Peter Emmerson

Glossary of terms.

Thact: I-orientated; homo clausus; homines aperti.  Thact is a new verb that I use in an attempt to dissolve an artificial division between ‘thought’ and ‘action’ that has developed in relation to formal analyses such as those carried out by philosophers and their allies who operate with an I-oriented approach, as per Descartes, which favours development of notions such as mind as separate and above body – ‘I think therefore I am’.  Norbert Elias suggested we call this image of people – ‘homo clausus’ or closed person.  Sociologists would benefit from seeing themselves as always connected, ‘open people’ (Elias, 1978) or ‘homines aperti’.

Habitus: intuitive and experiogenetic.  Habitus is a concept I learned from Norbert Elias who wanted to dispense with damaging notions such as personality that mislead us by giving precedence to genetic/biological influences  above those of  experience/learning, a way of thacting typical of homo clausus.  He makes a crucial point that we are less dominated by our biology than any other life-form – we have a remarkable capacity for learning and controlling our biological predispositions.  I often hear people describe their thacting as instinctive.  This is, I would argue, a misnomer.  In fact we are overwhelmingly creatures of intuition rather than instinct: at this moment I can only offer up my reflexes as evidence of significant instinctive thacting, which, as far as we know, require only spinal cord involvement with little involvement of our brains.  However, even reflexes develop interdependently with experience as disease processes show.  In other words we develop a habitus rather than are given a personality defined at conception.

Unlike so many sociologists Elias does not discount biological processes altogether.  In positing habitus he wanted to emphasize developmental interdependencies between genetic and sensory/experiential processes.  From this perspective our habituses never stop changing as long as we are alive.  I like to think that our genes predispose us to make cerebral connections with experiences to form our habitus.  This approach allows us to dissolve another artificial separation typical of homo clausus between genetics and experience, often described in terms of nature-nurture or more generally as rational-empirical.  Correspondingly, our personalities are natural and rational.  In contrast our habitus is neither genetic nor experiential, rational nor empirical, it is experiogenetic.  Everything we are is an interdependent process of development involving genes and experience which privileges neither.  Our habitus is like a compound that develops in our brain structured by a series of processes which involve interdependent correspondences between our genetic structures/predispositions and our experience/learning.  So much of our experience is mediated by our contact with others, language use being a very influential component making our habitus overwhelmingly figurational.  Processes of genetic and sensory experience cannot be separated as they presuppose each other – they interdepend.  Everything about us is experiogenetic; intuitive rather than instinctive.

Figuration/figurational.  Norbert Elias wanted to develop properly sociological language to facilitate understanding of sociological processes.  Figuration is a very important example.  Figuration is a process concept that as far as I can see is meant to reorient sociological perceptions and understanding by making them more connected with realities.  Interdependently, in doing this we develop a more reality congruent habitus and become homines aperti rather than homo clausus.  Correspondingly we are facilitated to explore connectedness and processes rather than statics.  Homo clausus conceives sociological evidence as closed, discrete units such as family, class, tribe and society, which give a misguided impression that sociological evidence is somehow thing-like, static and separate from us who study it, which it never is.  Homines aperti see connectedness through figurations which are transitory ‘webs if interdependence’ (Elias, 1978) that we are always caught up in.  From this perspective ‘social’ is replaced by ‘figurational’.

Influence.  As someone schooled in physical engineering I associate power with discrete machines, whether car engines or nuclear power stations.  Physical engineers can investigate and calculate how powerful such machines are very successfully using a causal analysis of work done over a period of time: a 10 watt light bulb being half as powerful as another of 20 watts.  We can use a similar approach to estimate human bodily power.  However, human figurations are bound together by much more intangible yet strong forces as webs/networks of interdependencies: human figurations are not discrete, material ‘things’ physically screwed or bolted together that can be analysed causally.  Correspondingly, from my perspective ‘power’ is an insufficiently reality congruent concept that reifies figurational processes allowing inadequate engagement with figurational processes.  Accordingly, it needs replacing.  To start with we might use ‘influence’.

Figurations are comprised of people whose bodies have physical ‘power’ which needs translating sociologically as ‘influence’.  Punching someone is a very manifest, violent thact that can be analysed causally in terms of physical power: a physical engineer might look for a well-known cause of violence such as excessive alcohol use.  However, this would only be a partial explanation as there are many significant sociological/figurational forces that interdepend with alcohol use that cannot be isolated in a causal chain: not all intoxicated people react violently.  Habitus factors as self-control, shame, fear, self-esteem, need for vengeance, training linked with figurational pressures such as onlookers, ethnic acceptance of violence etc., may well have come together to trigger this violent thact but didn’t cause it.  By assessing figurational processes using influence we get a more realistic, accurate picture of all those interdependencies involved in a violent thact.  I am not saying that using ‘influence’ solves our difficulties with ‘power’.  However, I do believe that ‘influence’ is a step in a more realistic direction that encourages us to abandon ‘power’ as a notion that causally over-simplifies our sociological perceptions.  ‘Influence’ grounds us in complexity and interdependencies.

Theometaphysician: a priest, philosopher or pure mathematician whose job it is to establish absolute truths.

Engineering.  I want to replace ‘science’ with ‘engineering’.  Science is a theometaphysical, over-idealized, systemic, thing-like notion that is designed to promote a belief that mundane physical realities are governed by absolute truths.  These absolute truths are in fact made by people to control those anxieties and fears that interdepend with our comparatively uncertain everyday experiences.  As a more appropriate notion, ‘engineer’ rather than ‘scientist’ engages much more directly and effectively with our mundane experiences allowing us to get to grips with real problems.  Engineers are grounded in comparatively uncertain mundanities rather than high flown pure mathematical fantasies.  Physical scientists and pure mathematicians want to explore Mars, physical engineers want to build more efficient batteries.  Social scientists want to understand inequality, domination, class etc., all things that reify figurational mundanities.  Figurational engineers want to tackle abuse of influence; especially violent thacts, comparative differences in life expectation, health, wealth etc.  Science is a philosophical project, a search for absolute truth guided by pure mathematical standards as Karl Popper showed in The Logic of Scientific Discovery.  Engineers use mathematical tools to sort out real problems by developing technology that works within agreed tolerances, + or – a millimetre: absolute accuracy is not obtainable.  I want to suggest that we sociologize science by renaming it engineering.  Engineering is more verbal and hands-on, thereby more processual suggestive of what we do in tackling real material problems, rather than ideal nonsenses.  Sociologists are figurational engineers.

Theometaphysician: a person whose job is to construct absolute truths using theological, metaphysical and/or mathematical techniques.  Often involves all three but can rely on just one.

A-t heuristic: a derivation of Tversky & Kahneman’s well tried concept.  In one instance they used it to explain how we make judgements based on previous experiences which are always biased.  I want to suggest that our habitus is in part structured by ‘heuristics’ as taken for granted packages of learning that help us engage with and interpret our mundane experiences.  There is a similarity between heuristic and Piaget’s concept of ‘schema’.  I want to suggest that some heuristics have more numerous and significant connections are more influential and take precedence over others.  These heuristics ground our feelings of fear and anxiety facilitating us to take control of our comparatively uncertain mundane experiences, especially when we encounter confusion.  These are ‘truth hubs’ that comprise our ‘go to’ beliefs developed by theometaphysicians who have developed techniques of certainty from which we have derived absolute truths of which there are two: supernatural/religious – oriented to sacred texts; metaphysical/secular – oriented to logical verbal (philosophy) and logical numerical (pure mathematics) analytics.

11. Two examples of damage done by using a-t heuristics: warring and finance

With little help from pure mathematicians, engineers have struggled to develop heuristics capable of modelling figurational processes where rates of change can be volatile.  Of course one major difficulty, if I am right, is that accurate modelling of comparative uncertainties cannot be done by pure mathematicians who after all as formal logicians have habituses structured by supernatural and verbal logical a-t heuristics (s&v a-t heuristics).  Accordingly, we are very likely to continue perpetually deploying traditional, I-oriented, s&v a-t heuristics designed to impose command and control systems on dynamic comparatively uncertain mundanities, and continue neglecting to engineer heuristics capable of investigating figurational processes and synthesizing models of persistent catastrophic problems such as warring.  The cost of using s&v a-t heuristics is that we tend to prolong a manifestly damaging and tragic process such as warring by perceiving and treating it as if it was a ‘thing’ in its own right and beyond human control: from this perspective warring is seen as a fatalistic, even useful Hegelian dialectical inevitability rather than a figurational problem to be engineered.

To develop this point further I want to look at financial processes.  By adopting a-t heuristics as our default position with pure mathematicians as guarantors, we feel safe in thacting with conviction and are prone to over-confidence and an illusion of control: we genuinely think we know what we are doing.  Interdependently, when things start changing quickly or go wrong and control is lost, we are taken by surprise and even panic.  A good example in financial terms concerns our use of ‘stability/instability’.  Stability/instability is a dialectical tool, an a-t heuristic developed by theometaphysicians to exercise control over what is in fact a figurational process that cannot be controlled with our presently available linear heuristical technology such as statistics that is incapable of engaging with volatilities.  Concomitantly, when serious financial volatility emerges we interpret what is an ordinary figurational process in catastrophic terms using concepts such as crash or crisis.  If we did not use such a-t heuristics we would be less complacent and better prepared for financial volatility, knowing that there are only ever differing rates of change.  From my perspective collapses in business confidence come about through gross misinterpretation of expectable fluctuations in business thactivities which at present are managed ineffectively using a-t heuristics such as stability/instability.

Nonetheless, there are financial people who are aware of these tendencies and who are working on alternative concepts which may lead to a more processual approach.  Nassim Taleb (2008) has developed a philosophical idea used by David Hume to explain our inability to use facts as predictors of future events.  A ‘Black Swan’ event according to Taleb, is a catastrophe that will occur whatever we do.  In drawing our attention to such likely occurrences Taleb is emphasizing complexity and change and most importantly, our propensity for delusions of control.  In developing a notion such as ‘Black Swan’ event, Taleb is from my point of view asking economists to reject a-t heuristics such as stability and interdependently, accept our need for processual concepts that correspond with comparatively uncertain mundanities.  If this style of analysis takes off we may be able to engineer our financial problems using non-linear mathematical heuristics that will allow better engagement with dynamic figurational processes.  However, formal economic analysis is at present still heavily influenced by theological and philosophical dogma, hence our continued economic and political infatuation with a-t heuristics such as stability which predispose us to treat economic problems as things rather than figurational processes.  In doing so we create an artificial boundary between economic experiences and those who live them.  Even though Nassim Taleb (Richard Thaler’s work on behavioural economics may also make a contribution) has been influential in arguing for change, we continue to deploy inappropriate concepts from our compendium of discourses on absolute certainty such as instability, crisis or crash as.  These tools are brought to bear on comparatively uncertain mundanities by people whose habitus is structured by a-t heuristics and who deem dynamic processes to be something abnormal.  We are correspondingly far too underprepared for threats and neglectful of developing engineering heuristics.

10. Truth technology and control. Engineers (scientists) and pure mathematicians gain influence but have problems developing heuristics for dynamic non-linear figurational processes leaving priests and philosophers in charge.

There is such a clear disparity between our experience of immutable, I-oriented (a version of homo clausus directly referenced to Descartes) a-t heuristics derived from supernatural and/or logical command systems, and more unpredictable, even volatile comparatively uncertain mundane processes, that it is difficult to support any belief that a-t heuristics are meant to be sincere attempts to model/engineer mundanities.  Accordingly, we should see a-t heuristics as interdependent aspects of a cognitive truth technology designed and developed by theometaphysicians to provide us, especially those people operating from established figurations, with a secure platform from which to thact and thrive in our dynamic universe that is often uncontrollable and very threatening.  Adopting a-t heuristics, which are by definition true without doubt, allows us to control cognitive dissonance (fear) by guaranteeing certainty and mandating us to believe that we know exactly what we are doing even when things go catastrophically wrong.  In this sense a-t heuristics are need-statements, often minimally engaged with facts, which provide faulty simulations of those mundane processes they purport to axiomatize.  Nonetheless, pure mathematicians have managed to open up sufficient engagement with mundane processes to develop less I-oriented a-t heuristics of real practical utility, as their spectacularly fruitful 350 year partnership with engineers (usually called scientists) patently evidences.  Interestingly however, as pure mathematicians have grown in influence during this period from Newton to Higgs, philosophers and especially priests have seen their influence decline in places like Britain where engineers have been able to flourish.  From my perspective a key aspect of such decline has been an inability of priests and philosophers to reduce levels of I-orientation in their heuristics.

Nevertheless, priests and philosophers still have considerable influence as fundamentalist religious figurations and Michael Sandel testify.  This state of affairs is in part explained by an inability of pure mathematicians to develop heuristics capable of modelling figurational (social scientific) mundanities, leaving priests and philosophers to carry on as usual.  By developing statistical heuristics pure mathematicians have made some contribution to our understanding by making it clear that linear heuristics cannot model figurational processes accurately.  Even so, recent developments of non-linear ‘chaotic’ models may prove more useful.  What with continued priestly/philosopher influence and limited development of mathematical heuristics, we have seen a dearth of engineered alternatives becoming available, leaving figurational engineers little option but to default to ancient conventions and deploy supernatural and/or verbal logical a-t heuristics, even though I believe they seriously inhibit their capacity to engage with and model figurational mundanities.  Accordingly, supernatural and verbal logical a-t heuristics still prevail largely unchallenged as tools for analysing figurational issues.

9. A gradual loosening of our habituation to a-t heuristics: Protestantism, Nietzsche and engineering, politicians notwithstanding.

We could easily discuss such issues in relation to that other more recent version of conviction politics that championed individuality and market forces and validated Thatcher’s figuration to destroy so many people’s lives.  This essay is not a polemic against socialism; it is a polemic against our committed and uncritical acceptance of applying a-t heuristics.  Sadly from my point of view, in allowing an a-t heuristic such as socialism to govern their policy making, Attlee’s figuration was thacting normally and duly delivered us down a well-trodden idealistic road built on fantasy that very predictably ended in failure and electoral disenchantment.  These theometaphysical heuristics are so habituated into our thactivity that they seem as natural as drinking water: from this perspective we are by nature logical, structured by God’s divine hand.  In fact these heuristics are human inventions and so desensitizing to our critical faculties that we persist in obsessively pursuing impossible aims, whilst ignoring more fruitful, mundane, engineering heuristics.  300 years of engineering triumphs speak for themselves as a means of delivering substantive answers to human problems.  In addition, these remarkable successes have made us very aware of inadequacies in much ancient theometaphysical technology, especially theological, but also, philosophical a-t heuristics.

To some degree our unwillingness to apply engineering heuristics to political problems is explained by habit.  However, applying engineering heuristics implies a closer engagement with comparatively uncertain mundanities, and interdependently, a recognition that a-t heuristics have less validity.  Living with these changes decreases our feelings of certainty, security and control, such that thacting with conviction becomes much more difficult both in personal and figurational terms.  As we engage more and more closely with comparative uncertainties, a-t heuristics become less and less viable and may even need to be abandoned altogether in favour of more practical evidence-oriented, engineered heuristics – an example being proverbial beliefs (p-b heuristics).  P-b heuristics are at best contingent, assessable only as probabilities not certainties: too many cooks may spoil broths, but not always so.  Living according to p-b heuristics increases cognitive dissonance by denying complete self-belief/conviction and making domination more difficult to sustain.  Correspondingly, relying on p-b heuristics amplifies feelings of personal responsibility as justification for thaction cannot be off-loaded via dogmatic belief: what we call terrorist killing is often validated by an a-t heuristic whether religious, secular or an amalgam of both.  When we confront dilemmas and make decisions with comparative uncertainty we do so without reliance on some external ultimate authority.  As engineered heuristics don’t offer any ultimate authorities, living with them is more insecure and anxiety laden, and for many just too difficult.

Protestants are a good example of people who in rejecting Roman Catholic infallible Papal/priestly authority and needing to know God for themselves, took a significant democratizing step towards comparatively uncertain mundanities.  Concomitantly, Protestants, especially non-conformists, engage with mundane experiences much more directly through personal bible reading.  For such a possibility, biblical translation out of Latin was necessary and with it potential reinterpretation of a sacred text.  A re-authored bible written according to Protestant a-t heuristics made a single, authoritative, specific apostolic meaning much more difficult if not impossible to ascertain.  Very predictably, these re-writes attracted serious often violent resistance from established Catholic figurations.  Divine texts can only be corrupted when meddled with by ordinary, grubby human hands.  Every time they are re-written further interpretation/uncertainty emerges and ancient a-t heuristics will struggle to command authority: Tyndale’s biblical translation was used in producing a later King James Bible thereby delivering mundane interpretation upon interpretation of God’s word.  Not unsurprisingly Protestant religious thactivities spawned schism upon schism.

We can see what happens with still closer secular engagement with mundanities by considering Nietzsche’s philosophy.  He was brought up in a Protestant tradition, but eventually abandoned supernatural authority and safety altogether.  In addition, by denouncing post-Socratic philosophers and pure mathematicians he leaves us very sceptical of any a-t heuristic.  From my perspective Nietzsche’s work is where philosophy ends.  Philosophers are ultimately truth finders.  By engaging with comparatively uncertain mundanities and discovering that there are no absolute truths they lose their raison d’être as per Nietzsche.  Mundane experiences if taken as read without a-t heuristics to confuse our perceptions and cloud our judgements are for engineers not philosophers.  Nietzsche’s philosophy of solitude is as far as philosophers can go without becoming engineers.  He was punished for his heresy by being ostracized and stigmatized.  Life for Nietzsche was a journey of agony and ecstasy, which is to a large extent a process of ‘overcoming’ our habituation to ancient theometaphysical ways.  I would interpret his work as an impossible struggle to make philosophical sense of his engagement with comparative uncertainties.

Nietzsche was less compromising than other philosophers in that he did engage thoroughly with comparative uncertainties and tried to make sense of what he found.  Philosophers generally have been fighting a rear-guard thaction against engagement with mundane uncertainties since engineers became so successful: Descartes began a process of change that was modified by Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche et al., as philosophers had to deal with historical evidence.  They and their theological allies could no longer write off mundane uncertain experiences as logical aberrations, as illusions to be swept away: ‘homo clausus’ was having difficulty making comparative uncertainties fit with its preconceived a-t heuristics.  As far as I’m concerned, Nietzsche needed to develop engineering heuristics to explain more substantively his closer engagement with comparative uncertainties.  But as Nietzsche so bravely affirmed, to challenge a-t heuristics at all in 19^th century Europe was very isolating and dangerous.  I would argue that this state of affairs still largely prevails, especially in politics, where a-t heuristics such as capitalism, socialism, democracy, justice and equality remain very influential as default hubs for figurational formation and every day functioning.  This is partly explained by our personal need for control/safety and sufficient conviction to resist/dominate others.  Such needs make us vulnerable however to political opportunists who use ideal heuristics to take us on flights of fancy in order to win our vote: ‘strong and stable government’ being a recent example.  This is a serious mistake!

8. Socialism as an a-t heuristic: a scientific tool for domination and genocide.

By committing ourselves to a-t heuristics (ideals) such as social justice and equality we are made resistant to life’s grinding hardship and unfairness, knowing that if we go about it in a certain way a utopian tomorrow can be realized, epitomized in modern times by Marx’ scientific dialectical class model: a piece of pseudo-engineering.  As such both socialism and capitalism are a-t heuristics that provide idealistic, definitive answers to what is going wrong in people’s lives and what needs to be done, opening up possibilities of achieving levels of self-belief (that illusion of conviction) needed to push on at all costs even in the face of serious resistance that may well end in martyrdom or killing others.  As an a-t heuristic socialism offered justification for Stalinist and Maoist figurations to sanction genocidal killing and forced migration of large numbers of people who threatened their revolutionary ideals.  On a less murderous scale, a belief in socialism authorized Attlee’s figuration to re-balance responsibility for managing personal welfare, giving government officials much more influence.  These fore-mentioned changes were done with conviction, conviction driven by self-belief in an a-t heuristic – socialism.  In fact, as with other a-t heuristics, socialism is an over-simplification of what actually goes on, high on ideals/science, low on facts/engineering, patterned according to theometaphysical rules, in Marx’ case dialectical materialism.  Such a-t heuristics developed by modern specialists such as Marx provide certainties which can be deployed to control our fear of comparatively uncertain mundane experiences.  Rather than engaging more fully with mundane experiences by deploying engineering techniques that should make us wary of anything ending in ‘ism’, we continue to believe in illusions such as socialism to justify our thactions and supply us with sufficient safe conviction, to fight, dominate and if necessary kill those with whom we disagree.  In this way a-t heuristics offload personal responsibility for killing and dying by giving us reason to believe.

7. Habituses and absolute-truth (a-t) heuristics.

Our difficulty to live without certainties distorts our perceptions promoting a view that absolute truths govern earthly mundane functioning – this is what I call a scientific approach.  Such a model dominates British intellectual thactivities.  Correspondingly, engineered solutions are seen as dependent on deploying pure mathematical absolute-truth technology.  This is a serious mistake because such technologies of certainty can never fully engage with comparatively uncertain mundane experiences and correspondingly can at best merely mimic them.  Absolute truths are not in evidence anywhere other than people’s minds: God’s Ten Commandments are a matter of faith not fact; logical technique as a means of establishing absolute truths breaks down when the facts have to be taken into account – real triangles are merely modelled by Pythagoras’ theorem as there are no straight lines or perfect 90⁰ angles.  Absolute truths are mental tools or what Tversky & Kahneman (1974) call ‘heuristics’, which do not constitute mundane realities as so many influential people believe.  Techniques for formulating absolute-truth (a-t) heuristics were developed by ancient people to deal with their specific fears and anxieties so that they could function effectively.  We have inherited their words and conventions and continue to apply them uncritically even when they have outlived their usefulness; because like ancient Greeks, absolute truths make us feel safe.

Safety is experienced in various ways, one being self-belief.  By deploying a-t heuristics we are safe in knowing that we can thact with conviction, even when confronted by serious resistance from people with far more influence than ourselves.  Belief in absolute truth will sustain us even during periods of severe social isolation when all seems lost.  Orwell (1989, pp. 92-3) explains this process in his book 1984 when describing what strengthens and motivates Winston Smith to live with desperate isolation and resist Big Brother:

“His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in the debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer.  And yet he was in the right!  They were wrong and he was right.  The obvious, the silly and the true had got to be defended.  Truisms are true, hold on to that! ……. Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four.  If that is granted all else follows”.

Ideals can fortify us to take a stand, by providing us with something that is worth fighting and dying for in absolute certainty that we are right and that anyone who disagrees is wrong and should be resisted if not stopped.  Such certainty provides a platform from which we can manage our fear and anxiety so that we can be assertive and live rather than just existing in dissonant apathy as per Mathieu in Sartre’s The Roads to Freedom.  In giving us a definite reason to die a-t heuristics motivate us to live!

However, our factual, mundane experience suggests that such beliefs are illusory as pointed out some 300 years ago by philosopher David Hume.  As far as I can see, certainty is nothing more than a habit learned from previous generations fostered by centuries of commitment to a-t heuristics.  Such a-t heuristical dominance has only recently been seriously challenged as engineers developed more successful yet realistic methods for dealing with human problems.  I want to look at ‘socialism’ as a modern a-t heuristic developed by 18^th and 19^th century theometaphysicians committed to ideals that defend, celebrate and proselytize virtues such as togetherness and limited personal autonomy.  As with other ideals socialism is an ideological weapon, which in grand Socratic dialectical fashion can be used to win an argument and if necessary mobilize an army of people with reason to fight and die in battle with capitalists, who are without doubt wrong.  From a socialist point of view, capitalists are bullies and cheats, who busy themselves exploiting their potential for greater personal autonomy through commercial thactivities.  From an engineering perspective socialism, and capitalism for that matter, are a-t heuristics manufactured by theometaphysicians to help us manage our engagement with comparatively uncertain experiences.

6. Our western habituses are structured by absolute-truth hubs which are very resistant to facts and change.

Those who purvey these profoundest, irrefutable truths, offer up possibilities for thacting with absolute authority, control and security in a world that is always changing.  These absolute truths are located in our habituses as mental hubs and as such are default positions which subconsciously structure our thacting in relation to chaotic life experiences.  Accordingly, they are held in highest regard and accrue serious status, as do those theometaphysicians who supply them, whether priests like St Augustine, philosophers like Michael Sandel or pure mathematicians such as Stephen Hawking.  Even so, whilst absolute truths accrue enormous strength and influence from their capacity to make us feel certain and secure, they fail to engage properly with mundane problems, as with my Obama example above: governing ‘justly’ is not possible.  Such a lack of fit between ideal and mundane experiences is accompanied by feelings of dissonance which can be relieved in two ways:-

1. Abandon a relevant absolute truth belief, or;
2. Translate awkward, uncomfortable mundane experiences as aberrations that overlay and obscure a more profound underpinning reality governed by absolute truths that is beyond everyday perceptions. Such a position is a matter of faith, whether religious or scientific.  This is one way of understanding what a scientist is: they are believers in absolute truths.  Engineers by comparison are more engaged with comparatively uncertain mundane experiences and less prone to flights of fancy.

Attendant on abandoning an absolute truth are increased feelings of dissonance which can be so serious as to demand re-assembly of a mental default hub which may have been in place since childhood.  Such hub modification can have wider implications as mental default hubs operate interdependently with each other – a change in functioning of one may well require revising another.  If for example we are confronted with evidence that contradicts our feelings on an ideal such as equality our other ideals may come under scrutiny too: if equality is impossible what about justice?  In extreme circumstances total hub reconstruction may be necessary, which is likely to be seriously disorientating as it involves significant engagement with comparatively uncertain mundanities making self-assurance and control very difficult if not impossible to attain.  I think it’s fair to say that many, perhaps a significant majority of people, will find this experience intolerable and are likely to restore all default absolute-truth hubs and carry on regardless of contradiction even when an absolute-truth belief becomes completely untenable: a recognition that God’s Ten Commandments cannot work in practice does not lead people to abandon their religious faith.  Our unquestioned belief in equality is a secular example.  If we take a verb-oriented approach we might ask ourselves on what grounds can people be equal?  This may evoke answers such as height, weight etc.  Such questions are for engineers and are quantifiable.  However, conventionally equality is a noun, but not in a material sense – equality is metaphysical, it is an ideal most prominently espoused as part of French revolutionary politics.  Equality is a fanciful noun developed by theometaphysicians, an a-t heuristic.  Equality is something existing only in a Cartesian mind, something dreamed up by homo clausus beyond ordinary facts: equality is something super-human, something we can know absolutely through logical analysis.  As a mental ‘thing’, an a-t heuristic, equality forms part of our cognitive absolute truth technology that structures our habitus.  In fact ‘equality’ does not exist at all and cannot be understood as part of our mundane experiences; equality cannot be engineered.  It is a mental construction that offers hope to dispossessed people who need a reason to carry on – who need control.   Equality can never be measured.  It is impossible to assess and yet we continue to pursue it in important contexts such as sexual and ethnic relationships.  Our long-term and continued adherence to ideals such equality not only distorts our perceptions, it impedes our capacity to develop and apply engineering approaches to our problems, especially those of a figurational nature where our emotional well-being is threatened to a serious degree by comparative uncertainties.  However, if we can take a verbal approach then we may find benefits to sorting out how equal we can be, which  may compensate for our feelings of dissonance.

5. Certainty and Security: absolute-truth finders – theometaphysicians (priests, philosophers and pure mathematicians).

In part, as discussed above, our reliance on these conventions is about security and habit.  Mundane truths rather than absolute truths come to us from previous generations as tried and tested, ready-made proverbial guides for managing day to day ups and downs.  An example would be fatalistic beliefs, which allow us to offload responsibility for what happens onto something or someone else – ‘what will be, will be’: another belief contradictory to fatalism involves adherence to rationalistic convictions that motivate us to take responsibility and plan – ‘your fate is in your own hands’.  Whilst these maxims of every day conduct are gathered informally from mundane experience, higher order absolute truths are developed by professional truth-finders who have honed their techniques since ancient times in an attempt to manufacture certainties that immunise us from perfidious profane experiences.  Traditionally this formal work has been carried out by two figurations of theometaphysicians operating interdependently: priests (theologians) who oversee supernatural (religious) truths and philosophers/pure mathematicians (metaphysicians) who formulate reasoned/logical (secular) truths.

Their programme of absolute-truth finding has been very influential.  Moses gave us God’s word as Ten Commandments that have been adopted by enormous numbers of people as well as Jews.  These Commandments being God’s word are absolutely true by definition.  In a secular search for absolute truths, ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato developed logical methods which have governed western ways of thacting, both religious and secular, ever since.  Pure mathematicians such as Pythagoras continue to influence contemporary mathematicians and engineers.  These formal truths are absolute and cannot be disproven.  This is their great attraction.  They provide security by reassuring us that certain knowledge and stability persists beyond our sensory perceptions, guiding our every day, comparatively uncertain experiences.  Knowing with certainty offers absolute control over our fears and anxieties about earthly volatilities: martyrs are ready to go through tortuous deaths for their religious truths.  Metaphysical truths such as justice, equality and pure mathematical theorems have tremendous force and must not be underestimated as human motivators – as Liam Fox, Secretary of State for International Trade, said this morning (1/9/17) business needs ‘certainty’ if we are to benefit from Brexit.

4. Social and personal control: certainty through absolute-truth beliefs – Obama and Atlee.

Our acceptance of this state of affairs is in part explained by resistance to change from those with invested interests in continuing to deploy ideals or absolute-truth beliefs.  Priests, philosophers and pure mathematicians (theometaphysicians) are three such prestigious figurations which have serious influence sufficient to undermine attempts to apply comparatively uncertain engineered approaches to figurational problems, especially where issues of significance to their established allies are concerned such as politics.  Absolute truth beliefs are tactical tools that form part of a strategy used by established figurations to control infiltration of outsiders into positions of influence – by definition an absolute truth is an ideological tool of domination resistant to all attempts at change: see my essay Why You Shouldn’t Believe Anything You’re Told.

However, where more personal aspects of human experience are concerned theometaphysicians and other established figurations have much less direct influence, especially over those outsiders with little social investment, whose meagre educational and/or financial resources leave them at a considerable social distance from established figurational thactivities and with minimal influence.  We can probably understand why someone schooled at Oxford University with a prestigious, highly paid job that facilitates property ownership would be well aware of and likely to deploy ancient absolute-truth beliefs when analysing life’s problems, political or otherwise.  But, it is less obvious as to why outsider figurations with little of what Bourdieu terms ‘culture capital’ should deploy absolute-truth beliefs?  Ideological conditioning can to some extent explain such penetration of these beliefs albeit mitigated by local culture as Gramsci and others have pointed out.  However, a need for ideological tools of domination is not a sole preserve of established figurations: even poor, uneducated people use absolute truths to dominate others, religious doctrine being a prime example.

Nonetheless, members of established and outsider figurations have another thing in common that can account for their receptivity to absolute-truth beliefs; they all need to feel in control of their lives.  When we hold a belief in an absolute-truth it increases our self-assurance sufficient to motivate us to exert our influence – in other words we feel in control of mundane situations and can live rather than merely exist.  To live in this sense is to thact assertively; to exist is to thact defensively.  Control is about self-assurance; in one sense domination is applying that control to others for our own benefit, that is, to retain control.  Maximum control is associated with absolute certainty – absolute certainty is energized and guaranteed by absolute-truth beliefs.  Such beliefs are useful for living at all levels whether we are tackling mundane problems or aiming to achieve high governmental office: listen to Barack Obama’s self-assured inaugural address of 2008 where in stating his impossible utopian vision of ‘change’, he liberally deploys absolute-truth beliefs.  His speech promised a more idealistic America where issues of injustice and inequality would be resolved – you could almost detect a feeling that Americans were about to enter a fabled ‘promised land’.  Such conviction pulsates with energy interdependent with absolute truth beliefs that facilitate sufficient charismatic self-assurance to vindicate running for presidential office in order to deploy serious influence.  Of course, political ideals by definition founder in their encounter with mundane political situations.  However, had Obama stated his case in a more realistic, engineered fashion, he would not have been so convincing and electable as he would not have been able to promise to deliver certainties.  Concomitantly, Obama was elected President on a wave of optimism that quickly dissipated when his team encountered mundane political situations that required thacting according to democratic checks and balances.   Unlike Obama’s people, Attlee’s figuration had a landslide victory to work with in 1945, which provided them with an opportunity to put their socialist absolute-truth beliefs into action and make big changes virtually unrestrained by political opposition.  Absolute-truth beliefs mandate us to thact with absolute certainty and conviction: by definition, we cannot be wrong.

3. Philosophers not Engineers when tackling social problems.

Labour’s willingness in 1945 to construct and put into operation a prototype welfare model grounded in ideals rather than engineering was unfortunately to be expected.  Sadly, this has not changed.  Correspondingly, when dealing with political problems we remain committed to ancient theometaphysical (religious, philosophical and mathematical) conventions and standards.  Oxford University degrees such as Philosophy, Politics & Economics (PPE), so connected with those who achieve political eminence (see Adrian Wooldridge’s article in The Sunday Times, 28/12/14, p22), evidence and reinforce this pattern – why not EPE, Engineering, Politics & Economics?  20/01/15 was Democracy Day on BBC Radio 4.  I listened to a brief debate chaired by Today’s ultimate authority on these issues, ‘the public philosopher’, Michael Sandel of Harvard and LSE.  We could have been in ancient Athens listening to Socrates (Plato).  Contemporary political thactivity is structured according to ancient idealistic rules and is concomitantly shot-through with dream notions like ‘democracy’.  Why is this a problem?

It is a problem because these techniques have failed us in understanding and sorting out some of our most pressing human difficulties: just consider our continuing preparedness to resort to serious violence when resolving human conflicts.  In addition, British people face very different problems in 2017AD than did Greek people in 500BC.  We in Britain have benefitted enormously from taking an engineering approach to our material problems.  However, as stated above, we have been much less willing to explore such an approach to our figurational issues.  This limited development is partly explained by our profound security needs that demand our dependence on obsolete, inappropriate ancient habits, which is why BBC producers selected Sandel to chair a debate rather than a political engineer.  Isn’t 2500 years of failure sufficient time to judge such conventions unfit for purpose?  Our willingness to accept such a limited degree of penetration into political analysis by engineering methods is alarming.  Engineers have been extremely successful in dealing with human illness, but in doing so medics had to jettison ancient Hippocratic and Galenic models.  Why do we not carry out a parallel exercise as regards most other figurational issues?