You might not be very familiar with Francis Bacon’s Essays, Civil and Moral, but I’ve read them all closely—several times. Indeed, I’ve read and reread many of Francis Bacon’s works. I learned a lot from Bacon’s writings as well as from those of two of his famous contemporaries, Chistopher Marlowe and the quasi-enigma William Shakespeare (any Baconian Theorists in the house?).
This morning, a Dream & Hustle blog post, “Open Letter to Leslie Hinton and Robert Thomson,” reminded me of Bacon’s essays. Specifically, it reminded me of Bacon’s essay “Of Ambition” and how Bacon described the ways powerful people use their tools in order to get the most out of the most talented and ambitious men and women in their herds, all the while preventing (or attempting to prevent) their unchecked talented and ambitious sheep from earning opportunities to rule themselves.
The very talented and ambitious social climbers who might come to learn that they had been “checked in their desires” all along might suffer most. Upon discovering their checked (or ruled) status, these folks might have to choose whether to a) attempt to clash with a formidable network of powerful folks who tend to block up-and-comers of lower classes from rising to the ranks of the ruling elite (multimillionaire parvenus are allowed and considered harmless, as they rarely try to do more than make and spend money in ways that wouldn’t threaten the ruling elite’s power) or b) to check their ambition somewhat, submit to the supervision of the ruling elite, and pursue whatever wealth, power, and prestige the ruling elite would allow them to pursue, knowing that if they’d climb too high they’d eventually hit a ceiling made of the thickest glass.
The ambitious and successful folks who’d never really figure out that the ruling elite or the ruling elite’s social systems had checked or allowed them to achieve their success in society, because they weren’t ambitious enough or successful enough to hit the glass ceiling, or because they never really cared about whether or not they were being checked (or ruled), would probably be best off, in a blissful kind of way. I’m a fan of bliss, but not when it must be purchased with ignorance. So, I recommend that all ambitious folks read Bacon’s “Of Ambition” in order to learn even more about what the noblest ruling elite probably think of them and how the ruling elite’s suzerain-vassal social systems would probably try to manage their talent and ambition in order to get the most economic, scientific, technological, or artistic production out of them.
Of Ambition
Francis Bacon (1561–1626)
AMBITION is like choler; which is an humor1 that maketh men active, earnest, full of alacrity, and stirring, if it be not stopped. But if it be stopped, and cannot have his way, it becometh adust,2 and thereby malign and venomous. So ambitious men, if they find the way open for their rising, and still get forward, they are rather busy than dangerous; but if they be checked in their desires, they become secretly discontent, and look upon men and matters with an evil eye, and are best pleased when things go backward; which is the worst property in a servant of a prince or state. Therefore it is good for princes, if they use ambitious men, to handle it so as they be still progressive and not retrograde; which because it cannot be without inconvenience, it is good not to use such natures at all. For if they rise not with their service, they will take order to make their service fall with them. But since we have said it were good not to use men of ambitious natures, except it be upon necessity, it is fit we speak in what cases they are of necessity. Good commanders in the wars must be taken, be they never so ambitious; for the use of their service dispenseth with the rest; and to take a soldier without ambition is to pull off his spurs. There is also great use of ambitious men in being screens to princes in matters of danger and envy; for no man will take that part, except he be like a seeled3 dove, that mounts and mounts because he cannot see about him. There is use also of ambitious men in pulling down the greatness of any subject that overtops; as Tiberius used Macro in the pulling down of Sejanus. Since therefore they must be used in such cases, there resteth to speak how they are to be bridled, that they may be less dangerous. There is less danger of them if they be of mean birth, than if they be noble; and if they be rather harsh of nature, than gracious and popular: and if they be rather new raised, than grown cunning and fortified in their greatness. It is counted by some a weakness in princes to have favorites; but it is of all others the best remedy against ambitious great-ones. For when the way of pleasuring and displeasuring lieth by the favorite, it is impossible any other should be over-great. Another means to curb them is to balance them by others as proud as they. But then there must be some middle counsellors, to keep things steady; for without that ballast the ship will roll too much. At the least, a prince may animate and inure4 some meaner persons, to be as it were scourges to ambitious men. As for the having of them obnoxious5 to ruin; if they be of fearful natures, it may do well; but if they be stout and daring, it may precipitate their designs, and prove dangerous. As for the pulling of them down, if the affairs require it, and that it may not be done with safety suddenly, the only way is the interchange continually of favors and disgraces; whereby they may not know what to expect, and be as it were in a wood.6 Of ambitions, it is less harmful, the ambition to prevail in great things, than that other, to appear in every thing; for that breeds confusion, and mars business. But yet it is less dangerous to have an ambitious man stirring in business, than great in dependences. He that seeketh to be eminent amongst able men hath a great task; but that is ever good for the public. But he that plots to be the only figure amongst ciphers is the decay of a whole age. Honor hath three things in it: the vantage ground to do good; the approach to kings and principal persons; and the raising of a man’s own fortunes. He that hath the best of these intentions, when he aspireth, is an honest man; and that prince that can discern of these intentions in another that aspireth, is a wise prince. Generally, let princes and states choose such ministers as are more sensible of duty than of rising; and such as love business rather upon conscience than upon bravery,7 and let them discern a busy nature from a willing mind.
- According to the old physiology, the body contained four humors—blood, phlegm, choler (red bile), melancholy (black bile)—the varying combination of which determined the individual temperament. [↩]
- Scorched, overheated. [↩]
- With the eyelids sewed together. [↩]
- Accustom. [↩]
- Liable. [↩]
- Maze. [↩]
- Ostentation. [↩]
4 Comments
I will heed your advice and study Francis Bacon works.
I will say however, the “elite” and “powerful” in terms of Internet is not as clear cut as other sectors. Those that knows the vulnerabilities and exploits of the system and networks are just as “elite” if not more than those that built a socialite system around that same system and networks.
Ed:
“I will say however, the “elite” and “powerful” in terms of Internet is not as clear cut as other sectors.”
I doubt it even matters to the ruling elite—in the big military, economic, and political schemes of things—who these people are. The internet industry helps the ruling elite and their herd move ideas and money around. It’s just another way to use electricity, copper, fiber, and waves to manage the herd, put the herd to work, market to the herd, and get the herd to spend their money on shiny things. But it’s not the type of thing that could enable someone to seriously threaten the ruling elite’s long run control.
The internet might enable a smart hacker to shut down a system or upload a nasty virus here and there, but the internet doesn’t fire bullets, it doesn’t determine how investment bankers are instructed to move hundreds of billions in capital around the world for profit, and it won’t really influence the quality of the strings the ruling elite keep attached to elected politicians or their other captains. The internet, as a sector, is not the type of thing through which rogue sheep could secure enough military, political, or economic power to threaten the ruling elite without the ruling elite having an opportunity to put those sheep in check one way or another.
If the internet could enable a guy sitting at a computer to access enough wealth, power, and prestige to consistently and regularly influence things like Guns, Germs, and Steel in ways that would really matter, then the internet, as a sector, might really matter to the ruling elite. But the internet doesn’t give any unchecked sheep that kind of access (at least not long enough to do any serious damage). So, I suspect the ruling elite view the internet as a blessing, another way to enable them to efficiently use their herd management tools.
E.C.
There are several levels of elite we are discussing here.
There is the ruling elite you referenced and I will get back to them in a second - they are not the ones I’m talking about in the Internet industry.
Then you have the virtual elite - the “geek culture” or “kewl culture” that promotes the typecast of the young White male with a great computer ideal and made millions of dollars. When someone reference Silicon Valley, this is mostly what they are referencing. This is what I referenced as the ’socialites’ in my previous comments.
And last you have the elite that pretty much are walking deities. These are the ones that know the nature of the structure and frameworks and the weakness and vulnerabilities. They are not your lightweight hackers that shut down systems or upload virus, they exploit the weakness of the framework everyone else accepted at face value and in most cases go undetected. Most of these elites have left the US and set up shop in places like Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia.
I agree with you about the virtual elite - the Silicon Valley socialites and their lack of influence regardless of the wealth, power and prestige they claim to tout. They do not produce guns or butter and I hope other African-Americans technology entrepreneurs understand this point and realize not only they are barking up the wrong tree (chasing Silicon Valley), but the tree in their own backyard is probably more powerful and fruitful in respect to access to the true ruling elite. I just gave a real hint out to people, btw.
I don’t think - I know for a fact the ruling elite is in awe and fear of those that know how to manipulate the framework. Again, we are talking about those that can skim the .001 off thousands of interest-related (7.89% will bring out numbers like $0.0142) transactions a day through a mix of social and technology engineering. We are talking about those in Russia that illegally wired hundreds of millions out of a major bank a few years ago. We are talking about those that continuously break into the Defense Department mainframe and the DOD will never reveal the serious breaches to the public. We are also talking about the identity thieves that took information and stock value out of retail store chains that stored credit card information on unencrypted hard drives. I’m confident if you talk to any member of the ruling elite about their biggest fear, they will tell you it is computer security breaches carried about the true elite in the tech sector.
Ed:
“I’m confident if you talk to any member of the ruling elite about their biggest fear, they will tell you it is computer security breaches carried about the true elite in the tech sector.”
1. When you brought up the DoD, you caused me to flip on my war strategist mode. I know a little something about how wars are fought—psychological, cultural, physical, and even digital. But you have more esoteric knowledge about the internet’s structure and framework than I probably ever will. So, I’m glad you brought that up.
2. I assent to your arguments in Comment #3 in part. I’ll give you a few reasons why I don’t assent in full.
3. One reason why the capabilities you describe in Comment #3 are among ruling elite’s fears, but probably aren’t the ruling elite’s biggest fear, is the ruling elite have sheep of their own, who know the internet structure and framework at the highest esoteric level, and who would be put to work 24/7 in order to check subversive rogue sheep who might be willing and able to seriously challenge the ruling elite. And, the ruling elite’s sheep have far more resources, computing power for instance, which might be the second most important single factor in the cryptographic battles of information warfare that occasionally require brute computational power (the first is probably electromagnetic warfare capabilities of the sort that can shut down a city’s entire power grid and all its electronically-based communications from 20,000 feet in the sky, and the third is probably enough cash to invest in gathering intelligence from human sellouts who were entrusted with valuable esoteric knowledge), at their disposal.
4. A group of people who could do some of the things you described in Comment #3 might be a serious threat if they could do those things a) consistently, b) predictably, c) for long periods of time, d) without the ruling elite’s permission, and e) at a level that would enable them to manipulate significant amounts (at least tens of billions worth) of military, economic, or political power, even though the ruling elite would know they were doing it. A group like this would have a level of authentic unchecked and uncheckable power that the ruling elite would probably fear because the ruling elite would be unable to stop the group or check the group. Such a group would be as powerful as one of the world’s most powerful nations. If a group such as this existed, then I would hope it would use its power to usher in a new and better world order, one that would help us get to techno-utopia faster than our current world order.
5. However, I believe no individual, acting independently, could do the types of things you described in Comment #3 and I described in Section #4 of this comment, at a level that would concern the ruling elite, for very long. The individual would need too much support, too many resources. This reliance on great resources and many networks would make the individual relatively easy to check. Yet, even if a single person could do what I described in Section #4 for five or six decades straight without being checked by the ruling elite in some way or another, it would only be five to six decades of harm. Probably not enough to ruin a world order that has existed for millennia.
6. So, I suspect the human lifespan itself is one of the key reasons why the ruling elite would probably not view a lone subversive sheep as their biggest long run threat, no matter what that rogue sheep could do during his or her lifetime, if that lone sheep could not force the ruling elite, by his or her lone actions, to change the ways significant amounts (at least tens of billions worth) of military, economic, and political power would be used in the world.