R, a modern hero
Intimidation R’s & Cultural MO
The Intimidation strategy was R’s MO, probably his father’s MO and his father’s, father’s, father’s, culture’s MO. Very early on R realized that the only way he could survive as an independent personality in an abusive environment was to stand up for himself. His father beat his children, and then left home. Having learned from his father, his older brother beat him up so badly that he went to live with his grandmother.
R turned Fighter rather than Victim
Rather than succumb to the Abuse, he became a Fighter. Only in this way could he survive the environmental battering that he was subjected to - without becoming a rubber stamp personality - i.e. those who cleave to the values of authority in order to avoid punishment. Thus dear R is a hero. He successfully fought to remain himself. He maintained his internal integrity despite the external punishment that demanded his compliance.
R wounded in struggle
According to the standards of modern psychology, R is an emotional mess. Yet according to his life’s background he is a grand success. He rose out of his emotional ghetto to be himself. He was, of course, wounded in the battle, as we all are.
Compliance<=>Disobedience * Internal<=>External
To understand why R is a hero, we need to first examine the responses to punishment. The diagram below crosses the polarity of Compliance and Disobedience with the polarity of Internal and External to reveal the variety of responses.
External Compliance<=>Internal Integrity
On the most basic level, the Abuser intends that the Human complies externally. As an example, the mother punishes her son so that he will behave properly. In most circumstances, she doesn’t care what he thinks as long as he behaves. Therefore, the son can maintain his internal integrity as long as he behaves. Most of the time the State doesn’t care what its citizens believe, as long as they obey the laws of Society. This is the state of External Compliance with Internal Integrity.
External and Internal Compliance from Overt Pressure
The second condition is when the Abuser intends that the Human comply both externally and internally. They must behave and think properly. This was the intent of the Inquisition and Communist brainwashing or reeducation. Behaving properly was not enough; the Person had to think right as well, or at least say and write the proper ideas. This was because the Inquisitors were afraid. If the ideas weren’t changed, then the behavior would quickly revert.
Voluntary Internal Compliance for Rewards
While Internal Compliance is not considered voluntary when the Abuser resorts to torture and extreme brainwashing techniques, frequently internal compliance is voluntary. For instance, many become internally compliant to obtain external rewards or avoid external punishment. The Abused frequently adopts the value system of the Abuser in order to escape pain and perhaps experience pleasure. The Social Climber abandons any internal Compassion and adopts the ruthless materialism of the Establishment to receive external rewards. Extreme punishment many times leads to the same type of response on subconscious levels.
Abused adopts value system of Abuser to avoid Pain
The Abused must adopt the value system of the Abuser to succeed, which is to avoid the Pain of Punishment. To do this the Abused becomes extremely sensitive to the relation between themselves and the Abuser. First, they just correct their external behavior as in the initial scenario. But then they begin to pay close attention to the behavior and beliefs of the Abuser to see what makes them happy or mad. Over a short period of time, the Abused doesn’t lose his personal integrity. However over a longer period of time, like an entire childhood, the Abused begins to identify with the Abuser more and more completely to avoid the Pain of physical or emotional punishment. Eventually the value system of the Abused becomes identical with that of the Abuser. The primary strategy is to avoid punishment. The best technique is for the Abused to emulate the value system of the Abuser.
In many ways voluntary internal compliance is more insidious than involuntary compliance. Because voluntary internal compliance is self-initiated, it is more permanent and difficult to uproot.
Underlying Assumptions of the Abused Personality
An underlying assumption of the Abused becomes:
“If I adopt the value system of the Abuser, then I will not be punished.
If I am not punished, then I will not experience Pain.”
If (I = Abuser), Then (No Punishment).
or (I = Abuser), Then (~Pain)
Modifying it to include the more general case:
“If I adopt the value system of those in charge of Consequences,
Then I will be rewarded and will not be punished.”
A Lifetime Strategy of Internal Compromise
The Abused apply this to their life strategy in choosing their behavior. They first identify which individuals or corporation or government can issue Consequences - causing them pain or giving them pleasure. If the potential for issuing consequences is high - if they have a lot of Power over the Abused - Then the Abused applies their formula for success. They attempt to cleave to the value system of the potential Abuser hoping to escape punishment. The Social Climber abandons all inner integrity in order to become Rich, Famous, and/or Powerful.
R maintained Inner Integrity despite Abuse
This is why R was a Hero. While Abused, he did not lose his personal integrity to the Authority figures who were causing him Pain. Instead he maintained his own value system. He did not give in.
Unfortunately, while not giving in to the Establishment, he held on too hard to his independence from it - which left him a victim of himself. Those, who gave up their inner integrity to the Authorities, adopted the lifetime strategy of internal compromise. In contrast, R adopted the lifetime strategy of rebellion from authority. Holding too hard to what he considered his virtues tripped up R. While this ‘virtue’ had allowed him to survive the abuse with his internal integrity intact, it became a liability when he clung to it like life raft.
Either/Or Attitude needs to be replaced by Both/And
R’s misunderstanding was based on the implicit belief that there is such a thing as a virtue - the underlying assumption that certain behavior patterns are either right or wrong. Of course ‘right behavior patterns’ are virtues. This Either/OR attitude led R to the conclusion that if isolation and independence from Authority was a virtue in one type of situation that it was always a virtue - To be used over and over and over again - Fixated - Arrested development.
R had survived by maintaining his internal integrity despite the external abuse. However, because he had survived by maintaining his independence from the Group, he had also stopped cooperating with the Group. He had differentiated, but had not reintegrated. This is also a dangerous strategy. While it is essential to differentiate from the Group, it is also important to cooperate with the greater community. Independence and Cooperation needs to be Balanced rather than adopting one strategy exclusively over the other. Each situation needs to be investigated carefully rather than applying a blanket strategy regularly despite the variations in the external world.
While most give themselves to the Group, others isolate themselves for survival. The Either/Or assumption is that either you are with us or against us - part of the Group or not part of the Group. Conversely the Both/And assumption leads to the conclusion that one can Both be part of the Group and be separate from the Group. This is the ideal. This is the Middle Path. We’ll deal with this idea in more detail a bit later on.
When the Investigation ceases, Degeneration begins
The Either/Or attitude towards life is a cop-out attitude because it neutralizes investigation of the Fractal Edge. Once one has discovered the ‘truth or falsehood’ of a circumstance or behavior, the investigation halts because one has found absolute truth. This was R’s fallacy. His independence strategy worked well to survive childhood, but it was unsuccessful when applied to the neighborhood.
The Either/Or attitude is also boring and complacent - leading eventually to degeneration and death. Having reached There, it immediately begins to decay. There is no such thing as Stasis. Once investigation stops, degeneration sets in. R’s primary fallacy was getting stuck at a spot rather than moving on. The misconception is that we reach somewhere rather than being in a constant state of refinement.
Home The Firing Process III. Logic Problems Previous Next Comments