TOP Quarterly Update #18: 26 October-2015
Dear [Subscriber],
Over the past quarter, I have been working on some frameworks, exploring principles for the formulation of Trees, and doing a little more reading than usual with a focus on war and peace.
But first, a bit about my efforts in regards to understanding taxonomic frameworks and architecture.
I want to use most of this Update to discuss what is meant by the State, a topic intimated but neglected in my book on values. My conclusions here seem particularly relevant to current global developments and our civic needs and responsibilities.
Taxonomic Developments
I have been revising my work on . The results have been posted in the Frameworks Room. The main changes are the ordering of the lowest two hierarchical levels, and some re-naming.
The Typology is now renamed . Re-investigation and review of other Typologies, especially the , suggests that the interaction of Types is more complicated than previously envisaged. Probably, each Typology has to be investigated in its own field of operation to appreciate the distinctive possibilities and qualities of influence. If you wish, see what you make of my efforts here.
The other structure that I have been investigating is the and its derivative frameworks. This work is still in its early stages, however, I feel reasonably confident that it is about .
Unless we with whatever befalls us, we cannot pursue endeavours. In fact, we are in danger of not even surviving—and not coping feels just like that. Fortunately, we can do quite a lot to ensure that we do cope, whatever our weaknesses. Much has been written in the psychological literature on this theme. However, no social scientist currently knows that the source of coping principles is to be found in Primal Quests (RH'). If I don't get around to posting anything, I will write more about my findings in the next update.
Finally, I have been working on the Working with Values frameworks. When that book was written, I had only just discovered the Tree pattern, and I was not sure where it applied. We now know that the two structural hierarchies in the book (Ch. 9, Ch. 10&12) naturally lead to Trees. I have spent time formulating these and developed principles of how Centres in such Trees link to the originating Structural Hierarchy.
This provided illumination in relation to workings of a , its , its and the State. The State was not something I properly explored or understood all those years ago, but I am making good on that deficiency now thanks to reading Philip Bobbit (2002).
Let me explain.
The State We Are In
Two big ideas have been the source of endless strife and much debate throughout the ages: “God” and “the State”.
I have not yet posted my work on “the State” because it requires making and explaining minor modifications of published frameworks. However, I must at least explain here how these ideas exist within the Taxonomy, and touch on their consequences.
Given today's world, a world riven by war both declared and undeclared, we should strive to understand what is happening. Like any other aspect of psychosocial life, I believe we can only do so by grasping the taxonomic origins of these two big ideas within our personal functioning and our psychosocial context.
necessarily has controls, whose complexity makes up the bulk of the Taxonomy. (This preponderance of control mechanisms resembles findings in biological functioning.) My investigations have revealed the presence of two over-arching systems of ethical control that apply in all domains. Located in two tertiary hierarchies, this discovery led to the research aphorism that man is a moral being in two senses.
Each sense has its own big idea to affirm and protect that morality. Hegel suggested an equivalence of the two big ideas when he asserted that the State is "the march of God in society." I want to show their similarity by focusing on the differences.
The is about goodness and its big idea is “God" as the enforcer and protector of what is humane. (See details in the satellite.) This framework rests on and is therefore teleological. The basic tool is compassion and the relevant psychosocial pressure turns out to be: well-being. God is imaginatively articulated via the
The is about social stability and its big idea is "the State” as the enforcer and protector of "a moral order”. This order defines what is right and demands that function in a particular way. The frameworks, being emanated by the , are deontological. (See Ch. 8 in Working with Values). The Tree- that indicates how the State rules reveals a supreme driving force (L7) that calls for submission, with its main tool (L6) being coercion. The relevant psychosocial pressure turns out be: selflessness.
Here is a Table of these differentiating features to help you keep track as we proceed:
| Domain | Will (RH) | Purpose (RL6) |
|---|---|---|
| Big Idea | God | The State |
| Focus | Personal humaneness |
Society’s moral order |
| Orientation | Teleological i.e. what is good: |
Deontological i.e. what is right |
| Key Element | Ultimate values (PH6L7) |
Ethical rules (PH'6) |
| Psychosocial Pressure |
Well-being | Selflessness |
| Instrument | Compassion | Coercion |
| Driver | Great Dreams | Submission |
“God" and "the State" exist as ideas, but they are not 'just' ideas. They are enormously powerful ideas that can take over the heart and mind of a person. To make this full and deep experiential connection, people use symbols that evoke feelings e.g. the cross, the Kaaba, the flag, hymns or anthems. Groups respond by creating guardians of the big ideas.
Given the current stage in the evolution of personal consciousness and culture, we cannot expect too much even of the guardians of God, much less the State.
Fortunately, both can undergo a constructive evolution. Hegel thought it was in the direction of greater freedom—a notion that, perhaps surprisingly, accords with the Taxonomy.
In the case of the State, evolution is a socially violent process, as explained by Bobbitt and summarized by myself in relation to . War may be the health of the State in its immature forms, but the relevant taxonomic spiral offers a reasonable hope that war can end.
The conception of “God” also undergoes a socially violent evolution. A useful book to read on this is K. Wilber: Up from Eden.
State representatives are able to rule a society by virtue of its because it is these institutions that ultimately give rise to the Moral Order that must be defended. See a summary here. So this Tree- (not published but you can work it out) shows what defines the determinants of the State. The State is related to the primal need for governance through its focus on moral control, which inevitably entails coercive violence in response to moral violations.
Remember that and are not big ideas but rather formal names of actualities. Read more about this distinction here. A government can be sued, and a society can be taxed: neither the State nor God need worry about such things. The State and God end up being what those in relevant positions of power say they are. You disagree at your peril.
In the Taxonomy, is a and operates within the where it provides the power behind the Its determinants are found in the . Effective governance is most evidently different to the State when we recognize that it depends on citizens responsibly exercising their autonomy. However, autonomy has a problem at CG7 where sovereignty emerges and where unity and stability are needed. But what if autonomy/freedom runs amuck and society is in disorder? Answer: The State steps in.
In due course I will publish the showing the requirements of the State in relation to ruling an orderly or disorderly society. But remember that the L7 Centre engenders submission and the L6 Centres allow coercion. So how does an idea implement itself?
The answer lies in the way the two big ethical ideas become concretized by their guardians. Entities arise in our social life that present and assert themselves to us as “organs” or “arms” or "representatives" of the Big Idea.
God gives rise in social life to , which regards itself as above the State and politics and typically stems from spiritually-inspired individuals. is one of the . (As an aside, it looks as if science is developing religious trappings with fundamentalists, dogmas etc.) In turn, religion gives rise to many things not always similarly inspired. But followers can do little to correct powerful leaders who wish to run an Inquisition or mount a jihad. Still, we can say that a church is supposed to value compassion (loving-kindness) and direct people towards goodness.
If God tells you to do something, you must. If the message coming from God’s representatives is destructive and inhumane, then it must mean that they are Satan in disguise, so you can resist without coming to any spiritual harm. Of course, those representatives will feel it right and proper to torture and kill you.
The State similarly gives rise in social life to an organized authoritative bureaucracy that is handled by the government on behalf of the citizenry and out of their sight. is another of the properly seeking the good of society. But once government provides for the State by creating and funding bureaucratic offices, military, intelligence and diplomatic services, and a propaganda machine, the politicians have lost all effective control.
While the legislature of a government may be elected, the State organs are appointed, often remaining in its service for life. Elected Prime Ministers or Presidents come and go. If they also serve as State-Leader, they become captive to a far more enduring bureaucratic machine. It feels right and proper to those apparatchiks to reject any accountability to elected lawmakers.
De Gaulle put it this way: I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.
The State (i.e. those actualizing its nature) does not see itself as leading its citizens to goodness. Instead it glories in past and future deaths in inevitable and righteous wars. Issues of (State) pride and (State) dignity are far more important than social suffering or injustice. Society’s wealth is diverted accordingly in astonishingly large amounts. The State defends society’s current customs and morality (components of ) and aligns with its most powerful groups (currently multinational firms in the West). It then expects adherence to its position from within and respect from without.
De Gaulle put it this way: In politics it is necessary either to betray one’s country or the electorate. I prefer to betray the electorate.
If the State tells you to do something, you must--even if it is wholly destructive and anti-human. The best you can do is try to hide. But it is becoming ever more difficult to escape the State’s clutches. The State regularly reveals itself as particularly vicious towards individuals who engage in the most trivial acts of decency or integrity if these symbolize disobedience. Public exposure of the constant immorality and illegality of State operatives is forbidden and punished when it occurs.
Politicians find themselves having to obey and submit to the State bureaucrats. The inability of US Presidents to over-rule the Pentagon in regard to the release of an innocent UK charity worker incarcerated in Guantanamo for years is a typical example.
So politicians must expect to be monitored by State agents rather than the other way round. When lies or atrocities are discovered in war or peacetime, politicians go along with the regime’s invariable decision not to blame or punish anyone within the system even when the evidence of culpability is clear. Sometimes well-known atrocities are blatantly denied—we can all think of examples. There seems to be a constant flow of them. All States regard history as theirs to define and simply will not tolerate the teaching of any history that reveals moral horrors in the recent past. Nor is the history of other societies and cultures given much respect or attention. News is censored daily. Lies, like violence, define the State.
As I explained above, the State is properly preoccupied with unity, harmony and stability—law and order, and this is a concern of us all. In the international arena, this preoccupation is expressed as sovereignty. The defence of sovereignty becomes replaced by a power-focus, a glorification of the military and justifications for their use. We, the people, do not want war. Even our politicians do not make war—mostly they are kept in the dark. It is our State apparatus that is responsible.
It seems that we do still need war; just like young children need to have tantrums and parents need to respond coercively. It's part of maturation.
Any government does need a legal monopoly on violence and this is applied via the police. The State’s right to violence is exercised via the military. Ideally, the general public never comes into contact with the military except on ceremonial occasions. The State may compensate by creating a secret police that operates outside the law and cannot be publicly investigated or called to account. The current militarization of police forces, most evident in the US, and the emergence or strengthening of secret police in Western societies generally is not a happy development for thoughtful citizens. Don’t fall for the security excuse: our security is diminished both by war and by the loss of civil liberties.
But I’ve gone on long enough—and perhaps spoken too bluntly.
Till next time, take care,
Warren