Amity and Enmity * Two Archetypes of Social Existence An Interdisciplinary Study Rudolf Starkermann e*Feedcrossee©2007 Copyright by Rudolf Starkermann Revised Edition All rights reserved Production: Editions a la Carte Ztrich ISBN: 3-908730-48-1Content Flashback Preview Introduction The MaFiT of Throwing a Stone The Struggle With Consciousness The Two Approaches Part 1 - | Part 2 - I Ul Part 3 - \V Vv vi Vil Part 4 - vil Part 5 - K x The single loop: The Hypo- and the Hypersensitive Being Two level systems: It's a Sin to Confess a Sin Damn the Authority! Two elements in parallel: If You Can't Beat “em, Join ‘em! Con mala persona, el remedio: Mucho tierra en media Faith, the Symbol of God Providing Help A Trilogy of Hostility Three elements in parallel: Viribus unitis Miscellanea The Quarrelsome Clerics Become United About the Heretic’s Hair Nature Favors Aggression Some Closing Comments References 14 18 26 30 39 66 87 104 121 152 180 199 212 228 243 249Flashback This Volume Il is a continuation of Volume |; therefore, a brief overview of Volume | could be helpful for the reader. Volume | contains three parts. In the first part, the focus is on the description of a mathematical model of the mental-social behavior of an individual. The model is called the social unit. We use the article he instead of it when the unit represents an individual and is called individual. The unit is structured in the form of an automatically operating control loop that has self-control in working toward its goal. This goal is the unit’s se/f-realization. The unit can become disturbed from the environment within which it exists; but it has no interaction yet with a second unit. It is in a state of autonomy. Secondly, after this first topic is sufficiently elaborated, the forms of two basic archaic social behavioral patterns, amity and enmity, are defined. This second part is the main body of Volume |. The two patterns, or motives, of social interaction are called consent if amity is the motive, and hostility if enmity is the motive. Two individuals, or two units, now - as they interact - are called partners. They are set together, side by side, i.e., they are on the same social level and they unconsciously exchange information with each other. This unconscious information is the attitude the partners hold toward each other. A third part of Volume | illustrates the intricacy of several social units in their information exchange in, firstly, unconscious information exchange only, and secondly, in unconscious and conscious information exchange. All units are put on an equal social level, i.e., there is no hierarchical arrangement considered. The main point that comes to light in the second part of Volume | is that even in amity where the partners strive toward their individual goal, i.e., toward their self-realization, one partner has to be in an aggressive disposition toward the other, and the companion has tosubmit himself to his aggressively disposed partner if a mutual agreement is to be established. One partner has to be progressive, ie., somehow aggressive. In other words, one partner has to act; the other partner has to give in, has to agree. In a hostile partnership, in enmity, both partners - partners perhaps rather in quotation marks - are mutually in an aggressive disposition toward each other. In the amity-position the meaning of one partner being aggressively disposed is merely an indication of the necessity of a readiness to go forward, to go ahead and to act, to progress. Although one partner is in an aggressive disposition, the partnership results in amity. The term amity is based on the fact that this form of information exchange between two partners - one being aggressive, the other submissive - results in mutual help concerning the partners’ self-realization, whereas in the enmity relation the mutual aggressive disposition results in mutual damage to both partners’ self-realizations. If two aggressively disposed partners struggle toward their individual goal, then conflict, damage, and self-damage are programmed. As a third state in this second part, it was found that if both partners submit to each other, the relationship collapses; it turns into a negative prospect for both partners’ self-realizations. One partner has to go forward; the other partner can hang on by submitting - but not both. The remarkable point is that even in amity one partner has to lead, whereas the other has to give in, has to submit himself. This feature becomes - as the investigation illustrates - logical. If both give in, the relationship deteriorates, becomes paralytic. One of the partners has to lead; the other has to accept the leadership. Of course, in case the goals are not self-realization, if they have a temporary meaning only, then leadership and submission can be exchanged over the course of time and evolving circumstances. A further extremely important fact becomes uncovered in this second part. Concerning the existential area of social homeostasisand compared with the consentient partnership, hostility allows a much /arger willpower for both partners that they can exert in their mutual struggle; and their emotional disposition operates much faster than in consent. For both parameters, the willpower to act and the speed of acting are about twice as large in enmity than in amity. In addition it was found that if in hostility one partner is noticeably stronger than his partner, the weaker one at long last dies away. Out of this fact the conclusion emerged that for the purpose of survival, nature necessarily has to favor aggression. These two facts, higher willpower and higher speed in enmity, push amity behind enmity in the daily fight for survival. Therefore it is practically impossible - and history proves it again and again - that a friendship that once turned into hostility never goes back to a friendly state, to a peaceful togetherness. Hate extends to the grave: Exoriare aliquis nostris ex ossibus ultor - An avenger may rise up out of our mortal remains! Vergil, Aneis 4,625. Changing from hate to love is a dream, or at bests a miracle. Although such findings are contradictory to any philanthropic claim, namely that peace and democracy on earth be possible, the facts are perfectly in line with historical events all over the globe and throughout time: enmity rules the world. This holds true for humans as well as for animals and plants, i.e., for any living being. Every healthy and normal being wants to survive and substantiates the universal truth: Proximus sum egomet mihi: | am myself the next. As the world does not exist for a being that does not exist, the living being is categorically the most important being for him. Each being is the center of his world. Although friendship with its low power and low speed results in better goal attainment than hostility at the very end of an undertaking, hostility is all the more attractive. This is so because hostility acts at the very instant of actual life - and this is how we judge the importance of events. Hostility acts twice as fast or even faster than friendship, and it provides twice the willpower it can exert than amicable behavior. The model shows that in order tomaintain friendship in a favorably working manner throughout a lasting undertaking, modesty in willpower and an emotional restraint are severe and necessary requirements. In enmity, both partners are egoists. In amity, the aggressively disposed partner is called the egoist, the submitting partner, on the other hand, is named the alfruist. The third part shows, firstly, two forms of extended applications of the dualism to multi-partner systems. One form illustrates the outcome in monotonously growing partnerships from two up to eight partners, all unconsciously interacting with each other. The other form consists of two groups of two partners each, where the internally friendly groups fight each other. Then, and also in this multi-configuration, an investigation is provided showing the fundamental functional structure of the brain of mammals. This third part provides the awareness of the gigantic social complexity in which we live, and also the tremendous potential of brain activity we carry around inside us. In addition it comes to light what an enormous effort we face if we ever want to gain insight into the time-functional behavior of living systems, i.e., of us, the homo sapiens. In an appendix, called The Technical Unconscious, the parallelism of automatic multiple controls on one hand and of socio-biological unconscious interaction on the other hand is demonstrated and formulated. Preview In the present Volume Il, similarly as done in Volume |, we look first at a single partner, and this also in the form of the loop-model of Volume |. In contrast to the investigated parameters in Volume |, we choose a parameter of this loop that is not yet scrutinized. This parameter is fhe feedback signal of the individual’s loop. It is demonstrated what effect a feedback signal has on the behavior