is received. Thus it is through torture that both the initial suspicion and the torture itself become falsely "justified".
These are the dynamics of the false confession in torture, and the function which they serve- 1) the disbelief of the absence of any evidence of aggressive behavior or intent. This is generated by 2) the distrust and lack of respect for others, and
the aggression of the torturor that drive the need of the torturor to then 3) produce through torture such "evidence"- either through pronouncement or through forced action. 4) This then makes extant and "confirms" the fictional suspicion of the torturor, and 5) satisfies, only temporarily- for only the subject under the torture- the "punishment principle" at work in the aggression of the torturor toward the "guilty" subject of torture.
It is in this way that although there was complete and benign evidence of the behavior of the great majority of the citizens of Russia across half a century, that a sovereign like 'Ivan the Terrible', through the distrust inherent and ingrained in such thinking, lead to overwhelming evidence being completely ignored and the serial false "justification dramas" of torture and murder that defined his reign, and that were irrevocably documented in the history literature of the age and more importantly in the experience of the people of Russia.
The experience and the memory of the people under such a sovereign though is a long term "logic trap" in the thinking of "might makes right"- the "trap of history". The sovereign can indeed use might negatively to act in any way in which he or she pleases - right or wrong (the "right to be wrong")- without physical barrier or physical consequence from others because the sovereign controls all force and can use it brutally to defeat objection and dissent. However when he or she does use might negatively, he or she will be thought of negatively by the citizenry to the very extent that he or she does so.
To the extent in freedom and without coercion that the citizens do not do the same then becomes the truth of the contrast between the citizens and the sovereign, and the undeniable proof of the falseness of the thinking of the sovereign.
And so it is that Ivan acted merely as he did, but was experienced, thought of and remembered throughout all Russia and all history as 'Ivan the Terrible'- for the torture and murder of 10% of the population- of the people- of Russia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)