The theory of human identity known as "active identity" is the theory that the true identity of a human individual is realized through his or her free acts, the intentions formed to generate those acts, and the effect that those acts have on others- how those acts are considered by others.
A person who wakes up every day and chooses the act of writing is a writer, the person who runs often is a runner...etc etc. It is not only an objective description of identity, but also can be a method of operation for the human individual.
Clearly then, the operational aspects of "active identity" have implications and impact in the sphere of moral action, and can be an operational method of moral choice. Following the explanation of active identity above, if a person wishes to act in a manner considered "good" or benevolent, then what are required are: 1) the intention to produce a positive feedback result for others; 2) the care in the act's execution of objective requirements in the world necessary to produce the positive result; 3) the achievement of a positive result confirmed in the feedback of the other person; and 4) the absence of effects from the action that harm others. With these elements achieved, it can be said in the framework of this theory that the action did indeed produced a "good" result- that it was, in review, a good action.
In this way, with this as an operational method, with repeated "good" results, and extremely limited or absent negative results the person who consistently operates in this manner is attributed a positive moral designation.
Research indicates that this method has tremendous ethical and mental health benefits for sorting through emotional influences and exterior influences of events not produced through the action of the individual, but are experienced as "happening" around them or "to them"- in the choice of action. As active identity toward the "good" becomes habitually operational, it becomes a type of clearing mechanism for discarding choices that would not produce a good result, a type of clearing of emotional and exterior negativity in the narrowing of choice.
What gets produced from adotion of this method over time is a type of thinking that clears itself of negative influences. It is not the rah-rah associated with what is perceived in such self-help methods as "the power of positive thinking", but becomes a method of choice generated with a view towards the regard of others that produces in habit consistent positive - or at least benign- thinking, action, and results. Recent research also shows that this type of clear and positive thinking is confirmed through objective memory testing of the recollection of the events.
It is my contention, that this is similar, only from the viewpoint of the individually generated act, to the moral system of Utilitarianism described by John Stuart Mill. It won't be worked out in detail now, but think of it as Mill contained within the system of Kant. It begins with the respect of the other indicated in the goal to produce a positive result, yet it does accumulate in the piecemeal fashion described in Mill- each instance, over time, in the results, feedback and memory of the events of others. It can be seen as how the individual contributes to the overall social good.
As positive experiences and memories accumulate from one' own action and verifiable positive feedback from others, in relation to very little negative, what gets produced in review is what can be described undeniably as a clear experience/positive experience quotient or "happiness quotient". Call it the benefit of the clearing mechanism- with the result confirmed demonstrated in research results through what others have called a relatively "spotless mind".
(*Recent medical research, on some news shows, has indicated that memory imaging that normal individuals utilize when recalling memories, occur because it is actually a visual image in the brain that is produced through what we know now as Liquid Crystal Display(LCD) technology. Liquid Crystal Display(LCD) technology television screens, according to these shows, were developed through exterior replication of the biological miracle that reproduces these images.
Therefore in the future with the use of nano technology, scientists believe it is only a matter of time before the actual visual and audio memory of the inner thought processes of individuals will be able to be retrieved, transmitted and viewed just as audio and video images are viewed through digital electronic transmission today. Some anecdotal evidence indicates it may already be happening.)
In this way then, the effect that a person has had on others, the quality of life through a type of happiness quotient discussed above, could be quantified through the generation of their own memories of experience with others, and the memories of the others experiences with them- verifiable in a way beyond debate, whether experience with a person was positive, neutral or negative.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
The Root of Contest/Martial Logic- Reason & The Death Instinct..Part I
Prelimary thoughts on the Root of Either/or Thinking
Some thinkers have suggested that the logic of Contest/Martial either/or thinking- "us vs Them"- historically regarded as a fallacy in everyday thinking, is the primary logic form of human experience. This is false, though the form of the dynamic is functional within the larger adopted frame of contest, war, and physical sustainment and survival.
The root of this thinking, which has been treated in seminars in the past, lies in the combination of the use of reason as an architectonic categorization of information and the knowledge of ability, with what is known as the death instinct- in situations where the use of reason is necessary in the decision making that avoids immanent serious injury or death.
Following the form of Aristotelian and Kantian categorization/organization of knowledge, the pressure from immanent physical threat, implied in the formulation of the basis of natural right as the fear of death, elaborated in Leo Strauss Natural Right and History, and developed further on this blog, literally provides the structure of a point at which failure to decide and act correctly renders the result of death. We all know this in the more benign social forms of deadlines, bill due dates, qualifying educational tests, etc..
When normally at leisure, or under very little time pressure, the individual has a tremendous array of information and choices by which to select in order to further material and physical sustainment of needs. In physical threat situations where the element of threat is observed but moving closer in distance and time, the information that is useful and the options of successful avoidance or thwarting of the threat, become lesser and lesser, and the individual quickly sorts through the options to find the most effective means of survival- "best thing" to do.
This type of heuristic mechanism then reduces to the deadline and a decision must be made- and historically and anthropologically this meant "fight or flight".
There will be more added later.
Some thinkers have suggested that the logic of Contest/Martial either/or thinking- "us vs Them"- historically regarded as a fallacy in everyday thinking, is the primary logic form of human experience. This is false, though the form of the dynamic is functional within the larger adopted frame of contest, war, and physical sustainment and survival.
The root of this thinking, which has been treated in seminars in the past, lies in the combination of the use of reason as an architectonic categorization of information and the knowledge of ability, with what is known as the death instinct- in situations where the use of reason is necessary in the decision making that avoids immanent serious injury or death.
Following the form of Aristotelian and Kantian categorization/organization of knowledge, the pressure from immanent physical threat, implied in the formulation of the basis of natural right as the fear of death, elaborated in Leo Strauss Natural Right and History, and developed further on this blog, literally provides the structure of a point at which failure to decide and act correctly renders the result of death. We all know this in the more benign social forms of deadlines, bill due dates, qualifying educational tests, etc..
When normally at leisure, or under very little time pressure, the individual has a tremendous array of information and choices by which to select in order to further material and physical sustainment of needs. In physical threat situations where the element of threat is observed but moving closer in distance and time, the information that is useful and the options of successful avoidance or thwarting of the threat, become lesser and lesser, and the individual quickly sorts through the options to find the most effective means of survival- "best thing" to do.
This type of heuristic mechanism then reduces to the deadline and a decision must be made- and historically and anthropologically this meant "fight or flight".
There will be more added later.
'Witness to the Positive Goodness of Human Nature'- Response Against Martial ideology's False Depiction of the Individual as Absolutely Evil
This is a response against Martial ideology's false depiction of the nature of the individual as absolutely evil. It is a witness account of waitering and the direct interaction of questions and conversations with 96000 customers over 11 years.
It complements a more objective view of individual human nature that is found in the acts of individuals- which are found statistically. On this blog this response then complements the low rate of crime depicted in statistics in James Patterson's 'America in the 20th Century'. (or 'The United States in the 20th Century'- I must check before finalizing this reference)
While waitering mostly in famous Chicago Steakhouses- I had the pleasure of serving, and thus interacting with 35 customers per day, 5 days, 50 weeks, 11 years. (already adjusted for "repeats and regulars"). This comes to approximately 96,000 customers.
I found customers to be normal people, concerned mostly with the people they were with, and the reasons they were there. As the restaurants were expensive downtown Chicago steakhouses, the clientele profile generally was educated and with economic resources. I found if I put effort into serving them well, that they would be receptive to questions I had that were about them- where they were from, what they did for a living, what their jobs entailed, what they liked about their jobs and what they liked about where they were from.
I found that if my attitude towards this interaction was positive, and it was engaged with confidence, imagination and personality, that more often the clientele would initiate and interject their own personalities and spirit into the interaction, display a sense of comfortableness with the surroundings, enjoy their time more at the restaurant and come back again.
For me it was a tremendous benefit of the job to meet them, serve them, talk with them, learn about them, and make their time at the restaurant more enjoyable.
As the restaurant was expensive, they had high but for the most part reasonable expectations, and if there were satisfaction problems, that with sincere and reasonable efforts to accommodate these issues, for the great majority these efforts would resolve the issue at hand.
In the 11 years, of the days when I worked and which included ALL restaurant and bar customers, there were 4 behavior incidents of customers which required immediate summoning of the police- all which can be attributed to intoxication, three of which were bar customers.
To my recollection, there were only two "dine and dash" incidents in those 11 years.
It complements a more objective view of individual human nature that is found in the acts of individuals- which are found statistically. On this blog this response then complements the low rate of crime depicted in statistics in James Patterson's 'America in the 20th Century'. (or 'The United States in the 20th Century'- I must check before finalizing this reference)
While waitering mostly in famous Chicago Steakhouses- I had the pleasure of serving, and thus interacting with 35 customers per day, 5 days, 50 weeks, 11 years. (already adjusted for "repeats and regulars"). This comes to approximately 96,000 customers.
I found customers to be normal people, concerned mostly with the people they were with, and the reasons they were there. As the restaurants were expensive downtown Chicago steakhouses, the clientele profile generally was educated and with economic resources. I found if I put effort into serving them well, that they would be receptive to questions I had that were about them- where they were from, what they did for a living, what their jobs entailed, what they liked about their jobs and what they liked about where they were from.
I found that if my attitude towards this interaction was positive, and it was engaged with confidence, imagination and personality, that more often the clientele would initiate and interject their own personalities and spirit into the interaction, display a sense of comfortableness with the surroundings, enjoy their time more at the restaurant and come back again.
For me it was a tremendous benefit of the job to meet them, serve them, talk with them, learn about them, and make their time at the restaurant more enjoyable.
As the restaurant was expensive, they had high but for the most part reasonable expectations, and if there were satisfaction problems, that with sincere and reasonable efforts to accommodate these issues, for the great majority these efforts would resolve the issue at hand.
In the 11 years, of the days when I worked and which included ALL restaurant and bar customers, there were 4 behavior incidents of customers which required immediate summoning of the police- all which can be attributed to intoxication, three of which were bar customers.
To my recollection, there were only two "dine and dash" incidents in those 11 years.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Previous Public Affairs Writing- 'The Mexico Essays' & Other Writing
This Post serves as a window to another blog that features previous issue oriented public affairs writing. I elect to use this other blog because the frame of reference of this writing is more narrow than the wider Philosophical frame of reference that constitutes the writing on The New Citizenship blog.
http://mexicoessays.blogspot.com/2008/10/mexico-en-la-piel.html
http://mexicoessays.blogspot.com/2008/10/mexico-en-la-piel.html
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Warm Wishes to Rod Blagojevich and Richard Durbin- Lithuanian/Russian Heritage Affiliation
Warm wishes and support are extended to Governor Rod Blagojevich, his wife and his children. I met him at a Stripeik(my mother's family) family event in the early 1970's, and met he, his wife and his children at another such event before one of his elections. Even though he has Serbian heritage, this qualifies he and his family at least as honorary Lithuanian/Russian.
Warm wishes and support are also extended to Senator Richard Durbin and his family, who are also of Lithuanian/Russian heritage. I met him in the lobby of the Seneca hotel on Chestnut street in Chicago, just outside of the door of the restaurant where I worked.
May both elected officials of high government position from the State of Illinois find the strength and wisdom to guide them through the important and difficult decisions that continually confront today's leaders and their families- in their positions.
Warm wishes and support are also extended to Senator Richard Durbin and his family, who are also of Lithuanian/Russian heritage. I met him in the lobby of the Seneca hotel on Chestnut street in Chicago, just outside of the door of the restaurant where I worked.
May both elected officials of high government position from the State of Illinois find the strength and wisdom to guide them through the important and difficult decisions that continually confront today's leaders and their families- in their positions.
Vengeance As An Operative Concept in History Has Been Obsolete Since 1945
In a discussion in the last two years with an intelligent person, the question was posed as to what would I do, or how I would feel about it, if my family were the victim of some great injustice of the wars of History from over 100-150 years ago.
My answer to that was that if it were the case, there would be nothing that I could do in the present to rectify that, and that as the hypothetical posed was an INJUSTICE, that I would attempt to make the best contribution I could as a citizen in the present and not follow the example of the attacker.
My answer was met with considerable skepticism. I followed up with this rejoinder: but don't you think that the day of vengeance as a real operative force in history is past- done and gone. With the advent of ever advancing technology and control of Military weaponry through the concentration of superpower control, (effectively on the world stage as it is presented today, there is really only Nato, Russia and China as real military powers) and the institutions of law, isn't vengeance really an obsolete concept for practical application for the average citizen?? I said, At least for me it is.
For all intents and purposes hasn't vengeance as a functional concept really been done and gone since 1945?? And with GPS and nano-tech tracking of individual retail items that has been demonstrated in Wall Street Journal articles, don't tell me that our government, and therefore NATO, hasn't had every one of those weapons tagged for quite some time now, whether they inform us about it or not.
I said that I thought this was a good thing, that there hasn't been the big nationalistic race of the nation throwing itself as a war machine into the all-or-nothing war since then, and that the world has been much safer for it, and that there has been nothing like the total destruction that occurred in Europe with WWI and WWII.
I said that I thought this was a very good thing for the common citizen, to focus on working and making a living, contributing to his or her community and the lives of his or her family and it's members. The machinery of Vengeance has been institutionalized and concentrated and is out of our hands, so it doesn't make any sense to focus on it and live that way and poison the good things that can be done with one's time. These institutions don't operate perfectly, but I told the speaker that I wouldn't live that way. Better to focus on the good that can be done with one's freedom.
The day of Vengeance as an operative concept on the big stage of history in changing those and the institutions in control of the world order is done and gone, and has been since 1945. Citizens now need only to focus on contributing on whatever level they can and on improving their daily lives. Citizens need now only to focus on the good that can be done with their freedom.
My answer to that was that if it were the case, there would be nothing that I could do in the present to rectify that, and that as the hypothetical posed was an INJUSTICE, that I would attempt to make the best contribution I could as a citizen in the present and not follow the example of the attacker.
My answer was met with considerable skepticism. I followed up with this rejoinder: but don't you think that the day of vengeance as a real operative force in history is past- done and gone. With the advent of ever advancing technology and control of Military weaponry through the concentration of superpower control, (effectively on the world stage as it is presented today, there is really only Nato, Russia and China as real military powers) and the institutions of law, isn't vengeance really an obsolete concept for practical application for the average citizen?? I said, At least for me it is.
For all intents and purposes hasn't vengeance as a functional concept really been done and gone since 1945?? And with GPS and nano-tech tracking of individual retail items that has been demonstrated in Wall Street Journal articles, don't tell me that our government, and therefore NATO, hasn't had every one of those weapons tagged for quite some time now, whether they inform us about it or not.
I said that I thought this was a good thing, that there hasn't been the big nationalistic race of the nation throwing itself as a war machine into the all-or-nothing war since then, and that the world has been much safer for it, and that there has been nothing like the total destruction that occurred in Europe with WWI and WWII.
I said that I thought this was a very good thing for the common citizen, to focus on working and making a living, contributing to his or her community and the lives of his or her family and it's members. The machinery of Vengeance has been institutionalized and concentrated and is out of our hands, so it doesn't make any sense to focus on it and live that way and poison the good things that can be done with one's time. These institutions don't operate perfectly, but I told the speaker that I wouldn't live that way. Better to focus on the good that can be done with one's freedom.
The day of Vengeance as an operative concept on the big stage of history in changing those and the institutions in control of the world order is done and gone, and has been since 1945. Citizens now need only to focus on contributing on whatever level they can and on improving their daily lives. Citizens need now only to focus on the good that can be done with their freedom.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
First Quarter 2009 Blog Story Forecast- 'Contradictions in the Darwin/Hobbes Position' & Other Pieces...
First Quarter 2009 blog forecast...Here are a few of the story pieces that are to be posted on this blog over the next few months....
1) The true Magic Realism- the superabundant(as Paul Ricoeur terms it) calculus of human relationship and interaction.
2)Historical addendum on the unstated enormous impact of the development of both: A) the printing press, and B) the musket/rifle, that combined in the change of the balance of power between the government and the individual, demonstrated in the history of political events and ideas from 1700 to 1865.(period ends because of the development of the Gatling gun).
Part 2- C) In conjunction with the impact of the developments of the printing press and the musket/rifle, there was also the codification in law by the 2nd amendment of the right of the individual to bear arms that- at that time- had real and significant impact on the outcome of military battle. This in effect officially militarized the American household and American citizenship both in a material sense and in a psychological sense in ways that have no equivalent to life as we know it in the United States today.
What we can call the military character of United States citizenship from 1776 onward was transformed then into a more benign form only after the development of the Gatling gun, the ending of individual guerilla insurrection(indicated in 'The Outlaw Josey Wales' and 'The Assassination of Jesse James') and the restoration of order extended in the reconstruction period after the end of the Civil War in 1865, and in the reconstruction amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
As every man with a gun before 1865 literally had the power to make war, it gives a different and concrete connotation to the phrase (of the French Revolution) that "every man was a king".
3) Contradictions in the Darwin/Hobbes position of what is known on this blog as Philosophy Case #1- Darwin/Hobbes vs. Kant/St. Paul: 1) False- Heidegger conference attendees claim that the plaintiff system of law equals aggression/vengeance, 2) Sophie's Choice result merely confirms Mazlow's Hierarchy of Needs- when properly configured, and contradicts character flaw claim
4) Why are the Philosophical Positions of the Revolutionary War era group of founding American figures & Abraham Lincoln not taught as a bachelors degree core curriculum class of American Political Philosophy in American Universities?
5) Disagreement with S. Zizek's Interpretation in 'Tarrying with the Negative' of the Kantian formation of Radical Evil as evidence for the primacy of "the negative" in human life.
6) (maybe), Comments on poorly constructed and false Philosophical themes in the movies 'Seven', 'The Bourne Identity', 'The Hunted' & Other movies.
1) The true Magic Realism- the superabundant(as Paul Ricoeur terms it) calculus of human relationship and interaction.
2)Historical addendum on the unstated enormous impact of the development of both: A) the printing press, and B) the musket/rifle, that combined in the change of the balance of power between the government and the individual, demonstrated in the history of political events and ideas from 1700 to 1865.(period ends because of the development of the Gatling gun).
Part 2- C) In conjunction with the impact of the developments of the printing press and the musket/rifle, there was also the codification in law by the 2nd amendment of the right of the individual to bear arms that- at that time- had real and significant impact on the outcome of military battle. This in effect officially militarized the American household and American citizenship both in a material sense and in a psychological sense in ways that have no equivalent to life as we know it in the United States today.
What we can call the military character of United States citizenship from 1776 onward was transformed then into a more benign form only after the development of the Gatling gun, the ending of individual guerilla insurrection(indicated in 'The Outlaw Josey Wales' and 'The Assassination of Jesse James') and the restoration of order extended in the reconstruction period after the end of the Civil War in 1865, and in the reconstruction amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
As every man with a gun before 1865 literally had the power to make war, it gives a different and concrete connotation to the phrase (of the French Revolution) that "every man was a king".
3) Contradictions in the Darwin/Hobbes position of what is known on this blog as Philosophy Case #1- Darwin/Hobbes vs. Kant/St. Paul: 1) False- Heidegger conference attendees claim that the plaintiff system of law equals aggression/vengeance, 2) Sophie's Choice result merely confirms Mazlow's Hierarchy of Needs- when properly configured, and contradicts character flaw claim
4) Why are the Philosophical Positions of the Revolutionary War era group of founding American figures & Abraham Lincoln not taught as a bachelors degree core curriculum class of American Political Philosophy in American Universities?
5) Disagreement with S. Zizek's Interpretation in 'Tarrying with the Negative' of the Kantian formation of Radical Evil as evidence for the primacy of "the negative" in human life.
6) (maybe), Comments on poorly constructed and false Philosophical themes in the movies 'Seven', 'The Bourne Identity', 'The Hunted' & Other movies.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
'Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics'- How are Synthetic Apriori Judgments Possible?
I'm reading the corpus of Martin Heidegger's work right now to see if there are philosophical issues and stances that need to be addressed. As so many University philosophy departments throughout the U.S. and Europe since WWII have been influenced by his work, it is necessary to do a careful review of the work and the secondary scholarship surrounding it.
Of course the two main texts that lay out his early Philosophical positions are 'Being and Time' and 'Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics', which is a technical exposition of Heidegger's interpretation of 'The Critique of Pure Reason'.
Although I am still in the middle of reading the latter of these two works, there is one Philosophical issue that can be addressed. The nature of this address has nothing to do, right now, with Heidegger's interpretation, but addresses the central question of the 'Critique of Pure Reason'. This question determines the layout of the entire Kantian project of such a critique, and as such is one of the most famous questions in the history of Philosophy.
This question is 'How are synthetic apriori judgments possible?'
As Kant answers this question in the form of a Critique of Pure Reason, and as the technical issues of this question are complex, but also reductive to a few central focal points- as Heidegger demonstrates, this is not the time nor the forum to address at length these issues.
What I will say in way of a very general statement about Heidegger's treatment, is that he reduces what Kant calls the two pure intuitions of Time and Space into that of only Time, and then from this focuses on what Kant calls the "Power of the Imagination as a faculty of the Mind or Soul" as the main mental instrument of the core synthesis of what Heidegger calls "Pure Intuition and Pure Thinking". This, in a very general answer, is the overall approach Heidegger takes in his technical exposition of the Kantian elaboration of the answer of "How are synthetic apriori judgments possible?" that forms 'The Critique of Pure Reason'. The 'Critique of Pure Reason' is then Kant's demonstration, through an exposition of pure reason alone, of how synthetic apriori judgments are possible.
What I will say about the answer to this central question, of "how are synthetic apriori judgments possible?", is that way too much has been made about the formalistic charge against Kant by critics after the the turn of the 20th century. But then what would Philosophers and Kant's political opponents do if it were admitted that he really had it right?
There is a simple answer to this question that completely supports both Kant's approach and exposition- and this answer is one that is empiricist, pragmatic, and embodiedly realistic in nature. It does however every so slightly modify, or vary from, the original Kantian exposition, but it is an answer that will make it much simpler for students of Philosophy to understand. It was an answer I gave at a graduate seminar audited on the Critique of Pure Reason in SIU Carbondale somewhere between '83 and '85.
How are synthetic apriori judgments possible? Kant answers the question from the position of utilizing only Pure Reason- from the what we know of thinking and experience from only thinking. From another angle it can be answered in only two words.....The Brain.
A Note on Heideggerian "Primordial Thinking"
In Being and Time Heidegger states the goal of reaching a more "primordial thinking". The way that this thinking is described in 'Being and Time', 'Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics', and the essay 'What is Called Thinking', renders this project nothing less than MYTHICAL. As Heidegger attempts to describe it, there is no such thing.
The goal of this project of Heidegger's is merely a contrarian reaction to the beginning of Kant's 'Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals', which advocates a precise and careful approach to the study of the roots of Practical reason and morals, so that public discourse and thinking on these matters does not fall into "a barbaric state".
If there is such a thing as "primordial thinking", it is precisely using knowledge and expertise to advantage in practical situations- the use of practical reason- and the ever advancing increase in this knowledge and expertise.
This is indicated in 'the Kant Variations' in a couple of places, but for this note it is found specifically in the analysis of the root of math and numbers- of the number one which is derived from the ONE thing as the object of desire. Reason "zeroes in" on the object that is useful for need, and so desire is brought to the precision of action that meets specific need through the process of thinking. So then also FINDING the precision that is necessary for useful knowledge and action to be useful through study and research is equally part of this natural thinking. This is then TRUE "primordial thinking".
But this is nothing less than normal practical thinking, the analysis of which is found in the 'Critique of Practical Reason'.
Addendum 2: "Being There"- The Claim of the Problem of Translation
In 'Being and Time', Heidegger's formulation of Dasein(Being There)as a fundamental condition of human experience, led to a claim of a diminished transfer of the essence of experience in communication, and in later Heidegger scholarship to what was referred as the "problem of translation". This leads to the false conclusion that experience between humans is not really common, and that the experiences of others cannot really be understood.
It is a bizarre book that attempts to communicate that communication doesn't communicate, as the expression of writing is just as much experience as other experiences. Why even write a book if your belief is that experience and understanding cannot be communicated? The true believer in such a false theory doesn't even write the book, why would one waste their time?
In the pathological sense- the bodily sense- we know this to be false, as each of us with normal neurological activity must take our hand from the stove burner lest it be permanently damaged, as each of us do not see bone structure through only movement- as the t-rex did, as noone on earth possesses xray vision.
Paul Ricoeur rightly located this perspective in an overly self-absorbed and concentrated analysis of inner personal feeling, in the mistake that because experience is lived as "mine", that it is essentially unlike others. If this were true there would never be ANY human family connection, of love established between mother and children, or between sisters and brothers. Empathy works to help establish these connections- these connections that last, and these connections that we mourn if lost. But we do feel the pain when our mother cries, and we do feel the pain and are worried when our brothers are sick, and we feel the pain through the stories of these experiences of our loved ones.
Heidegger's formulation of Dasein as fundamental is incorrect, it describes the view of the conscious choice to stop connecting with others, and the view of self inner "feeling" as a priority over action. It was for this reason that Ricoeur did not subscribe to Heidegger's position. Ricoeur felt it led to an unnecessary self pity- I agree with his view.
Of course the two main texts that lay out his early Philosophical positions are 'Being and Time' and 'Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics', which is a technical exposition of Heidegger's interpretation of 'The Critique of Pure Reason'.
Although I am still in the middle of reading the latter of these two works, there is one Philosophical issue that can be addressed. The nature of this address has nothing to do, right now, with Heidegger's interpretation, but addresses the central question of the 'Critique of Pure Reason'. This question determines the layout of the entire Kantian project of such a critique, and as such is one of the most famous questions in the history of Philosophy.
This question is 'How are synthetic apriori judgments possible?'
As Kant answers this question in the form of a Critique of Pure Reason, and as the technical issues of this question are complex, but also reductive to a few central focal points- as Heidegger demonstrates, this is not the time nor the forum to address at length these issues.
What I will say in way of a very general statement about Heidegger's treatment, is that he reduces what Kant calls the two pure intuitions of Time and Space into that of only Time, and then from this focuses on what Kant calls the "Power of the Imagination as a faculty of the Mind or Soul" as the main mental instrument of the core synthesis of what Heidegger calls "Pure Intuition and Pure Thinking". This, in a very general answer, is the overall approach Heidegger takes in his technical exposition of the Kantian elaboration of the answer of "How are synthetic apriori judgments possible?" that forms 'The Critique of Pure Reason'. The 'Critique of Pure Reason' is then Kant's demonstration, through an exposition of pure reason alone, of how synthetic apriori judgments are possible.
What I will say about the answer to this central question, of "how are synthetic apriori judgments possible?", is that way too much has been made about the formalistic charge against Kant by critics after the the turn of the 20th century. But then what would Philosophers and Kant's political opponents do if it were admitted that he really had it right?
There is a simple answer to this question that completely supports both Kant's approach and exposition- and this answer is one that is empiricist, pragmatic, and embodiedly realistic in nature. It does however every so slightly modify, or vary from, the original Kantian exposition, but it is an answer that will make it much simpler for students of Philosophy to understand. It was an answer I gave at a graduate seminar audited on the Critique of Pure Reason in SIU Carbondale somewhere between '83 and '85.
How are synthetic apriori judgments possible? Kant answers the question from the position of utilizing only Pure Reason- from the what we know of thinking and experience from only thinking. From another angle it can be answered in only two words.....The Brain.
A Note on Heideggerian "Primordial Thinking"
In Being and Time Heidegger states the goal of reaching a more "primordial thinking". The way that this thinking is described in 'Being and Time', 'Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics', and the essay 'What is Called Thinking', renders this project nothing less than MYTHICAL. As Heidegger attempts to describe it, there is no such thing.
The goal of this project of Heidegger's is merely a contrarian reaction to the beginning of Kant's 'Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals', which advocates a precise and careful approach to the study of the roots of Practical reason and morals, so that public discourse and thinking on these matters does not fall into "a barbaric state".
If there is such a thing as "primordial thinking", it is precisely using knowledge and expertise to advantage in practical situations- the use of practical reason- and the ever advancing increase in this knowledge and expertise.
This is indicated in 'the Kant Variations' in a couple of places, but for this note it is found specifically in the analysis of the root of math and numbers- of the number one which is derived from the ONE thing as the object of desire. Reason "zeroes in" on the object that is useful for need, and so desire is brought to the precision of action that meets specific need through the process of thinking. So then also FINDING the precision that is necessary for useful knowledge and action to be useful through study and research is equally part of this natural thinking. This is then TRUE "primordial thinking".
But this is nothing less than normal practical thinking, the analysis of which is found in the 'Critique of Practical Reason'.
Addendum 2: "Being There"- The Claim of the Problem of Translation
In 'Being and Time', Heidegger's formulation of Dasein(Being There)as a fundamental condition of human experience, led to a claim of a diminished transfer of the essence of experience in communication, and in later Heidegger scholarship to what was referred as the "problem of translation". This leads to the false conclusion that experience between humans is not really common, and that the experiences of others cannot really be understood.
It is a bizarre book that attempts to communicate that communication doesn't communicate, as the expression of writing is just as much experience as other experiences. Why even write a book if your belief is that experience and understanding cannot be communicated? The true believer in such a false theory doesn't even write the book, why would one waste their time?
In the pathological sense- the bodily sense- we know this to be false, as each of us with normal neurological activity must take our hand from the stove burner lest it be permanently damaged, as each of us do not see bone structure through only movement- as the t-rex did, as noone on earth possesses xray vision.
Paul Ricoeur rightly located this perspective in an overly self-absorbed and concentrated analysis of inner personal feeling, in the mistake that because experience is lived as "mine", that it is essentially unlike others. If this were true there would never be ANY human family connection, of love established between mother and children, or between sisters and brothers. Empathy works to help establish these connections- these connections that last, and these connections that we mourn if lost. But we do feel the pain when our mother cries, and we do feel the pain and are worried when our brothers are sick, and we feel the pain through the stories of these experiences of our loved ones.
Heidegger's formulation of Dasein as fundamental is incorrect, it describes the view of the conscious choice to stop connecting with others, and the view of self inner "feeling" as a priority over action. It was for this reason that Ricoeur did not subscribe to Heidegger's position. Ricoeur felt it led to an unnecessary self pity- I agree with his view.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
JAN 20- Schopenhauer Was Wrong, and Has No Followers- (2nd Workout Mix)
Henceforth this post will serve to provide examples each week in music that clearly demonstrate the innaccuracy of the quote by Arthur Schopenhauer of the overly dark view of what he called the "real nature of the world".
It is my contention that the position outlined in the quote by Schopenhauer below has no genuine long term followers and adherents. This is because anyone who truly embraces the position outlined below is dead by their own hand shortly thereafter. Thus any thinker who claims to be a long-term adherent of this position in truth is really only an adherent of complaining about life. Schopenhauer has no real followers in Philosophy.
How do the songs with themes below belong in a post against the negative Philosophy of Schopenhauer?? Simple- one person's terrible and false philosophy of life is another person's awesome workout mix!!(below is the 2nd group of workout mix music)
And after an hour and a half of hard sports, anybody feeling "the edge" in these songs-of work or the commute- discovers that it goes away all by itself, with only endorphin release.
Who would have thunk that both one of the real weak points and in my mind the only real strong point in Schopenhauer's philosophy are both functionally connected and subordinate to endorphin release through healthy exercise??!!
In some places it's the season to hit the slopes...in the spring it will be time for putting on skates and rollerblading along Lake Michigan in Chicago, hitting the wave wall at Shedd Aquarium or the stairs at the Field museum, and asphalt basketball in the cities.
Green day- Basket Case
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ7PKybyoxc
Foo Fighters- Everlong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H0BMfqFP9c
Rage Against the Machine
Killing in the Name Of
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuOAY-S6OY
Guerilla Radio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv3xM3v4-rI
Nirvana- Smells Like Teen Spirit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPQR-OsH0RQ
Evanescence- Bring Me to Life
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TILCIRspO0
Schopenhauer: "The purpose of this highest poetical achievement is the description of the terrible side of life. The unspeakable pain, the wretchedness and misery of mankind, the triumph of wickedness, the scornful mastery of chance, and the irretriveable fall of the good and the innocent are all here presented to us; and here is to be found a significant hint as to the nature of the world and of existence...The motives that were previously so powerful now lose their force, and instead of them the complete knowledge of the real nature of the world, acting as a quieter of the will, produces resignation, the giving up not merely of life, but of the whole will-to-live itself".
Previously Featured:
Linkin Park- Numb, What I've Done, In the End, Daughtry- Its Not Over, There and Back Again, Metallica- Enter Sandman, From Phantom of the Opera: Think of Me, Music of the Night, All I ask of You, Masquerade, Prima Donna, Colbie Caillat- Bubbly, John Mayer- Your body is a wonderland, Sting - Fields of gold, Sarah Mclachlan- Ice cream, Don Henley - End of the Innocence, Gloria Estefan- 'Oye Mi Canto', Juanes- 'La Camisa Negra', Chambao- 'Ahi Estas Tu', Ricky Martin & Mari de 'Chambao'- Tu Recuerdo, Sublime- 'Santeria', Counting Crows- 'Angels of the Silences', Led Zeppelin- 'Fool in the Rain', Tim McGraw- 'Something Like That', Jessia Andrews- 'Who I Am', Michael Jackson- 'I'll Be There', 'Never Can Say Goodbye', 'Black or White', 'Man in the Mirror', 'Thriller', Fifth Dimension/Marilyn McCoo-'Wedding Bell Blues', 'Stone Soul Picnic', 'One Less Bell to Answer'(her voice and the music are beautiful, despite the words), 'You Don't Have to Be a Star', 'Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In', Fleetwood Mac- 'Sarah', Pearl Jam- 'Even Flow', John Mayer- 'Daughters', Carrie Underwood- 'All American Girl', Pretenders- 'Show Me', Jackson 5- ABC, Eric Clapton- 'Wonderful Tonight', Elvis, Gloria Estefan- '1, 2, 3', , Stevie Ray Vaughn- 'Little Wing', Taylor Swift- 'Our Song', Stevie Wonder- 'Isn't She Lovely', Mariah Carey- 'Always Be My Baby'
It is my contention that the position outlined in the quote by Schopenhauer below has no genuine long term followers and adherents. This is because anyone who truly embraces the position outlined below is dead by their own hand shortly thereafter. Thus any thinker who claims to be a long-term adherent of this position in truth is really only an adherent of complaining about life. Schopenhauer has no real followers in Philosophy.
How do the songs with themes below belong in a post against the negative Philosophy of Schopenhauer?? Simple- one person's terrible and false philosophy of life is another person's awesome workout mix!!(below is the 2nd group of workout mix music)
And after an hour and a half of hard sports, anybody feeling "the edge" in these songs-of work or the commute- discovers that it goes away all by itself, with only endorphin release.
Who would have thunk that both one of the real weak points and in my mind the only real strong point in Schopenhauer's philosophy are both functionally connected and subordinate to endorphin release through healthy exercise??!!
In some places it's the season to hit the slopes...in the spring it will be time for putting on skates and rollerblading along Lake Michigan in Chicago, hitting the wave wall at Shedd Aquarium or the stairs at the Field museum, and asphalt basketball in the cities.
Green day- Basket Case
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ7PKybyoxc
Foo Fighters- Everlong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H0BMfqFP9c
Rage Against the Machine
Killing in the Name Of
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuOAY-S6OY
Guerilla Radio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv3xM3v4-rI
Nirvana- Smells Like Teen Spirit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPQR-OsH0RQ
Evanescence- Bring Me to Life
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TILCIRspO0
Schopenhauer: "The purpose of this highest poetical achievement is the description of the terrible side of life. The unspeakable pain, the wretchedness and misery of mankind, the triumph of wickedness, the scornful mastery of chance, and the irretriveable fall of the good and the innocent are all here presented to us; and here is to be found a significant hint as to the nature of the world and of existence...The motives that were previously so powerful now lose their force, and instead of them the complete knowledge of the real nature of the world, acting as a quieter of the will, produces resignation, the giving up not merely of life, but of the whole will-to-live itself".
Previously Featured:
Linkin Park- Numb, What I've Done, In the End, Daughtry- Its Not Over, There and Back Again, Metallica- Enter Sandman, From Phantom of the Opera: Think of Me, Music of the Night, All I ask of You, Masquerade, Prima Donna, Colbie Caillat- Bubbly, John Mayer- Your body is a wonderland, Sting - Fields of gold, Sarah Mclachlan- Ice cream, Don Henley - End of the Innocence, Gloria Estefan- 'Oye Mi Canto', Juanes- 'La Camisa Negra', Chambao- 'Ahi Estas Tu', Ricky Martin & Mari de 'Chambao'- Tu Recuerdo, Sublime- 'Santeria', Counting Crows- 'Angels of the Silences', Led Zeppelin- 'Fool in the Rain', Tim McGraw- 'Something Like That', Jessia Andrews- 'Who I Am', Michael Jackson- 'I'll Be There', 'Never Can Say Goodbye', 'Black or White', 'Man in the Mirror', 'Thriller', Fifth Dimension/Marilyn McCoo-'Wedding Bell Blues', 'Stone Soul Picnic', 'One Less Bell to Answer'(her voice and the music are beautiful, despite the words), 'You Don't Have to Be a Star', 'Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In', Fleetwood Mac- 'Sarah', Pearl Jam- 'Even Flow', John Mayer- 'Daughters', Carrie Underwood- 'All American Girl', Pretenders- 'Show Me', Jackson 5- ABC, Eric Clapton- 'Wonderful Tonight', Elvis, Gloria Estefan- '1, 2, 3', , Stevie Ray Vaughn- 'Little Wing', Taylor Swift- 'Our Song', Stevie Wonder- 'Isn't She Lovely', Mariah Carey- 'Always Be My Baby'
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The Martial Ideology Thinkers of "Total War" Face the Giants of Respect
1) An ideology of "Total War", which includes the mechanisms of deception championed by Machiavelli, can only be effective as a functional Philosophy in the physical force contests of War- in the order of War. It cannot be effective in the larger order of life, where a victor has prevailed and law has been imposed. Such a larger order includes both the orders of functional pragmatism of BOTH War and Peace.
Those thinkers that call themselves "martial" thinkers thus limit the scope of what their thinking addresses, and must face the thinking of the giants of freedom through the order provided by respect and law. The latter group includes Abraham Lincoln.
This is acknowledged in the public words and declarations of Abraham Lincoln in the Emancipation proclamation, the Gettsyburg address, and in the quotes below. In this way Lincoln joins the Thomas Jefferson of the Declaration of Independence in a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind(others)". In this way it is also undeniable that Lincoln joins the camp of Immanuel Kant as one of the giant champions in history of the operative implementation of the philosophy of freedom through the order provided by respect and law.
Lincoln's words:
1) "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power".
2) "It is difficult to make a man feel miserable, when he feels worthy of himself and claims kindred to the great God who made him".
3) "Force is all conquering, but its victories are short lived".
4) "No man is good enough to govern another man without that man's consent".
5) "When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted".
6) "Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
7) "That government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth".
What say today's champions of the Darwin & Hobbes group to these Giants of respect?
Who among the Darwin & Hobbes group chooses Ivan the Terrible and Niccolo Machiavelli as their mentors? Who chooses these two as THE thinkers and leaders in History whose understanding of the human condition and whose understanding of the role of leadership these thinkers believe "got it most right"- more accurately than Kant and Jefferson, and more accurately than Abraham Lincoln?
2) Any supporters of the Hobbes/Darwin group of Philosophers directly concede that the Philosophy of Respect through the order of law takes priority when they answer that what is important to them is family.
The Cooper-Union dictum of "might makes right" is false as a primary larger governing philosophy. It is subordinate to the Philosophy of respect, even to the Hobbes/Darwin Philosophers and supporters, unless what is said and acted out among the family members of the Hobbes/Darwin Philosophers and supporters is the pure force of "might makes right".
Any martial philosophy merely SERVES the larger purposes of living in peace and respect of others- EACH OTHER- and of needing each other.
This truth has always been so.
As for me, the Philosophy of this larger purpose, of the respect of others through the order of law is what will be embraced. The Cooper-Union dictum of "might makes right" and it's offshoots- of submission to pure force for any reason- as directing principles for a primary Philosophy, are principles contrary to the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address. These principles are also contrary to the other words and documents of the Giants of respect referred to on this blog. The principles of the Cooper-Union dictum and it's offshoots are principles to which there will never be the acquiescence of consent.
Those thinkers that call themselves "martial" thinkers thus limit the scope of what their thinking addresses, and must face the thinking of the giants of freedom through the order provided by respect and law. The latter group includes Abraham Lincoln.
This is acknowledged in the public words and declarations of Abraham Lincoln in the Emancipation proclamation, the Gettsyburg address, and in the quotes below. In this way Lincoln joins the Thomas Jefferson of the Declaration of Independence in a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind(others)". In this way it is also undeniable that Lincoln joins the camp of Immanuel Kant as one of the giant champions in history of the operative implementation of the philosophy of freedom through the order provided by respect and law.
Lincoln's words:
1) "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power".
2) "It is difficult to make a man feel miserable, when he feels worthy of himself and claims kindred to the great God who made him".
3) "Force is all conquering, but its victories are short lived".
4) "No man is good enough to govern another man without that man's consent".
5) "When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted".
6) "Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
7) "That government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth".
What say today's champions of the Darwin & Hobbes group to these Giants of respect?
Who among the Darwin & Hobbes group chooses Ivan the Terrible and Niccolo Machiavelli as their mentors? Who chooses these two as THE thinkers and leaders in History whose understanding of the human condition and whose understanding of the role of leadership these thinkers believe "got it most right"- more accurately than Kant and Jefferson, and more accurately than Abraham Lincoln?
2) Any supporters of the Hobbes/Darwin group of Philosophers directly concede that the Philosophy of Respect through the order of law takes priority when they answer that what is important to them is family.
The Cooper-Union dictum of "might makes right" is false as a primary larger governing philosophy. It is subordinate to the Philosophy of respect, even to the Hobbes/Darwin Philosophers and supporters, unless what is said and acted out among the family members of the Hobbes/Darwin Philosophers and supporters is the pure force of "might makes right".
Any martial philosophy merely SERVES the larger purposes of living in peace and respect of others- EACH OTHER- and of needing each other.
This truth has always been so.
As for me, the Philosophy of this larger purpose, of the respect of others through the order of law is what will be embraced. The Cooper-Union dictum of "might makes right" and it's offshoots- of submission to pure force for any reason- as directing principles for a primary Philosophy, are principles contrary to the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address. These principles are also contrary to the other words and documents of the Giants of respect referred to on this blog. The principles of the Cooper-Union dictum and it's offshoots are principles to which there will never be the acquiescence of consent.
Monday, September 15, 2008
A Trip to Europe One Year Ago, & A Trip Back in Memory to Park Ridge & Arkansas
A Trip to Europe One Year Ago
Tomorrow is one year since my trip to Europe began research into the intellectual and event history of the countries of my family. My trip began Oct. 17th in Berlin with a stroll down Unter den Linden and an inquiry into the possibility of travel in Russia- of course safety factors are a concern with plans to travel there. Most will remember that day politically as a day of "irresponsible rhetoric".
Berlin and Germany are important intellectually as Hegel wrote much in Berlin, and as so many of the towering figures in the history of Philosophy from the 18th to the 20th Centuries came from Germany. It is also the place where the single worst Philosophy on written record was published.(Mein Kampf)
I took a bus tour of Berlin, and enjoyed strolling down Kurfurstendamm and eating at Reinhards(?) restaurant in the mornings for the awesome breakfast buffet. Le Monde and the Financial Times were the newspapers of choice since I don't speak or read German, and I bumped into Clive Owen buying his movie ticket in line in front of me at the Potsdammer Platz movie theater.
I saw checkpoint Charlie, but for me there was no need to visit any of the tourist sites involved with the Nazis. The more important truths of the falseness in the thinking and the hate in the hearts and action of that group are found in Mein Kampf and in the pictures and chronicles of the Holocaust- especially in the victim and witness statements of the Shoah foundation.
I was in Berlin until the 24th, when I took a train to Paris. There I enjoyed sight seeing and walking around Paris for two days. Paris is magnificent. I walked and saw the Champs-Elysees and the Arc de Triomphe, Notre Dame, the St. Germaine area, the Eiffel Tower, the bridges over the Seine and other sights.
I had been to France twice, in 1992 & 1994, on trips to Nice visiting former Chicago restaurant coworkers/friends and their families. One of the families has a fantastic restaurant called La Mere Germaine, on the shore of the bay of Ville Franche Sur Mer. It is the same bay that is shown in the beginning of 'Romancing the Stone'. The same pier street of the Restaurant(Quai Courbet), along with the Restaurant, are featured in the movie 'Ronin'.-(where Deniro asks about the post office and waits in the restaurant for the phone call)
On the 27th I took a train From Paris through the chunnel to London for two days of walking around London. There the London Premier of the 2nd Elizabeth movie was held in a Leicester Square theater- red carpet scene and all. I stayed in a hotel across Westminister Bridge from Parliament, and saw the Cathedral, Buckingham Palace, Whitehall and other sights in that section of the city. It was my 2nd trip to London(1994).
The Sunday Times showed the slippage in modern journalism standards that weekend- I think the 29th- with three stories. The first was a story of a Buckingham Palace worker that claimed drug use by a member of the Royal family- without any supporting material evidence. The 2nd was a story on the BBC managing director calling some long time female friend of his a bad name- without any supporting evidence and with the female friend denying the possibility of it. The third was a story about the allegation of a false Curriculum Vitae of a female minority cabinet member in Sarkozy's cabinet- WITHOUT the Times or the accuser having possession of the CV!!
Three stories in the Sunday London Times(two on the front page)without ANY evidence. I thought this was a testament to the sad state of affairs and declining level of professional journalism.
A Trip Back in Memory To Park Ridge, & Arkansas
Growing up in the south suburbs of Chicago, from a young age I was interested in Law. I think this is what eventually led me to Philosophy. This sprang from two sources:
a) the world book encyclopedia set purchased by my parents- which I read cover to cover, over and over...
b) Meeting a female relative when my grandmother Dorothy (Thompson) Stripeik took us(my mother Lorraine and I) over to her parents' house in Park Ridge. Although I was much younger, she was very nice and spent some time talking with me. She was warm, confident, VERY smart and I remember asking her questions about college. I thought she was "soooo cool", and told my mother and grandmother so.
I remember that either she was in college and planning on attending Yale law school, or was already attending law school. It probably was the former. I think I remember seeing her one other time while with my mother, as we ran into her and her mother in downtown Chicago shopping on State street.
Anyway, since I was the oldest grandchild on both sides of our family- (as were my parents and their parents* etc. etc.)- and since I was interested in and enjoyed reading so much, after meeting her I thought that going to college and being a lawyer would both be soooo cool.
Turns out that that interest in reading led to Philosophy, which I think worked out MUCH better for me.
(Of course reading would take a back seat during summer vacation trips with cousins to my grandmother Dorothy's house in the Arkansas Ozarks in Henderson, near Mountain Home, after they moved there in the early 70's. There my grandfather would take us fishing on Lake Norfork, with two trips to the White River for trout fishing).
Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young- 'Teach Your Children'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKySbfgvyVw
Philosophical "White Water"- Oops, Read Again
******Looking back, it was clear after the first three essays of 'The Kant Variations' were written that the work being produced was effectively supporting the position of the Kant/St. Paul group. The essays were written from 1987 to 1990 at night on the computers of Intersport Television. The first three essays were 'Synthesis in Kant's Aesthetical Idea', 'Emmanuel Levinas and the Love of Knowledge' and 'Theodor Adorno and Negative Dialectics: Composition on the Threshold of Tragic Sympathy'.
It was also clear that the work being produced had a much more benign view of human nature than the almost completely dark view espoused by the Hobbes/Darwin Group.
One could say that as a philosophical "beverage"- to use the jargon of the Heidegger conference attendees- it probably appeared to be "white water" for that group because of the piece on forgiveness. At that point it was probably considered too "light" and non-functional for that group.
This evaluation would later prove to be incorrect as: 1) the functional aspects of forgiveness became more fully elaborated in the notion of "active identity" put forth in 'Unity in the House of Reason', and demonstrable in the treatment of trauma; 2) the ontological rooting of the sensus communis is implied in the piece on Adorno; which then 3) puts the theory of beauty as "populated" in the reordering function of each individual- as elaborated in 'Synthesis in..'- on more solid footing.
This all helps to make the Philosophical 'House' constructed by the "New Balance" Kant/St. Paul Group, and supported by 'The Kant Variations', a very very very fine house.
Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young- 'Our House'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDpHpbllByg
Tomorrow is one year since my trip to Europe began research into the intellectual and event history of the countries of my family. My trip began Oct. 17th in Berlin with a stroll down Unter den Linden and an inquiry into the possibility of travel in Russia- of course safety factors are a concern with plans to travel there. Most will remember that day politically as a day of "irresponsible rhetoric".
Berlin and Germany are important intellectually as Hegel wrote much in Berlin, and as so many of the towering figures in the history of Philosophy from the 18th to the 20th Centuries came from Germany. It is also the place where the single worst Philosophy on written record was published.(Mein Kampf)
I took a bus tour of Berlin, and enjoyed strolling down Kurfurstendamm and eating at Reinhards(?) restaurant in the mornings for the awesome breakfast buffet. Le Monde and the Financial Times were the newspapers of choice since I don't speak or read German, and I bumped into Clive Owen buying his movie ticket in line in front of me at the Potsdammer Platz movie theater.
I saw checkpoint Charlie, but for me there was no need to visit any of the tourist sites involved with the Nazis. The more important truths of the falseness in the thinking and the hate in the hearts and action of that group are found in Mein Kampf and in the pictures and chronicles of the Holocaust- especially in the victim and witness statements of the Shoah foundation.
I was in Berlin until the 24th, when I took a train to Paris. There I enjoyed sight seeing and walking around Paris for two days. Paris is magnificent. I walked and saw the Champs-Elysees and the Arc de Triomphe, Notre Dame, the St. Germaine area, the Eiffel Tower, the bridges over the Seine and other sights.
I had been to France twice, in 1992 & 1994, on trips to Nice visiting former Chicago restaurant coworkers/friends and their families. One of the families has a fantastic restaurant called La Mere Germaine, on the shore of the bay of Ville Franche Sur Mer. It is the same bay that is shown in the beginning of 'Romancing the Stone'. The same pier street of the Restaurant(Quai Courbet), along with the Restaurant, are featured in the movie 'Ronin'.-(where Deniro asks about the post office and waits in the restaurant for the phone call)
On the 27th I took a train From Paris through the chunnel to London for two days of walking around London. There the London Premier of the 2nd Elizabeth movie was held in a Leicester Square theater- red carpet scene and all. I stayed in a hotel across Westminister Bridge from Parliament, and saw the Cathedral, Buckingham Palace, Whitehall and other sights in that section of the city. It was my 2nd trip to London(1994).
The Sunday Times showed the slippage in modern journalism standards that weekend- I think the 29th- with three stories. The first was a story of a Buckingham Palace worker that claimed drug use by a member of the Royal family- without any supporting material evidence. The 2nd was a story on the BBC managing director calling some long time female friend of his a bad name- without any supporting evidence and with the female friend denying the possibility of it. The third was a story about the allegation of a false Curriculum Vitae of a female minority cabinet member in Sarkozy's cabinet- WITHOUT the Times or the accuser having possession of the CV!!
Three stories in the Sunday London Times(two on the front page)without ANY evidence. I thought this was a testament to the sad state of affairs and declining level of professional journalism.
A Trip Back in Memory To Park Ridge, & Arkansas
Growing up in the south suburbs of Chicago, from a young age I was interested in Law. I think this is what eventually led me to Philosophy. This sprang from two sources:
a) the world book encyclopedia set purchased by my parents- which I read cover to cover, over and over...
b) Meeting a female relative when my grandmother Dorothy (Thompson) Stripeik took us(my mother Lorraine and I) over to her parents' house in Park Ridge. Although I was much younger, she was very nice and spent some time talking with me. She was warm, confident, VERY smart and I remember asking her questions about college. I thought she was "soooo cool", and told my mother and grandmother so.
I remember that either she was in college and planning on attending Yale law school, or was already attending law school. It probably was the former. I think I remember seeing her one other time while with my mother, as we ran into her and her mother in downtown Chicago shopping on State street.
Anyway, since I was the oldest grandchild on both sides of our family- (as were my parents and their parents* etc. etc.)- and since I was interested in and enjoyed reading so much, after meeting her I thought that going to college and being a lawyer would both be soooo cool.
Turns out that that interest in reading led to Philosophy, which I think worked out MUCH better for me.
(Of course reading would take a back seat during summer vacation trips with cousins to my grandmother Dorothy's house in the Arkansas Ozarks in Henderson, near Mountain Home, after they moved there in the early 70's. There my grandfather would take us fishing on Lake Norfork, with two trips to the White River for trout fishing).
Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young- 'Teach Your Children'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKySbfgvyVw
Philosophical "White Water"- Oops, Read Again
******Looking back, it was clear after the first three essays of 'The Kant Variations' were written that the work being produced was effectively supporting the position of the Kant/St. Paul group. The essays were written from 1987 to 1990 at night on the computers of Intersport Television. The first three essays were 'Synthesis in Kant's Aesthetical Idea', 'Emmanuel Levinas and the Love of Knowledge' and 'Theodor Adorno and Negative Dialectics: Composition on the Threshold of Tragic Sympathy'.
It was also clear that the work being produced had a much more benign view of human nature than the almost completely dark view espoused by the Hobbes/Darwin Group.
One could say that as a philosophical "beverage"- to use the jargon of the Heidegger conference attendees- it probably appeared to be "white water" for that group because of the piece on forgiveness. At that point it was probably considered too "light" and non-functional for that group.
This evaluation would later prove to be incorrect as: 1) the functional aspects of forgiveness became more fully elaborated in the notion of "active identity" put forth in 'Unity in the House of Reason', and demonstrable in the treatment of trauma; 2) the ontological rooting of the sensus communis is implied in the piece on Adorno; which then 3) puts the theory of beauty as "populated" in the reordering function of each individual- as elaborated in 'Synthesis in..'- on more solid footing.
This all helps to make the Philosophical 'House' constructed by the "New Balance" Kant/St. Paul Group, and supported by 'The Kant Variations', a very very very fine house.
Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young- 'Our House'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDpHpbllByg
Friday, September 12, 2008
A Note on "Might Makes Right" Monarchical Logic
The phrase "Might makes Right" presents what can be called a monarchical logic that is based solely on justification by contest of physical force. In this way it differs considerably from the "Divine Right of Kings", which in history resulted in the recognition of a higher Divine authority and thus in many monarchs resulted in a limit to the behavior of the monarch. The believer of "might makes right" recognizes no such limit or authority.
1) What results from this is an order of thinking with regard to social truth- the truth of the action of free people- which is markedly different from those who live under the order and structure of the United States constitution and also under the order of authority that is dispersed throughout the different institutions of government, business and Universities in the United States.
Because there is no other authority recognized in this system except that which is allowed by the Monarch- the normal rules of thinking and reasoning over time can be completely ignored with the justification- "might makes right". Abuses from this structure of logic are strewn throughout history in the histories of Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Henry VIII, Genghis Khan, and on and on.. etc.
What can result from this monarchical logic are what we know as violations of reasoning in argumentation and in the imputation of responsibility, with extensive use of logical fallacies, the utilization of double standards, and even "self-fulfilling" logical sequences.
One example of a self-fulfilling logical sequence would be a declared assertion of a social truth about human behavior, an action by the Monarch that instigates or even forces the behavior, and then the declaration by the Monarch that the behavior that was acted from coercion or instigation "proves" his/her assertion about the character of the individual. This could even include the imputation of blame/guilt to the person who performed the action ordered by the Monarch. In this situation the Monarch would think that a person of sound character would act in a different manner.
In this way a Monarch, dealing with a person from outside this system and order of thinking, could present what would appear to that person to be an offer of reasonable compromise, only to have the result of the Monarch using the behavior of the compromise as "proof" against the character of the person.
In this type of introduction to other reasoning systems, outsiders to these systems historically found it necessary to take time and acquaint themselves with the structure of thinking and the priorities of the Monarch before attempting serious interaction.
All any outsider or any advisor of any kind could hope for in such a system, is to have their idea or proposal put before the monarch for consideration.
2) Logic Structure Mindsets, Operative Mindsets, and the Disconnects in the Evaluation of Feedback and Behavior of Those Outside the Groupthink of the Monarchy
One of the real inadequacies of utilizing might makes right as a cloistered Monarchical groupthink over time is the diminished consistency and level of accurate evaluation of data and feedback of the behavior of others outside the monarchy. This is because there is a disconnect in breadth and depth of thought system structure between the unlimited reasoning and rule parameters provided by the unchallengeable authority of might makes right, which can be unseen by those outside the monarchical group, and the limited and defined reasoning and action parameters of those that act under the order of authority outside the monarchy. Those that operate under a defined and limited system of rules and law can act in ways that are interpreted by the Monarchy contrary to actual motivation, because the normal rules of inference for evaluating data based behavior are discarded with might makes right.
In this way the stance and prism of a martial ideology has the same type of unseen logical disconnects. What would appear to be a normal action, a norm, in a martial ideology supported by might makes right, would appear as clearly defensive or overly aggressive as observed from outside the Monarchy group.
Adhering to the priority of might makes right, because of unchallengeable authority, over data-based evaluation as a group decision making norm doesn't lend credence to chaos theory, because it is literally "making chaos for yourself" in policy and action, and making "bad luck" for yourself over time.
What this means for the Monarch who utilizes Might Makes Right or a Martial Total War Ideology over time, is that these logic structure systems and operative systems create an unseen blurring mechanism that distorts or discards the effective understanding of the facts and significance of social behavior in individuals and in larger data pools.
The employment of Might Makes Right discards selected information because of it's subordination to the decision making authority of the Monarch, where the Martial mindset discards the truth of behavior and information because of the identification of other as “enemy”. In both cases, what becomes erected is an operative mindset that sees the behavior of others and events less objectively and clearly, and because of this and the disconnect that comes with it, the appearance is created through the use of these mindsets that the behavior of others and the events of history are much more chaotic than the objective truth.
Extensive utilization of these two thought systems also effects the consistency of evaluating what otherwise would be considered clear feedback and data over time, because the less defined norm and pattern of consistency of evaluation, present from switching from Might Makes Right, or Martial decision making, to data-based feedback decision making, and vice versa, results in a wider range of connotation that can be considered as provided by the sign. The result then is reading into what otherwise would be considered clear feedback, more or less than what is stated in the message. What this means is that there is a different- what would be called in the field of Philosophy- semiotic range. The connotation range can be both wider or wobbly within this wider range.
In this way, because the monarchy group does not adhere to the authority of objective data in the determination of the truth of behavior and events- reserving and exercising wide personal fiat(up to 180 degree contradiction range) as unquestioned method of truth determination- what becomes erected as policy can only be described as an ultimate 'idealism' (whether benevolent or despotic) that is disconnected from the truth of the behavior of people and the truth of events.
This then is a bad interpretation and execution of Hegel's dictum- "the real is the rational, and the rational is the real". This is so because Hegel's passage describes a common principle of the root of human belief that grounds the motivation of individuals to action, while the monarchy group in utilizing might make right consciously discards the truth of this principle by discarding any objective weight of the root and motivation of the behavior of all others. In effect the King is saying "no matter what the facts, what is in my head- alone in all the world- is right". An ideology gets no more idealistically disconnected than that.
Another aspect of the disconnect in communication employing a martial ideology system with others outside the group, is that the employment of a long term veil mechanism renders a norm of non-communication of real intent, whether it be benevolent or malevolent, with others outside the group outside of the veil mechanism.
What results from this is that when acts or communication carrying benevolent intent are communicated from a person within the martial ideology group, the understanding of that act from an outsider is formed within the appearance and context of the field of the veiled acts and aggregate history of communication presented. This then can and does distort the perceived view of the intent of the singular unveiled communication, the efficacy of that communication, and the view of the message and the person communicating by those outside the group.
Any such singular instances of true intent communication with others outside the martial group veil then are placed in an overall communication frame that has much less chance of success for delivering the intent, the core understanding of the message, and for achieving the non-martial aims of the person communicating. This lack of success in communication attempts then reinforces the norm of non-communication with others outside the group.
Elton John- 'Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLMotU8Tu9E
3) Historically "Might makes right" also has been used falsely by Tyrants to justify any reason that leads to acts that degrade, inflict unjust suffering, and unjustly kill their subjects. This self-fulfilling justification has been used by tyrants in history to justify, construct and inflict suffering through false physical "tests" like those in the Salem witch trials.
The most famous example of such a false physical test is in the Salem witch trials which utilized "if she's a witch she'll float, and if she drowns she's innocent". What this example did was to place the victim in a position where "bi-directional" inconsistent logic would be applied to the result in order to guarantee the death of the victim, and create the public spectacle of the degradation of a "trial".
The Romans also used such constructions in the torturing of Christians in order to disprove that the subject of torture was following the Gospel of forgiveness. Romans tortured Christians until they committed suicide or died, then if the result was the first they would claim that it was an example that the faith either couldn't be followed or that the subject of torture was not a true believer. If the subject died, then the Romans claimed that the Christian was merely a masochist.
In both examples, the physical test portion was merely a "distraction game" to engage and distract onlookers from the basic fact that it was the tyrant's act of placing such an individual in a "no way out" position that would result both in the death of the individual, and in the false use of logic to produce the public degradation of the person.
The end result of such public expositions was 1) the reinforcement of the policy of the authority under consideration, and 2) the implanting of fear in the minds of all onlookers that there was no objective consistent path of safety- they were all were subject to the contradictory whims of the power of the authority to avoid being placed in the no way out position.
Such tactics, through the memories of their victims and their families, are what earned tyrants the reputations associated with the memory of their name, like Ivan "the terrible". It was through the compiled history of the free acts of both the victims and the Tyrants that such tactics clearly demonstrated the nature of the hearts- the identities, of who they were- of both victims and Tyrants.
4) Self-fulfilling "justification dramas"
The self-fulfilling logical sequences and the public spectacle productions in the two sections above also serve as self-fulfilling "justification dramas" of the judgment of the Monarch/authority figure.
Such spectacles "demonstrate" for the monarch/authority figure and to all other viewers what the monarch perceives as the proof- the support in "reality" of the judgment. They thus serve to justify and demonstrate the judgment of the monarch/authority by making it "real" in action and in an event.
This is so even though the judgment: 1) has no basis in reality on it's own- the event does not occur without the coercion of the monarch/authority; and 2) does not follow any of the normal rules of the imputation of guilt associated with the attribution of an ACT. But because of "might makes right" supported by force, the judgment can't be challenged by others because of the absolute authority of the monarch/authority and the severity of consequences.
***Two movies present instances where the application of force through the false convoluted logic of the self-fulfilling "justification drama" of a false physical test, combined with the emotional provocation caused, are utilized to attempt to gain change in point of view and behavior.
1) The first is 'Return of the Jedi' in the Star Wars series, where the agitation of attack and combat by the Emperor is used to provoke anger and hatred, and then the false point/sales pitch is made by the Emperor to "surrender to the dark side"- attempting to persuade Skywalker that the Emperor's point of view is some type of profound epiphany that anger and hatred are the constitutional basis for a philosophy of life.
This then is a false self-fullfilling justification drama of the attack of others, plus the use of the emotional trigger of a buying decision (Tom Hopkins) in the decision to surrender to the Emperor's physical power. It is thus also presented falsely as the frame of the discovery of greater or undiscovered wisdom- and thus the false frame of aggressor as intellectual master.
This has all the profundity of some moron putting a cat in a cage and poking it repeatedly with a sharp stick, and then when it hisses and bares it's teeth, the person poking says "see!! that's how life really is!! Surrender to it and embrace it!!".
2) The second instance is the Natalie Portman film 'V For Vendetta', where the ordeal of torture by the character 'V' is used to produce extreme resistance in Portman's character at the point of exhaustion. As she discovers that the torture ordeal is over and experiences the emotional release from it, the false point/sales pitch is then made by the 'V' character- that the torture was necessary to instruct the Portman character of the nature of freedom from fear(again a false profound epiphany), and that 'V' was actually acting as her friend by TORTURING HER. Again, the false pitch is made to produce acceptance of the result; of the twisted logic of the aggressors point of view; by "surrendering" to the feeling associated with the emotional release by categorizing it intellectually as an experience of "epiphany".
This utilizes the same psychological warfare mechanisms listed in the analysis of 'Return of the Jedi'. In both cases the use of physical aggression is unilaterally initiated to gain submission and change of behavior by emotional provocation under the false guise (and thus "red herring") of intellectual master and a supposed profound epiphany.
5) Such tactics, of course, still go on as you read.
6) Nobility and the Groupthink of "Consecrated" Ideology
History is littered with organizations and regimes that made decisions and enforced order through the authority of monarchy and a small permanent group of "noble" elite. This includes the Catholic church.
One of the biggest pitfalls that arises repeatedly in these structures comes from the distance of vertical separation(in ability or character) between those consecrated as "holy" or "great" and those that are considered common. The distance arises because of the separation and is reinforced by the separation over time.
This separation and this cloistering of decision making by the "consecrated" members combine, as evidenced in history, to form a self-perpetuating closed belief system- an ideology- that is "locked" by groupthink.
Because of the "consecrated" nature of membership(members consider themselves "great", "holy", of "superior intelligence and character") the system is perceived by it's members as a "consecrated" ideology. These belief systems are notorious: 1) for the exclusion of objective thinking or information from outsiders and those considered "common"; 2) for decisions and policy that reflect this separation- the Spanish Inquisition, the crusades, the Taliban, the Nazis...etc.., and 3) for indoctrinating successive generations of members in what is perceived (falsely) as the "unquestionable certainty" and nature of the beliefs of the ideology.
Because of ALL these factors and conditions these belief systems are themselves not only vulnerable, but form THE model for the conditions that cause the undeniable dynamics of "groupthink" that are depicted in Irving Janis' important book of the same name, and that have led to so many fiascoes throughout history.
7) The dynamics of Monarchical Logic were the topic of discussion with Paul Ricoeur in 1989 or 1990 during one of his seminars at the University of Chicago- a few elements of which are discussed in this post.
One point that Paul Ricoeur made- in one of his seminars in 1989-1990 at University of Chicago- regarding the dynamics of truth and the Monarch in a system of Monarchical logic, I disagreed with and elaborated on in a way which was convincing. He said that in Monarchical logic, the Monarch was the final arbiter of the truth because of absolute authority within that Nation state- that the Monarch literally determined what was the truth. I disagreed, and still do.
Objective truth outside the thinking of the monarch is always at the basis of the operation of Monarchical logic and decision making- but it's value gets masked and obscured. What Monarchical logic claims in might makes right is the embrace of the principle to be wrong without personal consequence.
What really occurs in a system of Monarchical logic are the interplay of two separate systems of event(cause and effect) attribution. The first system- we will say sits to the right- is 1)the system of objective knowledge of the sciences. This includes physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, the behavioral sciences of free action & the applied sciences of engineering. The Monarch can do nothing to change the truth- the reality- of the effectiveness of the information and discoveries in operation. He or she cannot rewrite or change the principles and formulas of aerodynamics, nor or medicine, nor any of the other scientific discoveries that work in the world. These principles and formulas are what they are, and follow the development of verifiable scientific discovery.
What the Monarch controls absolutely is the utilization of these principles and processes in 2) the system of social order among people through the use of absolute force through execution and torture which can be used to a) defeat resistance of all others to these decisions and designations if they are false and harmful, and b) direct others in the production of events that an individual normally wouldn't do.
The Monarch merely chooses which principle and process of science and engineering to use if he or she wishes to be effective, chooses to misuse the process in error or through force in the social order without consequence, and then utilizes definition or proclamation authority- correctly or incorrectly- without consequence.
In might makes right the Monarch in reality is never the final arbiter of truth, he or she in reality embraces the principle to be wrong without personal consequence- uses the total accumulation of force to claim and enforce the "right to be wrong" without consequence regardless of the event, regardless of the harm done to others- regardless of the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAK1Nzi_zZM
&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60xFSoF-5WE
1) What results from this is an order of thinking with regard to social truth- the truth of the action of free people- which is markedly different from those who live under the order and structure of the United States constitution and also under the order of authority that is dispersed throughout the different institutions of government, business and Universities in the United States.
Because there is no other authority recognized in this system except that which is allowed by the Monarch- the normal rules of thinking and reasoning over time can be completely ignored with the justification- "might makes right". Abuses from this structure of logic are strewn throughout history in the histories of Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Henry VIII, Genghis Khan, and on and on.. etc.
What can result from this monarchical logic are what we know as violations of reasoning in argumentation and in the imputation of responsibility, with extensive use of logical fallacies, the utilization of double standards, and even "self-fulfilling" logical sequences.
One example of a self-fulfilling logical sequence would be a declared assertion of a social truth about human behavior, an action by the Monarch that instigates or even forces the behavior, and then the declaration by the Monarch that the behavior that was acted from coercion or instigation "proves" his/her assertion about the character of the individual. This could even include the imputation of blame/guilt to the person who performed the action ordered by the Monarch. In this situation the Monarch would think that a person of sound character would act in a different manner.
In this way a Monarch, dealing with a person from outside this system and order of thinking, could present what would appear to that person to be an offer of reasonable compromise, only to have the result of the Monarch using the behavior of the compromise as "proof" against the character of the person.
In this type of introduction to other reasoning systems, outsiders to these systems historically found it necessary to take time and acquaint themselves with the structure of thinking and the priorities of the Monarch before attempting serious interaction.
All any outsider or any advisor of any kind could hope for in such a system, is to have their idea or proposal put before the monarch for consideration.
2) Logic Structure Mindsets, Operative Mindsets, and the Disconnects in the Evaluation of Feedback and Behavior of Those Outside the Groupthink of the Monarchy
One of the real inadequacies of utilizing might makes right as a cloistered Monarchical groupthink over time is the diminished consistency and level of accurate evaluation of data and feedback of the behavior of others outside the monarchy. This is because there is a disconnect in breadth and depth of thought system structure between the unlimited reasoning and rule parameters provided by the unchallengeable authority of might makes right, which can be unseen by those outside the monarchical group, and the limited and defined reasoning and action parameters of those that act under the order of authority outside the monarchy. Those that operate under a defined and limited system of rules and law can act in ways that are interpreted by the Monarchy contrary to actual motivation, because the normal rules of inference for evaluating data based behavior are discarded with might makes right.
In this way the stance and prism of a martial ideology has the same type of unseen logical disconnects. What would appear to be a normal action, a norm, in a martial ideology supported by might makes right, would appear as clearly defensive or overly aggressive as observed from outside the Monarchy group.
Adhering to the priority of might makes right, because of unchallengeable authority, over data-based evaluation as a group decision making norm doesn't lend credence to chaos theory, because it is literally "making chaos for yourself" in policy and action, and making "bad luck" for yourself over time.
What this means for the Monarch who utilizes Might Makes Right or a Martial Total War Ideology over time, is that these logic structure systems and operative systems create an unseen blurring mechanism that distorts or discards the effective understanding of the facts and significance of social behavior in individuals and in larger data pools.
The employment of Might Makes Right discards selected information because of it's subordination to the decision making authority of the Monarch, where the Martial mindset discards the truth of behavior and information because of the identification of other as “enemy”. In both cases, what becomes erected is an operative mindset that sees the behavior of others and events less objectively and clearly, and because of this and the disconnect that comes with it, the appearance is created through the use of these mindsets that the behavior of others and the events of history are much more chaotic than the objective truth.
Extensive utilization of these two thought systems also effects the consistency of evaluating what otherwise would be considered clear feedback and data over time, because the less defined norm and pattern of consistency of evaluation, present from switching from Might Makes Right, or Martial decision making, to data-based feedback decision making, and vice versa, results in a wider range of connotation that can be considered as provided by the sign. The result then is reading into what otherwise would be considered clear feedback, more or less than what is stated in the message. What this means is that there is a different- what would be called in the field of Philosophy- semiotic range. The connotation range can be both wider or wobbly within this wider range.
In this way, because the monarchy group does not adhere to the authority of objective data in the determination of the truth of behavior and events- reserving and exercising wide personal fiat(up to 180 degree contradiction range) as unquestioned method of truth determination- what becomes erected as policy can only be described as an ultimate 'idealism' (whether benevolent or despotic) that is disconnected from the truth of the behavior of people and the truth of events.
This then is a bad interpretation and execution of Hegel's dictum- "the real is the rational, and the rational is the real". This is so because Hegel's passage describes a common principle of the root of human belief that grounds the motivation of individuals to action, while the monarchy group in utilizing might make right consciously discards the truth of this principle by discarding any objective weight of the root and motivation of the behavior of all others. In effect the King is saying "no matter what the facts, what is in my head- alone in all the world- is right". An ideology gets no more idealistically disconnected than that.
Another aspect of the disconnect in communication employing a martial ideology system with others outside the group, is that the employment of a long term veil mechanism renders a norm of non-communication of real intent, whether it be benevolent or malevolent, with others outside the group outside of the veil mechanism.
What results from this is that when acts or communication carrying benevolent intent are communicated from a person within the martial ideology group, the understanding of that act from an outsider is formed within the appearance and context of the field of the veiled acts and aggregate history of communication presented. This then can and does distort the perceived view of the intent of the singular unveiled communication, the efficacy of that communication, and the view of the message and the person communicating by those outside the group.
Any such singular instances of true intent communication with others outside the martial group veil then are placed in an overall communication frame that has much less chance of success for delivering the intent, the core understanding of the message, and for achieving the non-martial aims of the person communicating. This lack of success in communication attempts then reinforces the norm of non-communication with others outside the group.
Elton John- 'Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLMotU8Tu9E
3) Historically "Might makes right" also has been used falsely by Tyrants to justify any reason that leads to acts that degrade, inflict unjust suffering, and unjustly kill their subjects. This self-fulfilling justification has been used by tyrants in history to justify, construct and inflict suffering through false physical "tests" like those in the Salem witch trials.
The most famous example of such a false physical test is in the Salem witch trials which utilized "if she's a witch she'll float, and if she drowns she's innocent". What this example did was to place the victim in a position where "bi-directional" inconsistent logic would be applied to the result in order to guarantee the death of the victim, and create the public spectacle of the degradation of a "trial".
The Romans also used such constructions in the torturing of Christians in order to disprove that the subject of torture was following the Gospel of forgiveness. Romans tortured Christians until they committed suicide or died, then if the result was the first they would claim that it was an example that the faith either couldn't be followed or that the subject of torture was not a true believer. If the subject died, then the Romans claimed that the Christian was merely a masochist.
In both examples, the physical test portion was merely a "distraction game" to engage and distract onlookers from the basic fact that it was the tyrant's act of placing such an individual in a "no way out" position that would result both in the death of the individual, and in the false use of logic to produce the public degradation of the person.
The end result of such public expositions was 1) the reinforcement of the policy of the authority under consideration, and 2) the implanting of fear in the minds of all onlookers that there was no objective consistent path of safety- they were all were subject to the contradictory whims of the power of the authority to avoid being placed in the no way out position.
Such tactics, through the memories of their victims and their families, are what earned tyrants the reputations associated with the memory of their name, like Ivan "the terrible". It was through the compiled history of the free acts of both the victims and the Tyrants that such tactics clearly demonstrated the nature of the hearts- the identities, of who they were- of both victims and Tyrants.
4) Self-fulfilling "justification dramas"
The self-fulfilling logical sequences and the public spectacle productions in the two sections above also serve as self-fulfilling "justification dramas" of the judgment of the Monarch/authority figure.
Such spectacles "demonstrate" for the monarch/authority figure and to all other viewers what the monarch perceives as the proof- the support in "reality" of the judgment. They thus serve to justify and demonstrate the judgment of the monarch/authority by making it "real" in action and in an event.
This is so even though the judgment: 1) has no basis in reality on it's own- the event does not occur without the coercion of the monarch/authority; and 2) does not follow any of the normal rules of the imputation of guilt associated with the attribution of an ACT. But because of "might makes right" supported by force, the judgment can't be challenged by others because of the absolute authority of the monarch/authority and the severity of consequences.
***Two movies present instances where the application of force through the false convoluted logic of the self-fulfilling "justification drama" of a false physical test, combined with the emotional provocation caused, are utilized to attempt to gain change in point of view and behavior.
1) The first is 'Return of the Jedi' in the Star Wars series, where the agitation of attack and combat by the Emperor is used to provoke anger and hatred, and then the false point/sales pitch is made by the Emperor to "surrender to the dark side"- attempting to persuade Skywalker that the Emperor's point of view is some type of profound epiphany that anger and hatred are the constitutional basis for a philosophy of life.
This then is a false self-fullfilling justification drama of the attack of others, plus the use of the emotional trigger of a buying decision (Tom Hopkins) in the decision to surrender to the Emperor's physical power. It is thus also presented falsely as the frame of the discovery of greater or undiscovered wisdom- and thus the false frame of aggressor as intellectual master.
This has all the profundity of some moron putting a cat in a cage and poking it repeatedly with a sharp stick, and then when it hisses and bares it's teeth, the person poking says "see!! that's how life really is!! Surrender to it and embrace it!!".
2) The second instance is the Natalie Portman film 'V For Vendetta', where the ordeal of torture by the character 'V' is used to produce extreme resistance in Portman's character at the point of exhaustion. As she discovers that the torture ordeal is over and experiences the emotional release from it, the false point/sales pitch is then made by the 'V' character- that the torture was necessary to instruct the Portman character of the nature of freedom from fear(again a false profound epiphany), and that 'V' was actually acting as her friend by TORTURING HER. Again, the false pitch is made to produce acceptance of the result; of the twisted logic of the aggressors point of view; by "surrendering" to the feeling associated with the emotional release by categorizing it intellectually as an experience of "epiphany".
This utilizes the same psychological warfare mechanisms listed in the analysis of 'Return of the Jedi'. In both cases the use of physical aggression is unilaterally initiated to gain submission and change of behavior by emotional provocation under the false guise (and thus "red herring") of intellectual master and a supposed profound epiphany.
5) Such tactics, of course, still go on as you read.
6) Nobility and the Groupthink of "Consecrated" Ideology
History is littered with organizations and regimes that made decisions and enforced order through the authority of monarchy and a small permanent group of "noble" elite. This includes the Catholic church.
One of the biggest pitfalls that arises repeatedly in these structures comes from the distance of vertical separation(in ability or character) between those consecrated as "holy" or "great" and those that are considered common. The distance arises because of the separation and is reinforced by the separation over time.
This separation and this cloistering of decision making by the "consecrated" members combine, as evidenced in history, to form a self-perpetuating closed belief system- an ideology- that is "locked" by groupthink.
Because of the "consecrated" nature of membership(members consider themselves "great", "holy", of "superior intelligence and character") the system is perceived by it's members as a "consecrated" ideology. These belief systems are notorious: 1) for the exclusion of objective thinking or information from outsiders and those considered "common"; 2) for decisions and policy that reflect this separation- the Spanish Inquisition, the crusades, the Taliban, the Nazis...etc.., and 3) for indoctrinating successive generations of members in what is perceived (falsely) as the "unquestionable certainty" and nature of the beliefs of the ideology.
Because of ALL these factors and conditions these belief systems are themselves not only vulnerable, but form THE model for the conditions that cause the undeniable dynamics of "groupthink" that are depicted in Irving Janis' important book of the same name, and that have led to so many fiascoes throughout history.
7) The dynamics of Monarchical Logic were the topic of discussion with Paul Ricoeur in 1989 or 1990 during one of his seminars at the University of Chicago- a few elements of which are discussed in this post.
One point that Paul Ricoeur made- in one of his seminars in 1989-1990 at University of Chicago- regarding the dynamics of truth and the Monarch in a system of Monarchical logic, I disagreed with and elaborated on in a way which was convincing. He said that in Monarchical logic, the Monarch was the final arbiter of the truth because of absolute authority within that Nation state- that the Monarch literally determined what was the truth. I disagreed, and still do.
Objective truth outside the thinking of the monarch is always at the basis of the operation of Monarchical logic and decision making- but it's value gets masked and obscured. What Monarchical logic claims in might makes right is the embrace of the principle to be wrong without personal consequence.
What really occurs in a system of Monarchical logic are the interplay of two separate systems of event(cause and effect) attribution. The first system- we will say sits to the right- is 1)the system of objective knowledge of the sciences. This includes physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, the behavioral sciences of free action & the applied sciences of engineering. The Monarch can do nothing to change the truth- the reality- of the effectiveness of the information and discoveries in operation. He or she cannot rewrite or change the principles and formulas of aerodynamics, nor or medicine, nor any of the other scientific discoveries that work in the world. These principles and formulas are what they are, and follow the development of verifiable scientific discovery.
What the Monarch controls absolutely is the utilization of these principles and processes in 2) the system of social order among people through the use of absolute force through execution and torture which can be used to a) defeat resistance of all others to these decisions and designations if they are false and harmful, and b) direct others in the production of events that an individual normally wouldn't do.
The Monarch merely chooses which principle and process of science and engineering to use if he or she wishes to be effective, chooses to misuse the process in error or through force in the social order without consequence, and then utilizes definition or proclamation authority- correctly or incorrectly- without consequence.
In might makes right the Monarch in reality is never the final arbiter of truth, he or she in reality embraces the principle to be wrong without personal consequence- uses the total accumulation of force to claim and enforce the "right to be wrong" without consequence regardless of the event, regardless of the harm done to others- regardless of the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAK1Nzi_zZM
&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60xFSoF-5WE
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Hobbes & Darwin Vs. Kant & St. Paul- the Christianity Debate
In the Philosophy "case" of Hobbes & Darwin Vs. Kant & St. Paul, it was conveyed at the Heidegger conference in Chicago that most thinkers in the Hobbes & Darwin camp believed that the Philosophy of Christian forgiveness is not functional at all in reality as an operative system, and could not be functional in reality as an operative system.
It was conveyed that these Philosophers think that without the enforcement of Law, Christ's Philosophy of forgiveness could not possibly function as a working system on it's own because the deterrent aspects of punishment would not be present to respond and curb the behavior of offenders, and thus would not allow repeated violation, but would encourage it and cause an increase in the violation of law.
They are opposed in this view by some Pauline Philosophers who contend that this position misses how the philosophy of forgiveness actually functions. These philosophers think that the real exposition of Christian forgiveness that is functional, that actually works, is centered in St. Paul's theological formulation of the combination/partition of "Law and Grace".
These Pauline Philosophers of Christian forgiveness contend that the Philosophy of individual forgiveness not only makes functional sense in a system where the enforcement aspects of law and justice are removed from the sphere of the individual's direct power, but that it makes the best sense. In such a system, these proponents contend that forgiveness not only functions, but is the best possible operating guideline and mechanism for the lives of the individual crime victim and his or her relatives, by removing the all-consuming, and prolonged focus by the victim on the vengeance/punishment aspects of retributive justice. In this view, it is the law that provides this opening for this functioning.
In this view forgiveness provides a functional mechanism that allows the victim to make the best use of their present and future in their lives, in their work, and in their time with loved ones. In the view of these Philosophers it makes no functional sense to be angry and remain angry when living under a system of the protection of law. It is in this sense that the law AND the grace of the power of forgiveness work together, hand in hand.
The Hobbes & Darwin retort to this was that the operative Philosophy of Christianity was thus not purely following the Christian dictums of "turning the other cheek" and "love your neighbor as thyself", and therefore was more accurately the religion of St. Paul than of Christ.
Christian theologians and leaders in the various Christian religions of course give a variety of different answers, some centering on "theology of the cross", others on theologies that describe different orders of logic in "logics of faith". Others would argue a wider view of their faith utilizing the entire text of the bible.
In this area of research I am not well versed, and I am not: a religious leader, a leader of any religion, a bible expert, an expert on the specifics of the various Christian theologies, or an expositor of any systematic theology.
My own sense of where I stand on the subject, consistent with the stance developed in the pieces on Natural Law and on Kant's construction of respect, would probably best be described simply as: "turn the other cheek, but first block the punches and stop the attack".
Addendum: Philosophy of Religion Response on Soundness of the Structure of Christianity as a Theology
From the standpoint of the Philosophy of Relgion, the problem isn't in the structure of forgiveness as an operative philosophy, per the contention of the Hobbes/Darwin Philosophers, seen within the context and age of the operation of Roman law, and within the context of modern law.
From the viewpoint of a modern day Philosopher of Religion, the problem is that the entire christology isn't ALL properly theological. The central message of the Gospels is primarily egocentric and based on the human hierarchy of subordination, and therefore NOT properly a theology of god, but a message of salvation through the church of the man.
"I am the way, truth, and the life, no one comes to the father except through ME". John 14:6
For any modern day realistically rooted individual this language is MORE than just a little vain, and not at all about god. It is an announcement that: 1)a human individual, he himself, the person speaking, is Saviour, 2) that subordination to him- following him- is the path to spiritual Salvation after death, and that 3) there is no other path that achieves this.
Given that there's been no walking on water, multiplication of fishes or raising of the dead for 2000 years, a message of these words today from a tradesman or small businessman would be met with more than a little skepticism.
The problem of this passage for the structural integrity of Christianity as a theology should have been addressed publicly by Philosophers of religion after 'The Interpretation of Dreams' gained traction. Oddly, it has not not been. Most of the focus has been on the myth and superstitious aspects of religion.
***Obviously the espousal of violence, vengeance and hatred spread throughout the Koran makes it clearly false as a religious document. Paul Ricoeur and I were in agreement on this in a discussion on the subject in his seminar in 1990
. At that time he also voiced suspicions on the authenticity of editions of the Koran after 1949, but had no interest in addressing the subject in any of his writing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmoE8_U-JTw
&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLgUuHl2xJo&feature=related
It was conveyed that these Philosophers think that without the enforcement of Law, Christ's Philosophy of forgiveness could not possibly function as a working system on it's own because the deterrent aspects of punishment would not be present to respond and curb the behavior of offenders, and thus would not allow repeated violation, but would encourage it and cause an increase in the violation of law.
They are opposed in this view by some Pauline Philosophers who contend that this position misses how the philosophy of forgiveness actually functions. These philosophers think that the real exposition of Christian forgiveness that is functional, that actually works, is centered in St. Paul's theological formulation of the combination/partition of "Law and Grace".
These Pauline Philosophers of Christian forgiveness contend that the Philosophy of individual forgiveness not only makes functional sense in a system where the enforcement aspects of law and justice are removed from the sphere of the individual's direct power, but that it makes the best sense. In such a system, these proponents contend that forgiveness not only functions, but is the best possible operating guideline and mechanism for the lives of the individual crime victim and his or her relatives, by removing the all-consuming, and prolonged focus by the victim on the vengeance/punishment aspects of retributive justice. In this view, it is the law that provides this opening for this functioning.
In this view forgiveness provides a functional mechanism that allows the victim to make the best use of their present and future in their lives, in their work, and in their time with loved ones. In the view of these Philosophers it makes no functional sense to be angry and remain angry when living under a system of the protection of law. It is in this sense that the law AND the grace of the power of forgiveness work together, hand in hand.
The Hobbes & Darwin retort to this was that the operative Philosophy of Christianity was thus not purely following the Christian dictums of "turning the other cheek" and "love your neighbor as thyself", and therefore was more accurately the religion of St. Paul than of Christ.
Christian theologians and leaders in the various Christian religions of course give a variety of different answers, some centering on "theology of the cross", others on theologies that describe different orders of logic in "logics of faith". Others would argue a wider view of their faith utilizing the entire text of the bible.
In this area of research I am not well versed, and I am not: a religious leader, a leader of any religion, a bible expert, an expert on the specifics of the various Christian theologies, or an expositor of any systematic theology.
My own sense of where I stand on the subject, consistent with the stance developed in the pieces on Natural Law and on Kant's construction of respect, would probably best be described simply as: "turn the other cheek, but first block the punches and stop the attack".
Addendum: Philosophy of Religion Response on Soundness of the Structure of Christianity as a Theology
From the standpoint of the Philosophy of Relgion, the problem isn't in the structure of forgiveness as an operative philosophy, per the contention of the Hobbes/Darwin Philosophers, seen within the context and age of the operation of Roman law, and within the context of modern law.
From the viewpoint of a modern day Philosopher of Religion, the problem is that the entire christology isn't ALL properly theological. The central message of the Gospels is primarily egocentric and based on the human hierarchy of subordination, and therefore NOT properly a theology of god, but a message of salvation through the church of the man.
"I am the way, truth, and the life, no one comes to the father except through ME". John 14:6
For any modern day realistically rooted individual this language is MORE than just a little vain, and not at all about god. It is an announcement that: 1)a human individual, he himself, the person speaking, is Saviour, 2) that subordination to him- following him- is the path to spiritual Salvation after death, and that 3) there is no other path that achieves this.
Given that there's been no walking on water, multiplication of fishes or raising of the dead for 2000 years, a message of these words today from a tradesman or small businessman would be met with more than a little skepticism.
The problem of this passage for the structural integrity of Christianity as a theology should have been addressed publicly by Philosophers of religion after 'The Interpretation of Dreams' gained traction. Oddly, it has not not been. Most of the focus has been on the myth and superstitious aspects of religion.
***Obviously the espousal of violence, vengeance and hatred spread throughout the Koran makes it clearly false as a religious document. Paul Ricoeur and I were in agreement on this in a discussion on the subject in his seminar in 1990
. At that time he also voiced suspicions on the authenticity of editions of the Koran after 1949, but had no interest in addressing the subject in any of his writing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmoE8_U-JTw
&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLgUuHl2xJo&feature=related
Hobbes' Leviathan No Advantage for Hobbes & Darwin Team
One of the weak points in the argument of the Hobbes & Darwin team in the Philosophy "case" of Hobbes & Darwin et al. Vs. Kant & St. Paul et al., is the perception of the thinkers on that team that the concept of the "Leviathan" as developed by Hobbes gives them advantage or is somehow exclusive to their argument. This is blatantly false.
The combination of "Law" and "grace" in St. Paul, and it's secular exposition in Kant, both presuppose the necessity of prohibition on unlimited behavior of the individual and therefore deny unlimited rights to the individual in law. This formulation is nothing less than a system-wide recognition- the mutual and thus "social" recognition- of the reality and priority of "suffering"(thus the senses) as commonly constitutive of all humans. The necessity of law and law enforcement for social order and freedom recognized by this group of thinkers therefore clearly recognizes the priority of "pathological affectation", or what Ricoeur would call "pathological affective fragility", to the individual and collective human condition.
The necessity of law and it's basis in human suffering is recognized in Kant in the derivation of the basis of respect in the 'Critique of Judgment' as discussed earlier on this blog, and is also recognized in 'Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone', in a footnote that gives an example of the effects of excess of "self-interest", the basis of Kant's conceptual construction of "radical evil".
For Kant the excess of individual "self-interest" is at the basis of radical evil. Slavoj Zizek in 'Tarrying With the Negative' reads this to mean that "the negative" is primary in human experience, because self-interest of the individual "naturally" encroaches upon the other. The prohibition of law for Zizek is then a "denial" of what is the "natural" inclination of man. This reading is incorrect.
What makes evil "radical" for Kant is centered in the derivation of respect- in the recognition of the commonness of suffering as constitutive of the human condition, and therefore also the corresponding recognition that man is "mutually-interdependent". It is because we know our sense to be "common" with others, because we know the suffering of the other to be "the same",(as discussed in the piece on Natural Law on this blog) that the violation of inflicting suffering through the action of "self-interest", constitutes "wrong"- is "evil".
In other words, we all know that the "physical moment says that suffering ought not to be", and also that this is true for all people. So it is then with clear knowledge of the wrong of violence that an individual disregards this knowledge and proceeds with the excessively "self-interested", criminal act. This is why "evil" is "radical" for Kant, why it is contrary to the social nature of man, and why it "earns/deserves" punishment.
The extent of the tendency of man toward criminal acts is not subject to argument, but is established in the facts of crime statistics and rates. From the book 'America in the Twentieth Century' (in front of me as we speak) the combined murder/rape rate per 100,000 in 1980 was 46.6, which is .0466 of a murder/rape per 100. It is the demonstrated relative scarcity of crime throughout history that led to the formation and the continued application of legal systems as retributive: through written decree enforced through post-event reporting and punishment.
For the Kant & St. Paul group, the necessity of law is present, and provides the mechanism that "elevates" our condition by providing the peace of order. This social nature of man has been present as long as there has been prohibitive strictures/law. The Hobbes & Darwin team argue as if Hobbes concept of Leviathan was the very first discovery of the need for law.
If according to the Hobbes & Darwin group, "B. U. Dead" is "wiser"- "budweiser", then ANY argument for the Leviathan of law, from either side in the debate, renders that phrase subordinate in strength to "be noone killed is wisest".It is the logic of living together- living with each other- over a lifetime.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsPh_8Dxl3E
The combination of "Law" and "grace" in St. Paul, and it's secular exposition in Kant, both presuppose the necessity of prohibition on unlimited behavior of the individual and therefore deny unlimited rights to the individual in law. This formulation is nothing less than a system-wide recognition- the mutual and thus "social" recognition- of the reality and priority of "suffering"(thus the senses) as commonly constitutive of all humans. The necessity of law and law enforcement for social order and freedom recognized by this group of thinkers therefore clearly recognizes the priority of "pathological affectation", or what Ricoeur would call "pathological affective fragility", to the individual and collective human condition.
The necessity of law and it's basis in human suffering is recognized in Kant in the derivation of the basis of respect in the 'Critique of Judgment' as discussed earlier on this blog, and is also recognized in 'Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone', in a footnote that gives an example of the effects of excess of "self-interest", the basis of Kant's conceptual construction of "radical evil".
For Kant the excess of individual "self-interest" is at the basis of radical evil. Slavoj Zizek in 'Tarrying With the Negative' reads this to mean that "the negative" is primary in human experience, because self-interest of the individual "naturally" encroaches upon the other. The prohibition of law for Zizek is then a "denial" of what is the "natural" inclination of man. This reading is incorrect.
What makes evil "radical" for Kant is centered in the derivation of respect- in the recognition of the commonness of suffering as constitutive of the human condition, and therefore also the corresponding recognition that man is "mutually-interdependent". It is because we know our sense to be "common" with others, because we know the suffering of the other to be "the same",(as discussed in the piece on Natural Law on this blog) that the violation of inflicting suffering through the action of "self-interest", constitutes "wrong"- is "evil".
In other words, we all know that the "physical moment says that suffering ought not to be", and also that this is true for all people. So it is then with clear knowledge of the wrong of violence that an individual disregards this knowledge and proceeds with the excessively "self-interested", criminal act. This is why "evil" is "radical" for Kant, why it is contrary to the social nature of man, and why it "earns/deserves" punishment.
The extent of the tendency of man toward criminal acts is not subject to argument, but is established in the facts of crime statistics and rates. From the book 'America in the Twentieth Century' (in front of me as we speak) the combined murder/rape rate per 100,000 in 1980 was 46.6, which is .0466 of a murder/rape per 100. It is the demonstrated relative scarcity of crime throughout history that led to the formation and the continued application of legal systems as retributive: through written decree enforced through post-event reporting and punishment.
For the Kant & St. Paul group, the necessity of law is present, and provides the mechanism that "elevates" our condition by providing the peace of order. This social nature of man has been present as long as there has been prohibitive strictures/law. The Hobbes & Darwin team argue as if Hobbes concept of Leviathan was the very first discovery of the need for law.
If according to the Hobbes & Darwin group, "B. U. Dead" is "wiser"- "budweiser", then ANY argument for the Leviathan of law, from either side in the debate, renders that phrase subordinate in strength to "be noone killed is wisest".It is the logic of living together- living with each other- over a lifetime.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsPh_8Dxl3E
Monday, September 8, 2008
Brief Outline of Hobbes & Darwin Vs. Kant & St. Paul et al..
A brief outline of some of the basic tenets of the main figures in the Philosophy "case" of Hobbes & Darwin et al. V. Kant & St. Paul is as follows.
From the Hobbes, Darwin team:
Thomas Hobbes has two positions: 1) Man is the sum total of his drives and desires, what Hobbes calls "conatus" (this is an elaboration of Aristotle’s description of man as a “human animal” and is thus a theory of both human “identity” and freedom), and 2) An overwhelming force of government, “The Leviathan” of law, is needed to curb the will of the individual to create and preserve order.
Charles Darwin: the theory of “survival of the fittest”. This had been extended by many recent philosophers to mean that the strongest use of reason, one of the unshakeable principles of human reason, is found in the phrase “kill or be killed”.
David Hume has two positions: 1) Real knowledge is based in the empirical sciences- in “impressions made by objects on the senses”, emotional experience is “unreliable” and “deceptive” and 2) Morality is a social convention, and is not something “existentially” grounded in man.
This group made the claim that the theory of knowledge of the other team was merely formalistic, based in an idealism that had no foundation in empirical reality.
From the Kant, St. Paul Team:
Kant is the pillar of this team. His Philosophy is the secular expression of St. Paul’s combination/paradox of law and grace in Romans 5:20 "Moreover, the law entered... grace did much more abound." Kant’s formulation of the basis of law is found in the depiction of freedom through law as “autonomy” based on “respect”. It is expressed In Kant's work through the categorical imperative in ‘Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals’ and ‘The Critique of Practical Reason’. A secular/borderline religious treatment of grace is found in ‘The Critique of Judgment’ in Kant’s treatment of the “beautiful” and “the sublime”.
This group of thinkers takes the position that it is only through the limit provided by respect for others and the order of law that there opens a realm for the experiences of life that “enrich” life: love, fulfillment, value, beauty, joy and happiness. Both realms, I argue, combine to comprise the full spectrum of the normal human experience of life. The religious consciousness expresses these experiences as “grace”, and some in this group in the past, like Ricoeur, have incorrectly described this realm as being a “higher” category of experience or existence.
‘The Kant Variations’ addresses the arguments in this case in the following 7 ways:
1) The essay ‘Contest and Justification’, limits the Darwin dictum to a “logic of contest”- confines it to “contest”, rather than extending it to a wider principle of all reason;
2) The expression of Adorno, “The physical moment says that suffering “ought not to be”, in ‘Theodor Adorno and Negative Dialectics’, as an expression of Kant’s notion of the “Common Sense” (sensus communis), provides an existential ground for morality and thus natural law;
3) ‘Making and Comparison’ demonstrates that the derivation of respect in Kant is in our “pathologically affective nature”- i.e.- the senses ;
4) ‘Unity in the House of Reason’ and ‘Emmanuel Levinas and the love of Knowledge’ depict what is called ‘Active Identity’, which is a theory that the identity of the individual is expressed through his or her acts, and describe a theory of forgiveness that uses the will to “make nothing” of suffering;
5) The depiction of 'Active identity' in 'Unity in the House of Reason' also takes position against the implications that Hobbes' theory of "conatus" has for human freedom, by demonstrating (this is in Ricoeur's work) that man acts contrary to fear, and thus contrary to his drives..("man fears, but loves anyway")
and equally importantly, my arguments limit the emphasis/efficacy of the religious consciousness aspects and expressions of the Kant & St. Paul Group the following ways:
1) As stated, the religious consciousness expresses the "enriching" experiences of the realm opened through law as “grace”. Some in the Kant & St. Paul group in the past, like Ricoeur, have incorrectly described this realm as being a “higher” category of experience or existence.This is INCORRECT.(Ricoeur described it spatially as an "arch - like a cathedral").
The dynamic is correctly formulated rather as a realm of experience that is opened through mutual respect and law that completes the full spectrum of normal human experience.
This viewpoint is expressed in ‘Synthesis in Kant’s Aesthetical Idea’ where the experience of beauty is something we ALL know, and is thus COMMONLY experienced. Example: There is no music, or vista, or painting so beautiful that noone else but a few people appreciate it.
The argument of the Kant group is that without the foundation of mutual respect and law, the blatantly instrumental use of others as a means does not open this other dimension of experience, results in a life devoid of those experiences which enrich human life, and leads to an incorrect overly dark view expressed in the Schopenhauer and Nussbaum quotes on this blog.
2) ‘Contest and Justification’ attacks the danger in the formulation of religious consciousness as a “higher” category of existence, by demonstrating parallels between Kant’s arguments for the “Universal Church” in 'Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone', with the arguments of fascism.
This is critical to both sides in the debate as history has clearly demonstrated the danger, abuses and falseness of the thinking of religious moral superiority in religious fanaticism in the consecration of violence by the justification of religious “righteousness”. The examples of course abound: the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, and other examples in James Morone’s Book ‘Hellfire Nation’, and throughout history.
Some Philosophy "Inside Baseball"
Like many fields of professional endeavor, the people in some Philosophy "groups" have their own Professional informal jargon. Here is some jargon gathered from attendees at a major Heidegger conference attended at Loyola University in Chicago in the fall of 1989. The papers presented at this conference are/were in the book 'Reading Heidegger: Commemorations' edited by John Sallis. Presenters included Jacques Derrida, John Sallis, William Richardson, Charles Scott, Robert Bernasconi, Jacques Taminiaux and many others. I met most of these people at the reception for the main speaker- Derrida.
1) Charles Darwin survival of the fittest translated to "kill or be killed" was known among Heidegger devotees as "budweiser" because, according to two attendees- "b. u. dead(rather than me) is wiser". For this group it was considered the strongest principle of human reason and philosophical "brew"- the "king of beers". So Philosophers of this group had budweiser at the reception for Derrida, and also Guiness, because it was the darkest beer.
2) According to the attendees Hobbes was known in the group as "Will Smith" because "the Leviathan" bends the will of the individual through force- like a blacksmith.
3) The project of ending the influence of the Michel Villey interpretation of the german school of natural right, depicted in Taminiaux's 'Dialectic and Difference', was referred to as "Michelob".
4) The Kant & St. Paul team was referred to as "The Salvation Army".
5) St. Paul and St. John were referred to as "The Beattles".
6) Paul Ricoeur had two nicknames, both based on this group's assessment that Ricoeur's 'Freedom and Nature' imitated/mocked work already done by his mentor Gabriel Marcel. The first nickname was "Marcel Marceau", and the second was "The Mockingbird". The second basis of the nickname "The Mockingbird" was Ricoeur's illustration of his concept of "perspicacity" in the nervous wariness of birds.
7) Harvard's Christine Korsgaard was known by this group as "heart-guard".
but...
So, in the spirit of collegiality...let us respond and "coin" some Jargon of our own...
1) It appears now that there is a "new balance" in the argument, with stronger "arch" support. So I hereby declare that "New Balance" is the official exercise shoe of the Kant- "New Balance" team.
2) With this reinterpretation of Kant, new members of the team can be added with the limitation of extreme religious consciousness, so now both the early John Dewey and Adorno are now squarely on the "new balance" team.
3) With the reinforcement of Kant through new interpretation, the Michel Villey interpretation of the german school of natural right has not been "killed". And now there are 2 new Michelob beers- Michelob Ultra, and Michelob Amber Bock. So, I hereby declare these new Michelob beers the official beers of the "Kant- New Balance Team".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQPd1RFwDgo
&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY1Bl4nfpdA&feature=related
& so here is Music of the 'Salvation Army' Philosophers...
Saints John and Paul:
The Beattles- Let it Be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67J_66hdN-I
St. Thomas Aquinas teleological argument/design argument "as the archer directs the arrow":
Aerosmith- Sweet Emotion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yGCHPmfqT0
Walk this Way
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UKMyhId1co
Christine Korsgaard:
Elvis Costello- Alison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4tFwmoZ0eg
Allison Krauss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P4l1b0KR3M
Christina Aguilera (eagle)- Beautiful
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNthqC2fsVw
Paul Ricoeur:
The Byrds- Turn Turn Turn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNopQq5lWqQ
St. Paul scholar Wayne Meeks & Southern Illinois University Professor Garth Gillan
Wayne's World
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/waynes-world-aerosmith/275020/
Kant (for the 'Critique of Judgment'):
Sublime- Santeria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrLJ6Saq7u4
What I got
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEXN0RNY5ps
Kant & General music of the "Salvation Army"
Heart- (I LOVE this band- the Wilson sisters rock 2nd to none...)
Crazy on You
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5PKULglde8
Battle of Evermore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oxcC18xE4Y&feature=related
Magic Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uvr3dmptvg
Barracuda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyR-HmJS2qQ
From the Hobbes, Darwin team:
Thomas Hobbes has two positions: 1) Man is the sum total of his drives and desires, what Hobbes calls "conatus" (this is an elaboration of Aristotle’s description of man as a “human animal” and is thus a theory of both human “identity” and freedom), and 2) An overwhelming force of government, “The Leviathan” of law, is needed to curb the will of the individual to create and preserve order.
Charles Darwin: the theory of “survival of the fittest”. This had been extended by many recent philosophers to mean that the strongest use of reason, one of the unshakeable principles of human reason, is found in the phrase “kill or be killed”.
David Hume has two positions: 1) Real knowledge is based in the empirical sciences- in “impressions made by objects on the senses”, emotional experience is “unreliable” and “deceptive” and 2) Morality is a social convention, and is not something “existentially” grounded in man.
This group made the claim that the theory of knowledge of the other team was merely formalistic, based in an idealism that had no foundation in empirical reality.
From the Kant, St. Paul Team:
Kant is the pillar of this team. His Philosophy is the secular expression of St. Paul’s combination/paradox of law and grace in Romans 5:20 "Moreover, the law entered... grace did much more abound." Kant’s formulation of the basis of law is found in the depiction of freedom through law as “autonomy” based on “respect”. It is expressed In Kant's work through the categorical imperative in ‘Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals’ and ‘The Critique of Practical Reason’. A secular/borderline religious treatment of grace is found in ‘The Critique of Judgment’ in Kant’s treatment of the “beautiful” and “the sublime”.
This group of thinkers takes the position that it is only through the limit provided by respect for others and the order of law that there opens a realm for the experiences of life that “enrich” life: love, fulfillment, value, beauty, joy and happiness. Both realms, I argue, combine to comprise the full spectrum of the normal human experience of life. The religious consciousness expresses these experiences as “grace”, and some in this group in the past, like Ricoeur, have incorrectly described this realm as being a “higher” category of experience or existence.
‘The Kant Variations’ addresses the arguments in this case in the following 7 ways:
1) The essay ‘Contest and Justification’, limits the Darwin dictum to a “logic of contest”- confines it to “contest”, rather than extending it to a wider principle of all reason;
2) The expression of Adorno, “The physical moment says that suffering “ought not to be”, in ‘Theodor Adorno and Negative Dialectics’, as an expression of Kant’s notion of the “Common Sense” (sensus communis), provides an existential ground for morality and thus natural law;
3) ‘Making and Comparison’ demonstrates that the derivation of respect in Kant is in our “pathologically affective nature”- i.e.- the senses ;
4) ‘Unity in the House of Reason’ and ‘Emmanuel Levinas and the love of Knowledge’ depict what is called ‘Active Identity’, which is a theory that the identity of the individual is expressed through his or her acts, and describe a theory of forgiveness that uses the will to “make nothing” of suffering;
5) The depiction of 'Active identity' in 'Unity in the House of Reason' also takes position against the implications that Hobbes' theory of "conatus" has for human freedom, by demonstrating (this is in Ricoeur's work) that man acts contrary to fear, and thus contrary to his drives..("man fears, but loves anyway")
and equally importantly, my arguments limit the emphasis/efficacy of the religious consciousness aspects and expressions of the Kant & St. Paul Group the following ways:
1) As stated, the religious consciousness expresses the "enriching" experiences of the realm opened through law as “grace”. Some in the Kant & St. Paul group in the past, like Ricoeur, have incorrectly described this realm as being a “higher” category of experience or existence.This is INCORRECT.(Ricoeur described it spatially as an "arch - like a cathedral").
The dynamic is correctly formulated rather as a realm of experience that is opened through mutual respect and law that completes the full spectrum of normal human experience.
This viewpoint is expressed in ‘Synthesis in Kant’s Aesthetical Idea’ where the experience of beauty is something we ALL know, and is thus COMMONLY experienced. Example: There is no music, or vista, or painting so beautiful that noone else but a few people appreciate it.
The argument of the Kant group is that without the foundation of mutual respect and law, the blatantly instrumental use of others as a means does not open this other dimension of experience, results in a life devoid of those experiences which enrich human life, and leads to an incorrect overly dark view expressed in the Schopenhauer and Nussbaum quotes on this blog.
2) ‘Contest and Justification’ attacks the danger in the formulation of religious consciousness as a “higher” category of existence, by demonstrating parallels between Kant’s arguments for the “Universal Church” in 'Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone', with the arguments of fascism.
This is critical to both sides in the debate as history has clearly demonstrated the danger, abuses and falseness of the thinking of religious moral superiority in religious fanaticism in the consecration of violence by the justification of religious “righteousness”. The examples of course abound: the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, and other examples in James Morone’s Book ‘Hellfire Nation’, and throughout history.
Some Philosophy "Inside Baseball"
Like many fields of professional endeavor, the people in some Philosophy "groups" have their own Professional informal jargon. Here is some jargon gathered from attendees at a major Heidegger conference attended at Loyola University in Chicago in the fall of 1989. The papers presented at this conference are/were in the book 'Reading Heidegger: Commemorations' edited by John Sallis. Presenters included Jacques Derrida, John Sallis, William Richardson, Charles Scott, Robert Bernasconi, Jacques Taminiaux and many others. I met most of these people at the reception for the main speaker- Derrida.
1) Charles Darwin survival of the fittest translated to "kill or be killed" was known among Heidegger devotees as "budweiser" because, according to two attendees- "b. u. dead(rather than me) is wiser". For this group it was considered the strongest principle of human reason and philosophical "brew"- the "king of beers". So Philosophers of this group had budweiser at the reception for Derrida, and also Guiness, because it was the darkest beer.
2) According to the attendees Hobbes was known in the group as "Will Smith" because "the Leviathan" bends the will of the individual through force- like a blacksmith.
3) The project of ending the influence of the Michel Villey interpretation of the german school of natural right, depicted in Taminiaux's 'Dialectic and Difference', was referred to as "Michelob".
4) The Kant & St. Paul team was referred to as "The Salvation Army".
5) St. Paul and St. John were referred to as "The Beattles".
6) Paul Ricoeur had two nicknames, both based on this group's assessment that Ricoeur's 'Freedom and Nature' imitated/mocked work already done by his mentor Gabriel Marcel. The first nickname was "Marcel Marceau", and the second was "The Mockingbird". The second basis of the nickname "The Mockingbird" was Ricoeur's illustration of his concept of "perspicacity" in the nervous wariness of birds.
7) Harvard's Christine Korsgaard was known by this group as "heart-guard".
but...
So, in the spirit of collegiality...let us respond and "coin" some Jargon of our own...
1) It appears now that there is a "new balance" in the argument, with stronger "arch" support. So I hereby declare that "New Balance" is the official exercise shoe of the Kant- "New Balance" team.
2) With this reinterpretation of Kant, new members of the team can be added with the limitation of extreme religious consciousness, so now both the early John Dewey and Adorno are now squarely on the "new balance" team.
3) With the reinforcement of Kant through new interpretation, the Michel Villey interpretation of the german school of natural right has not been "killed". And now there are 2 new Michelob beers- Michelob Ultra, and Michelob Amber Bock. So, I hereby declare these new Michelob beers the official beers of the "Kant- New Balance Team".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQPd1RFwDgo
&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY1Bl4nfpdA&feature=related
& so here is Music of the 'Salvation Army' Philosophers...
Saints John and Paul:
The Beattles- Let it Be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67J_66hdN-I
St. Thomas Aquinas teleological argument/design argument "as the archer directs the arrow":
Aerosmith- Sweet Emotion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yGCHPmfqT0
Walk this Way
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UKMyhId1co
Christine Korsgaard:
Elvis Costello- Alison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4tFwmoZ0eg
Allison Krauss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P4l1b0KR3M
Christina Aguilera (eagle)- Beautiful
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNthqC2fsVw
Paul Ricoeur:
The Byrds- Turn Turn Turn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNopQq5lWqQ
St. Paul scholar Wayne Meeks & Southern Illinois University Professor Garth Gillan
Wayne's World
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/waynes-world-aerosmith/275020/
Kant (for the 'Critique of Judgment'):
Sublime- Santeria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrLJ6Saq7u4
What I got
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEXN0RNY5ps
Kant & General music of the "Salvation Army"
Heart- (I LOVE this band- the Wilson sisters rock 2nd to none...)
Crazy on You
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5PKULglde8
Battle of Evermore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oxcC18xE4Y&feature=related
Magic Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uvr3dmptvg
Barracuda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyR-HmJS2qQ
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Philosophy Docket, Case #1: Hobbes & Darwin et al...Vs. Kant & St. Paul et al..
Aside from the normal delineations found in most introductions and survey history of Western Philosophy, a central debate, a central Philosophical "Case" has been "thundering" in the court of Philosophy among it's practitioners for the past 150 years, but hasn't received much notice in Philosophical literature. I Call this case: "HOBBES & DARWIN ET AL. VS. KANT & ST. PAUL ET AL.
The structure lines up as an argument, a complaint if you will, pressed on the "nature of man" and contains the corresponding ramifications of this position for moral philosophy, law and Political theory. It is opposed by a view that can be characterized as the "nature of human life/experience".
The Plaintiffs in the case are represented by Thomas Hobbes, Charles Darwin, David Hume, Karl Marx, F. Neitzsche, Edmund Burke, Gilles Deleuze(the logic of sense), Charles Pierce, R. Heidegger, F.S. Fitzgerald, F. Dostoevsky, Hans Jonas in his moral writing, the Martha Nussbaum quoted on this blog, the Leo Strauss quoted on this blog, H.L.A. Hart, a bad reading of Aristotle, and Lincoln's "Cooper Union" Union Speech (at least as of 1/08)- in the phrase "might makes right". (This phrase is derived from a poor interpretation of the historical implications of the Hegel dictum "the real is the rational, and the rational is the real"- in combination with an extremely selective and limited reading of the "Phenomenology of Spirit").
The Defendants in the case are represented by Immanuel Kant, St. Paul in his formulation of the paradox/combination of Law AND grace, St. John, John Stuart Mill(Utilitarians), Thomas Jefferson, Jean Jacques Rousseau, the early John Dewey quoted on this blog, Michel Villey, Pope John Paul II both in 'Love and Responsibility' and in his Encyclical letters, the Theodor Adorno work quoted on this blog, the Federalist Papers treatment of the consent of the governed, Victor Hugo ("to love another person is to see the face of God"), Gabriel Marcel, Paul Ricoeur, Nikolai Berdyaev, Learned Hand, Christine Korsgaard & myself, and supported in viewpoint by some of the opinions of Justice Hugo Black...among others
As it is philosophy, though, cases of this type can work on very, very long project management time frames, much longer than normal, unless one of the sides abandons their position and concedes defeat.
Philosophers make claim that their observations reflect enduring truth, and so the ground which is being contested and tested in such arguments reflects a much longer time frame than timelines involved with legal cases, and even longer than projects like the rebuilding of Europe after WWII.
The Plaintiffs have pressed the argument, it is being examined, and it is in the process of being answered with "thunder", and with proof.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQpyxh3xpv8
and..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6FwEJwwYcQ
The structure lines up as an argument, a complaint if you will, pressed on the "nature of man" and contains the corresponding ramifications of this position for moral philosophy, law and Political theory. It is opposed by a view that can be characterized as the "nature of human life/experience".
The Plaintiffs in the case are represented by Thomas Hobbes, Charles Darwin, David Hume, Karl Marx, F. Neitzsche, Edmund Burke, Gilles Deleuze(the logic of sense), Charles Pierce, R. Heidegger, F.S. Fitzgerald, F. Dostoevsky, Hans Jonas in his moral writing, the Martha Nussbaum quoted on this blog, the Leo Strauss quoted on this blog, H.L.A. Hart, a bad reading of Aristotle, and Lincoln's "Cooper Union" Union Speech (at least as of 1/08)- in the phrase "might makes right". (This phrase is derived from a poor interpretation of the historical implications of the Hegel dictum "the real is the rational, and the rational is the real"- in combination with an extremely selective and limited reading of the "Phenomenology of Spirit").
The Defendants in the case are represented by Immanuel Kant, St. Paul in his formulation of the paradox/combination of Law AND grace, St. John, John Stuart Mill(Utilitarians), Thomas Jefferson, Jean Jacques Rousseau, the early John Dewey quoted on this blog, Michel Villey, Pope John Paul II both in 'Love and Responsibility' and in his Encyclical letters, the Theodor Adorno work quoted on this blog, the Federalist Papers treatment of the consent of the governed, Victor Hugo ("to love another person is to see the face of God"), Gabriel Marcel, Paul Ricoeur, Nikolai Berdyaev, Learned Hand, Christine Korsgaard & myself, and supported in viewpoint by some of the opinions of Justice Hugo Black...among others
As it is philosophy, though, cases of this type can work on very, very long project management time frames, much longer than normal, unless one of the sides abandons their position and concedes defeat.
Philosophers make claim that their observations reflect enduring truth, and so the ground which is being contested and tested in such arguments reflects a much longer time frame than timelines involved with legal cases, and even longer than projects like the rebuilding of Europe after WWII.
The Plaintiffs have pressed the argument, it is being examined, and it is in the process of being answered with "thunder", and with proof.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQpyxh3xpv8
and..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6FwEJwwYcQ
Thursday, September 4, 2008
"Total War" Ideology- Psychological Warfare
The Psychological element of warfare has almost as long a history as the history of warfare itself, as the dynamic of submission and the disabling of ability to conduct warfare and resist is a main goal of war itself. It is with this broader view and goal that the practice of torture is aimed.
An informal general introduction to different elements of psych. warfare could be found in a variety of publications on peripheral topics. These elements were found in editions in the 1990's of 'The Art of War', 'On War' by Clauswitz, 'The Gulag Archipelago'- which enumerated interrogation and torture techniques, 'The Body in Pain' by Elaine Scarry, and even 'How to Master the Art of Selling' by Tom Hopkins. Of course Naomi Klein's 'The Shock Doctrine' deals with elements as well, as do movies that deal with the holocaust- like 'Schindler's List', 'Sophie's Choice', and even 'The Mission'.
A few processes:
In 'The Body in Pain' edition read in the 1990's, Scarry performed an analysis of torture, and noted that the most effective torturers in WWII used everyday objects as instruments to deliver pain, so as to dismantle over time the recipients built-up normal trust in those objects in later experiences. Scarry also noted the torturer's use of the body itself- muscle processes, sleep deprivation etc.. to defeat the sense of control that the recipient even had over their own body. Scarry termed the goal with respect to the individual recipient- "the unmaking of the world" of the recipient.
In 'Schindler's List', the commandant and the guards use random and constant acts of violence in order to serially defeat the recipient's sense of reason, one of our most primary means of sense of safety- our deeply rooted operative faith that we can use our intelligence to figure out "what to do" to stay safe. A variation of this is for the practitioner to give repeated negative physical feedback to the every "response" or "change in response" of a recipient. Call this variation the "everything you try is wrong" technique, with the goal of getting the recipient to question their own intelligence and capability.
More modern research showed that the use and provocation of emotional cycles- anger, sadness, fear, happiness, doubt, sympathy, and especially fatigue- were used to provoke the physiological reactions that come with decision making to effect the cooperation wanted from the recipient. (Hopkins- 'Buying decisions' are emotional).
Cognitive science researchers in the 1980's were interested in the physiological mapping of the different processes that produce emotional states- like the electrical impulses initiated in the brain that trigger the release of endorphins in running, and adrenaline in fear. Nanotech advances in medicine with valves and catheter insertion in invasive medical procedures now could be used in devices targeted to these control centers in the brain and elsewhere to actually cause a reasonably close re-creation of an "emotional state" in an unwitting subject. Perhaps it goes on in China as we speak.
These produced internal affective stimuli can then be utilized in combination with external stimuli, including the use of appeals targeting the thinking processes and patterns of the subjects- in false appeals to induce bargaining. This is done with a short term goal of incremental change, while it works toward the larger goal of behavior wanted.
Modern communication technology and the use of deception to get others to unwittingly cooperate, could actually be used by tyrants to utilize the voices and presence of loved ones and friends as delivery vehicles of psychological warfare. Anecdotal evidence has been related that this also goes on in China.
The production of "trauma" in different types of torture is specifically designed to implement a type of human brain "software virus"- to use the memory of the recipient to relive the event and the psychological effects over and over again long after the event has been physically experienced.
Significant breakthroughs in the 80's have found that recipients who themselves approach these events as pscyh. warfare, and fight each and every one of them- merely mentally- can withstand continuous events with negligible or no effect. These breakthroughs found that the normal "grieving" processes that occur after a normal event of emotional loss and minor trauma are actually, in major trauma, as harmful or more to the recipient as the physical event itself. This is because normal grieving processes allow and provide release of tension for the end of an isolated or rare event, where because of memory, trauma is a "continously recurring" event.
With major trauma it doesn't work that way, and the focus on "how one feels emotionally" is useless. This was depicted on an episode of Dr. Phil. This is because memory studies show that traumatic events are remembered best and longest because of the release of adrenaline, and because they are then relived. Because of this the effects of lack of control and debasement of being the subject of the attack, are "reimplemented" and reinforced by the memory itself over and over again.
It was discovered that the most effective way to combat torture, if one is a subject, was to fight the "trauma" mentally at the point of the event(it can't be stopped or controlled, but how one feels about it can) by mentally attacking all acts, conditions, noises and practitioners...as mere LIES etc., while simultaneously NOT ALLOWING the feeling of "debasement", "shame"...etc. Afterward subjects actually prompted the memory of the event repeatedly while fighting it mentally in order to "disarm" the effect of memory. Once this was accomplished, simple image replacement with event association triggers- sounds, etc- with images positive to one's life- completely disarmed the triggers and actually over time worked repetitively in favor of the recipient.
Of course the "Sophie's Choice" technique has already been discussed on this blog. It is conceivable then to extend that technique to a type of "collective Sophie's Choice" that could be used to attempt to convince a subject that had little real authority of the false appearance that he/she then had control over, and was saving a multitude of lives by agreeing to participate in the death of hundreds or more- as depicted in the decision of the Cardinal to sacrifice South American Jesuits in 'The Mission'.
Fraud statistics show that the most effective scam device is “easy money”, and that the 2nd most effective scam device is to immediately approach the victim of a fraud with the false promise “pay just this and I'll get your money back”.
The most effective mental counter-tactics to psychological warfare/torture by those who experienced the least effects were: 1) The ability to identify the tactic at work being experienced, neutralizing the effect of the common "experience" of the tactic by locating the source in the intent of the practitioner; 2) Understanding the basic TRUTH of human identity- that an individual is the sum total of his or her own ACTS and the intentions that formed them. This review is only performed ONCE by the recipient- it does not need to be sold as it is already established AS TRUTH in the FACTS of the individual's life; 3) Therefore the ugliness associated with the particular experience being utilized as a tactic is NOT the Recipient's, but the practitioner's; and 4) the more control one utilizes over the images/sounds being received, the better the environment produced.
It is in these senses, when put together, that the powers of mental concentration and the will to defeat these techniques, and the power of the will to use the process of forgiveness to move forward, are not passive whatsoever. It can be seen collectively as the power of the recipient to literally "make nothing" of the hate and anger of the torture practitioner, to "make nothing" of the pain received, and thus to "make nothing" of the aims of the torture practitioner
The above 1990's editions of books provide such an introduction.
Other elements of practitioners co-opting others with deception and other techniques involved utilization of the normal "lures of advertising", and of course the "7 deadly sins" etc.. However the most effective techniques were: 1) the use of the self-conception of the target to co-opt, by discovering what the target liked to THINK ABOUT HIMSELF/HERSELF as personal strengths, and then employing these as reasons that the co-opt target is "incredible" etc.., and 2) the power of "too"-- "you TOO are like us", "join us". etc.
Addendum- Authority Based Disinformation/False Feedback
In the study of small-group psychology by National Training Labs, Bethel Maine(NTL)(offered as an honors program behavioral laboratory seminar at SIU in the 1980's), the power of authority based feedback/information was undeniable in laboratory exercises. Applied to a psych. warfare situation on an unsuspecting subject, the result could be terrible. If the recipient is young, the recipient could operate under long-term false misconceptions of diminished ability, will-power, and character.
Two examples of the ill-intended use of authority based feedback on unsuspecting targets of Psych. warfare can be illustrated from the dictum in Sun Tsu's 'Art of War' - "Sacrifice an agent". In this phrase the agent of the authority may actually be a member of the target group themselves and not know it, and in the reception of misinformation from the authority figure, act in a way that leads to their own physical damage, and FALSELY based real psychological damage.
1) The first instance is the use of authority-based false feedback/information on skill/capability functions of people to direct behavior towards action intended by the authority while simultaneously producing doubt in the capability and intelligence of the recipient. In this case the authority merely gives false negative feedback concerning performance evaluation of the mental capability or physical capability of the function being tested- publicly- in comparison to other members of a group. Group psych. studies show that individuals that receive
consistent negative comparative feedback in activities often leave the group, and/or cease the activity in order to cease the "failure".
In this way someone without any lack of ability in a function at all is led to believe that he or she does have lack of ability in that particular area, and the production of a self-conscious "stigma" then becomes falsely accepted in the individual.
WWII German false feedback and teaching to children would be the particular historical reference to this example. This is undeniably illustrated throughout child development activities of sports and classroom, where those that are consistently regarded as the least capable players or students cease playing that particular sporting or intellectual activity.
If utilized against the most central childhood development functions of learning such as language development and skills - i.e. intentional incorrect grammar instruction, false negative feedback in reading and arithmatic, or in false behavioral health diagnoses- such as a false ADHD diagnosis- the result could likely put the target on a path of poor self-confidence and poor self-esteem, while also leading to lower life expectations and aspirations.
2) The encouragement by authority to engage in self-damaging behavior. In this instance the authority uses the physiological processes of the body unwittingly against the agent by ordering or encouraging behavior of the agent that leads the agent down the path into dependency or some other self-damaging behavior. The agent is then falsely led to believe that the dependency was the result of some personal inner "weakness", when the dependency and/or the appearance of it were the desired goal of the authority from the start.
Such deception then allows the authority later to discredit the agent and associates of the agent with widely held and publicly accepted perceptions of the character and will-power "weakness" of those with dependencies. In this example the behavior of the authority is no different from the average drug dealer giving free samples to grade school children, but with the power of authority behind them the success rate of such inducements, and thus results, would be tremendously higher.
3) In such instances above, the realization that no such capability or character deficiency ever existed led- in looking forward - to greater confidence, and performance improvements in the subject's life.
This is an addendum to the post '...Psychological Warfare' and will be featured here temporarily.
A class lecture attended once addressed the subject of the structure of human Hope as false and damaging. The reasoning put forth was that what is properly reserved to what we call hope is the expectation of the attainment of an aim when the probability of attainment is less than certain. It was stated that if the probability of attainment is high, then what is experienced is confidence, and that it is only in the face of diminished odds of attainment that we Hope for a positive outcome despite the probability of failure.
The inference made from this was that Hope, by it's very structure was damaging to human endeavor because it keeps individual focus and effort on aims that waste our time. It was further stated that behavior studies showed that the more pressure was put on an individual through harshness of negative consequences of non-performance of an activity that achieved the relief of that pressure and those consequences, the more individuals are willing to make attempts with less and less numerical probability of success, and of extraordinary nature, in order to avoid those consequences. He then summarized it from another angle, saying that it was the dynamics of the Freudian "death instinct"- or hope turned against the person.
It was my point that what the professor was describing was not in fact Hope, but the illusion of hope- false hope- and that the dynamic he described was what would be more properly called a logic of desperation.
I replied further that the structure of hope as the attainment of an end against the statistics of probability, but within some horizon of attainment or failure, through long term effort, was something very normal and healthy in the human condition. It was what each of our grandparents and parents did every day, and what parents today do for the betterment of the lives of their children and their families.
On Health Issues Sometimes First Ladies Get It Right
1) Nancy Reagan put out a program in the 80's that was widely discredited in the media by experts for it's simplicity- "just say no." Her program made the simple point that all human beings had bodies and thus ALL are susceptible to chemical dependency, and that the main factor then was merely the mental act of decision(literally the "deciding factor").
According to this program over time all that is needed is a) the knowledge that the process is that simple, & b) the personal discipline to make healthy choices. Shortly thereafter these choices then become unconscious healthy habits. One of the strengths about this program is that according to it individuals don't NEED all kinds of sophisticated professional medical help, they don't need the useless "pity party", and they don't need help from others who are "stronger".
In this program individuals already have all the strength needed in themselves, and always did have it. In this program a) individuals just need the right information, b) they need RESPECT for their intelligence, capabilities and character, c) they need to know what is the real community standard, and d) they need those individuals(acting from proper blog etiquette I will suppress a myriad of more accurate strongly negative word choices that come to mind) that invite and encourage such behavior to leave them alone, or they need to remove themselves from those individuals that repeatedly invite and encourage the self-damaging behavior.
2) Dr. Phil & other experts know at least a dozen ways to continually and daily re-enforce poor self-esteem & that lead to the repetition of bad behavior. These ways therefore act like a spiral staircase downward. These ways keep individuals focused on perceived personal weakness, guilt, and feelings of vulnerability, rather than on: a) the simple powerful facts of their past actions that already UNDENIABLY proved their good character and worth, and b) the simple positive things they can do to move on, utilize and develop their talents (even if only for personal enjoyment), help others and fulfill their lives.
1)- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-ysg62GmFo
2)- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfyPxvdmwv0
An informal general introduction to different elements of psych. warfare could be found in a variety of publications on peripheral topics. These elements were found in editions in the 1990's of 'The Art of War', 'On War' by Clauswitz, 'The Gulag Archipelago'- which enumerated interrogation and torture techniques, 'The Body in Pain' by Elaine Scarry, and even 'How to Master the Art of Selling' by Tom Hopkins. Of course Naomi Klein's 'The Shock Doctrine' deals with elements as well, as do movies that deal with the holocaust- like 'Schindler's List', 'Sophie's Choice', and even 'The Mission'.
A few processes:
In 'The Body in Pain' edition read in the 1990's, Scarry performed an analysis of torture, and noted that the most effective torturers in WWII used everyday objects as instruments to deliver pain, so as to dismantle over time the recipients built-up normal trust in those objects in later experiences. Scarry also noted the torturer's use of the body itself- muscle processes, sleep deprivation etc.. to defeat the sense of control that the recipient even had over their own body. Scarry termed the goal with respect to the individual recipient- "the unmaking of the world" of the recipient.
In 'Schindler's List', the commandant and the guards use random and constant acts of violence in order to serially defeat the recipient's sense of reason, one of our most primary means of sense of safety- our deeply rooted operative faith that we can use our intelligence to figure out "what to do" to stay safe. A variation of this is for the practitioner to give repeated negative physical feedback to the every "response" or "change in response" of a recipient. Call this variation the "everything you try is wrong" technique, with the goal of getting the recipient to question their own intelligence and capability.
More modern research showed that the use and provocation of emotional cycles- anger, sadness, fear, happiness, doubt, sympathy, and especially fatigue- were used to provoke the physiological reactions that come with decision making to effect the cooperation wanted from the recipient. (Hopkins- 'Buying decisions' are emotional).
Cognitive science researchers in the 1980's were interested in the physiological mapping of the different processes that produce emotional states- like the electrical impulses initiated in the brain that trigger the release of endorphins in running, and adrenaline in fear. Nanotech advances in medicine with valves and catheter insertion in invasive medical procedures now could be used in devices targeted to these control centers in the brain and elsewhere to actually cause a reasonably close re-creation of an "emotional state" in an unwitting subject. Perhaps it goes on in China as we speak.
These produced internal affective stimuli can then be utilized in combination with external stimuli, including the use of appeals targeting the thinking processes and patterns of the subjects- in false appeals to induce bargaining. This is done with a short term goal of incremental change, while it works toward the larger goal of behavior wanted.
Modern communication technology and the use of deception to get others to unwittingly cooperate, could actually be used by tyrants to utilize the voices and presence of loved ones and friends as delivery vehicles of psychological warfare. Anecdotal evidence has been related that this also goes on in China.
The production of "trauma" in different types of torture is specifically designed to implement a type of human brain "software virus"- to use the memory of the recipient to relive the event and the psychological effects over and over again long after the event has been physically experienced.
Significant breakthroughs in the 80's have found that recipients who themselves approach these events as pscyh. warfare, and fight each and every one of them- merely mentally- can withstand continuous events with negligible or no effect. These breakthroughs found that the normal "grieving" processes that occur after a normal event of emotional loss and minor trauma are actually, in major trauma, as harmful or more to the recipient as the physical event itself. This is because normal grieving processes allow and provide release of tension for the end of an isolated or rare event, where because of memory, trauma is a "continously recurring" event.
With major trauma it doesn't work that way, and the focus on "how one feels emotionally" is useless. This was depicted on an episode of Dr. Phil. This is because memory studies show that traumatic events are remembered best and longest because of the release of adrenaline, and because they are then relived. Because of this the effects of lack of control and debasement of being the subject of the attack, are "reimplemented" and reinforced by the memory itself over and over again.
It was discovered that the most effective way to combat torture, if one is a subject, was to fight the "trauma" mentally at the point of the event(it can't be stopped or controlled, but how one feels about it can) by mentally attacking all acts, conditions, noises and practitioners...as mere LIES etc., while simultaneously NOT ALLOWING the feeling of "debasement", "shame"...etc. Afterward subjects actually prompted the memory of the event repeatedly while fighting it mentally in order to "disarm" the effect of memory. Once this was accomplished, simple image replacement with event association triggers- sounds, etc- with images positive to one's life- completely disarmed the triggers and actually over time worked repetitively in favor of the recipient.
Of course the "Sophie's Choice" technique has already been discussed on this blog. It is conceivable then to extend that technique to a type of "collective Sophie's Choice" that could be used to attempt to convince a subject that had little real authority of the false appearance that he/she then had control over, and was saving a multitude of lives by agreeing to participate in the death of hundreds or more- as depicted in the decision of the Cardinal to sacrifice South American Jesuits in 'The Mission'.
Fraud statistics show that the most effective scam device is “easy money”, and that the 2nd most effective scam device is to immediately approach the victim of a fraud with the false promise “pay just this and I'll get your money back”.
The most effective mental counter-tactics to psychological warfare/torture by those who experienced the least effects were: 1) The ability to identify the tactic at work being experienced, neutralizing the effect of the common "experience" of the tactic by locating the source in the intent of the practitioner; 2) Understanding the basic TRUTH of human identity- that an individual is the sum total of his or her own ACTS and the intentions that formed them. This review is only performed ONCE by the recipient- it does not need to be sold as it is already established AS TRUTH in the FACTS of the individual's life; 3) Therefore the ugliness associated with the particular experience being utilized as a tactic is NOT the Recipient's, but the practitioner's; and 4) the more control one utilizes over the images/sounds being received, the better the environment produced.
It is in these senses, when put together, that the powers of mental concentration and the will to defeat these techniques, and the power of the will to use the process of forgiveness to move forward, are not passive whatsoever. It can be seen collectively as the power of the recipient to literally "make nothing" of the hate and anger of the torture practitioner, to "make nothing" of the pain received, and thus to "make nothing" of the aims of the torture practitioner
The above 1990's editions of books provide such an introduction.
Other elements of practitioners co-opting others with deception and other techniques involved utilization of the normal "lures of advertising", and of course the "7 deadly sins" etc.. However the most effective techniques were: 1) the use of the self-conception of the target to co-opt, by discovering what the target liked to THINK ABOUT HIMSELF/HERSELF as personal strengths, and then employing these as reasons that the co-opt target is "incredible" etc.., and 2) the power of "too"-- "you TOO are like us", "join us". etc.
Addendum- Authority Based Disinformation/False Feedback
In the study of small-group psychology by National Training Labs, Bethel Maine(NTL)(offered as an honors program behavioral laboratory seminar at SIU in the 1980's), the power of authority based feedback/information was undeniable in laboratory exercises. Applied to a psych. warfare situation on an unsuspecting subject, the result could be terrible. If the recipient is young, the recipient could operate under long-term false misconceptions of diminished ability, will-power, and character.
Two examples of the ill-intended use of authority based feedback on unsuspecting targets of Psych. warfare can be illustrated from the dictum in Sun Tsu's 'Art of War' - "Sacrifice an agent". In this phrase the agent of the authority may actually be a member of the target group themselves and not know it, and in the reception of misinformation from the authority figure, act in a way that leads to their own physical damage, and FALSELY based real psychological damage.
1) The first instance is the use of authority-based false feedback/information on skill/capability functions of people to direct behavior towards action intended by the authority while simultaneously producing doubt in the capability and intelligence of the recipient. In this case the authority merely gives false negative feedback concerning performance evaluation of the mental capability or physical capability of the function being tested- publicly- in comparison to other members of a group. Group psych. studies show that individuals that receive
consistent negative comparative feedback in activities often leave the group, and/or cease the activity in order to cease the "failure".
In this way someone without any lack of ability in a function at all is led to believe that he or she does have lack of ability in that particular area, and the production of a self-conscious "stigma" then becomes falsely accepted in the individual.
WWII German false feedback and teaching to children would be the particular historical reference to this example. This is undeniably illustrated throughout child development activities of sports and classroom, where those that are consistently regarded as the least capable players or students cease playing that particular sporting or intellectual activity.
If utilized against the most central childhood development functions of learning such as language development and skills - i.e. intentional incorrect grammar instruction, false negative feedback in reading and arithmatic, or in false behavioral health diagnoses- such as a false ADHD diagnosis- the result could likely put the target on a path of poor self-confidence and poor self-esteem, while also leading to lower life expectations and aspirations.
2) The encouragement by authority to engage in self-damaging behavior. In this instance the authority uses the physiological processes of the body unwittingly against the agent by ordering or encouraging behavior of the agent that leads the agent down the path into dependency or some other self-damaging behavior. The agent is then falsely led to believe that the dependency was the result of some personal inner "weakness", when the dependency and/or the appearance of it were the desired goal of the authority from the start.
Such deception then allows the authority later to discredit the agent and associates of the agent with widely held and publicly accepted perceptions of the character and will-power "weakness" of those with dependencies. In this example the behavior of the authority is no different from the average drug dealer giving free samples to grade school children, but with the power of authority behind them the success rate of such inducements, and thus results, would be tremendously higher.
3) In such instances above, the realization that no such capability or character deficiency ever existed led- in looking forward - to greater confidence, and performance improvements in the subject's life.
This is an addendum to the post '...Psychological Warfare' and will be featured here temporarily.
A class lecture attended once addressed the subject of the structure of human Hope as false and damaging. The reasoning put forth was that what is properly reserved to what we call hope is the expectation of the attainment of an aim when the probability of attainment is less than certain. It was stated that if the probability of attainment is high, then what is experienced is confidence, and that it is only in the face of diminished odds of attainment that we Hope for a positive outcome despite the probability of failure.
The inference made from this was that Hope, by it's very structure was damaging to human endeavor because it keeps individual focus and effort on aims that waste our time. It was further stated that behavior studies showed that the more pressure was put on an individual through harshness of negative consequences of non-performance of an activity that achieved the relief of that pressure and those consequences, the more individuals are willing to make attempts with less and less numerical probability of success, and of extraordinary nature, in order to avoid those consequences. He then summarized it from another angle, saying that it was the dynamics of the Freudian "death instinct"- or hope turned against the person.
It was my point that what the professor was describing was not in fact Hope, but the illusion of hope- false hope- and that the dynamic he described was what would be more properly called a logic of desperation.
I replied further that the structure of hope as the attainment of an end against the statistics of probability, but within some horizon of attainment or failure, through long term effort, was something very normal and healthy in the human condition. It was what each of our grandparents and parents did every day, and what parents today do for the betterment of the lives of their children and their families.
On Health Issues Sometimes First Ladies Get It Right
1) Nancy Reagan put out a program in the 80's that was widely discredited in the media by experts for it's simplicity- "just say no." Her program made the simple point that all human beings had bodies and thus ALL are susceptible to chemical dependency, and that the main factor then was merely the mental act of decision(literally the "deciding factor").
According to this program over time all that is needed is a) the knowledge that the process is that simple, & b) the personal discipline to make healthy choices. Shortly thereafter these choices then become unconscious healthy habits. One of the strengths about this program is that according to it individuals don't NEED all kinds of sophisticated professional medical help, they don't need the useless "pity party", and they don't need help from others who are "stronger".
In this program individuals already have all the strength needed in themselves, and always did have it. In this program a) individuals just need the right information, b) they need RESPECT for their intelligence, capabilities and character, c) they need to know what is the real community standard, and d) they need those individuals(acting from proper blog etiquette I will suppress a myriad of more accurate strongly negative word choices that come to mind) that invite and encourage such behavior to leave them alone, or they need to remove themselves from those individuals that repeatedly invite and encourage the self-damaging behavior.
2) Dr. Phil & other experts know at least a dozen ways to continually and daily re-enforce poor self-esteem & that lead to the repetition of bad behavior. These ways therefore act like a spiral staircase downward. These ways keep individuals focused on perceived personal weakness, guilt, and feelings of vulnerability, rather than on: a) the simple powerful facts of their past actions that already UNDENIABLY proved their good character and worth, and b) the simple positive things they can do to move on, utilize and develop their talents (even if only for personal enjoyment), help others and fulfill their lives.
1)- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-ysg62GmFo
2)- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfyPxvdmwv0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)