Truth behind worship of Form
In general, the content of a Message is more important than its form/packaging. For instance, the cereal is more important than its packaging for the child’s survival. The information a teacher transmits is more important than the clothes he wears.
While admittedly true, why do so many more value form over content? Why do so many weight packaging so highly that they would pass transparently false information as true and reject obvious truths as false?
Why? To discover the answer let us apply the T/F Axiom to our statement.
What is the truth behind worship of Form?
Let us look at a logical sequence that leads to this conclusion.
The Logic of Tribal mentality
1. Our tribe will take better care of me than their tribe.
2. Those with similar appearance, behavior, and mind-set are in my tribe
and so will take care of me.
3. Therefore identifying whether the Source is one of Us or Them is more important
than the content of the Words.
4. Further Appearances give more information than the logical content of the words
in distinguishing Us from Them.
5. Therefore Form is more important than the content of the Message.
Because it has more to do with determining
whether the Source is in my Tribe or theirs.
Note that the logical sequence behind the conclusion that packaging is more important than content is sound. While the logic is not flawed, the underlying assumptions are based upon some Fat truths, which demand clarification. If one goes down the wrong path the end result is self-destruction, while if one chooses the correct path the end result is self-improvement and enrichment.
Fat Truths on a Diet
OK! We have some FAT Truths. Let’s put them on a diet - give them a reduction.
Appearances are deceiving
Let us start with Statement 2:
“Those with similar appearance are in my tribe and so will take care of me.”
This is the wolf in sheep’s clothing fallacy. Appearances can be deceiving. Although a Person’s clothing might identify them as a member of the Tribe, i.e. Us, it doesn’t follow that they are. They could be coming in disguise. They could be an actor playing a role. In short one’s externals, behavior and appearance, can easily be manipulated to trick the Receiver into thinking that the Source is in a similar tribe, when in actuality, the Source could be a wolf who is simply dressed as a sheep so that he can eat mutton for dinner. As an example the well-dressed politician, who has never served in the military or risked his life for his country, asks the People to sacrifice their children for the obscene profits of his friends and contributors. He appears as part of the Tribe when he is feeding upon the members of the Tribe. His appearance says that he is a common man when he is extremely wealthy. In reality, he is part of the Rich Tribe who consumes the Poor Tribe.
Let it be stressed that we are not suggesting that externals be rejected as a criteria for evaluation because of their ambiguity. Instead we’re suggesting that one employ other criteria as well as a form of cross-checking. It's imperative not be lean on too heavily on appearance as the main or only criterion. Putting one’s full weight upon a creek rock before testing its stability could easily lead to a fatal fall.
Tribe more important than Members
Now let us deconstruct Statement 1 by applying the T/F Axiom.
1. “Our tribe will take better care of me than their tribe.”
One False behind this statement, this message, is that:
The Individual is equal to the Tribe in priority = 1F.
The corresponding True would be that:
The Tribe takes care of itself at the expense of the Individual = 1T.
The conclusion is that the Individual could be sacrificed for the good of the Tribe.
While good for the Tribe, this is not good for the Individual.
As an example the young father with wife and children is sacrificed in an overseas war,
to protect the profits of the ruling class of the nation.
The Group/Tribe as represented by the Leadership has presumably gained by this death
While the extended family of the young soldier has suffered an irrevocable tragedy.
What was good for the Larger Tribe was bad for the Individual Tribe.
To avoid being exploited it is mandatory that One chooses one’s Tribe carefully
after finding what your position in the Tribe will be.
Tribe takes care of leadership before members
This leads to the next Falsehood, which is
The Tribe takes care of each of its members equally = 1FF.
The Truth behind this statement is that
The Tribe takes better care of the leadership = 1FT.
This is because the tribe places great value on leadership
while much less on individual members.
Example: Witness bee hives - ant colonies - wolf packs - kingdoms - countries -
In each case, the leadership is preserved at the expense of individual members.
‘Dying in battle to save the Ruler’ is raised to the level of moral virtue.
Again it would be good not to join a Tribe
in which you as an Individual were dispensable
in the achievement of the goals of the Tribe.
As an example: Management regularly requests that
the Individual sacrifice his Family for the good of the Business
by working extra hours and foregoing vacations.
This is for the Group Good not the Individual Good.
Time to reevaluate the position.
This leads to the conclusion that:
The Good of the Group is not necessarily the Good of the Individual.
So join a Group where the Group Good is your Individual Good.
The Truth behind the importance of the Leader to the Group is that
the Leader thinks holistically about the good of the Group = 1FTT.
The False is that the Leader ranks the Individual Members equal with the Group. = 1FTF
The True is that the Leadership takes care of the Individual Members
to the extent that they serve the existence of the Group, = 1FTT
Many times this means how well Individual Members serve Leadership,
as the main representative of the Group or Tribe.
The True: the goal of Leadership is the good of the Tribe = 1FTTT
The False: the goal of Leadership is the good of the Individual = 1FTTF
The True: The Leader pursues the good of the Individual = 1FTTFT
1) As long as the good of the Individual is congruent with the good of the Tribe,
2) As long as the Individual is willing to sacrifice Self for the Tribe.
3) As long as those Individuals are part of the leadership.
One conclusion of these statements is that in terms of the Leadership that
The Individual is subservient to the Group.
The False: The Leadership is willing to sacrifice self for the Individual = 1FTTFF
The True: The Leadership is willing to sacrifice self for the Group. = 1FTTFT
The True: The Leader normally rates his existence as important to the Group existence,
thus will normally choose to risk the lives of his subjects before his own life. = 1FTTFTT
The False: The Leader will sacrifice self for the good of individuals
who have nothing to do with his perception of Group survival. = 1FTTFFF
The True: The Leader considers the Group survival to be fairly synonymous
with the survival of the Ruling Class. = 1FTTFTTT
Summary
With this little example, we are pointing out that there is an innate tendency for the Group Members to rate the Group higher than the Individual in importance. Because of this tendency the Leader, as the ultimate representative of the Group, is rated higher than the Individual. Further he will have a tendency to request that the Individual sacrifice himself for the Group.
Group: Leader > Individual
Leader: Group > Individual
Individual: Group > Leader
Combining
Group > Leader > Individual
We’ll explore the reasons behind the elevation of the Group above the Individual in later chapters. For now we’ll just assert it. The point is that just because a Person belongs to a Group doesn’t mean that the Leader and the Group have the Person’s best interests at heart. Therefore it is imperative to choose one’s Groups consciously, rather than inadvertently. Joining a Group to become its sacrificial lamb is normally not recommended.
Inherent Ambiguity of Verbal Truth: A Corollary of T/F Axiom
According to the T/F axiom each statement, S, including this one, has a true and false component, ST & SF. Applying the T/F Axiom to the true component, ST, yields these 2 statements STT & STF. Applying it to the false component yields these two statements, SFT & SFF. The False component, STF, of the True statement, ST, is just as false as the False component of the original statement, SF. Similarly the True component of the original statement, ST, is no more true than the true component, SFT, of the false statement, SF.
ST ≈ T ≈ SFT
SF ≈ F ≈ STF
Each statement and each component, whether the true or false, have both true and false components. No verbal statement or component is absolutely true or false, in and of itself. The truth or falsehood of a statement can only be determined in the context of communication, not in the content of the words themselves.
Thus a corollary of the T/F Axiom is that all verbal truths are relative to the interaction between Source and Receiver rather than contained in the content of the words themselves. This is because of the inherent ambiguity of verbal communication, which must pass through the Filters of the Source and Receiver. These Filters do not automatically obscure the communication. However because they are somewhat based upon Personal Experience, which is unique, the interpretation of the communication will always be slightly different.
While this ultimate statement of moral relativism, tends to discouragement because of the implied complexity, which seems to be unending, the intention of the argument is entirely different. Instead the suggestion/hint, is to continually move towards specifics, in order to avoid the inherent ambiguity of generalization. This is a call to action rather than an intent to discourage. Avoid mental laziness, which is what the Propagandists rely upon to suck your blood - to victimize you and your loved ones.
An extension of these ideas is that without specifics our T/F subscripts are meaningless. Without specifics to ground them the statements fall into the Generalization Fallacy, which we will speak about soon.
The Warrior-King sacrifices himself for his Country?
Let’s apply this principle of moving to specifics to Statement 1FTTFT.
‘The leadership is willing to sacrifice self for the Group.’
This evokes the image of warrior-king leading his troops into battle to protect his country from ‘alien’ or ‘foreign’ attack. These are enemies from without, not within.
The truth of the last statement is that there have existed warrior kings who have led their troops into battle to protect the tribe or country. More often the warrior king leads the country into battle against other warrior kings.
More to the point is that while there have been these noble leaders, who were willing to sacrifice themselves for their subjects, presently there are no more warrior kings leading the troops into battle. This is reflected in the game of chess - where every piece, except the King, is expendable - even the Queen. For once the King is lost, the game of chess is lost.
The Propagandists attempt to convince the Populace that our Leader is like these warrior-kings of old by dressing him in combat fatigues to give the impression that he was a soldier in active combat although he avoided military service altogether. The Propagandists want us to think that our leadership is like the warrior kings of old - leading their troops into battle. The implication is that our Leaders are like King Theoden in Lord of the Rings, who lost his life attempting to protect the women and children of his kingdom.’ This is a great example of a popular conception of leadership.
While this conception of leadership was somewhat true in the past, it has been false for centuries. In Europe this style of Leadership went out with the long bow and the 100 Years War between England and France. In the 1400’s the English captured the King of France, who was fighting to defend his country. It cost a ‘king’s ransom’ to get him back. This was such a hardship on the country that the King was protected after that. In China, this style of leadership went out about the same time. In similar fashion, one of the Emperors of the Ming Dynasty was captured and ransomed by the Central Asians tribes.
While the warrior king, who risks his life by leading his country into battle against external attack, existed in the past, he doesn’t exist anymore. It was true in the past, but is not true now, and hasn’t been for centuries. Further the USA has never had a warrior-king fighting in battle to protect its citizens from foreign attack, unless one considers the insurgent George Washington, who helped lead the military revolt against England in the 1700s, over 200 years ago.
Examples bring Abstraction closer to Experience
An aside on how specific Examples approach the Experience:
First we have the Truth in abstraction.
For instance: War is bad.
This is a very Fat Truth and needs examples to qualify it.
Following is an example supporting the abstraction.
World wars kill many people and so are bad.
While reduced, this statement is still quite fat
It needs a more specific example to qualify it even more.
Following is an example of an example supporting the abstract
In World War 1 millions of people lost their lives prematurely,
therefore war is bad.
Thus each Example brings the Abstract Truth
closer to Reality of the Individual Experience.
This is simply a call to individualize communication. Nothing more.
Generalizations are inherently ambiguous.
The more ambiguous the less individual meaning.
Chess as a metaphor for modern leadership
Because of the popularity of chess and its relevance to the point we are making we shall introduce a few Chess Diagrams to make our point. We hope that the Group we choose is dedicated to our well being. However, frequently we are just an expendable Pawn. Beware which you choose. It could lead to your elevation or your demise.
Let: P = Pawn H = Horse = Knight B = Bishop
Q = Queen R = Rook = Castle K = King
All Members taken care of equally Members ranked according to importance
B = P = H = R = Q = K P < (H = B) < R < Q < K
The Difference between Defense from External Attack & Attacking Externally
Warrior-King leading the Citizen Army
to defend the Kingdom from external Attack
We have a few historical examples of the Warrior-Leader protecting his country from external attack. The Queen of the Celts or Brits defending her country from the Roman invasion - dies in battle. Charles Martel defends Franks from invasion by the Moors. Saladin leads his army to defend Muslim Jerusalem from the Christian invaders.
George Washington is an ambiguous example. He was certainly a warrior leader. But was he attacking England from within - setting up his own kingdom or was he defending ‘Americans’ from external attack, even though they weren’t Americans yet? This truth is based upon perspective. The perspective of those loyal to England was that George Washington was a rebel, terrorist, traitor, and deserved to be hanged. The perspective of those devoted to home rule was that Washington was a hero, father of our country.
Warrior-King using Army to attack externally
However frequently the Warrior-King has used his army to attack others. There are many examples. Alexander the Great of Greece swept across a great swatch of Eurasia, from West to East, conquering indigenous cultures, who had done him no wrong. Similarly Julius Caesar of Rome used his army to conquer the indigenous tribes of Gaul and Briton. Xerxes and Darius of Persia employed their great fighting force, not to defend, but to attack first Mesopotamia and then the city-states of Greece neither of whom had posed any serious threat to national security. The Mongol Genghis Khan of the Central Asian steppes, used his army to conquer the variety of cultures from Russia in the North, to China in the East to the Muslim world in the West, few of which posed his Empire any threat. On a lesser-known scale Alcibiades of Athens convinced his democratic republic to attack Sicily. This led to the downfall of their independence.
Similarly in the 21st century George Bush Jr. of the USA convinced his democratic Army to attack Afghanistan and Iraq in the Middle East neither of which posed any kind of a national threat. But wait a minute. George Bush Jr. is not a warrior king. He has never been in any kind of military battle. The above mentioned were all great military generals who led their army into battle, fighting with the rest, while George Bush Jr. only wears military fatigues. The point is that while the warrior king leading his army into battle to protect his country has existed in the past, it doesn’t exist anymore.
While this Leader doesn’t exist, he is still part of our implicit belief system. This is one belief that needs to be raised to the conscious level so that it can be exposed to daylight and die a natural death, rather than kept alive in the subliminal areas of our brain. While we are all willing to follow our leader into battle, none of us wants to risk our lives or our children’s or our friend’s lives to fight someone else’s battle.
Exercise your brain and avoid the cultural trap.
Avoiding Bar Room Speculation
One more thing. Note that Statement 1FTTFT, i.e. ‘The leadership is willing to sacrifice self for the Group.’ is true for some leaders and false for others, true in some contexts and not in others - This despite the fact that the Author has identified the statement as a true component. The Author fell into the generalization fallacy, i.e. talking generalities without referring to specifics. A nickname for this way of communication is ‘Bar room speculation’, i.e. very little expertise with grand generalizations based upon nothing.
In this specific situation it is important not to group all Leaders into one homogenous collection. It is necessary to evaluate each separately. One does not want to fall into the Generalization Fallacy, i.e. generalizing from the collective to the specific. It could lead to following a false leader or rejecting a true leader.
Further from this example it is easy to see that the intent of the Speaker is essential for determining the true and false components. If the Speaker is referring to the American Presidents when he says they are willing to sacrifice themselves for the Group, we must identify what Group is being referred to and what kind of sacrifice are we talking about. The President will certainly not sacrifice his existence defending the Populace.
Home The Firing Process II. Group Manipulation Previous Next Comments