Blip

About this episode

Welcome to episode 14 of the series Philosophy Unveiled, by the author Lane Friesen. I’m Rachel and I’m doing the reading today.In the last episode, we demonstrated from history that the Contributor minimizes personal expenses, and eliminates meaningless small talk. I’d now like to take the very same mix of persons we introduced in the previous session, and illustrate another very different trait. It’s something that all of them also had in common. Our focus this time will be on control. To prove himself, the Contributor needs control in some sphere of his own—he must be in charge! Walt Disney: “He had a lifelong rage to order, control and keep clean any environment he inhabited.” “He had a compulsion to control. The word was constantly on his lips. He seemed to fear that his organization—always in his eyes an extension of himself—might have grown too large for him to control personally as he always had in the old days.” Bill Durant: “I figured if I could acquire a few more companies like the Buick, I would have control of the greatest industry in this country. A great opportunity, no time to lose...” “He wanted to be the leader of the motor vehicle industry, but he had no clear idea what kind of vehicle would emerge as the most popular. So he grabbed all kinds of companies—some whose only real assets were patents on dubious inventions.” “He was a genius and he was a man of great charm. But he was also a dictator—he ran a one-man show. Money was a tool for empire-building.” “He controlled his business, with vertical integration complete.” Of William O. Douglas, by an interviewer: “It occurred to me that Douglas had been listening to every word, calculating, judging, controlling the situation. It was as if I were auditioning for a part in a play that he was directing. He seemed to know the script, but listened patiently as the tryout proceeded, interrupting only when I forgot my lines.” His secretary, of William Douglas: “That’s the Justice. He controls every situation.” Pierre Elliot Trudeau: “Asked to co-host on television, he was unacceptable because he insisted on full control of his own material.” The Contributor in particular may keep his fingers on the financial purse strings. Pablo Picasso: “He always carried around with him an old red-leather trunk from Hermes in which he kept five or six million francs so that he’d always ‘have the price of a package of cigarettes,’ as he put it. The trunk was always locked, and he had the only key, and kept it with him at all times.” Yasir Arafat: “There was collective leadership, but the others would look at Yasir in a worried way as they talked. ‘This, I later found out was because Yasir controlled the purse strings. He had opened a bank account in Beirut, and I understood it contained about 50,000 pounds. He had got all this money in Kuwait, and it was he and only he who could sign the checks.’ ” The Contributor identifies personally with his projects and their success or failure. Walt Disney: “...his organization—always in his eyes an extension of himself...” Calvin: “In a sense Geneva became a second Rome and Calvin the uncrowned Pope.” “So intense was his identification of his own interests with those of the Master he would serve, that he thanked his physician for aid in recovery from illness less on his personal account than as a service rendered to the Church; and he regarded attacks upon himself as a danger to the cause of the Gospel.” Nietzsche: “His Will to Power, as befits a philosopher, was really a Will to Belief. Like most strong believers, he hated heretics even more than unbelievers. He was his own pope, and infallible.” Identification may cause him to view denial of control—especially when it comes from those whose approval is important to him—as a personal attack. Charlie Chaplin: “He simply wasn’t the kind of man who could be content to be the personality and let someone else plan the framework in which he should be exhibited.” Brahms: “Despite his profound modesty, it went sore against the grain to play second fiddle.” Michelangelo: “I am not obliged to tell anyone what I must and want to do.” Yasir Arafat: “He was always used to being the leader, the idea man, and was threatened by others that were better at it than he.” Pierre Elliot Trudeau: “He rather enjoyed jousting at press conferences and easily won each encounter. But he was infuriated by the fact that the press always got the last word. ‘He couldn’t control the press, and he could never accept that this should be so,’ says an aide.” To gain the control that is necessary for success, the Contributor may choose to work by himself. Bach: “The organ was the proving ground for Bach’s untutored years as a budding composer. At that instrument he was independent and self-sufficient, and he could compose and test his compositions in secret and perform them in public, dependent upon no one save the organ pumper.” Michelangelo: “He preferred to work by himself. He did not want even a boy to mix his colors for him.” “He wanted to do everything himself, and no one could ever put a hand to his work without spoiling it.” At St. Peter’s: “He was able to act as dictator and not account to anyone for his work or his plans. He thought and worked by himself. He wanted to see everything with his own eyes, touch everything with his own hands, examine and evaluate everything with his economical mind. He feared that on the day he did not go a stone would be put in wrong, or poor quality mortar would be bought, or he would be cheated on weight.” President Woodrow Wilson: “Not only did Wilson grow up with a taste for achievement and power: he must exercise power alone. He could brook no interference.” William Randolph Hearst: “His motto: ‘To get things done, do ‘em yourself.’ ” Those who are part of the Contributor’s sphere of control must come under his direction. J. Pierpont Morgan, American financier: “He was said to be uncomfortable among equals and repressed among superiors, his impulse being to issue orders and rule.” President Woodrow Wilson: “His will must prevail, if he wished it to. He bristled at the slightest challenge to his authority. Such a characteristic might well have represented a rebellion against the domination of his father, whose authority he had never dared openly to challenge. Throughout his life his relationships with others seemed shaped by an inner command never again to bend his will to another man’s.” “Having legitimatized his drive to exercise power by laborious self-preparation and by adopting worthy goals, Wilson felt free to indulge his wish to force others into immediate and complete compliance with his demands. He could even boast about his ‘fighting blood’ and the joy of giving it scope.” Napoleon: “I always found him as remote as possible from republican methods and ideas; he treated them all as day-dreams.” “As soon as he came to power he laid down the framework of a new society and elaborated a detailed system of laws, which everyone had to obey.” Gilbert: “The actors were not allowed, as in the old days, to emerge for an instant from the frame of the picture he was trying to create. They were like chessmen on a board, to be moved at the discretion of the player-producer; they were like marionettes, whose motions were governed by the master; they were the members of a team, under the strict discipline of its captain.” “For this reason he preferred his actors to be novices, who could be taught by himself and would not resent his teaching. For this reason, too, he arrived at the first rehearsal with a fairly complete mental picture of all the moves, all the inflections, all the ‘business’ and all the positions of all the actors at every moment of the play.” “Gilbert’s vitality as a producer was phenomenal. He supervised everything—scenery, costumes, stage-management, chorus, lighting—nothing escaped his notice.” Charles Dickens: “Dickens had a preference for pliable colleagues.” “He was full of fun and affection for his children, but he kept them at a distance; games were to be played in his way to enable him to shine as master of the revels.” Producing a play: “He was, it seemed to Forster, ‘the life and soul of the entire affair. He took everything on himself. He was stage director, very often stage carpenter, scene arranger, property man, prompter and bandmaster. Without offending anyone, he kept everyone in order.’ ” Henry Kissinger: “In his own way he was an awe-inspiring person. You’d be called into his office and he’d be sitting there talking on the phone and reading four different newspapers in four different languages, and calls would keep coming in from Washington, from all over, and he’d be giving instructions between phone calls.” Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism: “He was not only candidate for President, but also mayor of Nauvoo, judge of the municipal court, merchant of the leading store, hotel-keeper, official temple architect, real-estate agent, contractor, recorder of deeds, steamboat-owner, trustee-in-trust for all the finances of his church, lieutenant-general of the Nauvoo Legion, spiritual adviser and Lord’s communicant to the true church, King of the new Kingdom of God, and husband of almost fifty wives.” The Contributor may reduce contacts with those outside of his sphere of control. John D. Rockefeller: “Clark went to the Regions to buy oil, thus eliminating the jobber’s profit. Instead of being dependent on independent contractors for drayage, Rockefeller built his own force of wagons, hiring them out to competitors when business was slack. The firm made its own sulfuric acid for refining. Inevitably, a trend toward vertical integration developed.” Walt Disney: “Not only did he want to succeed, but he wanted to do so in a particular way—namely, to avoid surrendering any part of his autonomy to outsiders and to hold his company’s stock and its decision-making power as closely as he could.” “His economic style: ‘frugality in day-to-day matters, willingness to plunge on his own ideas, distrust of the outsider who might somehow take it all away from him.’ ” Bobby Fischer, chess champion: “He ‘plays best without an opponent.’ He is always liable to regard the game as his property and the opponent as a lay figure, necessary in order that he should have someone to beat; in these circumstances it is easy to underrate the danger when the puppet proves to be alive.” The Contributor can be possessive of those with whom he has a close relationship. Pablo Picasso: “He had the idea that if someone is precious to you, you must keep her for yourself alone, because all the accidental contacts she might have with the outside world would somehow tarnish her and, to a degree, spoil her for you.”The Contributor may in contrast draw in others as partners. John D. Rockefeller: “Rockefeller in his negotiations with people was developing his credo that life is not a jungle with human beings trampling on one another but a meeting ground where human beings could forge a marriage of interest for the benefit of both. The theory was not always to work out in practice. But he early showed the power to win people to his point of view.” “His principal contention [or main claim] was that [in each case] he offered the refiner whom he had crushed an option: cash or stock in Standard Oil. If Rockefeller’s advice had been followed, the refiner would have accepted stock, would have become Rockefeller’s partner, and would have become fabulously rich. To Inglis, Rockefeller said, ‘The Standard was an angel of mercy, reaching down from the sky and saying, “Get into the ark. Put in your old junk. We’ll take all the risks.” ’ ” Steven Jobs (Time magazine, January 3, 1983): “By whatever means—the dream, the pitch, the rap, the reality-distortion field—Jobs’ unwavering ambition and ferocious will have caused a number of people to become rich. Says Jobs, employing perhaps extravagant arithmetic: ‘We’ve made about 300 people at Apple millionaires.’ ” Charles Lindbergh and his wife (a Facilitator): “They could help one another: she might soften his harshness while he might harden her spirit in areas where she was inclined toward a soft sentimentality.” “She became navigator, radio operator, and co-pilot on her husband’s long flights—an equal partner.” Gilbert, the Contributor, and Sullivan (again a Facilitator): “The two men who had thus been brought together were radically dissimilar in upbringing, outlook and temperament; their characters were antipathetic and complementary. Friendship between them was out of the question from the start, though if Sullivan had been a woman they would have made a most successful marriage. A union of hearts being impossible, the alternative was a union of arts, and the result was the most successful marriage in history.” P. T. Barnum: “He formed a partnership at last with Bailey, who rose by sheer ability from the very lowest ranks to the position of owner and manager.” William Randolph Hearst: “There is no question of his generosity toward men who make good and who make money for the organization. Moreover, he permits the man who makes good as much freedom as if he owned the business himself.” Charles Dickens: “He liked nothing more than to share his good fortune with his friends.” Partnership may be extended especially to family. President Woodrow Wilson: “Yet he did not want us [his children], young as we were, to be blind partisans. He was never too busy to explain, to help us to understand the idea behind that which he was trying to do.” Bach: “When a member of the Bach family improved his position, he tried to place a younger relative in the post he was leaving. Orphaned children were raised by nearby relatives.” Charles Dickens: “Although his family was annoying and irresponsible, Dickens was always anxiously loyal to his parents and his brothers, and he did all he could to help them settle in suitable jobs.” The Contributor, it seems, can sometimes pick the wrong partner. P. T. Barnum: “In his eagerness to do things on a large scale, Barnum commenced a series of partnerships which proved unfortunate and full of disillusionment.” Mark Twain: “He was lured into backing a typesetting machine which would revolutionize the printing business. His misfortune was to find the wrong inventor and the wrong invention.” Even when there is nothing wrong with the partner, it is still hard to share power. Gilbert and Sullivan, separated, then for a time re-united: “Apart altogether from those infusible elements in their characters which made them mutually antipathetic, something else had now crept into the relationship between Gilbert and Sullivan that rendered their continued partnership difficult to maintain. They had experienced the relief of working with men to whom their word was law; they had tasted the joy of enfranchisement from the bondage of equality; and so, while writing Utopia Limited, they had both felt the strain of what Gilbert had once described as a ‘master and master’ collaboration.” “A chance word of condemnation overheard or passed on, an irritable expression noted or reported, and everything that had been unpleasant in their past association became magnified out of all proportion. Pride, jealousy, personal antipathy did the rest, and in a sort of dazed anger they parted, never to speak to one another again.” Mark Twain: “Sooner or later, his business relationships usually led to hostilities.” The Contributor in some cases remains open to others—in spite of hurts and mistakes. John D. Rockefeller: “Sometimes things that are said of me are cruel and they hurt but I am never a pessimist. I believe in man and the brotherhood of man.” President Woodrow Wilson: “His own honesty and directness made it difficult for him to realize that anyone could be deliberately dishonest or mean, and he told us that he had constantly to remind himself that there were people who could not be trusted.” P. T. Barnum: “Many people have wondered that a man considered so acute as myself should have been deluded into embarrassments like mine, and not a few have declared in short meter that ‘Barnum was a fool.’ I can only reply that I hope I shall never so entirely lose confidence in human nature as to consider every man a scamp by instinct or a rogue by necessity.” The Contributor may also withdraw into himself and treat others as pawns—useful as they fit into his plan. Of Charlie Chaplin: “Looking back from this vantage point, I don’t know whether my father ever considered the servants as individuals in their own right, but I doubt if he did. They were far closer than that to him. They were like his heart, his liver, his spleen—so completely necessary to him that they had become a part of himself. He needed them as much as he did his vital organs and in the same way.” Charles Dickens: “He was able to crowd so much into his daily life because he had the knack of acquiring and using subordinates, provided that they unhesitatingly accepted his terms.” “He described Forster as ‘my right hand and cool shrewd head.’ ” William O. Douglas: “The Douglas clerks were there to do a job and that was the end of the matter. Douglas did not want to know their personal problems, nor would he think of sharing his with them.” Pierre Elliot Trudeau: “Ministers [of government] lost their individuality and became disposable cogs in a machine.” Agatha Christie: “Whenever word reached backstage that ‘the duchess’ was sitting out front the cast was understandably nervous and it was with some trepidation that they learned the contents of the little notes she used to send backstage. They were always polite and to the point but it was clearly understood that no actor or actress could ignore them. She had definite ideas about her characters and wished them to remain just as she created them. Any actor who attempted to stray from the original conception was quickly put in his place with a note or reminder.” Joseph Smith: “The prophet never lost the conviction that it was his right to be mentor to his people in matters of property and finance as well as matters of the spirit. Joseph’s kingdom, unlike that of Jesus, was unmistakably of this world.” Alfred Hitchcock: “What the young Hitchcock soon had brought home to him was the degree to which one could lie with pictures, or rearrange and reinterpret them to make them signify almost anything you wanted them to. And actors were merely counters in this game of chess—they might be more or less well designed for their purpose, but finally they were only counters, taking on significance from the way they were moved around in the course of the game.” “He has often said that one of the great misfortunes was when someone had the bright idea of calling the place that films were made a ‘studio,’ with all its artistic overtones, rather than a factory.” “He was an artist with an obsession—he was going to make his films in his own way, to his own standards, and even though he was always open to suggestion and positively welcomed improvisation, finally he used everything for his own purposes and did not leave much room for anyone else’s creative satisfaction.” People-turned-pawns are treated at times with contempt. Alfred Hitchcock: “He once said that actors were cattle.” Pierre Elliot Trudeau: “He often bruises other people’s self-esteem without really intending to, or having any idea he has done it.” Bill Durant: “He was so dominant a figure, so self-confidant, that many of his best men either quit him, or wanted to.” William O. Douglas: “Douglas’s early clerks discovered that their boss was intellectually self-contained, personally shy and often insensitive to those around him.” Nietzsche: “At bottom Nietzsche’s study of man as a social and political animal—and this is most of his work—suffers from the fact that he knew so little, at first hand, of other human beings.” Gilbert: “Though personally sensitive, he cared little about the feelings of others.” Napoleon: “Napoleon never knew a generous feeling. That was what made him such arid company. That was the reason he had no friend. He regarded men as base coin, or as the tools with which he was to gratify his whims and ambition.” “Generally speaking, he had a low opinion of mankind. He seldom praised anyone, even those who had done most, unless at moments when he wanted them to do even more.” “Europe is an old rotten whore. I have eight hundred thousand men. I shall do what I please with her.” Pablo Picasso: “Nobody has any real importance for me. As far as I’m concerned, other people are like those little grains of dust floating in the sunlight. It takes only a push of the broom and out they go.” Behind this contempt, one senses, are feelings of hurt and rejection. President Woodrow Wilson: “His appreciation of an affection given him was out of the ordinary as was his need of personal love. A person, to obtain his intimacy, had to say very definitely, ‘I like you’ or ‘I love you.’ After that, if you were sincere, your life became his personal and unfailing concern.” William O. Douglas: “To the outside world and most of his friends, Douglas remained the tough-minded libertarian with the indomitable spirit. But his few intimates knew his emotional fragility. He craved adulation and respect, and when it was not given, he suffered.” “He had a need to be adored all of the time. After forty years of public adoration and that mother, God help the wife who criticized the man. And if you were feeling less than adoring, well, it was a problem.” Norman Vincent Peale: “His wife learned that though Norman thought he wanted candid criticism where his work was concerned, what he needed most was reassurance. She learned always to avoid the introduction of negative considerations into a mind already open to fears of inadequacy.” Brahms: “Sometimes he thought so poorly of his own abilities that a little praise from a source that he thoroughly respected filled a genuine need.”Interestingly, it is this very individual, with his fragile self-image, who easily manipulates others. He treats them in ways that would seriously damage his own self-esteem, if the situation were reversed. Charles Dickens: “He was a man of dominating temperament who was disposed to manipulate people in everyday life as if they were creatures of his imagination.” Pablo Picasso: “He would use people like ninepins, hitting one person with the ball in order to make another fall down.” “ ‘There’s no such thing as love,’ he was fond of saying, ‘There are only proofs of love.’ ” Walt Disney: “He began by paying helpers nothing, promising them, perhaps, a share of future profits. This was the beginning of the basic relationship with employees that he was to develop more formally in Hollywood later on, where an elaborate apprentice system supplied his studio with young talent at low prices.” “He occasionally toyed with people as well. He used to tell the story of how he had got exactly the revisions he wanted on a script from a writer by dangling before him the opportunity of directing the finished product, a breakthrough the man was particularly anxious to make.” Charlie Chaplin: “Dad had come to take Frank’s intuitive care of him as the natural course of events. ‘You’re getting careless,’ he stormed. ‘Why don’t you listen to me and follow orders? Remember, I’m paying your salary.’ When Dad was really angry he could never refrain from throwing in the bit about the salary.” Yasir Arafat: “Yasir was the financial genius in those first years. He made it more or less an official practice to get contributions to the organization from those who came to him seeking construction contracts. It soon became known that to get approval for a contract a company would have to donate a certain percentage of the contract’s worth to the Palestine Liberation Committee, which is what we were calling Fatah back there in the beginning. He had got many of the people who worked in the ministry to go along with him on the scheme, which wasn’t difficult since most were Palestinians.” Dwight L. Moody: “One opponent was Collyer who had insisted that the physical needs of the soldiers were paramount, to be tended to with no strings attached. He felt the same about city relief. Offensive was Moody’s policy ‘never to give away a pair of trousers, or a load of wood, or a pound of tea, without an accompanying exhortation or prayer; and on all possible occasions to give their hearts to Christ.’ ” Henry Kissinger: “In the Middle East, he threatened both sides—but only in his capacity as arbiter of realism. So they can’t really say that it is the US that is threatening them, but it really is...” Nietzsche: “In general, whenever he didn’t get what he wanted, he fell ill—or rather, fell more conspicuously ill.” The Contributor can use modern means of communication as a vehicle for his manipulation. Alfred Hitchcock: “All technical explanations of what his films are and what they do come back to the same basic attitude: that film is a way of controlling people, a weapon in the battle of life. For Hitch it seems to be the way that a frightened man, constantly prey to inexplicable guilts and anxieties, can overcome them by manipulating other people, a tool to control people mentally and have them, for the time being, exactly where he suspects they want him.” “The thriller was great for manipulating audience responses, for getting them to accept ideas and share emotions which, if presented in any other way, would be disturbing or repugnant to them.” “During a tipsy moment on North by Northwest he actually fantasized about a time when it might not even be necessary to make the movies, but simply to wire up the audience with electrodes to produce the desired responses and play on them as on a giant organ console.” At the core of Contributor manipulation is a skillful use of words. Mark Twain: “The lecture platform was profitable, but irksome. He loved his hour on the stage, when he could practice and refine his art of playing upon an audience as upon an instrument...” President Woodrow Wilson: “The object of oratory is persuasion and conviction—the control of other minds by a strange personal influence and power.” “He told her of the ‘absolute joy in facing and conquering a hostile audience, or thawing out a cold one.’ ” Napoleon: “The nation wants a chief, a chief in the blaze of glory, and not theories which mean nothing to the French. Let them have baubles, that’s all they ask. They will play with them and follow on, always provided one is clever enough to conceal where they are being taken.” “There are two levers to move mankind: fear and interest.” “He knew how to honor his soldiers as they deserved. No one has vaunted the warlike virtues of the race in such magnificent terms as he. ‘When I hear that a nation can live without bread I shall believe that the French can live without glory.’ ‘There is nothing you cannot get from the French with danger as the bait. It seems to put them in the vein.’ ” Manipulation and a desire for control can again be aspects of the Contributor’s relationship with those who are close to him. Pablo Picasso to his wife: “When I shout at you and say disagreeable things, it’s to toughen you up. I’d like you to get angry, shout, and carry on, but you don’t. You go silent on me, become sarcastic, a little bitter, aloof, and cold. I’d like just once to see you spill your guts out on the table, laugh, cry—play my game.” So, there it is. The Contributor can desire control. It’s rooted this time in the left hemisphere C1 Contingency loop, of which Contributor analysis is a key component, rather than the right hemisphere C2 Classification loop, on which we concentrated in the last episode, in which Contributor strategy also plays a crucial role. Facilitator strategy in right hemisphere C2 Classification handles the mathematics of efficiency, as outlined by Facilitator philosopher John Rawls, and this causes the Contributor as a cognitive style to be careful with small expenses, as the results of the Facilitator efficiency calculation are passed on to Contributor strategy in the brain, where the Contributor as a cognitive style is conscious.Facilitator and Contributor analysis work together also in the left hemisphere. Once more, mathematics are performed by Facilitator strategy, this time along lines suggested by Facilitator philosopher Jeremy Bentham. If we wished to characterize the calculation very roughly, we could say that it is oriented around effectiveness, rather than efficiency. Once more, the result is passed on to Contributor analysis, and this turns out to be the foundation upon which the Contributor fights for control.Now, those who are looking carefully will notice that any Facilitator transfer of information to Contributor analysis breaks up the flow of information around C1 Contingency, as it did also in C2 Classification, because the flow of data from Facilitator to Contributor is in the direction around the loop that is opposite to the flow of Decision from Server strategy to Contributor analysis. The pressure will therefore be on left hemisphere Contributor thought to do something with the information, that is, to exercise its will. I would suggest that a transfer is made at this point, in the brain, to the non-cognitive motor circuits. If we examine the analysis of neurology in the document orderedcomplexity.pdf, on our website, we will notice the extremely tight linkage between Contributor strategy in area 46, and the motor circuits in the dorsal pre-motor region; and the very precise manner in which both regions interact with basal ganglia optimization of hand movement in particular.Now, if we wish to understand the functioning of this left hemisphere Contributor region, it’s most helpful at this point to make a transition away from neurology and its Contributor optimization of hand movement, to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger. He has a whole vocabulary related to this Contributor optimization of hand motion – ‘ready-to-hand,’ ‘present-at-hand,’ and so on. This Contributor philosopher has made it his life goal to describe very precisely what he notices in this area of the brain, in the left hemisphere, where he is conscious. He tells us first of all that his awareness here is rooted in automatic motor movement, in which he and the world unite into one. There is no more subject and object, no more separation between him and the tool which is in his hand. In other words, this left hemisphere Contributor region is most purely operative when it no longer notices that it is operative – it becomes one with the environment and with the world, in a kind of primordial absorbed coping.The environment around Contributor strategy in the left hemisphere is filled with tools, or what Heidegger terms equipment. This can easily extend, as we have seen in our analysis of history in this episode, to include people who become pawns.I’d like to suggest a principle at this point. The mind of some particular individual feels free when the region in which he is conscious becomes cognitively active. Thus, the Contributor who is activating the left hemisphere component of his consciousness will feel himself entering into liberty as he immerses himself in his environment completely, in a life that is lost in what Heidegger calls familiarity. He will feel that the people around him, whom he is ‘manipulating’ in his absorbed coping or dealing with the current situation, are being brought into his own internal liberty, as he uses them as pawns in his actions. What is the planning upon which this action is based? It is to cope with the world more automatically, and to use those around him more fully.In summary, left hemisphere Contributor analysis is all about control, and habits, and a lack of separation between subject and object, and a conviction on the Contributor’s part that his manipulation is beneficial to those around him. There’s a great deal more to be said about all of this, including a discussion of how a reversal of the flow, so that it moves now from Contributor strategy to Facilitator analysis, relates to the formation of speech and the communication of meaning – that’s also discussed by Heidegger. We’ll be examining it as we acquire the tools.I’d like to digress at this point, to bring out something significant. We stated previously that Berkeley’s Mercy analysis, in the right superior temporal, works closely with Locke’s Perceiver strategy, in the right superior parietal, through a connection of nodes and links. That’s the right hemisphere. It leads to what is called Cartesian philosophy, or right hemisphere processing as it was described by Descartes.There’s a major assymetry that occurs when we move to the left hemisphere. The analog to Mercy strategy and its identification, which is located in the right superior temporal of right hemisphere Introverted Feeling, is Teacher strategy and its understanding, or T in the diagram, in the left superior temporal, or left hemisphere Introverted iNtuition. The right superior temporal, or Introverted Feeling Mercy thought, works with the right superior parietal, or Introverted Thinking, through a relationship of nodes and links. In contrast, the left superior temporal of Introverted iNtuition, or Teacher strategy, works with Contributor analysis in the left dorsolateral prefrontal, or C in the diagram, which we can see is an aspect of Extraverted Sensing, through a relationship of what we will discover is Teacher essence and Contributor boundaries or domains. Essence is what a thing does – as in, a car is a ‘driving thing,’ a knife is a ‘cutting thing,’ and so on.The analog to Locke’s substratum, which we suggested previously connects Exhorter strategy in the right hemisphere with Perceiver analysis in the right hemisphere, is now a connection from Exhorter analysis in the left hemisphere to Contributor strategy in the left.We’ll discover soon enough that the mind is booted up, in childhood development, by means of interaction along the path of ISFJ. There are mechanisms that cause this link to track the external, rather than to resonate internally within the mind as a working memory loop. This fills Server strategy, or S in the diagram, with actions, based on copying what is seen, which gradually develop into the skills within which Contributor strategy in the right hemisphere immerses its emerging sense of being, or, as Heidegger calls it, its Dasein.The interesting thing is that the Contributor’s primordial immersion in the world of tools or equipment will set the context for Teacher strategy’s formation of theory. We begin to understand Heidegger’s seemingly contradictory statement that unawareness, within Contributor strategy where he as a Contributor is conscious, in some way that he does not consciously understand is the basis upon which all things are understood. Or alternatively, that the best form of understanding is to pick up a hammer and to use it.We will shortly see that Teacher strategy, or T in the diagram, forms general theory, in which complexity is ordered into a whole – I, that is the author, am a Teacher person, for example, and what I am doing is precisely this sort of ordering of complexity. This theorizing and ordering activity, which Heidegger as a Contributor does not consciously notice, but which Ludwig Wittgenstein as a Teacher philosopher does see very clearly, is the basis upon which Heidegger’s Contributor analysis, or C in the diagram, with its primordial absorbed coping, sees equipment or tools as part of a holistic unity, in which the hammer gains significance only as the need arises to bang upon a nail, and a person is noticed only when he becomes a pawn in some plan. It’s a very interesting world, and it leads to what is called Heideggerian philosophy. Berkeley the Mercy disagreed with Locke the Perceiver, because they were conscious in differing regions of the right hemisphere. In the same way, philosophers who see Cartesian philosophy, as it handles right hemisphere processing of objects, argue with those who are able to view Heideggerian philosophy, as it describes the much more holistic processing done by the left hemisphere, as we depict it in this diagram. Soon, we will begin to tie these two sections together, and then we will give definitive answers to a good number of the outstanding questions of philosophy.OK, I think you can see that there is a lot more to discuss, after we have acquired the proper intellectual tools. In the next episode, I’d like to lay the foundation for a more detailed look at the cognitive style of Exhorter. We’ll concentrate on evidence from both history and neurological conditions that confirms to us the existence of the cognitive style of Exhorter. Previously, we suggested that this strategy interacts with Facilitator thought, in the right hemisphere, in the manner that was described by Berkeley the Mercy philosopher, to place a label of pain and pleasure on every aspect of sensory experience. In the left hemisphere, we’ll find out soon enough that Exhorter thought is responsible for establishing the mood of which Heidegger speaks – Heidegger’s mood turns out to be the left hemisphere analog to Berkeley’s right hemisphere pain and pleasure. Once we are fully convinced of the existence of Exhorter strategy, from evidence presented in the next episode, then we will examine the characteristics of this form of thought more fully, in following episodes.That concludes episode 14. Thank you for listening.

• Release Date

  Feb 1, 2008

• Runtime

  42:27