Intuitive sense of subtle processes expressed through metaphor

AWOL: American Way Of Life: Assumptions -- justifying worldwide imposition of democratic imperialism (Part #4)

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All | PDF] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

---

Use of metaphor: The argument here is that there is a degree of recognition, through common (metaphorical) expressions, of processes that cannot be fully "grasped" through rational categories. In relation to the following argument regarding the L-shaped Knight's move in chess, the longer portion of the "L" can be understood as a form of  normalcy and linearity -- the phase of longer duration which purportedly characterizes it. Whereas the shorter phase in the process is the unexpected necessarily more sudden). In chess either may precede the other: predictability followed by surprise, or surprise followed by predictability.

Some examples, used metaphorically, might include:

• stealthy stalking -- then "going in for the kill", "springing the trap" or applying the "sting"
• innocent courtship -- prior to "making the move"

These have reverse possibilities in which the sudden surprise precedes a form of predictability, which follows over a more extended period of time. This gives two variants: "do the dirty", then "go clean" (under a cloak of respectability), or else "go clean" (building credibility), then "do the dirty". Perhaps:

• making the killing -- then living a long life on the proceeds, as a respectable citizen
• falling unexpectedly in love -- then living out a long and habitual relationship

The change in orientation may be expressed through "geometrical" metaphors, as with went "round the bend" (implying a degree of craziness), but especially as being "bent" or "crooked" (implying a degree of evil). The "geometry" may take the form of recognition of "closedness" in contrast to "openness". Ball-game and marching metaphors may be used as in "switching foot", namely taking a new stance facing the opposite direction, possibly "wrong-footing" others (who experience this as being "off-footed)

Attention may focus on the lack of transparency, namely a perception of stealth rather than openness, as with being "under-the-table" rather than "on-the-table". There may be a sense that "dirty tricks" are used on occasion, cloaked by the highest respectability -- perhaps recognition of a "wolf in sheep's clothing".  The exception to normalcy in marital relationships may be expressed as a "bit on the side". More generally this may be recognized as betrayal of a bond or agreement, or more simply "cheating". Following the switch, the perpetrator may be considered to be "unrecognizable" -- having "shifted shape".

As questioned by observers, relationships may involve one partner "getting their hooks into" the other, who may not recognize the process until it is too late.

For those experiencing the process there may be considerable difficulty in "putting their finger on" how they have been "screwed" or "shafted" -- despite sensing that this has occurred. This may be the essence of the most artful confidence tricks. It may be a case of "now you see it, now you don't", which in the case of corrupt practices may be the equivalent of the "Find the Lady" fair game.

Collective instances: As with individual instances, in the collective case what might be claimed to be inappropriate is readily a focus of denial, accompanied by vigorous claims of innocence and assertions of offended honourablity. Any blame may simply be deflected. On a larger scale much use may be made of the media "spin", as recognized in questionable marketing and politics.

A previous effort to articulate the nature of the intimate cognitive involvement in recognizing the pattern of assumed innocence and vigorous denial of implication, used the "who me?" experience of snoring (Snoring of The Other a politically relevant psycho-spiritual metaphor? 2006). The experience also characterizes the difficulty of discussing it "objectively". The surprising nature of the "unforeseen" phase has been most usefully explored on a larger scale as black swan theory by Nassim Nicholas Taleb (The Black Swan: the impact of the highly improbable, 2007). This can be understood as clarifying the challenge to the expectation of the predictability of the longer phase. An appropriately shocking example was provided by the scandal of the "creative accounting" of the Enron corporation in 2001.

The current period of financial crisis has focused heightened attention of those various complicit in its emergence. One particular concern, when remedies are sought through austerity strategies, is the extent to which major multinational corporations engage in tax avoidance -- the legal utilization of the tax regime to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law. This compounds issues relating to tax evasion  -- the evasion of taxes by illegal means -- especially when this cannot be satisfactorily proven in a court of law.

People are increasingly aware of "injustice" when confronted with facts relating to these matters. In the USA for example, a recent study found that of 280 companies, all of them on the Fortune 500 list, while the federal corporate tax code ostensibly requires big corporations to pay a 35 percent corporate income tax rate, on average, the 280 corporations in our study paid only about half that amount. And those who paid even half the statutory corporate tax rate paid far more than many of their competitors.  78 corporations had at least one year (in the past three) where they paid no federal income tax at all, while 30 corporations paid nothing, even though they made $160 billion in profits over that period (Robert S. McIntyre, et al., Corporate Taxpayers and Corporate Tax Dodgers 2008-10, Citizens for Tax Justice and Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, November 2011). Equivalent situations exist within the European Union where questionable advantage can readily be taken of the different tax regimes.

Clearly the phenomenon is even more extensive elsewhere, as implied by the rankings of the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) published by Transparency International. Beyond the question of strict legality of such avoidance, where this is claimed, are the moral and ethical issues at a time when individual tax payers are called upon to endanger their livelihoods, and those of their descendants, in order to bailout corporate entities and the financial system in which they are implicated.

In a world much characterized by crime, corruption, racketeering and blackmail of every kind, the issue is increasingly how major institutions acclaiming their respectability, and even their social responsibility, manage to place themselves in this advantageous situation -- with the complicity of governments competitively engaged in offering tax avoidance regimes. The sense for many is that such corporations increasingly merit recognition as being "bent" in some manner, if only in the manner in which they successfully "bend" the law to justify actions which are challenged as morally unjust.

In the following exploration the legality can be understood as the longer portion of the "L", whereas the "creative accounting" is the shorter "deviant" portion which is morally suspect, even if it can be upheld as legal. Ironically, at a time when the quest for "alternatives" is officially deprecated, the "deviant" portion effectively operates under an "alternative" logic, irrespective of whether this justifies "dirty tricks".

The advantage for the perpetrators -- but a difficulty in demonstrating their innocence -- is that in many instances they have the right to shield their activities under confidentiality laws. Suspicions are compounded by the facility with which corporations can seek injunctions on release of relevant details -- further compounded by the existence of "superinjunctions" to prevent any discussion of the existence of such injunctions or the matters to which they apply. Their employees are necessarily obliged to sign non-disclosure agreements. Commentators may well challenge any criticism as totally unjustified -- especially when employed by media owned by the corporations in question.

Whilst much may be legal, "stink" is a metaphor many find relevant. Just how do they do that? The following image is the first of others (below) -- offering a visual metaphor of the cognitive challenge.

Schematic representation of Knights of Industry at a negotiation table ? (necessarily concealing what is "under-the-table")

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All | PDF] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]