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.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
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
What Would Figures of "the Revolution" Say About Our World and Our Times??
An interesting question came to mind in response to the recollection of an event of the U.S. bicentennial, when a sealed container was put into a space-capsule with a collection of items from the time of the 1976. What would figures of "the Revolution"; figures that lived from the late 18th century to the early 20th century; say about our current world?
What they could say about the technological changes would be of little value. That happens quite often, for example when someone from the extreme third world- like rural Africa- makes it to a United States city.
But what would people of goodwill like Madison, Jefferson, Rousseau, Kant and Dewey say about the developments in Law, Philosophy and Religion?? What would political leaders like John Adams or Daniel Webster say that would be honest- perhaps taken as constructive or not- about what it was like to lead and live in times when people were more independent?? What would they see from the structure of these times?? What changes could they look at with Fresh eyes and say were beneficial?? What changes would they completely oppose and refuse, come what may??
For example, how would John Adams or Daniel Webster view the turmoil after the industrial revolution which saw: 1) the stock market crash and collapse of financial systems, (which began the great depression); and 2) from these collapses the subsequent reforms and regulation that brought tremendous stability to the structure of daily economic life of the citizens of the United States- as depicted in Milton Crane's great 3 volume book 'The Roosevelt Era'?
In another example, what Henry James would say about the development of literature would be just as important as what his brother William James would say about the development of Philosophy.
These are interesting and important questions.
Two of the questions that would be presented to a William James or John Dewey, although framed incorrectly, would be:
1) Which moralist theory is closer to correct, Kant or Fitzgerald("green light" of the Great Gatsby)? (an old philosophy joke- repeat the question three times quickly)
2) Which theory of freedom is preferable, Kant's or Jean Luc Nancy's?
What they could say about the technological changes would be of little value. That happens quite often, for example when someone from the extreme third world- like rural Africa- makes it to a United States city.
But what would people of goodwill like Madison, Jefferson, Rousseau, Kant and Dewey say about the developments in Law, Philosophy and Religion?? What would political leaders like John Adams or Daniel Webster say that would be honest- perhaps taken as constructive or not- about what it was like to lead and live in times when people were more independent?? What would they see from the structure of these times?? What changes could they look at with Fresh eyes and say were beneficial?? What changes would they completely oppose and refuse, come what may??
For example, how would John Adams or Daniel Webster view the turmoil after the industrial revolution which saw: 1) the stock market crash and collapse of financial systems, (which began the great depression); and 2) from these collapses the subsequent reforms and regulation that brought tremendous stability to the structure of daily economic life of the citizens of the United States- as depicted in Milton Crane's great 3 volume book 'The Roosevelt Era'?
In another example, what Henry James would say about the development of literature would be just as important as what his brother William James would say about the development of Philosophy.
These are interesting and important questions.
Two of the questions that would be presented to a William James or John Dewey, although framed incorrectly, would be:
1) Which moralist theory is closer to correct, Kant or Fitzgerald("green light" of the Great Gatsby)? (an old philosophy joke- repeat the question three times quickly)
2) Which theory of freedom is preferable, Kant's or Jean Luc Nancy's?
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
U.S. Civil War Climate of "Total War" Important to Understanding Our Current Political Climate
The history of events and the history of ideas are both important to understanding our current political climate.
Last fall’s civil liberties class audited at UIS College of public affairs introduced and discussed the book ‘Lincoln’s Constitution’ by Daniel Farber. This book explores the constitutional issues surrounding the civil war and the parallels present to today’s political climate. These issues include theories of sovereignty, executive power, individual rights and the legitimacy of coercion.
The parallels of the political climate of the civil war to today’s political climate include the suspension of habeas corpus, detention without due process, and the suspension of other rights brought about by the passage of the patriot act and the questions of the extent and use of executive power. A general understanding of the history and climate of the civil war, and an outline of the central intellectual basis of these issues, are then important, in my opinion, to understanding our current political climate.
As these issues were (and are still) pressing issues, it seemed that an examination of the thinking behind it, and a type of broad intellectual confrontation of it was necessary- at least it was for me. There is no claim to be the total authority on these issues. This can just be a supplement to your own understanding, it can be a point for further reading, it can be one view of how our political climate can be understood, or it can be some of the above or all of the above.
It can be said that the extreme measures taken by Lincoln were formed in an atmosphere of “total war” (which means both physical and psychological), where the southern states no longer accepted the U.S. Constitution and where Lincoln survived several assassination and kidnapping attempts before Ford’s Theater. The sheer number of such attempts; combined with the lack of modern locating technology and combined with events such as the confederate spy scandal- the Trent Affair and intimations in the literature of attacks on Lincoln's family; lend credibility to the notion that there was extensive confederate spying and attempted infiltration- perhaps successfully- of Lincoln’s trusted inner circle and staff.
Other evidence of the total nature of how the nation was engulfed includes the vicious and guerrilla nature of the sectional Missouri/Kansas border battles between Missouri pro-confederate guerrillas and Kansas pro-Union "red legs", depicted in the movies 'The Outlaw Josey Wales' and 'The Assassination of Jesse James'. Another example is in one story provided by a history teacher in Morrisonville which described Irish units fighting for both the Confederacy and the Union, but with those fighting for the Union as consistently ineffective and problematic. According to the teacher, rather than expose to the confederate commanders their discovery, Union generals merely located the Irish confederate units before a battle and then lined up their own Irish units to fight directly opposite them in order for the combined Irish fighters to wipe each other out AND to disrupt the positioning effectiveness of the overall Confederate attack plan.
In such an atmosphere, where for 5 years he and his family were literally hunted- which included an attack on extended family that butchered twin 6 year old girls and their parents and left the remaining girl an orphan (the account provided in two separate conversations with different descendants of the families of Abraham Lincoln over the last 25 years)- it could easily be seen how the measures taken by Lincoln would be formed in response. One can see how the overall view that framed this response could also be passed on to Lincoln's heirs in the Republican party from his assassination.
Some legal historians have claimed that the suppression of constitutional rights and civil liberties beginning in 1860 was necessary for Lincoln to more tightly coordinate "pulling the strings" in controlling citizens to orchestrate the North's victory. In this view these historians in effect argue that Lincoln acted as puppetmaster, and that it was necessary in an environment of "Total War". (If today's leaders - heirs to the Lincoln family Civil war names- act as puppetmaster by coercion- forcible or with deception backed by authority- they must realize that it is THEY who are responsible for the events that they orchestrate by this coercion.)
One example of an ideology of “total war” can be found in the work of now famous Neocon guru Leo Strauss, in his book ‘History of Political Philosophy’, in the combined analysis of elements of the political ramifications of the philosophies of John Calvin, Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. This ideology could then be supported by Strauss’ theory of Natural Law in his book ‘Natural Right and History’, by Alexis De Tocqueville’s ‘Democracy in America ’, and in one interpretation of G.W.F. Hegel.
So then….. the task in understanding the concept of the ideology of “total war” is first outlined with a simple description of the elements that comprise the ideology, and then later in short elaborations of these basic elements and the supporting argumentation.
First the outline:
The ideology of “total war”, where survival against the ultimate enemy is boiled down to the 3 elements 1) a theory of “the enemy”, 2) a method of operation, and 3) a theory of sovereignty- based on a theory of Natural Law.
These three elements in such an ideology are as follows: 1) “Man is totally depraved”(Calvin), and therefore the nature of the individual human being, according to this theory, is that of “enemy”, as absolutely “evil”. There is then the furthest possible moral distance between the two parties in conflict(which in this ideology justifies the means employed).., 2) “All means, fair and foul, can be used to achieve all political ends” (Machiavelli)- which include lying to friend and foe alike, and 3) “the individual surrenders all rights to the sovereign as the sovereign sees fit”. (Hobbes) This is a general outline of an ideology that could be called one of “total war”.
The first element of the ideology of “total war”- is the false theory that “man is totally depraved”.
1) “Man is totally depraved”(Calvin), the nature of the individual human being as “enemy”, as absolutely “evil”, and thus there is the furthest possible moral distance between the two parties (which justifies the means)..,
This is the wrongheaded theory that the nature of the human individual is “evil, depraved, by nature a criminal, a murderer, incapable of any real friendship”. Elements of a theory of the individual of this kind can be found depicted in the Movies ‘Good Night and Good Luck’, ‘There Will Be Blood’, ‘Gladiator’ and ‘Minority Report’(pre-crime prediction). This theory appears to contend that the plain view is that the individual human being has an innately born identity of an assassin- a natural born killer, that there are really only a few good men, and that man by nature is a “pig”.
This view is NOT an objective view of individual human nature. It is wrong. It has no basis or support in any objective data- i.e. in any of the crime statistics over time or historical statistics of performance of excellence over time, nor among my collective experience of the actions of others that resulted from; and were thus formed from; free intent.
**For supplementary discussion on this false theory of human identity, see the post 'Murrow was wrong..'. For a discussion of the third element in an ideology of 'Total War', see the post on Leo Strauss' 'Natural Right and History'.
1) This ideology has merit ONLY as a wartime ideology for a NATION against an enemy intent on physical destruction and with the physical force to do so. In these conditions then the employment of this ideology by a nation is then reasonable in defense. This ideology; however is the WORST governing ideology of a population during peacetime.
It has been said that those that don’t know history are condemned to repeat it. Good luck in your research, with so many prominent historians with credibility scandals- Kearns-Goodwin, Ambrose and Ellis, it appears that revisionism is now an inherent trait in those that print history, and perhaps also in those that print philosophy.
**For a viewpoint with aspects that oppose "Total War" Ideology as a governing Philosophy of Life, see 'The Kant Variations: Critical Songs on Texts of Immanuel Kant'- specifically the Chapters "Emmanuel Levinas and the Love of Knowledge"(on forgiveness), and "Unity in the House of Reason". (on capability and the folly of terror)
haysod552.blogspot.com/2007_08_01_archive.html
History Addendum
One observation concerning the development of warfare in placing the use of "total warfare" in the larger sweep of history is the following. One could say that with the development of armaments and the ability to reproduce them that occurred in the late 1700's, the geographic scale and destructive capability of war that could occur in a smaller time frame became apparent to some world leaders. It is with this perspective that one can understand the reign and staggering sweep of the military campaigns of Napoleon Bonaparte, who attempted to conquer all of Europe essentially in one stroke.
It can then be said that after thwarting Napoleon in the invasion of Russia, then liberating Germany and France from Napoleonic rule, Alexander I recognized this new level of destructive power and acted to suppress it diplomatically with the formation of the 'Holy Alliance' for "the protection of Europe and Christianity". As described in Florinski's book 'Russia- a History and Interpretation', the 'Holy Alliance' was a treaty between Russia and the other countries of Europe to act together militarily- both in defense and in military acts initiated outside of Europe- for the protection of European interests and the interests of Christianity.
In his book Florinski downplays the religious focus and participation of the other leaders and countries, and emphasizes the practical aspects that held sway from this formation for almost the remainder of the 19th century.
Addendum- The Syllogism Structure of Preemption From the Martial Ideology Belief of the Individual as "Enemy"
In a conversation with one Philosophy Professor, he described what he believed one sense- to me false- of the logical syllogism structure that followed from a finding of the nature of the individual as completely evil, incapable of friendship, criminal, etc. that is described above.(in the post) He said that once that this is accepted that whatever negative action and result that happened to any individual was justified because- according to him- "they get what they deserve". I found, and still find, this argument to be invalid in structure and unsound in fact, and thus I find it to be absurd.
That the argument is unsound is found in the crime statistics of free people with no negative external intervention, under the rule of law, which clearly show the relative scarcity of violent crime in western countries- i.e. annual murder rates of less than one in 10,000.
The structure of the thinking is invalid logically because it is merely a tautology that becomes self fulfilling- because guilt is structured into the premise as a presumption of all human behavior and character, and then acted upon preemptively before anything negative has been initiated. My response to him was that the more accurate structure of this syllogism was to claim to someone in a discussion that "man is completely evil, incapable of friendship etc"...then walk over to that person, do something negative to them- punch them etc.. and then point and yell at them "$%#&^@#$!!!", and at others "LOOK!!".(whatever obscenity would come to mind)
Such is the "brilliant"(intentionally sarcastic) and complex intellectual leap involved in such a conclusion. There's not much involved there. Imagine that, an individual starts with the theory that man is evil, criminal etc., and then from that presumption negative action is initiated preemptively on others.
Last fall’s civil liberties class audited at UIS College of public affairs introduced and discussed the book ‘Lincoln’s Constitution’ by Daniel Farber. This book explores the constitutional issues surrounding the civil war and the parallels present to today’s political climate. These issues include theories of sovereignty, executive power, individual rights and the legitimacy of coercion.
The parallels of the political climate of the civil war to today’s political climate include the suspension of habeas corpus, detention without due process, and the suspension of other rights brought about by the passage of the patriot act and the questions of the extent and use of executive power. A general understanding of the history and climate of the civil war, and an outline of the central intellectual basis of these issues, are then important, in my opinion, to understanding our current political climate.
As these issues were (and are still) pressing issues, it seemed that an examination of the thinking behind it, and a type of broad intellectual confrontation of it was necessary- at least it was for me. There is no claim to be the total authority on these issues. This can just be a supplement to your own understanding, it can be a point for further reading, it can be one view of how our political climate can be understood, or it can be some of the above or all of the above.
It can be said that the extreme measures taken by Lincoln were formed in an atmosphere of “total war” (which means both physical and psychological), where the southern states no longer accepted the U.S. Constitution and where Lincoln survived several assassination and kidnapping attempts before Ford’s Theater. The sheer number of such attempts; combined with the lack of modern locating technology and combined with events such as the confederate spy scandal- the Trent Affair and intimations in the literature of attacks on Lincoln's family; lend credibility to the notion that there was extensive confederate spying and attempted infiltration- perhaps successfully- of Lincoln’s trusted inner circle and staff.
Other evidence of the total nature of how the nation was engulfed includes the vicious and guerrilla nature of the sectional Missouri/Kansas border battles between Missouri pro-confederate guerrillas and Kansas pro-Union "red legs", depicted in the movies 'The Outlaw Josey Wales' and 'The Assassination of Jesse James'. Another example is in one story provided by a history teacher in Morrisonville which described Irish units fighting for both the Confederacy and the Union, but with those fighting for the Union as consistently ineffective and problematic. According to the teacher, rather than expose to the confederate commanders their discovery, Union generals merely located the Irish confederate units before a battle and then lined up their own Irish units to fight directly opposite them in order for the combined Irish fighters to wipe each other out AND to disrupt the positioning effectiveness of the overall Confederate attack plan.
In such an atmosphere, where for 5 years he and his family were literally hunted- which included an attack on extended family that butchered twin 6 year old girls and their parents and left the remaining girl an orphan (the account provided in two separate conversations with different descendants of the families of Abraham Lincoln over the last 25 years)- it could easily be seen how the measures taken by Lincoln would be formed in response. One can see how the overall view that framed this response could also be passed on to Lincoln's heirs in the Republican party from his assassination.
Some legal historians have claimed that the suppression of constitutional rights and civil liberties beginning in 1860 was necessary for Lincoln to more tightly coordinate "pulling the strings" in controlling citizens to orchestrate the North's victory. In this view these historians in effect argue that Lincoln acted as puppetmaster, and that it was necessary in an environment of "Total War". (If today's leaders - heirs to the Lincoln family Civil war names- act as puppetmaster by coercion- forcible or with deception backed by authority- they must realize that it is THEY who are responsible for the events that they orchestrate by this coercion.)
One example of an ideology of “total war” can be found in the work of now famous Neocon guru Leo Strauss, in his book ‘History of Political Philosophy’, in the combined analysis of elements of the political ramifications of the philosophies of John Calvin, Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. This ideology could then be supported by Strauss’ theory of Natural Law in his book ‘Natural Right and History’, by Alexis De Tocqueville’s ‘Democracy in America ’, and in one interpretation of G.W.F. Hegel.
So then….. the task in understanding the concept of the ideology of “total war” is first outlined with a simple description of the elements that comprise the ideology, and then later in short elaborations of these basic elements and the supporting argumentation.
First the outline:
The ideology of “total war”, where survival against the ultimate enemy is boiled down to the 3 elements 1) a theory of “the enemy”, 2) a method of operation, and 3) a theory of sovereignty- based on a theory of Natural Law.
These three elements in such an ideology are as follows: 1) “Man is totally depraved”(Calvin), and therefore the nature of the individual human being, according to this theory, is that of “enemy”, as absolutely “evil”. There is then the furthest possible moral distance between the two parties in conflict(which in this ideology justifies the means employed).., 2) “All means, fair and foul, can be used to achieve all political ends” (Machiavelli)- which include lying to friend and foe alike, and 3) “the individual surrenders all rights to the sovereign as the sovereign sees fit”. (Hobbes) This is a general outline of an ideology that could be called one of “total war”.
The first element of the ideology of “total war”- is the false theory that “man is totally depraved”.
1) “Man is totally depraved”(Calvin), the nature of the individual human being as “enemy”, as absolutely “evil”, and thus there is the furthest possible moral distance between the two parties (which justifies the means)..,
This is the wrongheaded theory that the nature of the human individual is “evil, depraved, by nature a criminal, a murderer, incapable of any real friendship”. Elements of a theory of the individual of this kind can be found depicted in the Movies ‘Good Night and Good Luck’, ‘There Will Be Blood’, ‘Gladiator’ and ‘Minority Report’(pre-crime prediction). This theory appears to contend that the plain view is that the individual human being has an innately born identity of an assassin- a natural born killer, that there are really only a few good men, and that man by nature is a “pig”.
This view is NOT an objective view of individual human nature. It is wrong. It has no basis or support in any objective data- i.e. in any of the crime statistics over time or historical statistics of performance of excellence over time, nor among my collective experience of the actions of others that resulted from; and were thus formed from; free intent.
**For supplementary discussion on this false theory of human identity, see the post 'Murrow was wrong..'. For a discussion of the third element in an ideology of 'Total War', see the post on Leo Strauss' 'Natural Right and History'.
1) This ideology has merit ONLY as a wartime ideology for a NATION against an enemy intent on physical destruction and with the physical force to do so. In these conditions then the employment of this ideology by a nation is then reasonable in defense. This ideology; however is the WORST governing ideology of a population during peacetime.
It has been said that those that don’t know history are condemned to repeat it. Good luck in your research, with so many prominent historians with credibility scandals- Kearns-Goodwin, Ambrose and Ellis, it appears that revisionism is now an inherent trait in those that print history, and perhaps also in those that print philosophy.
**For a viewpoint with aspects that oppose "Total War" Ideology as a governing Philosophy of Life, see 'The Kant Variations: Critical Songs on Texts of Immanuel Kant'- specifically the Chapters "Emmanuel Levinas and the Love of Knowledge"(on forgiveness), and "Unity in the House of Reason". (on capability and the folly of terror)
haysod552.blogspot.com/2007_08_01_archive.html
History Addendum
One observation concerning the development of warfare in placing the use of "total warfare" in the larger sweep of history is the following. One could say that with the development of armaments and the ability to reproduce them that occurred in the late 1700's, the geographic scale and destructive capability of war that could occur in a smaller time frame became apparent to some world leaders. It is with this perspective that one can understand the reign and staggering sweep of the military campaigns of Napoleon Bonaparte, who attempted to conquer all of Europe essentially in one stroke.
It can then be said that after thwarting Napoleon in the invasion of Russia, then liberating Germany and France from Napoleonic rule, Alexander I recognized this new level of destructive power and acted to suppress it diplomatically with the formation of the 'Holy Alliance' for "the protection of Europe and Christianity". As described in Florinski's book 'Russia- a History and Interpretation', the 'Holy Alliance' was a treaty between Russia and the other countries of Europe to act together militarily- both in defense and in military acts initiated outside of Europe- for the protection of European interests and the interests of Christianity.
In his book Florinski downplays the religious focus and participation of the other leaders and countries, and emphasizes the practical aspects that held sway from this formation for almost the remainder of the 19th century.
Addendum- The Syllogism Structure of Preemption From the Martial Ideology Belief of the Individual as "Enemy"
In a conversation with one Philosophy Professor, he described what he believed one sense- to me false- of the logical syllogism structure that followed from a finding of the nature of the individual as completely evil, incapable of friendship, criminal, etc. that is described above.(in the post) He said that once that this is accepted that whatever negative action and result that happened to any individual was justified because- according to him- "they get what they deserve". I found, and still find, this argument to be invalid in structure and unsound in fact, and thus I find it to be absurd.
That the argument is unsound is found in the crime statistics of free people with no negative external intervention, under the rule of law, which clearly show the relative scarcity of violent crime in western countries- i.e. annual murder rates of less than one in 10,000.
The structure of the thinking is invalid logically because it is merely a tautology that becomes self fulfilling- because guilt is structured into the premise as a presumption of all human behavior and character, and then acted upon preemptively before anything negative has been initiated. My response to him was that the more accurate structure of this syllogism was to claim to someone in a discussion that "man is completely evil, incapable of friendship etc"...then walk over to that person, do something negative to them- punch them etc.. and then point and yell at them "$%#&^@#$!!!", and at others "LOOK!!".(whatever obscenity would come to mind)
Such is the "brilliant"(intentionally sarcastic) and complex intellectual leap involved in such a conclusion. There's not much involved there. Imagine that, an individual starts with the theory that man is evil, criminal etc., and then from that presumption negative action is initiated preemptively on others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)