The more you interact with the upper-class, the more you perceive the majority
of them, in spite of their apparent success, as struggling with their inner
longing for the integrity of their character in order to have healthier and
happier relationships with others. It happens because your career success is no
guarantee that your co-workers, wife or children will appreciate and love you
for what you are and not for what you apparently provide them.
In the 1960s, the Beatles have sung that ‘money can't buy you love;’ now
upper-class psychologists and sociologists are following suit and sing that
‘money cannot buy you happiness.’
A study of college students from middle and upper income families, published by
the American Psychological Association in the February 2001 issue of the
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, concludes that money is the
least desirable need on their priority list, materialization of which would
supposedly make them happy and fulfilled persons. To that end, the overwhelming
majority of students have believed they should make a priority list of their
spiritual development as follows:
1) to learn how to be autonomous and competent (probably the reason why
“Survivor” is a popular TV-show nowadays);
2) to acquire self-esteem and a sense of closeness with others (to be
“compassionate” conservatives).
The least desirable factors that influence the realization of their happiness
and well-being were popularity-influence and money-luxury. As K. Sheldon, a
psychologist at the University of Missouri-Columbia and co-author of the study
has put it:
"I like salary raises just as much as
everybody, but I'm sure you can think of people [necessitated by family
circumstances, VS] who have left fulfilling jobs to make more money somewhere
else and regretted it". Sheldon adds: "People who value money, beauty and
popularity more so than they value intimacy, growth and community contribution
really look [among the upper-class snobs, VS] a lot less mentally healthy and
are a lot more unhappy [from the point of view of those snobs, VS]. If you are
really broke [financially, VS] and do not have what you need, then you should
take care of that. But a lot of us [snobs, VS], we keep looking for more and
more when we really already have enough and it should be more meaningful."
Before we continue to analyze the study of college
students, we should define the distinction between the psychology of character
and the psychology of personality: the former is based on studying ethics, and
the latter – on studying aesthetics.
The word ‘ethic’ derives from Greek ‘ethos’ – character, custom, disposition, or
trait. The word ‘ethnic’ derives from Greek ‘ethnos’ – a community of people,
united on certain ideals and moral values, and living together for several
generations. The word ‘aesthetic’ derives from Greek ‘aisthetikos’ -- a sense of
perception. Ordered and legalized, an aesthetic often becomes etiquette.
Ethics is a moral philosophy, or a religion, or a system of moral values,
or a stiff set of principles of right conduct. A communistic ethic stresses the
service of an individual to the desires and economical interests of the majority
of a community, while an individualistic ethic accentuates his service to his
own desires and long run interests.
On the other hand, aesthetic is a good taste or a loose set of principles
pertaining to beauty and style. The psychology of personality bet on a premise
that an individual should first serve his own desires and short run interests.
An aesthetic rule draws upon one or two of our five senses, while an ethic rule
draws upon the experience of all our senses. Ethics differs from aesthetics in
the same manner as the content of a thing differs from its form; and as the form
of a thing reflects its content, so does an aesthetic. The latter always
reflects its underlying ethic, which, in its turn, permeates its aesthetic, even
if the latter seemingly has nothing to do with the former. We usually feel or
sense something aesthetically appealing, while we ponder or reason upon its
ethical implications.
Do not get me wrong that aesthetic or personality is not important. A shell and
a white are protective and nourishing parts of an egg, and as such, they are
very important to a would-be chick while it is in its embryonic stage. However,
after this relatively short period of the possible life span of a would-be
chicken, the value of those parts diminish to zero and a fresh life bursts
asunder the now worthless husk.
You can draw upon your personality or your vague aesthetic feelings while you
are young, but you must work out your character, your certain ethic that is
congruent with the ethic of the majority of your social class, in order to
become a spiritually mature adult and citizen. Ethics breeds character,
aesthetic – personality.
Many teenagers of the upper and middle class families keenly feel the hypocrisy
of their previous generations and emptiness of their notions of “success” and
“happiness”. Therefore, they try to do ‘what the elders say, not what they do’.
However, having only the vague aesthetic rules or a personality, not yet settled
into a certain ethical system and into a character, their rebellion often
finishes in drug-abuse and sexual promiscuity. They often take Walter Scott’s
sarcasm that, “One hour of life, crowded to the full with glorious action… is
worth whole years of those mean observances of paltry decorum,” for its nominal
value. However, such extreme moments in the life of an individual, when his
ethic and character can shine to its utmost, are very rare, and even rarer in
the life of a nation. The more the ethic of the majority of a nation approaches
to the ethic of its middle-class, middle-income people, the less revolutions
that nation has and happier it is.
As you have probably already noticed, the problems in studying the "subjective"
character, which draws upon an objective ethic, led the psychologists of the
past century to fixate their gaze on the "objective" personality, which draws
upon the subjective aesthetics. And as you might remember, the word
‘personality’ derives from Latin ‘per sonar’ that means ‘through sound’ -- as an
actor had sounded from behind a mask of a character in an ancient Roman theater.
The misbalanced studying of human psyche is still going on American soil with
the preference of shallow and husky personality over deep and juicy character.
It continues because such “researches” are payable by the upper class, the
long-lasting interest of which is to camouflage the real relations between
social classes and the real characters behind the superficial personalities,
because “it is easier to fish in murky waters”. That is why the majority of the
modern psychologists are still snake-oil merchants and quacks who tend to follow
the vast majority of the writers of the previous centuries, who, though they
were concentrating their attention on studying a character, yet did not discern
it as rigidly dependable on the social role or status its owner had. Neither
Confucius and Plato nor Nietzsche and Freud discerned a person’s character or
ethic as rigidly dependable on the social class of that person.
Those writers were rather synthetic than analytic sociologists; but without
prior correct analysis and sorting out the apples by their size and quality,
they could not yet synthesize the correct social theory. That is why they mixed
up into an unmanageable pile of soul knowledge the upper-class character and its
underlying ethic of integrity, fidelity, and courage with the middle-class
ideals of simplicity, modesty, judiciousness, industriousness, and moderation,
and with the lower-class inspirations of humility, patience, and compassion.
The modern searchers of the knowledge of the soul perceived that pile of
knowledge as unmanageable, thus resolving to gather a new pile, which soon
became equally unmanageable because they accentuated the personality, the public
image of an individual, dismissing his social class allegiance. The modern
psychology of personality stresses behaviors, attitudes, techniques, and skills
that only lubricate and nourish the social interaction but are not the
characters of a certain social class, which are the yolk of that interaction.
That is why its precepts of positive mental attitude (PMA) look like stale
clichés, such as ‘your altitude depends on your attitude,’ where the modern
psychologists consciously omitted two words ('social' and 'political'), thus
castrating their seemingly right precept. However, in fact, as individuals, we
are what we are as the social beings by what we do for living, not by what we
try to mask as our inability to comply with the survival requirement of a
particular social class. By in large, the precepts of the personality psychology
are incompatible with the ethic of a particular social class because they were
designed to deceive and manipulate the members of other genders, ages, and
social classes in the process of the survival of the fittest.
My study of perception led me to experience the difference between what I know
as the definite truth (which I have got with the milk of my mother and through
comparing the words and deeds of surrounding me people during forty some years)
and what I only subconsciously feel as an indefinite and unidentified truth. I
am not suggesting that you should throw a child out with the dirty water. Such
techniques of personality psychology as training of the basic communicative
skill and PMA can be beneficial in the student stage of your life, but may
become useless and even harmful to you when your profession de foi, your credo
of faith or ethic became definite and you are mature enough for the real
citizenry. When you know your limitations and have already worked out your
character, your ethic, in a snap of a finger you will understand to whom it is
relevant when your guru, your political leader preaches a new “decency
standard”.
Going back to the observation of the above-mentioned study of the college
students, I should say that surveyors quizzed hundreds of students in the United
States and South Korea, looking for their most satisfying and unsatisfying
college experiences. Consequently, Sheldon reported that, "There weren't many
money experiences listed, but the few students who did list those… we asked
about the moods when they had them; and the moods tended to be less positive."
Thus, the surveyors concluded that the most satisfying experiences of students
stemmed from fulfillment of their basic four needs of autonomy, competence,
relatedness (compassion), and self-esteem and the most unsatisfying experiences
corresponded to the lack of those needs. Popularity-influence and money-luxury
were at the bottom of the list of necessities; and health, security, meaning and
pleasure were ranked mid-way between the primary and secondary needs.
However, the problem with this sort of surveys is that most of them tend to
study the average colleges with the population that nearly utterly came from the
middle class. I would bet 95 bucks against your 5 that if such a survey would be
done in a community college, the results would be reversed – money and
popularity would prevail over privacy and compassion.
Sheldon reports that self-esteem was the paramount of needs among the surveyed
American students, and relatedness was the paramount of needs among the Koreans.
Again, I would bet 95 bucks against your 5 that the majority of the surveyed
Americans came from the middle class and the majority of the surveyed Korean
students came from the upper class who already have money, influence, and
security, but lack self-esteem and compassion.
Sheldon claims that past studies, which have shown that while the upper-class
Americans have been getting richer in recent decades, their emotional well-being
has not improved, and that wealthier people generally are no happier as a group
than the less well-off, also support his conclusion. He also claims that an
October 1997 survey may support his idea that people need fulfillment from
sources other than money, although he did not specify what the social status of
those “people”. Sheldon also cited along with Nancy Bunn, spokeswoman for Burke
Incorporated of Cincinnati, the contractor that conducted the March 1998 survey,
published in the American Demographics magazine. That survey found that
42 percent of Americans would keep their current job even if they won at least
$10 million in the lottery, and this percentage was even higher among the older
than 45 respondents. It is a pity, but those surveys did not mentioned what
class-jobs were those of those would-be the lottery winners. The surveyors
conveniently ”forgot” to study if those jobs were “white-collar” or
“blue-collar” jobs, because their conventional wisdom tells them they would not
get paid for such a kind of study.
Sheldon admits that his new “study” is limited because it did not extend beyond
college students, who often and by-in-large do not have extensive experience
with personal finances and earning a living. That lack of life experience among
those students, as well as their class-affiliation, raises questions even among
the state bureaucrats, such as Margaret DeFrancisco, director of the New York
Lottery, who points out that money often is connected to the other nine factors
the “study” measured, including security and autonomy. She questioned such
surveys, emphasizing her own experience with lottery winners:
"Don't they realize that having economic
independence allows you to call more of your shots? What it gives them is a
sense of financial security. Where you and I budget from month to month, they do
not have to do that any more … they always know their bills will be paid."
DeFrancisco adds that on rare occasions the lottery
winners do say they will keep their jobs, but it is questionable if they
actually do that. DeFrancisco cites the case of a 26-year-old Brooklyn
school-teacher who plans to keep her job despite winning $65 million on November
4, 2000. However, nobody has been reporting yet if she keeps her promise.
DeFrancisco adds that, "For her, her job was going to keep her grounded, and it
was about relationships and it was about comfort".
However, if the new level of comfort and aesthetic will outweigh the previous
one, what will that school-teacher do? Has she a character, and will she insist
on her teaching profession, and more importantly, for how long? That remains to
be seen, as well as whether or not the upper-class psychologists and
sociologists will gather their guts and study the real needs of the real people,
who make their living in a class-society, not in a nitty-gritty, plain,
homogeneous, and thus chameleonic, society.
The scarce economic and hostile political condition of ancient Greece compelled
the Athenian upper class to rely on the common sense of commoners. Thus, the
traditional model of social hierarchy on the city-state level of human social
organization (which had embraced the late tribal experience of building the
monarchical bureaucracy that drew its final authority from the divine power and
right of kings) had been transformed into the “new” model of the republican
bureaucracy (which had based on the early tribal experience of policy making,
when the authority of bureaucrats had come of the people, by the people, and for
the people). The republican form of bureaucracy had unleashed tremendous energy
and ingenuity of the commoners, creating a new and higher standard of living in
liberty for the majority of the Athenian aristocrats and commoners. However, the
Athenian personality (its bureaucrats) had not matched the Athenian character
(its commoners and slaves) on the national level of its organization when the
former tried to transform selves into a Greek State. The combined energy of the
aristocrats and commoners had proved to be not enough to outweigh the gravity of
the combined external forces of the Spartan, Macedonian, and Persian aristocrats
and the internal forces of slaves, who became the quantitative majority of the
Athenian population.
The republican form of bureaucracy on the state level yet had to be developed on
the Italian soil. It also raised the bar of living conditions of the Roman
aristocrats and commoners comparatively with their Athenian counterparts.
However, when they had dared to transform their republican bureaucracy into an
imperial one, it had faded into a monarchical oblivion for 19 centuries. Only
when the aristocrats and commoners of the United States of America had secured
their quantitative and qualitative majority over the minority of slaves and the
external foes after a civil war, their personality, their republican bureaucracy
has managed to survive on the imperial level of human organization for nearly a
century and a half, thus, helping to create a new and unprecedented standard of
living of the majority.
What I am trying to say that you can look upon your government as on your
(people's) personality, which is a fair reflection of your (people's) character.
If you still do not have the faintest idea of what I am talking about, then, let
me rephrase what I said previously, using the Socratic method. Imagine that you
are witnessing a dispute between Plato and Aristotle in the modern garden of
Academia.
Plato: I admit that my previous conditioning can influence my present
perception, as some psychological experiments with children and student
demonstrate. For instance, most children perceive a short but large glass with
200 ml of orange juice as a smaller one comparatively with a tall but narrow
glass with 200 ml of orange juice (image 301). Moreover, if you have looked
first at the image 302 for five seconds, then -- at the image 303, and compare
your impression with that one of another person who have looked first at the
image 304, then -- at the image 303. However, your counterpart should not see
the image 302. It is more likely that both of your impressions from the image
303 would be different.
Those demonstrations show how deeply our previous conditioning affects our
present perception and the following ideas. If five seconds of conditioning can
have a dramatic impact on our impression, then what can do a life-time
conditioning through family members, school and work associates and friends? But
how deeply my environment can influence my ideas, my ethic and aesthetic, my
navigation-map in my society? Have I the innate ideas at all? Or all of them
provided by my nurturance, as you, Aristotle, contend?
My Theory of Ideas asserts that despite a certain affect of my environment on my
aesthetic and personality, my innate ideas and character are the primary and the
most important ones. Consequently, my attitude and behavior can hardly be
changed by the external attitudes and behaviors of other people. We tend to
think that we can be "objective" and "open-minded". However, our stand on an
issue is largely predetermined by in what social class we were born.
When I describe the image that is in the middle, I describe it from my right
prospective, but you can describe it from your left prospective. The 3D fact can
have many facets, each of which by itself do not negate the fact in its
entirety. However, you and me may interpret this fact with different facets and
assumptions that depend on my or your experience that, in its turn, depends on
my or your place and time of birth.
The more aware and literate we are of our experience and assumptions, the more
we can take responsibility for our ideas or mental maps, the more objective we
are, and the more we can examine and test them against reality. Thus, we get a
larger and a far more objective view than those illiterate and subjective of us,
who, being confronted with an opposite opinion, tend to think that something is
wrong with the opponent and he should be delivered to a shrink or an inquisitor
for a thorough evaluation.
Aristotle: Most of your saying is quite right on the money. However, the
main obstacle for me is -- how I can "objectively," "scientifically" measure the
quantity and quality of the ideas I received through my genes (internally), and
the quantity and quality of the ideas I have got through my environment
(externally)? Would it be the same kind of measurements, with which our shrinks
measure our IQs (Intelligence Quotients) today? Of course, such measurements
always tend to be relative to place and time. However, if we would find a way to
know the opinion of the majority of at least three consecutive generations of
the peoples (without relation to nationality and class, though it is impossible
today for the technological and political difficulties) on this matter, then,
and only then, we would be close enough to say that one of the two cases is
surely primordial; that is, beyond reasonable doubt or above 95% surety.
Otherwise, we should continue to use the preponderance of evidence or the more
than 50% of surety for such statements as, that "our innate ideas define our
character" and "our nurturance or environment defines our personality, not
character".
And even if we would be bold enough to make such statements, we should remember
that from your perception demonstration follows that our navigational maps shift
time to time, when someone suddenly sees a composite fact in non-collaborative,
non-customarily way. The more an individual is bound by his initial perception,
his prior experience, the more powerful the "Eureka!" experience he would have,
discovering a new facet of the fact that would light it in a new direction and
would enlighten him from a new prospective. It is as though a light were
suddenly turned on the inside of him, necessitating his customarily ideas to
make a quantum leap, breaking with an old tradition and starting a new one.
Ptolemy, an Egyptian astronomer, summing up the experience of the ancient people
about the earth placed this planet at the center of the universe. But Copernicus
and Galileo looked at fact from a different prospective, lighting it brighter
and more colorful, though, for a beginning, creating a chaos in the minds of the
majority of the peoples and necessitating the latter to persecute those
discoverers because it was, is, and will be easier to the majority than to
change own customs. Although the majority could justify and comfort itself by
saying that the sun in not the center of universe either but only the solar
system, it would be a pity and pathetic comfort, because such a jingoism has
little or no explanatory and predictive value of the facts of life that is
necessary for the welfare, prosperity, and happiness of that same majority.
For two centuries, the Newtonian clockwork model of physical facts has been the
basis of engineering, though it has been somewhat dull, boring, and incomplete,
until physical science has been revolutionized at the beginning of the 20th
century by Planck’s quantum theory and Einstein's theory of relativity, which
have been much more explanatory and predictive for the happiness of the
majority. In addition, until the germ theory has been developed, a high
percentage of children have died during childbirth, because no one could explain
and predict it. In the multitude of wars, more men have died from scratches and
dysentery than from the serious wounds. However, as the germ theory has managed
to show up to the majority of peoples its benefits, it has dramatically
buttressed an old theory of minority -- to wash hands before dinner. Moreover,
the federal government of the United States of America has been a fruit of the
18th century thinkers, who have re-considered an old idea of a republican
bureaucracy in a State. This theory has been applied twice on the imperial or
federal level of human organization, but has failed once nearly two millennia
before, in the Roman Empire, and for the second time -- in the French Empire.
Thus, a new facet of the theory of human organizations has been discovered,
conceiving an idea that the imperial or federal bureaucracy can be republican,
instead of being customarily the monarchical one. Nearly a century later, when
this idea has developed and materialized into a federal bureaucracy of the
people, by the people, and for people, then, the American majority has begun to
taste the sweet fruit of the repulsive energy and ingenuity of the minority.
Thereafter, the majority has proceeded, standing on the shoulders of titans,
with a creation of a standard of life and liberty unequaled in the history of
mankind. Imagine what would be the standard of life and liberty, when our
progeny would manage to create a republican bureaucracy of a federation of
empires of the Earth.
Although the pendulum of human development is moving back and forth, in progress
and in regress, depending on the prosperity and happiness of the majority, the
measurements of our prosperity and happiness still are a vague, caprice, and
subjective trade of a handful of statisticians and their respondents, whose
interpretations of the facts hardly can be labeled as the "objective" or
"scientific" ones. Therefore, I would prefer, unless our indexing techniques
would improve dramatically, to refer to the "nature vs. nurture" controversy as
to an empty and scholastic one. In my book, both sorts of ideas (innate and
acquired) have an equal influence on our character and personality, on our ethic
and aesthetic.
Plato: Well, we are not living in an imperial empire and we do not have
the precise instruments to measure our prosperity and happiness, but being on a
low stage of our development does not mean that we ought to lie down and watch
out while time is passing by and we somehow will be mellowed. Copernicus,
Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck, and Einstein had not those instruments, which
the modern astronomers and physicists have; nevertheless, those handfuls have
managed to level the ground of macro- and microphysics for the present
multitude. So did Ham Mu-rabi, Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Soroaster, Solon,
Socrates, Christ, Justinian, Mahommat, and several others, who have been
leveling the ground of the external and internal psychology for the multitude of
the contemporary psychiatrists, lawyers, and politicians.
Not all quantum leaps were progressive. Some of them were regressive, such as
did the modern psychologists, who have jumped from the character psychology or
ethics to the personality psychology or aesthetic and have drawn the rest of us
away from the very roots that nourish our prosperity and happiness. However,
whether those leaps are progressive or regressive, they move us from one way of
perceiving the world to another. Moreover, those quantum leaps create powerful
change in molding our role models and our navigational maps in a society,
whether they are politically "correct" or "incorrect," because they are the
sources of our attitudes and deep relationships with others.
Many people experience similar quantum leaps in thinking when they face a
life-threatening crisis or when they suddenly necessitated to step into other
people's shoe -- their priorities suddenly change and their life is colored in a
different light. We could spend years laboring with the personality psychology,
trying to change externally our attitudes and behaviors and still be unable to
overcome our internal resistance, though those attitudes could be changed in a
snap of a finger if the place and time are right. It is obvious to me that if I
want to change my living conditions slightly, I can focus on my attitudes, on my
personality. However, if I want to change them significantly, I need a quantum
leap in order to work out my basic character.
Aristotle: Here we go again. Why do you muddle so stubbornly through
those meaningless "primary," "fundamental," "essential," and "basic" words? A
man should be handsome entirely -- by his soul or mind; by his body; by his
cloth, shelter, and food; by his books and entertainment. Do you know what our
problem is? We are talking in different tongues... conceptually and literally.
You are using mostly Germanic and Latin words, while I am using English and
Greek words. You based your analysis on studying a few exceptional aristocrats
who have molded the upper-class people, while I am talking about the average
commoners of the middle class.
Plato: But that is where we can find excellence.
Aristotle: That is so typical of you. If you are not a faithful
Clintonoid, then, I assume you are talking about "moral excellence". But this
kind of excellence can be found everywhere. I've already once said, that 'we are
what we repeatedly do. Therefore, excellence is not an act, but a habit.'
Your problem is that you are more a religious synthesizer than a scientific
analyst, though you claim to be an impartial searcher of the truth. To this
time, you cannot discern that each social class has its own standard of
excellence. Bravery and loyalty are the moral paramount of the
aristocrats, daring with deliberation and modesty are the moral paramount
of commoners, and compassion and humility are the ethical standard of
laborers. Or maybe you just want not to discern it, because you are bias to the
aristocrats, because you are one of them, and because your synthetic mixture of
all those characters is profitable to your class, because "it is easier to catch
a fish in the murky waters"?! If it is not so, then, why did you laugh
scornfully over Bush's "compassionate conservativism"? Only because it sounded
grammatically incorrect? Or because it is contradictory in terms? Or because of
both?
I regret this personal attack, but it was necessitated by your staunch
unwillingness to leap onto the commoner's point of view; and if you can swallow
your aristocratic pride, I will continue my analysis without such remarks.
Plato: My wish to go to the bottom of this matter is greater than my
reaction onto your insinuations; so, please continue.
Aristotle: Of course, some quantum leaps can come naturally and
effortlessly, and some -- may require hardy learning and working experience. If
what you mean by the "innate and acquired" ideas, then, I would agree with you,
because some quantum leaps we make to the "innate" ideas occasionally and by the
will of another person (either man or Nature-God), and some quantum leaps we
make to the "acquired" ideas through difficult and deliberate process, using our
own will-power.
Our ideas are inseparable from our character and personality. Being is
sensing and reflecting the external and internal worlds, and reacting onto those
perceptions and reflections from within. And what we perceive is
highly interrelated to who we are to the external world, and how we react
is highly interrelated to what we are internally. We haven't much latitude in
changing our perception without simultaneously changing in our reactions. Our
certain ideas (theories or navigational maps of the internal and external
worlds) are the powerful lens through which we see those worlds. The power or
freshness of a quantum leap depends on whether that change of our theories has
been made through the external and unsuspected force or through the internal and
suspected energy. The former one we usually describe by the adjectives:
spontaneous, extemporaneous, impromptu, genuine; and the latter -- by the
adjectives: deliberate, contemplative, meditative, rationalized. The
former comes through our hearts, and the latter -- through our reasons.
Together, our hearts and reasons comprise our souls, or spirits, or minds. A
soul is a spirit, or a psyche or a mind. Those words mean the same. These words
are different only because they were borrowed from German, Greek and Latin. To
express my idea of that non-physical world, I prefer to use word "soul" as more
Celtic and feminine; you might prefer word "mind" as more masculine and
Germanic; but we can still understand each other. So, a soul comprises of a
reason and a heart. Reason comprises from acquired ideas, which came from
without (through environment). Heart comprises from innate ideas, which came
from within (through genes).
Plato: That has been the easiest part to compromise with, but my Ethic is
based on my Theory of Ideas, which is based on a fundamental idea that there are
the principles of the psychic world that govern human effectiveness and
excellence. Those principles are natural laws that are just as real, just as
unchanging and unarguably "there" as the gravity law is in the physical
world. An idea of the reality (and the impact) of these principles can be
captured in a mental quantum-leap experience as told by Frank Koch in
Proceedings, the magazine of the Naval Institute.
Two battleships assigned to the training squadron
had been at sea on maneuvers in heavy weather for several days. I was serving on
the lead battleship and was on watch on the bridge as night fell. The visibility
was poor with patchy fog, so the captain remained on the bridge keeping an eye
on all activities.
Shortly after dark, the lookout on the wing of the bridge reported, "Light,
bearing on the starboard bow."
"Is it steady or moving astern?" the captain called out.
Lookout replied, "Steady, captain," which meant we were on dangerous collision
course with that ship.
The captain then called to the signalman, "Signal that ship: We are on a
collision course, advise you change course 20 degrees."
Back came a signal, "Advisable for you to change course 20 degrees."
The captain said, "Send, I'm a captain, change course 20 degrees."
"I'm a seaman second class," came the reply. "You had better change course 20
degrees."
By that time, the captain was furious. He spat out, "Send, I'm a battleship.
Change course 20 degrees."
Back came the flashing light, "I'm a lighthouse."
We changed course.
Aristotle: Before you
continue to search the truth with the helping hand of anecdotes and platitudes,
I should notice that the word 'principle' from Latin means the same as 'arch'
from Greek, and both mean 'first, oldest, or main'. If your psychic world based
on many principles, then, it is based on many laws. Therefore, you had better
pick a "fundamental" law among those "principles" of yours, in order to convince
me that the "reality" might be "physically" separated into two worlds --
physical and psychic, and that such a separation can be possible "outside" of
our subjective minds. Only then, it would constitute for me the "objective" or
"scientific" proof of such existence.
As to your anecdotal captain -- he should take a course in communicative skills.
Leaving their kindergartens, most children leave their egocentric notions
behind. They already understand that if one would imagine that he is the Captain
Hook, he would not be in charge for an entire school situation, because there,
somewhere is the Peter Pan. If that captain, instead of commanding, would ask
that lighthouse guardian -- "We are on a collision course, can you change course
20 degrees?" -- the explosive situation would probably be diffused at that
point. And in reality, it probably was; but Mr. Koch imagined another and more
laughable twist to the situation, in order to sell the story to the magazine.
Plato: Very well, Senior student. I see you become quite knowledgeable in
foreign tongues. However, as you can see from my example of mental quantum
leaping, that captain has had a limited perception at that place and in that
time. His mental map of reality did not match with the reality and therefore was
overcome by the reality. Principles are like the lighthouses of reality. They
are natural laws that cannot be broken. Someone said that, "It is impossible to
us to break the law. We can only break ourselves against the law."
Aristotle: Apparently not all of us see the laws of the spiritual world
in that way; otherwise, O. J. Simpson and Mr. Clinton would be happily resting
in a prison by now, as did the majority of commoners and laborers who committed
the same kind of crimes. But because those two clowns were among the rich and
famous who wrote those laws for others, not for themselves, they could break a
law or two and got away with it. If, of course, your "the law" is not the same
as my "a law". However, it would the smallest problem around here. The biggest
problem is hidden in your comparison of the captain's mental map with the
mental-physical reality. Your "principles" are not "like" the "lighthouses of
reality". The former are only the pale and blurred picture of the reflections of
the latter, because the "lighthouses of reality" are the unity of physical
(structures and instruments) and mental (people, who can maintain those
structures and operate those instruments). But the principles are only the
mental maps, whatever degree of clarity they are. Of course, we can argue until
the Greek calends about the meaning of the word "like," because of the
subjective nature of any comparison; but such arguing would lead us nowhere.
Plato: E-u-key, I admit that most of the people consider their individual
experience and conditioning as the base for the building of their knowledge, for
their mental maps of the territory on which they live and operate, forming their
mental abilities into their principles, which are necessary for the speedy and
effective operation of that territory. But those mental maps of their territory
are not the territory itself. Those maps are a "subjective reality," only an
attempt to describe the territory. Whatever degree of accuracy our mental maps
of the territory have, they are the "subjective reality," and they do not alter
the existence of the territory itself. The latter is the "objective reality,"
which is composed of "lighthouse'' principles that govern human growth and
happiness -- natural laws that permeate every civilized society throughout
history and comprise the roots of every family and institution that has endured
and prospered. The reality of such principles or natural laws becomes obvious to
anyone who thinks deeply and examines the cycles of social history. These
principles surface repeatedly, and degree to which people recognize and live in
harmony with the principles moves them toward either survival and stability or
disintegration and destruction.
These principles are not mysterious or specifically religious and esoteric
ideas, but they are the crux of nearly all enduring ethical systems, social
philosophies, and religions. They are self-evident and can be easily
validated by any individual, because they are part of the human consciousness
and conscience. They seem to exist in all human beings, regardless of social
conditioning and loyalty to them, even though they might be submerged or numbed
by the particular social conditions. One of such principles is the idea of
fairness, out of which the concept of equity and justice has
been developing. Little children seem to have an innate sense of the idea of
fairness even apart from opposite conditioning experiences. There are vast
differences in how fairness is defined and achieved, but there is almost
universal awareness of the idea.
Another fundamental principle would be integrity or honesty, which
create foundation of trust which is essential to cooperation and long-term
personal and interpersonal growth. Another fundamental principle is human
dignity. The form of this concept was thus molded in our Declaration of
Independence -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are
created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that
among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Another important
principle is service, or the idea of contributing. Another important
principle is quality or excellence. Moreover, there is the
principle of growth and potential, the idea that we are embryonic
and have potential to grow and to develop more and more of our abilities, of our
talents. The latter principle is usually accompanied by such principles as
patience, nurturance, and encouragement.
Principles are not practices. A practice is a specific activity or action. A
practice that works in one circumstance will not necessarily work in another, as
parents who have tried to raise a second child exactly like they did the first
can readily attest. While practices are specific to each situation, principles
are fundamental truths that have universal application. They apply to
individuals, to marriages, to families, to private and public organizations of
every kind. When these truths are internalized into habits, they empower people
to create a wide variety of practices to deal with different situations.
Principles are not values. A gang of thieves can share values, but they are in
violation of the fundamental principles we are talking about. Principles are the
territory. Values are maps. When we value correct principles, we have truth --
knowledge of things as they are.
Principles are guidelines for human conduct that are proven to have enduring,
permanent value. They are fundamental. They are essentially unarguable because
they are self-evident. One way to quickly grasp the self-evident nature of
principles is to simply consider the absurdity of attempting to live an
effective life based on their opposites. I doubt that anyone would seriously
consider unfairness, deceit, baseness, uselessness, mediocrity, or degeneration
to be a solid foundation for lasting happiness and success. Although people may
argue about how these principles are defined, manifested, or achieved, there
seems to be an innate consciousness and awareness that they exist.
The more closely our mental maps or models are aligned with these principles or
natural laws, the more accurate and functional they will be. Correct maps will
infinitely affect our personal and interpersonal effectiveness far more than any
amount of effort expended on changing our attitudes and behaviors.
Aristotle: Wow-wow-wow! That was a huge stream of consciousness or,
should I say, "subjective reality". Halt your horses; otherwise, we will fall
into another trap. Firstly, the plural subjectivity (the subjectivity of
many people) is not the same as the individual subjectivity. When the mental
maps of the majority of living and breathing New Yorkers are congruent and are
published by their government, a traveler can conclude that those maps of New
York are reasonably correct and "objective," because with 95% or more
probability they would match with the territory itself, and thus, would lead him
to the Pen-station on certain time. On the other hand, if such a traveler has no
money to buy a commonly used map, he can find a long-time resident of New York
and ask him for direction. Then, the traveler might be sure with 50% of
probability or more that he would be at his destination on time. But if he would
prefer to be guided by an old book with a Lipshoviz's map of New York of 1889,
then he would hardly be in that place on time. In the last scenario, the
traveler would act on a "definitely subjective reality". Forget for a while
about "surety," I will return to it later, when I will dissect your "fairness"
and "trust".
Secondly, both of your "subjective and objective" realities are
abstractions and have no separate from each other existence, except as in our
minds, which are the "subjective reality," though attached to the "objective
reality" of our bodies. Therefore, not the "lighthouse'' principles govern human
growth and happiness but the humans, who have those principles, govern
themselves, and govern either toward "growth and happiness" or toward
degradation and misery. To say that -- 'natural laws permeate every civilized
society throughout history and comprise the roots of every family and
institution that has endured and prospered' -- is to say a platitude, because
the "natural laws" are the "subjective reality," which is an inseparable part of
the reality. As well as the "civilized society" is the "objective reality,"
which is another inseparable part of the reality. And because these parts are
inseparable, they necessarily permeate each other.
Thirdly, once again you mixed up those principles into a garbage pile,
which I have to separate and put those principles in order by their allegiance
to a certain social class. Integrity, courage and excellence are
the ideals of the aristocrats; human dignity, modesty, deliberation, and
effectiveness are the paramount of the commoners; patience, nurturance,
and compassion are the values of the laborers. When an aristocrat told you
that something or someone "demoralized" his soldiers, he actually meant that
something or someone made his soldiers coward and disloyal. When a commoner told
you that something or someone demoralized him, he meant that he could not be
judicious and productive at that moment. One class acknowledges passively the
presence of principles of other classes but acts mainly on its own ideals.
Probably that is why those few ideals are called "principles". Only fairness
seems to belong equally to every class; though, as you admitted "fairly,"
each class defines it differently. What is "fair" for an aristocrat might be not
so fair for a laborer, and vice versa. However, the universality of the idea of
fairness permits all social classes to cooperate with each other and
enables some members of one class to evolve into another one. Probably that is
why out of the ideal of fairness the concept of equity and
justice has been developing.
Fourthly, "principles are not practices," you said; and it is another
platitude. Of course, they are not, because they are a cumulative effect of
those practices. Principles are the "subjective reality" that could become the
"objective reality," but still would be abstractions. However, practices are the
reality itself, and the reality is specific, although it can include
abstractions into itself as the final product of its own reflections. Reality is
the moving matter that creates a particular space and time. Abstraction, on the
other hand, is unmovable, and therefore, spaceless and timeless. Probably that
is why a few abstract principles can be helpful in a multitude of particular
circumstances and be applied "to individuals, to marriages, to families, to
private and public organizations of every kind". However, when these "truths"
would be applied habitually, they would help their owners to be more effective,
but they would not "empower people to create a wide variety of practices to deal
with different situations," because people do not "create" any situation only by
their own wills but just resolve or reform it more or less effectively. Unless,
of course, your "empowering" is one and the same as my "to be effective".
Fifthly, you said that, "principles are the territory, and they are not
values, because the latter are maps;" but I respectfully disagree. Principles
are values, and both are the mental maps, which are abstractions. If you say
that my values somewhat different from my principles -- values would be
condensed after three years of practice, but after six years of practice they
would turn into principles; then, I am asking -- why my values could not turn
into my principles in the forth or fifth year of my practicing? Hmm? Therefore,
principles are values, and both are abstractions. However, the territory is the
reality, which can include those abstractions in self, but only as a puny part
of itself. You said that, "a gang of thieves can share values, but they are in
violation of the fundamental principles". However, the written history, from
Moses’ gang of thieves and thugs to the Marxist gangs of thieves and thugs,
shows time and time again that when those thieves and thugs could managed to
capture the bureaucratic apparatus of a State and became the newly-minted
aristocrats, then, their values would become the prevailing principles of that
new society; even though the originators of those principles would be a tiny
minority.
You say that, "when we value correct principles, we have truth -- a knowledge of
things as they are," and this saying could be a truth if you would define --
who, when, and how would define the "correctness" of those principles?? Does it
mean that you, as the "wisest", will define the "correct principles" for me, or
I can do it on my own? Then, what would be the criterion of "correctness"? Who,
where, when, and why would be "incorrect"? Principles are abstractions, and as
such, they are the condensed portraits of a gazillion of the past reflections of
the reality; therefore, they are rarely if ever match precisely with the new
situations. You can say that the general features of a particular situation
could be resolve by applying a certain principle, but some particular details
would be the flavors of that situation, which require new techniques in order to
enjoy them. That is where we can find the difference between an innovation and
an invention. As you said, "Principles are guidelines for human conduct that are
proven to have enduring, permanent value." However, here, you contradict your
previous statement that "principles are not values". So, what are they?
Moreover, to whom and how the durability of those principles should be proven?
You said that, "Principles are fundamental. They are essentially unarguable
because they are self-evident. One way to quickly grasp the self-evident nature
of principles is to simply consider the absurdity of attempting to live an
effective life based on their opposites. I doubt that anyone would seriously
consider unfairness, deceit, baseness, uselessness, mediocrity, or degeneration
to be a solid foundation for lasting happiness and success. The more closely our
maps... are aligned with these principles or natural laws, the more accurate and
functional they will be. Correct maps will infinitely affect our personal and
interpersonal effectiveness far more than any amount of effort expended on
changing our attitudes and behaviors." Speaking in plain English, it means that
the more my personal principles would be match to the principles of the majority
of the people, the more effective and happy I would be. However, the written
history shows that most majorities of the peoples have considered those own
members as "heroes" and as "excellent and politically correct," who have been
unfair, deceitful, and grave toward the internal and external
"enemies" of the majority of a people. Suddenly, after all, not even the "Ten
Commandments" are so self-evident, as you try to picture them. Nevertheless, the
most important for me question is -- what social classes comprise that majority,
which defines my personal effectiveness and happiness?
Plato: Yeah! I would like that too, but right now, my ideas are circling
about one place. So, in order to be effective for the rest of the day, I have to
visit a men's room.
Aristotle: So, your "objective reality" necessitated you to interrupt our
conversation. Did it look like a "lighthouse"? By the way, how are you?
Plato: Thank you. I am fine now and eager to wrestle with you again.
While I was relieving myself, an idea came up to me that the massive appeal of
the present day psychology of personality and its glittering aesthetic that took
over the majority's minds derives from its recommendation of a "get rich quick"
scheme -- an easy way to achieve a high quality life (personal excellence and
deep and meaningful relationships) without hard working. However, trying quick
fixes to get high quality results with the techniques of the personality
psychology is the same as using pills of the snake oil merchants instead of
habitual diet and working out, and both of these techniques are as much
effective as trying to get the treasure of captain Drake (which he could not
find himself) using his four century old map.
Probably that is why a contemporary average American behaves like a robot, not
knowing or understanding himself. He thinks, he knows own ideal, molded not
critically after a celebrity. But when that actual celebrity fails in a personal
excellence or in a deep relationship, then, the not critical imitator begins to
panic, replaces his genuine laughter with a sarcastic one, and falls into a dull
despair, feeling no genuine pain or joy.
All earthly beings have sequential developmental stages that progress and
regress during their life-span. A child learns to turn over, bores with it,
finds a more interesting occupation -- to sit up; engages into it, bores with
it, finds a more interesting occupation -- crawl; engages into it, bores with
it, finds a more interesting occupation -- to walk... and so forth. Each stage
of development is important and each one takes time; no one can be skipped
without serious consequences. It is true in all developmental stages of any
life-form, in all areas of our occupation, whether it be learning how to operate
a plane, or on a brain, or with a state bureaucracy. It is true with individuals
and with organizations. We know and accept this principle of the
progressively-regressive process in the physical world, but to understand it in
the psychic world is less common, and even more difficult to accept it and to
live in harmony with it. Consequently, the majority of us tends to look for a
shortcut, expecting to skip some of these vital stages in order to save time and
effort and still reap the desired fruit. But what happens when they attempt to
shortcut a natural process of our development?
If you reach only a mediocre level in cooking but decide to open an A-grade
restaurant in the heart of Manhattan, what would result? Would your positive
thinking and clean and fancy entourage of your restaurant enable you to compete
effectively against those, whose meals are tastier than yours? The answer is
obvious. The external cleanliness and orderliness is important, but you should
not forget about the internal orderliness, the main reason why people attend
your restaurant -- the quality of your meals. It is impossible in the long run
to violate or shortcut this development process of learning how to be the best
cook or whoever. It is contrary to the nature of any occupation, in any social
class; and attempting to seek such a shortcut only results in disappointment,
frustration, and the "Moon landing". A Chinese would say that, "a thousand-mile
journey begins with a single step;" and each step is important and necessary if
you want to reach your destination. The same can be said about our learning
process -- admission of ignorance on a subject is the first step in our
education. If you do not allow your teacher to know at what level of knowledge
of a subject you are (by questioning and thus revealing your ignorance), he
would be unable to help you to learn.
To learn effectively how to be the best cook, husband, friend, associates, or
boss, you should learn before else how and what you should listen. Effective
listening is a main feature of character that involves patience, openness,
desire to understand, and most of all -- selectivity. What you are listening to
should be relevant to the goal of your life. Our level of development is fairly
obvious in such family-businesses as cookery, where it is impossible to pretend
for a long time. But it is not so obvious in such occupations as a corporate
leader or an employee and a political leader or an appointee. It's so much
easier for a bureaucrat to operate with low emotions and high reasoning in order
to "pose" or to "put on" for a client or an associate, because the bureaucracy
tends to be partitioned by vertical and horizontal levels of governing. That is
why he can pretend for a long time. He can deceive our entire world that his men
landed on the Moon. He might even deceive his wife and himself; yet, I believe
that sooner or later most of us realize the truth of what we really are on the
inside. Will such realization come through self-critique or through a public
critique depends on how fast and orderly an individual can buttress own
character. Thus, an attempt to shortcut the character development of a corporate
leader, for instance, leads him to try to improve productivity and quality of
his corporation's products and services by using such externally-internal
techniques of the personality psychology as smile training and "motivational"
speeches about new "corporate morale" or such externally-external economic
techniques as mergers, acquisitions, friendly and unfriendly takeovers. A
political leader can skip some developmental stages of own character building by
mimicking the corporate managers by trying to "motivate" people to accept
blindly a new "standard of decency," or by re-districting his constituents and
doctoring their votes, or by shuffling his staff and renaming their chairs and
offices. But both, corporate and political, leaders would still ignore the
low-trust climate produced by such manipulations. When those cheating techniques
don't work, such a "challenged" leader would look for other "quick fix"
techniques that would work in the short run, but would ignore and violate the
natural process of his development in the long run, on which a high-trust
culture is based.
Aristotle: Well, here I have little or nothing to argue with, except
saying that although ' the "normal" heroes always go in roundabout routes to
their destination ', we are going to ours probably in a too crooked way. Aren't
we?
Plato: Well, a boxer ring has to be built before boxers can show to a
large audience their skill on it. So, you have to give me some breathing space,
some lee-way in arranging our dispute in order that not only we alone would
understand what we are arguing about.
Aristotle: Very well. Contributing something into the building process of
that stage of our "fighting," I would like to tell you how I violated the
principle of sequential development and high-trust. Being at the age of puberty
and learning a few pranks in a boy-scout camp, I've decided to check them on my
younger brother, who was seven years old at that time. When our parents left us
alone for the whole day, I told my hungry brother that I would cook macaroni.
"The problem is," I explained to him, "that the moth put its eggs into macaroni;
so, you should blow them off of each macaroni from this 5 lb bag." Then, I've
got outdoor and played a soccer with my friends for three hours. When I've got
back home, my brother was still blowing at that macaroni. I made fun of my
brother for about a half of an hour, then, told him that I was kidding. I took a
handful from that pile of macaroni, from which my brother had diligently blown
off the moth eggs and cooked them; we ate them in silence, and I forgot about
this prank. I've continued to protect my brother from the older boys in school
and in our court-yard; however, his respect and friendliness toward me had gone.
I've tried many ways, including bribes, to de-freeze our relationship, but
without success; because I have not understood the underlying reason, until two
years ago my brother and his daughter have come from Moscow to visit me in New
York. Tired from the long voyage, he quickly became drunk during the dinner and
became aggressive toward me, threatening me, and calling me names. When the dust
settled after our short scuffle, the hidden spring of his anger toward me came
out. As you probably already guessed, it derived from that macaroni monkey-prank
of mine. Even after thirty something years, he still kept a grudge for me;
probably because before that prank, he had believed to every word of mine. Thus,
my own ignorance and bold attempt to become "smart" overnight, as those "older
guys," turned my high-trust relationship with my brother into a low-trust one,
on which we have managed to build only a few muddy huts, instead of building a
new and shiny Empire State Building.
Plato: I impressed with your sincere self-pitying, but I am better off
analyzing others than myself. Therefore I am about to tell you one accident of
my son, who was back then a three year old kindergartener. One day I returned
home and my mother-in-law told me that my little son stole some toys from his
kindergarten, and now defiantly does not want to return them. My mother-in-law
asked me to teach him a lesson for such a selfish display. I was embarrassed
because I felt some expectations of my wife and in-laws, and mostly because I
thought that it was my guilt of kleptomania that passed through genes to him. In
my youth, I often cleared the pockets of the suits of my father, because we
rarely spoke to each other, because my parents lived like a dog and cat; my
mother has learned only after my birth that my father had been previously
married and had a daughter from that marriage and now paid alimony to her
mother. So, it was easier to my mother and me to steal the change from my father
than to ask him for allowance money.
Meanwhile the atmosphere in the room was really charged -- my son was vehemently
refusing to give up on those toys. I said to myself, "Certainly I should teach
him not to be selfish and to return those toys to the kindergarten. The value of
sharing and trusting is the most basic thing I believe in." Thereafter, I first
tried a humble approach -- "Son, would you please return your friends the toys
you took from them?" "No," he replied insolently. I changed tactics a little bit
and used reasoning -- "Son, if everyone would steal toys from the kindergarten,
then, when you would be there, you would have nothing to play with." Once again,
I heard a contemptuous "No!" Obviously, I was having no influence on him. Then I
tried to bribe him. Softly, as I could, I said, "Son, if you return them, I'll
give you a chocolate bar." "I don't want chocolate!" he cried furiously. Now I
was becoming impatient and resorted to fear and threat -- "You will stay in the
corner until you return them!" "I don't care!" -- he cried. "These are my toys.
I don't have to share them with anybody!" Finally, I was exhausted mentally and
resorted to physical force, taking the toys from him and giving them to my
mother-in-law.
Perhaps my son needed the experience of possessing the toys before he could
share them with others. In fact, unless I possess something, can I really share
it or give it away? Probably he needed my support in establishing himself as a
proprietor.
But at that moment, I hadn't the faintest idea about trust and property because
all things and people (including myself) belonged to the State. It meant that I
had to rely my judgment entirely on the opinion of surrounding me elders, who
supposedly knew better how my son and my relationship with him should be
developing. Because I was in agreement with the elders, I concluded that I was
right -- he should share right away, and prolonging his "unlawful possession"
would only prolong our mutual agony. Perhaps I tried to impose on him my own
ambition and aspirations because I was immature, and because ' the sage likes to
learn, the fool loves to teach '.
I was unable to be patient with him, yet I expected him to be patient to his
friends and to share the toys with them. In an attempt to compensate for my
deficiency, I borrowed my authority from the external social forces and forced
him to share those toys and to dissolve his proprietorship over them. However,
borrowing means living dependently; and prolonged dependency builds weakness in
the borrower because it reinforces dependence on the external forces to get
things done while suppressing intrinsic energy of the borrower. This internal
weakness leads to slowing down the development of independent thinking, growth
of morale and self-discipline.
A man who builds his relationships on his internal weakness builds a castle on
the sand. In such a case, fear of death in isolation replaces joy of life in
cooperation, and mutually distrusted people grow gradually more capricious and
defensive. That is what happens when the source of moral strength is borrowed
from an external force, be it social status or bureaucratic authority.
Had I been more mature, I could have relied on my own intrinsic energy (my
understanding of sharing and possessing) and allowed my son to work out his will
as to what, when and how to possess, and what, when and how to share. Perhaps I
could have left him alone with those toys for a day or two so that he could
learn that the joy derived from interacting with friends around those toys, not
from using them in isolation. When he would get a sense of real possession, he
would share very naturally and spontaneously.
My experience has been that there are times to teach my son a lesson or two, and
then, let him go on his own for a while, until another occasion to teach would
come naturally and he would seek my advice. When a relationship is strained and
the air charged with the emotions of many, an uninvited attempt to teach is
often perceived as judgmental, rejecting, and taking sides. But teaching my son
man-to-man, without the emotions of outsiders and openly discussing the
"difficult" problems, seems have much greater impact on both of us. Probably at
that time, I lacked the moral maturity to be patient, because I did not have
intrinsic control and possession of myself. Perhaps my own sense of possession
of him and sharing him with the world needed to come before I could teach him
genuine sharing. Many people, who compelled by the external forces to give up or
to share things in their marriages and other social organizations, may never
have a sense of possessing, which evolves in a sense of identity and
self-esteem.
Really helping our children to mature and to work out their own
wills-to-take-and-to-give (to take what they need and to give away what they do
not need) may involve being patient enough to allow them the sense of
possession. After that, teaching the value of giving and providing the example
ourselves would be much easier and more rewarding. Because the process of
learning never really stops, I am recommending to the grown-ups to remember that
any recommendation you make will reflect directly on you. If you recommend a
good quality product or service that is reasonably priced, your listeners or
clients will continue to trust you and be interested in your future advice or
recommendation. If your listeners or clients have a bad experience with your
advice, product, or service, they will likely hesitate to act on any new advice
or offer you give them.
So, be sure that you do your homework before recommending anything to your
listeners or clients. Try the product or service yourself, and experience the
consequences of your advice on yourself before you give it to others. Study the
product or advice, feel it with your own five senses; talk to other people who
have experienced and bought it. Make sure that you are recommending a high
quality advice or product that comes from you or your associates who offer great
advice or service. Following through your advice or service for ten years may
result in conditions when your reputation or moral authority will work for you
and your progeny for two hundred years. Thus, spending your intrinsic energy in
a simple arithmetical progression would provide you with the extrinsic force in
geometric progression. Therefore, do not ever promote something that would hurt
your reputation!
Aristotle: I will try, but the majority of people are not accustomed to
live their entire lives on high principles, though they are intrigued and awed
by the good things happening in the lives of certain "exceptional" individuals
and organizations that were promoting those principles. They admire such
personal strength maturity, such family unity and teamwork, such adaptive
organizational culture. And their immediate request is very revealing of their
basic model of living. "How did you accomplish that? Teach me the techniques."
What they are really asking for -- "Give me some quick fix advice or solution
that will relieve the pain in my present situation". And they would find the
snake oil merchants who would teach them that all the pain derives from the
external things. In a short run, skills and techniques might appear to work,
cosmetically eliminating some of the acute problems through social placebo.
However, the underlying chronic intrinsic condition remains, and soon, acute
symptoms would re-appear and the pain would become unbearable. The more people
concentrate their attention on their acute pain and its quick fix through the
external things, the more that approach contributes to the underlying intrinsic
condition. The majority of the people perceive the majority of their problems as
coming from the outside; and this way of perception is one more problem for
them. Thus, the impact of preferring Personality over Character takes its toll
on all organizational levels of humankind -- in a family, in an institution, in
a State, and in an Empire.
Plato: What you just said is even more precise that I wanted to say. Look
at some letters of my prospective disciples -- they all pointed in the
direction, you just described so clearly.
--My marriage has gone flat. We don't fight or anything; we just do not love
each other anymore. We've gone to counseling we've tried a number of things, but
we just can't seem to rekindle the feeling we used to have. The propagandists of
the personality psychology tell me there must be some new book or some support
group where people get all their feelings out that would help my wife understand
me better. Or maybe that it's useless, and only a new relationship will provide
the love I need. But is it possible that my spouse isn't the real problem? Could
I be empowering my spouse's weaknesses and making my life a function of the way
I'm treated? Do I have some basic model of life with my wife in our different
stages of development, and how our age influences our mutual love and
understanding?
--I've taken course after course on effective management training. I've tried a
half a dozen different planning systems. They've helped a little bit, but I
still don't feel I'm living the happy, productive, peaceful life I want to live.
The aesthetes and personality psychologists teach me there must be something out
there -- some new planner or seminar that will help me handle all these
pressures in a more efficient way. But is there a chance that efficient
time-table is not the answer to my problem? Is getting more unappreciated things
done in less time going to make a difference or will it just increase the pace
at which I react to the people and circumstances that seem to control my life?
Could there be something I need to see in a deeper, more fundamental way -- the
goal of life that affects the way I see my own nature, my time, my life, and my
surroundings? I expect a lot out of my employees, I work hard to be friendly
toward them and to treat them right. But I don't feel any loyalty from them. I
think if I were absent for a week, they'd spend most of their time chatting at
the water fountain. Why can't I train them to be independent and responsible --
or find employees who can be? The motivational speakers teach me to take some
kind of dramatic action (shake things up, make heads roll) that would make my
employees shape up and appreciate what they have. Or that I could find some
motivational training program that would get them committed. Or even that I
could hire new people that would do a better job. But is it possible that
showing apparently disloyal behavior, they are really questioning whether I act
in their best interest? Or may it be that they feel like I'm treating them as
robots? Is there a chance the way I look at them is part of my unhappiness?
Aristotle: Can you see how fundamental are our goals of life, on which our
characters depend? They are essential because they affect the very way we see
our problems as well as the way we attempt to solve them? Whether the majority
of the people see it or not, many of them are becoming disillusioned with the
empty promises of snake oil merchants. As I mentioned previously, the majority
of industry captains are simply turned off by the personality psychologists and
"motivational" speakers who have nothing more to offer than entertaining stories
mingled with platitudes and clichés.
Do not take my last invective on your own account. You are focusing on the
principles that, if harnessed correctly, may bring long-term happiness; but I am
speaking against those quacks and shamans who used to use social placebo to
solve our chronic intrinsic problems. A fundamental problem cannot be solved on
the superficial (either on ego- or super-ego-centric) level of thinking. I need
a deeper level of thinking that based on my goal of life, on my principles that
accurately describe my territory, in order to solve the deep concerns of mine
and of the people who surround me. This quantum leap of thinking is a balanced
character-personality, "outside-in and inside-out" approach to social and
individual effectiveness and happiness. "Outside-in and inside-out" approach
means to start studying first from society, then turn on studying self, then
repeating the process several times for correcting your mental map (your
principles), and only then trying to apply those principles to the reality in
order to change the reality.
However, to address the past wrong-doing of the personality psychologists, you,
of course, would promote the development of character or "inside-out" approach
to social and individual effectiveness and happiness. And it would mean to bend
a crooked stick into another, and also extreme, direction. But extremism of any
kind cures one rarely if ever, more often it kills.
To be an effective and happy individual, start from studying the society and its
levels of governing in order to work outside-in your personality and ambitions.
This process of studying should be intertwine with the inside-out studying of
own desires that would sharpen your ambitions into your goal of life and into
your character. Thus, if you want to be a happily married person, find a spouse
whose goal of life (character and personality) would be congruent with yours,
and be the kind of person who balances negative energy and positive gravity of
your family. If you want to be a trusted political or economic leader and to
have more freedom in your work, be more responsible to your constituents and
keep your promises, be more demanding to yourself and a more helpful to others.
The outside-in and inside-out approach to social and individual effectiveness
and happiness based on a premise that private success goes along with public
success, that making and keeping promises to ourselves go along with making and
keeping promises to others. Here again, you would say that private success goes
before public success, but how would you rectify this intertwine process. It
would mean that we would mire again into the scholastic chicken-egg controversy.
Therefore, my approach is based on a premise that it is futile to put either
personality or character ahead of each other while trying to improve
relationships with other people, on which our effectiveness and happiness
depend.
The outside-in and inside-out approach to social and individual effectiveness
and happiness is a continuing process of reflection of the life renewal that
leads some individuals to discern the natural laws that govern the universe,
including human upward and downward spiral progress. This process of reflecting
the reality and discerning its laws is the same kind of a modeling process that
guides a sculptor while he is cutting out the superfluous material of a stone
that would-be a sculpture. However, his sculpture would not be alive. And also
the outside-in laws of the followers of the personality psychologists would be
the dead laws, unless they were taken in and adopted into a character by
someone, and applied to the objective world -- only then, they become the living
and breathing laws of that someone.
I have had the opportunity to work with many talented people who have longed to
achieve success and happiness. I have worked with scientists, businessmen, and
politicians, but I have never seen long-lasting solutions to problems,
long-lasting personal happiness and social success that came either from the
only outside-in or from the only inside-out approach -- either from economic
necessity and political force or from monastic loneliness and asceticism.
Those of them, who have tried either extreme, felt either being victimized by
the surroundings or being immobilized by the intrinsic emptiness and ignorance.
Some of those unhappy people were focusing on the objective reality, on the
weaknesses of other people and circumstances they felt were responsible for
their own unhappiness. Thus, in their unhappy marriages, they have wanted that
the other spouse would change. The result was that either of them tried
unsuccessfully to confess the "sins" of the other and to shape up the other
while leaving intact own ego. As Mark Twain once said, "Nothing so needs
reforming as other people's habits". I have seen union and party disputes where
people were spending tremendous amounts of repulsive energy trying to create
legislation that would mandate the intervention of the external political
bureaucracy into the internal economic affairs of the people as though the the
latter really entrusted the former to do so.
Some of those unhappy people were focusing on the subjective reality. However,
this approach led them to the extreme skepticism, negation of any kind of
worldly success and happiness, and negation of the real world itself while
preferring the imaginary world. Recall the first rule of Buddha -- "Life is
suffering". But it is also joy. And because life is not only suffering, the
followers of subjectivism (or "inside-out" approach to social and individual
effectiveness and happiness) immobilized themselves, and thus, could not joy
with this world.
Plato: Well, by propagandizing mediocrity and slavish prudence, you are
making it harder to find out what beauty, heroism, and excellence are.
Aristotle: Not at all. As usual, you are approaching to the matter at
hand from the aristocratic prospective, with its snobbish attitude toward
"mediocrity and slavish prudence," which is not the same as my "common sense and
daring with necessary deliberation". We are what we repeatedly do. After all,
the real, common sense beauty, heroism, and excellence are not a short lived
show or act, but the habitual showing and acting in a certain way. Our character
and personality grow and harden with the qualitative and quantitative increase
of our habits. Compare, for example, the beauty of Elizabeth Tailor in her
twenties and what left of that beauty by now, after nine marriages and a
dissolute life. Someone said that, "by sowing a thought, you will reap an
action; by sowing an action, you will reap a habit; by sowing a habit, you will
reap your character; by sowing your character, you will reap your destiny". The
same can be said about personality, and its constituents -- the beauty and
heroism that are the feminine goodness and masculine virtue. Although goodness
or virtue by itself is sufficient for happiness, by maintaining your beauty, you
grow your personality; by grooming your personality, you create your starry
destiny. Habitual discipline and prolonged observance of your spiritual and
material food will necessary lead you to the common sense excellence and will
produce your social effectiveness and individual happiness.
As Euripides once said, "When virtuous men die, their virtue does not perish,
but lives; though they are gone. As for the bad guys, all that was theirs dies
and is buried with them". Considering the other side of the problem, John Locke
noticed that, "Good and evil, reward and punishment, are the only motives to a
rational creature -- these are the spur and reins whereby all mankind set on
work, and guided". However, a question arises -- what are the common senses of
Good and Reward? And I think they are what the numerical majority of the people
habitually exercises, not what your tiny aristocratic minority thinks.
Pascal once said that, "Habit is a second nature, and it destroys the first".
But I disagree with the second part of his statement, because it implies the
notion of Rousseau and Nietzsche that the wild man is somewhat purer and better
than the civilized man. Although Rousseau and Nietzsche emphasized the
importance of character, the natural goodness of human beings, and the
corrupting influences of their institutionalized life, they did that at the
expense of personality and social needs. That approach led to both world wars
and necessitated the 20th-century personality psychologists to turn their
attention 179 degrees off from the disciplining of the character. That is why in
my book, a steady and socially approved habit is a learned nature, and it
improves an unlearned.
Because the deeply ingrained habits have tremendous gravity force and repulsive
energy, more than most people realize, breaking them in order to be personally
happy and socially effective involves appropriate willpower and adequate changes
in our lives. Lift off of a spacecraft takes a tremendous energy, but once it
breaks out of the strong earthly gravity and not yet arrives into the zone of
the strong solar gravity, its inertia takes on the rest of a journey. Like any
natural force and energy, the earthly force and energy can work for us if
correctly harnessed or against us if otherwise. The pull force and push energy
of some of our habits may currently be keeping us from going where we wish to
be. But in fact, it is balancing the pull force and the push energy that keeps
the families, the societies, the planets and the galaxies together; and it keeps
them in a certain order. Habitually balancing is the real power; and if we use
it effectively, we can use the potential force and energy of our habits to
create cohesiveness, smoothness, and orderliness in our lives that are necessary
components of our personal happiness and social effectiveness.
Plato: You habitually emphasize constancy and habits as an indispensable
element of your moral system that would lead each of us to personal happiness
and social effectiveness. But without quirks and jerks there would not be any
innovation and any progress -- talents would not be appreciated, mediocrity
would be in charge, and such a society would inevitably be dissolved through a
war, a revolution, or both. So, please, define your "habits," that we can
progress in our search for the truth.
Victor J. Serge created this page and revised it on
04/13/03