The New Citizenship

**Addendum to 'A Note on Might Makes Right Monarchical Logic':Truth & the Monarch- The "Right to Be Wrong" Without Consequence

2009-01-29T11:00:00.015-06:00

Addendum
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 he made 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, that 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.

Ivan "The Terrible" & the Martial Ideology of Aggression: the Effect of the false tenet of the Individual Perceived as Enemy, Might Makes Right & The False Justification Drama of Torture

Historical literature indicates that with absolute power over Russia, the Rurik Dynasty Czar 'Ivan the Terrible' eliminated through serial mass murder as much as 10% of the population of Russia until his death at the turn of the 15th century.

With the two decision making systems of "Might makes Right" and the false tenet of Martial Ideology that the human individual is absolutely evil, not capable of being trusted and thus the ultimate "enemy", these two systems implant blurring mechanisms(indicated previously in posts on this subject) that lead to inaccurate assessment of events and the behavior of others. They also ingrain a distrust of all other individuals in the most extreme way that causes a type of ultimate total war thinking in the sovereign towards others- towards his own citizens.

(new), 1/31/09

The distrust in the assessment of the behavior of others in the thinking of Martial Ideology is so severe that Ricoeur stated that it overwhelms any and all objective data based evidence to the contrary. This distrust is then compounded and exacerbated by the blurring mechanisms in the evaluation of the external and internal data of the behavior of individuals, which causes events to appear much more chaotic than they are. The behavior of the individual under both these systems this system is not trusted, and very often also not understood clearly, literally causing what Ricoeur called a "war of suspicion and confusion/chaos" that exist only in the head of the sovereign.

These are the mechanisms in operation that lie at the basis of the mindset of the torturor. This is why the literature of the documentation of torture describes over and over again a type of questioning that extends beyond the barrier of behavior and it's attribution to intention.

It is because of the ingrainged false presumption that the human individual is ultimately evil, and thus "guilty", that regardless of all evidence of benign behavior and all evidence of the absence of negative behavior, that the torture continues and the questioning continues until the "ultimate" distrust of the individual is confirmed and satisfied in the mind of the torturor- regardless of the truth. This is then how torture becomes the terrible and false "justification drama" of the torturor- in the forced and false confirmation of "guilt" through the administration of pain and the use of pschological techniques that will not be stopped until such a false "confession" is received. Thus it is through torture that both the initial suspicion and the torture itself become falsely "justified".

These are the dynamics of the false confession in torture, and the function which they serve- 1) the disbelief of the absence of any evidence of aggressive behavior or intent. This is generated by 2) the distrust and lack of respect for others, and
the aggression of the torturor that drive the need of the torturor to then 3) produce through torture such "evidence"- either through pronouncement or through forced action. 4) This then makes extant and "confirms" the fictional suspicion of the torturor, and 5) satisfies, only temporarily- for only the subject under the torture- the "punishment principle" at work in the aggression of the torturor toward the "guilty" subject of torture.

It is in this way that although there was complete and benign evidence of the behavior of the great majority of the citizens of Russia across half a century, that a sovereign like 'Ivan the Terrible', through the distrust inherent and ingrained in such thinking, lead to overwhelming evidence being completely ignored and the serial false "justification dramas" of torture and murder that defined his reign, and that were irrevocably documented in the history literature of the age and more importantly in the experience of the people of Russia.

The experience and the memory of the people under such a sovereign though is a long term "logic trap" in the thinking of "might makes right"- the "trap of history". The sovereign can indeed use might negatively to act in any way in which he or she pleases - right or wrong (the "right to be wrong")- without physical barrier or physical consequence from others because the sovereign controls all force and can use it brutally to defeat objection and dissent. However when he or she does use might negatively, he or she will be thought of negatively by the citizenry to the very extent that he or she does so.

To the extent in freedom and without coercion that the citizens do not do the same then becomes the truth of the contrast between the citizens and the sovereign, and the undeniable proof of the falseness of the thinking of the sovereign.

And so it is that Ivan acted merely as he did, but was experienced, thought of and remembered throughout all Russia and all history as 'Ivan the Terrible'- for the torture and murder of 10% of the population- of the people- of Russia.

**Active Identity, Utilitarian Implications & The "Spotless Mind"

2008-12-11T14:59:00.041-06:00

The theory of human identity known as "active identity" is the theory that the true identity of a human individual is realized through his or her free acts, the intentions formed to generate those acts, and the effect that those acts have on others- how those acts are considered by others.

A person who wakes up every day and chooses the act of writing is a writer, the person who runs often is a runner...etc etc. It is not only an objective description of identity, but also can be a method of operation for the human individual.

Clearly then, the operational aspects of "active identity" have implications and impact in the sphere of moral action, and can be an operational method of moral choice. Following the explanation of active identity above, if a person wishes to act in a manner considered "good" or benevolent, then what are required are: 1) the intention to produce a positive feedback result for others; 2) the care in the act's execution of objective requirements in the world necessary to produce the positive result; 3) the achievement of a positive result confirmed in the feedback of the other person; and 4) the absence of effects from the action that harm others. With these elements achieved, it can be said in the framework of this theory that the action did indeed produced a "good" result- that it was, in review, a good action.

In this way, with this as an operational method, with repeated "good" results, and extremely limited or absent negative results the person who consistently operates in this manner is attributed a positive moral designation.

Research indicates that this method has tremendous ethical and mental health benefits for sorting through emotional influences and exterior influences of events not produced through the action of the individual, but are experienced as "happening" around them or "to them"- in the choice of action. As active identity toward the "good" becomes habitually operational, it becomes a type of clearing mechanism for discarding choices that would not produce a good result, a type of clearing of emotional and exterior negativity in the narrowing of choice.

What gets produced from adotion of this method over time is a type of thinking that clears itself of negative influences. It is not the rah-rah associated with what is perceived in such self-help methods as "the power of positive thinking", but becomes a method of choice generated with a view towards the regard of others that produces in habit consistent positive - or at least benign- thinking, action, and results. Recent research also shows that this type of clear and positive thinking is confirmed through objective memory testing of the recollection of the events.

It is my contention, that this is similar, only from the viewpoint of the individually generated act, to the moral system of Utilitarianism described by John Stuart Mill. It won't be worked out in detail now, but think of it as Mill contained within the system of Kant. It begins with the respect of the other indicated in the goal to produce a positive result, yet it does accumulate in the piecemeal fashion described in Mill- each instance, over time, in the results, feedback and memory of the events of others. It can be seen as how the individual contributes to the overall social good.

As positive experiences and memories accumulate from one' own action and verifiable positive feedback from others, in relation to very little negative, what gets produced in review is what can be described undeniably as a clear experience/positive experience quotient or "happiness quotient". Call it the benefit of the clearing mechanism- with the result confirmed demonstrated in research results through what others have called a relatively "spotless mind".

(*Recent medical research, on some news shows, has indicated that memory imaging that normal individuals utilize when recalling memories, occur because it is actually a visual image in the brain that is produced through what we know now as Liquid Crystal Display(LCD) technology. Liquid Crystal Display(LCD) technology television screens, according to these shows, were developed through exterior replication of the biological miracle that reproduces these images.

Therefore in the future with the use of nano technology, scientists believe it is only a matter of time before the actual visual and audio memory of the inner thought processes of individuals will be able to be retrieved, transmitted and viewed just as audio and video images are viewed through digital electronic transmission today. Some anecdotal evidence indicates it may already be happening.)

In this way then, the effect that a person has had on others, the quality of life through a type of happiness quotient discussed above, could be quantified through the generation of their own memories of experience with others, and the memories of the others experiences with them- verifiable in a way beyond debate, whether experience with a person was positive, neutral or negative.

The Root of Contest/Martial Logic- Reason & The Death Instinct..Part I

2008-12-01T14:38:00.016-06:00

Prelimary thoughts on the Root of Either/or Thinking

Some thinkers have suggested that the logic of Contest/Martial either/or thinking- "us vs Them"- historically regarded as a fallacy in everyday thinking, is the primary logic form of human experience. This is false, though the form of the dynamic is functional within the larger adopted frame of contest, war, and physical sustainment and survival.

The root of this thinking, which has been treated in seminars in the past, lies in the combination of the use of reason as an architectonic categorization of information and the knowledge of ability, with what is known as the death instinct- in situations where the use of reason is necessary in the decision making that avoids immanent serious injury or death.

Following the form of Aristotelian and Kantian categorization/organization of knowledge, the pressure from immanent physical threat, implied in the formulation of the basis of natural right as the fear of death, elaborated in Leo Strauss Natural Right and History, and developed further on this blog, literally provides the structure of a point at which failure to decide and act correctly renders the result of death. We all know this in the more benign social forms of deadlines, bill due dates, qualifying educational tests, etc..

When normally at leisure, or under very little time pressure, the individual has a tremendous array of information and choices by which to select in order to further material and physical sustainment of needs. In physical threat situations where the element of threat is observed but moving closer in distance and time, the information that is useful and the options of successful avoidance or thwarting of the threat, become lesser and lesser, and the individual quickly sorts through the options to find the most effective means of survival- "best thing" to do.

This type of heuristic mechanism then reduces to the deadline and a decision must be made- and historically and anthropologically this meant "fight or flight".

There will be more added later.

'Witness to the Positive Goodness of Human Nature'- Response Against Martial ideology's False Depiction of the Individual as Absolutely Evil

2008-12-01T13:15:00.004-06:00

This is a response against Martial ideology's false depiction of the nature of the individual as absolutely evil. It is a witness account of waitering and the direct interaction of questions and conversations with 96000 customers over 11 years.

It complements a more objective view of individual human nature that is found in the acts of individuals- which are found statistically. On this blog this response then complements the low rate of crime depicted in statistics in James Patterson's 'America in the 20th Century'. (or 'The United States in the 20th Century'- I must check before finalizing this reference)

While waitering mostly in famous Chicago Steakhouses- I had the pleasure of serving, and thus interacting with 35 customers per day, 5 days, 50 weeks, 11 years. (already adjusted for "repeats and regulars"). This comes to approximately 96,000 customers.

I found customers to be normal people, concerned mostly with the people they were with, and the reasons they were there. As the restaurants were expensive downtown Chicago steakhouses, the clientele profile generally was educated and with economic resources. I found if I put effort into serving them well, that they would be receptive to questions I had that were about them- where they were from, what they did for a living, what their jobs entailed, what they liked about their jobs and what they liked about where they were from.

I found that if my attitude towards this interaction was positive, and it was engaged with confidence, imagination and personality, that more often the clientele would initiate and interject their own personalities and spirit into the interaction, display a sense of comfortableness with the surroundings, enjoy their time more at the restaurant and come back again.

For me it was a tremendous benefit of the job to meet them, serve them, talk with them, learn about them, and make their time at the restaurant more enjoyable.

As the restaurant was expensive, they had high but for the most part reasonable expectations, and if there were satisfaction problems, that with sincere and reasonable efforts to accommodate these issues, for the great majority these efforts would resolve the issue at hand.

In the 11 years, of the days when I worked and which included ALL restaurant and bar customers, there were 4 behavior incidents of customers which required immediate summoning of the police- all which can be attributed to intoxication, three of which were bar customers.

To my recollection, there were only two "dine and dash" incidents in those 11 years.

Previous Public Affairs Writing- 'The Mexico Essays' & Other Writing

2008-10-22T12:52:00.029-05:00

This Post serves as a window to another blog that features previous issue oriented public affairs writing. I elect to use this other blog because the frame of reference of this writing is more narrow than the wider Philosophical frame of reference that constitutes the writing on The New Citizenship blog.

http://mexicoessays.blogspot.com/2008/10/mexico-en-la-piel.html

Warm Wishes to Rod Blagojevich and Richard Durbin- Lithuanian/Russian Heritage Affiliation

2008-10-21T15:32:00.053-05:00

Warm wishes and support are extended to Governor Rod Blagojevich, his wife and his children. I met him at a Stripeik(my mother's family) family event in the early 1970's, and met he, his wife and his children at another such event before one of his elections. Even though he has Serbian heritage, this qualifies he and his family at least as honorary Lithuanian/Russian.

Warm wishes and support are also extended to Senator Richard Durbin and his family, who are also of Lithuanian/Russian heritage. I met him in the lobby of the Seneca hotel on Chestnut street in Chicago, just outside of the door of the restaurant where I worked.

May both elected officials of high government position from the State of Illinois find the strength and wisdom to guide them through the important and difficult decisions that continually confront today's leaders and their families- in their positions.

Vengeance As An Operative Concept in History Has Been Obsolete Since 1945

2008-10-21T12:57:00.026-05:00

In a discussion in the last two years with an intelligent person, the question was posed as to what would I do, or how I would feel about it, if my family were the victim of some great injustice of the wars of History from over 100-150 years ago.

My answer to that was that if it were the case, there would be nothing that I could do in the present to rectify that, and that as the hypothetical posed was an INJUSTICE, that I would attempt to make the best contribution I could as a citizen in the present and not follow the example of the attacker.

My answer was met with considerable skepticism. I followed up with this rejoinder: but don't you think that the day of vengeance as a real operative force in history is past- done and gone. With the advent of ever advancing technology and control of Military weaponry through the concentration of superpower control, (effectively on the world stage as it is presented today, there is really only Nato, Russia and China as real military powers) and the institutions of law, isn't vengeance really an obsolete concept for practical application for the average citizen?? I said, At least for me it is.

For all intents and purposes hasn't vengeance as a functional concept really been done and gone since 1945?? And with GPS and nano-tech tracking of individual retail items that has been demonstrated in Wall Street Journal articles, don't tell me that our government, and therefore NATO, hasn't had every one of those weapons tagged for quite some time now, whether they inform us about it or not.

I said that I thought this was a good thing, that there hasn't been the big nationalistic race of the nation throwing itself as a war machine into the all-or-nothing war since then, and that the world has been much safer for it, and that there has been nothing like the total destruction that occurred in Europe with WWI and WWII.

I said that I thought this was a very good thing for the common citizen, to focus on working and making a living, contributing to his or her community and the lives of his or her family and it's members. The machinery of Vengeance has been institutionalized and concentrated and is out of our hands, so it doesn't make any sense to focus on it and live that way and poison the good things that can be done with one's time. These institutions don't operate perfectly, but I told the speaker that I wouldn't live that way. Better to focus on the good that can be done with one's freedom.

The day of Vengeance as an operative concept on the big stage of history in changing those and the institutions in control of the world order is done and gone, and has been since 1945. Citizens now need only to focus on contributing on whatever level they can and on improving their daily lives. Citizens need now only to focus on the good that can be done with their freedom.

First Quarter 2009 Blog Story Forecast- 'Contradictions in the Darwin/Hobbes Position' & Other Pieces...

2008-10-18T14:33:00.035-05:00

First Quarter 2009 blog forecast...Here are a few of the story pieces that are to be posted on this blog over the next few months....

1) The true Magic Realism- the superabundant(as Paul Ricoeur terms it) calculus of human relationship and interaction.

2)Historical addendum on the unstated enormous impact of the development of both: A) the printing press, and B) the musket/rifle, that combined in the change of the balance of power between the government and the individual, demonstrated in the history of political events and ideas from 1700 to 1865.(period ends because of the development of the Gatling gun).

Part 2- C) In conjunction with the impact of the developments of the printing press and the musket/rifle, there was also the codification in law by the 2nd amendment of the right of the individual to bear arms that- at that time- had real and significant impact on the outcome of military battle. This in effect officially militarized the American household and American citizenship both in a material sense and in a psychological sense in ways that have no equivalent to life as we know it in the United States today.

What we can call the military character of United States citizenship from 1776 onward was transformed then into a more benign form only after the development of the Gatling gun, the ending of individual guerilla insurrection(indicated in 'The Outlaw Josey Wales' and 'The Assassination of Jesse James') and the restoration of order extended in the reconstruction period after the end of the Civil War in 1865, and in the reconstruction amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

As every man with a gun before 1865 literally had the power to make war, it gives a different and concrete connotation to the phrase (of the French Revolution) that "every man was a king".

3) Contradictions in the Darwin/Hobbes position of what is known on this blog as Philosophy Case #1- Darwin/Hobbes vs. Kant/St. Paul: 1) False- Heidegger conference attendees claim that the plaintiff system of law equals aggression/vengeance, 2) Sophie's Choice result merely confirms Mazlow's Hierarchy of Needs- when properly configured, and contradicts character flaw claim

4) Why are the Philosophical Positions of the Revolutionary War era group of founding American figures & Abraham Lincoln not taught as a bachelors degree core curriculum class of American Political Philosophy in American Universities?

5) Disagreement with S. Zizek's Interpretation in 'Tarrying with the Negative' of the Kantian formation of Radical Evil as evidence for the primacy of "the negative" in human life.

6) (maybe), Comments on poorly constructed and false Philosophical themes in the movies 'Seven', 'The Bourne Identity', 'The Hunted' & Other movies.

'Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics'- How are Synthetic Apriori Judgments Possible?

2008-10-16T14:22:00.060-05:00

I'm reading the corpus of Martin Heidegger's work right now to see if there are philosophical issues and stances that need to be addressed. As so many University philosophy departments throughout the U.S. and Europe since WWII have been influenced by his work, it is necessary to do a careful review of the work and the secondary scholarship surrounding it.

Of course the two main texts that lay out his early Philosophical positions are 'Being and Time' and 'Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics', which is a technical exposition of Heidegger's interpretation of 'The Critique of Pure Reason'.

Although I am still in the middle of reading the latter of these two works, there is one Philosophical issue that can be addressed. The nature of this address has nothing to do, right now, with Heidegger's interpretation, but addresses the central question of the 'Critique of Pure Reason'. This question determines the layout of the entire Kantian project of such a critique, and as such is one of the most famous questions in the history of Philosophy.

This question is 'How are synthetic apriori judgments possible?'

As Kant answers this question in the form of a Critique of Pure Reason, and as the technical issues of this question are complex, but also reductive to a few central focal points- as Heidegger demonstrates, this is not the time nor the forum to address at length these issues.

What I will say in way of a very general statement about Heidegger's treatment, is that he reduces what Kant calls the two pure intuitions of Time and Space into that of only Time, and then from this focuses on what Kant calls the "Power of the Imagination as a faculty of the Mind or Soul" as the main mental instrument of the core synthesis of what Heidegger calls "Pure Intuition and Pure Thinking". This, in a very general answer, is the overall approach Heidegger takes in his technical exposition of the Kantian elaboration of the answer of "How are synthetic apriori judgments possible?" that forms 'The Critique of Pure Reason'. The 'Critique of Pure Reason' is then Kant's demonstration, through an exposition of pure reason alone, of how synthetic apriori judgments are possible.

What I will say about the answer to this central question, of "how are synthetic apriori judgments possible?", is that way too much has been made about the formalistic charge against Kant by critics after the the turn of the 20th century. But then what would Philosophers and Kant's political opponents do if it were admitted that he really had it right?

There is a simple answer to this question that completely supports both Kant's approach and exposition- and this answer is one that is empiricist, pragmatic, and embodiedly realistic in nature. It does however every so slightly modify, or vary from, the original Kantian exposition, but it is an answer that will make it much simpler for students of Philosophy to understand. It was an answer I gave at a graduate seminar audited on the Critique of Pure Reason in SIU Carbondale somewhere between '83 and '85.

How are synthetic apriori judgments possible? Kant answers the question from the position of utilizing only Pure Reason- from the what we know of thinking and experience from only thinking. From another angle it can be answered in only two words.....The Brain.

A Note on Heideggerian "Primordial Thinking"

In Being and Time Heidegger states the goal of reaching a more "primordial thinking". The way that this thinking is described in 'Being and Time', 'Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics', and the essay 'What is Called Thinking', renders this project nothing less than MYTHICAL. As Heidegger attempts to describe it, there is no such thing.

The goal of this project of Heidegger's is merely a contrarian reaction to the beginning of Kant's 'Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals', which advocates a precise and careful approach to the study of the roots of Practical reason and morals, so that public discourse and thinking on these matters does not fall into "a barbaric state".

If there is such a thing as "primordial thinking", it is precisely using knowledge and expertise to advantage in practical situations- the use of practical reason- and the ever advancing increase in this knowledge and expertise.

This is indicated in 'the Kant Variations' in a couple of places, but for this note it is found specifically in the analysis of the root of math and numbers- of the number one which is derived from the ONE thing as the object of desire. Reason "zeroes in" on the object that is useful for need, and so desire is brought to the precision of action that meets specific need through the process of thinking. So then also FINDING the precision that is necessary for useful knowledge and action to be useful through study and research is equally part of this natural thinking. This is then TRUE "primordial thinking".

But this is nothing less than normal practical thinking, the analysis of which is found in the 'Critique of Practical Reason'.

Addendum 2: "Being There"- The Claim of the Problem of Translation

In 'Being and Time', Heidegger's formulation of Dasein(Being There)as a fundamental condition of human experience, led to a claim of a diminished transfer of the essence of experience in communication, and in later Heidegger scholarship to what was referred as the "problem of translation". This leads to the false conclusion that experience between humans is not really common, and that the experiences of others cannot really be understood.

It is a bizarre book that attempts to communicate that communication doesn't communicate, as the expression of writing is just as much experience as other experiences. Why even write a book if your belief is that experience and understanding cannot be communicated? The true believer in such a false theory doesn't even write the book, why would one waste their time?

In the pathological sense- the bodily sense- we know this to be false, as each of us with normal neurological activity must take our hand from the stove burner lest it be permanently damaged, as each of us do not see bone structure through only movement- as the t-rex did, as noone on earth possesses xray vision.

Paul Ricoeur rightly located this perspective in an overly self-absorbed and concentrated analysis of inner personal feeling, in the mistake that because experience is lived as "mine", that it is essentially unlike others. If this were true there would never be ANY human family connection, of love established between mother and children, or between sisters and brothers. Empathy works to help establish these connections- these connections that last, and these connections that we mourn if lost. But we do feel the pain when our mother cries, and we do feel the pain and are worried when our brothers are sick, and we feel the pain through the stories of these experiences of our loved ones.

Heidegger's formulation of Dasein as fundamental is incorrect, it describes the view of the conscious choice to stop connecting with others, and the view of self inner "feeling" as a priority over action. It was for this reason that Ricoeur did not subscribe to Heidegger's position. Ricoeur felt it led to an unnecessary self pity- I agree with his view.

JAN 20- Schopenhauer Was Wrong, and Has No Followers- (2nd Workout Mix)

2008-10-14T16:12:00.027-05:00

Henceforth this post will serve to provide examples each week in music that clearly demonstrate the innaccuracy of the quote by Arthur Schopenhauer of the overly dark view of what he called the "real nature of the world".

It is my contention that the position outlined in the quote by Schopenhauer below has no genuine long term followers and adherents. This is because anyone who truly embraces the position outlined below is dead by their own hand shortly thereafter. Thus any thinker who claims to be a long-term adherent of this position in truth is really only an adherent of complaining about life. Schopenhauer has no real followers in Philosophy.

How do the songs with themes below belong in a post against the negative Philosophy of Schopenhauer?? Simple- one person's terrible and false philosophy of life is another person's awesome workout mix!!(below is the 2nd group of workout mix music)

And after an hour and a half of hard sports, anybody feeling "the edge" in these songs-of work or the commute- discovers that it goes away all by itself, with only endorphin release.

Who would have thunk that both one of the real weak points and in my mind the only real strong point in Schopenhauer's philosophy are both functionally connected and subordinate to endorphin release through healthy exercise??!!

In some places it's the season to hit the slopes...in the spring it will be time for putting on skates and rollerblading along Lake Michigan in Chicago, hitting the wave wall at Shedd Aquarium or the stairs at the Field museum, and asphalt basketball in the cities.

Green day- Basket Case
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ7PKybyoxc

Foo Fighters- Everlong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H0BMfqFP9c

Rage Against the Machine
Killing in the Name Of
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuOAY-S6OY

Guerilla Radio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv3xM3v4-rI

Nirvana- Smells Like Teen Spirit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPQR-OsH0RQ

Evanescence- Bring Me to Life
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TILCIRspO0

Schopenhauer: "The purpose of this highest poetical achievement is the description of the terrible side of life. The unspeakable pain, the wretchedness and misery of mankind, the triumph of wickedness, the scornful mastery of chance, and the irretriveable fall of the good and the innocent are all here presented to us; and here is to be found a significant hint as to the nature of the world and of existence...The motives that were previously so powerful now lose their force, and instead of them the complete knowledge of the real nature of the world, acting as a quieter of the will, produces resignation, the giving up not merely of life, but of the whole will-to-live itself".

Previously Featured:

Linkin Park- Numb, What I've Done, In the End, Daughtry- Its Not Over, There and Back Again, Metallica- Enter Sandman, From Phantom of the Opera: Think of Me, Music of the Night, All I ask of You, Masquerade, Prima Donna, Colbie Caillat- Bubbly, John Mayer- Your body is a wonderland, Sting - Fields of gold, Sarah Mclachlan- Ice cream, Don Henley - End of the Innocence, Gloria Estefan- 'Oye Mi Canto', Juanes- 'La Camisa Negra', Chambao- 'Ahi Estas Tu', Ricky Martin & Mari de 'Chambao'- Tu Recuerdo, Sublime- 'Santeria', Counting Crows- 'Angels of the Silences', Led Zeppelin- 'Fool in the Rain', Tim McGraw- 'Something Like That', Jessia Andrews- 'Who I Am', Michael Jackson- 'I'll Be There', 'Never Can Say Goodbye', 'Black or White', 'Man in the Mirror', 'Thriller', Fifth Dimension/Marilyn McCoo-'Wedding Bell Blues', 'Stone Soul Picnic', 'One Less Bell to Answer'(her voice and the music are beautiful, despite the words), 'You Don't Have to Be a Star', 'Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In', Fleetwood Mac- 'Sarah', Pearl Jam- 'Even Flow', John Mayer- 'Daughters', Carrie Underwood- 'All American Girl', Pretenders- 'Show Me', Jackson 5- ABC, Eric Clapton- 'Wonderful Tonight', Elvis, Gloria Estefan- '1, 2, 3', , Stevie Ray Vaughn- 'Little Wing', Taylor Swift- 'Our Song', Stevie Wonder- 'Isn't She Lovely', Mariah Carey- 'Always Be My Baby'

The Martial Ideology Thinkers of "Total War" Face the Giants of Respect

2008-09-21T16:54:00.010-05:00

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.

A Trip to Europe One Year Ago, & A Trip Back in Memory to Park Ridge & Arkansas

2008-09-15T16:44:00.015-05:00

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

A Note on "Might Makes Right" Monarchical Logic

2008-09-12T11:46:00.025-05:00

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

Hobbes & Darwin Vs. Kant & St. Paul- the Christianity Debate

2008-09-10T14:09:00.001-05:00

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

Hobbes' Leviathan No Advantage for Hobbes & Darwin Team

2008-09-10T08:47:00.000-05:00

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

Brief Outline of Hobbes & Darwin Vs. Kant & St. Paul et al..

2008-09-08T08:47:00.001-05:00

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

Philosophy Docket, Case #1: Hobbes & Darwin et al...Vs. Kant & St. Paul et al..

2008-09-06T10:23:00.001-05:00

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

"Total War" Ideology- Psychological Warfare

2008-09-04T16:35:00.008-05:00

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

What Would Figures of "the Revolution" Say About Our World and Our Times??

2008-09-04T12:20:00.000-05:00

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?

U.S. Civil War Climate of "Total War" Important to Understanding Our Current Political Climate

2008-09-02T10:26:00.013-05:00

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.

A Different Look at WWI; Names in History and Morrisonville Il.

2008-08-26T10:20:00.020-05:00

A)A different look at WWI.

The three books 'History of Modern France' by Alfred Cobban, 'Russia: A History and An Interpretation' by Mikhail Florinsky and 'History of Russian Philosophy' by Nikolai Lossky, give an interesting and deeper look at the drastic upheaval of change immediately after WWI.

The war began and the nations of england, germany, france, Serbia et al., and Russia became engaged in long and brutal suicidal trench warfare. The U.S. then entered the war, introduced the tank and the war quickly ended.

It was immediately after WWI, according to Cobban, that France broke off centuries long Vatican ties of religious figures involved with government. It was also immediately after WWI in 1915 that the decimated Russian army, according to Florinsky, came limping back to Russia and the events of the Russian revolution began, culminating in the total suppression of all religion- including the centuries-long tradition of the Russian Orthodox church.

An interesting paradox of the Russian revolution, was that from the late 1700's- early 1800's, Russian orthodox religous philosophers (by FAR the dominant philosophical movement in the History of Russia up to that time- almost the ONLY movement) introduced the seminal notion of "sobornost"- which means "commonality". During the revolution, the various socialist forces (communism), did not utilize these philosophers nor the orthodox church as allies, even though there was a strong religious element in the basis of the social democratic movement (Emil Fuchs and others) initially formed in Germany and even though they would have had allies already in place throughout Russia on Sunday morning.

To the contrary, after the revolution, the bolshies (communists- initially social democrats) expelled 200 academics, including the most talented orthodox philosophers, and suppressed all activities of the Russian orthodox church.

One could argue that there were only two other periods in history which contained religious change/turmoil on such grand scales of geography and population:
1) The Sack of Rome and the corresponding fall of polytheism throughout what was the Roman empire, and..
2) The Period directly after the dropping of the Atomic bombs on Japan that ended WWII, which saw:
A) the complete suppression of religion by the new government of Communist China,
B) The separation of British India and the cross migration of Hindus and Muslims to form the countries we know today of India and Pakistan, and
C) The foundation of the Nation of Israel with the forced exodus of the Palestinians.

It was after WWI that the national socialist movement rears its head in Germany- before then the overwhelming philosophical movement in Germany was that of the enlightenment -german idealism- Kant, Hegel, Schelling, and the materialist reaction to it- Marx, Feuerbach etc. where there are only the most microscopic elements of nationalism/racism.

From the viewpoint added by the three works of history mentioned above, it appears that after WWI the only stable force in Europe in control and with military strength; from the Atlantic across all of Russia; was that of the allied coalition- led overwhelmingly by the U.S..

For both sides of our family, it is CLEAR that WWI was the dominant event that brought them to the U.S.. Dad's side, after WWI my great-grandmother came from france, and great-grandparents came from poland. Mom's side great-grandparents came from england, great-grandparents came from Russia. (Lithuania)

B) U.S. Civil War/U.S. history fun facts:

1) British Prime Minister Lord Russell, an ancestor from mother's side is involved with confederate spy fiasco involving England, Lincoln and confederate Thomas Mason.

2) Just prior to U.S. Civil War, southern romania/hungary has uprising causing battles with imperial Russia.

3) Morrisonville, Illinois is 25 miles south of Springfield, in Christian County. The shape of the county is known as "the Dent", like Cook County Il., and like the name Dent county Mo.- 3 three dents, like the chewing gum. Names associated with the history of Lincoln/the civil war: Charles Forbes, Stephens, Montgomery Blair, Woods (step-ancestor father's side), Union Col. James Morrison-(one source claims Morrison responsible for fiasco of the battle of the crater, petersburg virginia) Morrisonville, Il. founded 1872, Buchanan (ancester mothers side). A Luczak(Volkonsky) was a general in the russian army during the 1860's.

4) Morrisonville names/close from history books: Weber (Max), Pratt (one of the founding mormons), Harman(2nd religious awakening), Voorhees, Anna Held(WWI entertainer), Dierdorf(region of southwest germany), Fuchs (Emil theologian/Klaus WWII spy), Wilson (Woodrow), McKinley, Rush (Benjamin), Allen (Ethan), Paine (Thomas), DeClerck (religious painter), Spengler (Psychologist), Carter (Journalist), Rhoads (Journalist), White (tribune reporter during civil war critical of Lincoln), Long (Huey), Probst, Monroe, Stewart (Missouri Governor), Dozier (St. Louis History), Drew (Dennis stepson- St. Louis History), Wells (H.G.), Griffith (D.W.), Kimmel(Civil War Photographer), Cook(Hawaiian Islands), Lefebvre, Colbert(French Govt. Figure), Napoleon, Beck(Polish Diplomat), Durbin(Lithuanian), Ferrell, Pomeroy, Davis(Jefferson), Franklin, Skinner, Hunt, Unser, Beatty, Goebel, Peet, Taylor, Howe(England), Vickers(England), Dunkerque, Grundy (Grundy county Il.), Moore, Richter(Pianist), Rosenthal(Iwo Jima Photographer), Millburg(German, like "hops" burg, or the "hops" of a St. Louis Brewery), Black(Lord Black, like Blackburn-CEO of Country Insurance), Schaefer, Seelbach(Louisville Hotel family), Sheedy, Simmons(English), Snyder(or Schneider), Hughes, Wittelsbach(German noble house-Bach musicians), Crane(Stephen), Oliver, Obrien/Allison, Froebel(Kindergarten inventor)/Hartmann(Nikolai-Phenomenology), Mahan(Civil War Union naval commander), Harris(Eric-Irish), Reid(English), McVeigh(Germany).

..others attached: Nixon, Elias(european intellectual Norbert, relatives Downey), Shields, Martin, Strauss-Krauss(German-Lithuanian)/Kierkegaard, Hale/Kelley

Names in History from Taylorville Il.,(Christian County)the last stop on Lincoln's legal circuit duties as a Lawyer:
Boehme(German Theologian), Hesse(German noble house/Late Romanov marriage), Burton, Mott(s)(French-pronounced Motes), Wagner, Law, Beddinger, Brotherton(English), Brown, Kerner, Perry, Westrich (German Industrialist), Adams, Ward, Bell, Blake, Michaels(Rurik), Summers, France(Nascar), Lawrence, Miller, Parker, Wright(Rurik or Kittyhawk), Sloan(GM CEO of "planned obsolescence"), Tarrant(Old English), Grace

Barbara Pierce Bush- Improving Upon Today's Republicans

2008-07-02T13:01:00.001-05:00

Barbara Pierce Bush; a Yale grad in humanities and daughter of the President; is off to a much better start than her father, especially compared to his younger years.

According to wikipedia:

"Barbara lives in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of New York City.[4] Recently she has been working for a Smithsonian museum in New York, the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum.[5][6] Previously, Barbara had been working with AIDS patients in Africa, in Tanzania, South Africa, and Botswana, among other places, through a program sponsored by the Houston-based Baylor College of Medicine's International Pediatrics AIDS Initiative."

Serious and intelligent, Miss Bush is a lovely young woman WITH a strong conscience. Sometimes the apple falls quite far from the tree. If she keeps on the path described in the quote above, and the future of our country ends up in the hands of this kind of Bush, the future appears much brighter for our citizens.

There is never any possibility of predicting who among us will hear best and most accurately the words and songs of our "better angels". Over time, however, there is no dispute of who has been graced most by their voices.

The Vulnerability and Power of the Choice of Love

2008-06-27T18:36:00.011-05:00

The interaction dynamics of love between two people, on this earth, are universal and immutable. One person that loves another, and wishes it in return, approaches that person and in some manner and in some degree expresses it. That person then freely returns an expression of interest, or expresses otherwise. There is no other way that the love of another person, on this earth, is worthy or has power.

The character and plot in the second Kate Blanchett ‘Elizabeth’ depicts this immutable law. Able to command an empire and all within it, the queen is unable to command the affection of Drake. All powerful in all other aspects but one, the queen is untouchable in all other realms of life in England but one. The situation of such a monarch, where all her life her command was granted and where others were subordinate, suddenly vulnerable, would be a vexation and torment. It is the human “glitch” in the outlook of the divine right of authority- the affective fragility that though they may be “gods” on earth, monarchs are real human beings.

All persons who have been in love, whether they are conscious of it or not, already know this- the vulnerability they have towards the one they love. Each of us is the awkward 'horse and hound' writer in the movie 'Knotting Hill' before the star of our hearts.

By it’s very nature, it cannot be forced and cannot be commanded because then it is not the free choice of the other- that “he or she chose me”. It is this free choice that gives the power that the love from another person has for people. That they smile when they see you, that they are happy to wake up with you, that they look forward to going home from work to you, that when they have the choice to do anything they want, just being with you is their choice, these actions of loved ones compare with no other action with regard to the effect on us.

When an other of substance- beautiful, intelligent- expresses that she chooses you, and expresses it in the ways described in the paragraph directly above- there is absolutely no substitute that can replace it, nothing that equals it. It is a “winning”, the victory of which in this realm of life, IS “the only thing”.

“She chooses me”- “can it be!?”…..then “colors seem brighter and the grace of god falls on us. "I feel wonderful, because I see, the love light in your eyes..."

To discover that “it’s always been you, all my life" from the "princess" in your eyes has no answer in words that can approach addressing and be worthy of addressing. Such a situation could only be answered through the truth of action of love in return.

"Moreover, the law entered... grace did much more abound."Rom. 5:20

"Conquering Vs. 'Wonderful Tonight'

Twice over the last 25 years in conversations the theory that Love is nothing more than a "conquering" of the other, of the one desired, was presented for consideration. The argument never made sense to me from the standpoint of someone living freely under and in accordance with the protection of Law of the United States constitution and the Declaration of Indepedence, where we are taught that "all men are created equal", and taught to have a "decent regard of the opinion of others".

I countered that such a view was rooted in an aggressive and self-centered view of the self, where what mattered most was the power of the self, rather than two people together. I responded that this view of love was false. I still find this to be the case.

It is in this manner that those that operate from a martial perspective that is based on the false view that "nothing human is trustworthy", and of the individual human being as natural born killer, criminal, depraved, find themselves in a world without real love, but only with the dynamic of "conquering" that serves badly as a substitute- but is vacuous.

Conquering as a principle, the attempt to render the other submissive to personal or physical power and force, really just destroys the chance at really having what is described in Eric Clapton's "wonderful tonight". Without the respect of the other, without the view that others have intrinsic value, and without the free choice of the other choosing you there is no real trust gained in the dynamic of "conquering". The "lubricity"- the shininess- in the attraction to new people that stays and strengthens with respect for the other and real love just fades ever so quickly without it. And so Emerson laments, (post on Cavell and Emerson) because there is no real lasting love or value where "nothing human is trustworthy" is the basis of belief.

When freely and without having to materially and physically threaten, a woman often receives "wonderful tonight", when their guy is just incredibly happy to go to bed and wake up with her, come home to her after work, just because of what it is like to be with her- what more is there really to win.

Structural social and personal compatibility issues are always a factor- occupation, income, education, etc., but once someone falls within respectful parameters, the personal dynamics and the power of being with someone you freely choose, and that freely chooses you is SO much more profound than the falseness of self-centered "conquering".

It is for these reasons, whether an individual believes in the spiritual aspects of Christianity or not, that the words that describe the human, existential truth of real love between two persons that respect each other, and what makes it literally sacred for free people, are expressed and understood profoundly in Corinthians in and through the simple language of demonstration, through acts making the benevolence in one's heart material : Love ("charity", in earlier texts of the King James) is patient and kind, not arrogant or rude, not jealous or boastful, not irritable or resentful.

Eric Clapton- 'Wonderful Tonight'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F44BcGjIbAA

1) Avril Lavigne- 'Girlfriend'
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8146371784531658546&ei=8dvTSLX5O4yirAK_1ejGAg&q=avril+lavigne+girlfriend+video&vt=lf&hl=en
LOLOL ;)

2) Counting Crows- 'Accidentally in Love'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS0Q98Ytcog

3) Alison Krauss- 'When You say Nothing at All'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjsjZWlRVvo

4) Mariah Carey- 'Always be My Baby'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QapwJpAe7w

&

5) Carrie Underwood- 'Small'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUtFEKhtB30&feature=related

Strauss 'Natural Right and History' and "Total War" Ideology

2008-06-04T11:06:00.002-05:00

The third element of an ideology of “total war” is found in Thomas Hobbes restriction of individual right- with the claim that the authority of the sovereign is the sole basis for law. It is important to understand why an ideology of “total war” doesn’t function for governing a population, and has no just basis for governing a population.

This was present, as of January 2008, in Leo Strauss' treatment of “Natural Right” in his book 'Natural Right and History'. Section 1 and section 5 of the argument were formed by Paul Ricoeur and conveyed in informal conversations with myself, Marcello Villaverde and others during a break in one of his seminars at the University of Chicago Divinity School in 1989.

Aside from fleshing out the history surrounding the concept of Natural right, Strauss makes two major claims concerning natural right: 1) the basis of natural right; and 2) what Ricoeur called the "social claim".

1) the basis of Natural Right-

The basis of natural right, according to Strauss, is the fear of death from violent attack. But according to Ricoeur this is not only the 'basis' of Natural right, but also the original 'claim' of natural right. Strauss just doesn't state the claim. The idea of right is justice- i.e. the correctness of the claim communicated to others. Here is the “original claim” in stages, as Ricoeur formed it: a) "it is right(just) that; b) I do whatever is available within my power to defend against the other- "enemy" - from violent attack; c) because I fear death”.

but this is only the first part of the claim... because according to Ricoeur any "just" claim also contains the remaining parts: d) “and you know this to be true; e) because to fear death is the same for you".

The basic claim of natural right is "just"- is "right"- because it is true.....for all people.

To go further into Strauss statement from his derivation of the basis of natural right to the basis of the fear of death means we must look elsewhere, as Strauss does not elaborate it. The basis of the fear of death though is unstated in NR&H(at least as of January of 2008), but is found in two other philosophers- Immanuel Kant and Theodor Adorno.

As Kant would put it, the basis of the fear of death is the same for all people because of our pathologically affective nature- the fact that we are creatures that feel and that this feeling can be communicated. Kant calls this the "sensus communis"- the common sense. (But it is not the common sense of normal reasoning that we normally associate with). The concept of the "common sense", shared by humans, exists according to Kant, because we do communicate. Thus it is the common sense we share at the basis of experience that makes experience the same and communicable for us, and what makes the claim of natural right thus "just" and "right"- because it is "true". The original claim of natural right is right, is just, because of the "just" nature of the fight against death that we all know to be true.

The Fear rooted at the basis of natural right has a more physical root in the “common sense” that is not expressed in Kant, because fear is one of a type of "sufferings". Pain and fear are thus the physical roots of this "common sense", and so a more physical expression that is closer to this root is found in Theodor Adorno's 'Negative Dialectics'. In ND Adorno drills down to the root of this pathologically affective root of communication in a phrase that I can find no equal- "the physical moment says that suffering "ought not to be". This phrase expresses that the feeling of suffering, including then pain and fear, is itself simultaneously a type of "saying" that says "stop". Because of this "saying" in suffering, this inherent communicable nature of suffering, because it is the same for others and they thus know it, we can make the claim to others of unjust injury.

Some have described suffering as "being towards death" (see Elaine Scarry "the body in pain"), because to suffer "feels like dying". This is what we know physically of death, as we do not experience death ourselves but only see others die.

The fear of death is rooted in the suffering we feel, the basic unjust feel of it, and the claim of natural right can be made because others know this as well. It implies the duty that because we know this we "ought not" to do this to others. So natural right has a dialectical relationship with duty- there is always duty. Strauss is correct to say that the feeling of natural right is primary to duty because it is always what is experienced IN US.

It is in this sense that Jefferson is indubitably right to claim in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal”.

2) The "social claim" of natural right.

Strauss asserts the main 'social claim' of natural right- that "the greater should govern the lesser". This claim of natural right is correct, but why?

It is correct because of how this relationship between "greater" and "lesser" is formed- in the contest of subordination. These contests we know as contests of election, appointment, or force. The contest of subordination through force is the use of force to change the relationship between the parties, from equals or rivals, to one superior and one lesser, and in the pushing down of the lesser the victor becomes greater. It is contest then that makes true - that justifies- that makes 'just' the subordination of the other. This is the truth in the social claim of natural right that the greater should govern the lesser, in contest it has been proven.

3) So the two main claims of natural right- that of the contest of the individual against death, and that of the contest to determine the social order, are expressed as rights through the JUSTIFICATION of CONTEST.

4) So far I have no disagreement at all with Strauss' elaboration of Natural Right. (as of January 2008).

5) One then can return to the Hobbes notion of the suppression of individual rights subordinate to the "authority" of the sovereign as the sole basis for law, in order to round out why an ideology of “total war” doesn’t function and has no just basis for governing a population.

Hobbes restricts this basis to the authority described in the "social claim"- the social relationship of subordination between "greater" and "lesser". But both Hobbes and Strauss (as of January 2008) ignore the "authority"- what makes the basic claim of natural right "just"- which is TRUTH. There is the "authority" of truth...the primary "justness" of the basic claim of natural right. Strauss- as of January 2008- is wrong to ignore it.

Human freedom is thus found through an "order that provides it", but in accordance with the limitations of the "logic of sense". As the "social claim" of natural right is based on the first "basic claim" of natural right, it is indisputable that within natural law the "authority" of the sovereign is limited by any system overly despotic- that inflicts unjust suffering on its people by mere fiat. In natural law the sovereign is restricted by the physical tenets of respect in the common "law" and truth of human life- that the physical moment says that suffering ought not to be.

The Legend of the Skavronskayas- Lithuania's Romanovs, but not Royalty

2008-05-06T13:47:00.026-05:00

A: In honor of the Oympic opening ceremony and the parade of nations, here is one story from my heritage. Some in Morrisonville, Il. (outside of Springfield, Illinois- where I grew up after 10 yrs. old) have similar stories from the histories of Scotland, Italy and Romania , others have stories from the history of Germany. Some I have met elsewhere have heritage stories from the histories of Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Greece and Sweden. Our family's stories of that kind are from the histories of Russia, France, Poland and England/Ireland.

The legend of the Skavronskayas...Lithuanian Romanovs, but not Royalty....

Skavronskaya (Ska-rone-ska), is the name of Catherine "the first", the peasant girl chosen in 1707 by Peter "the Great" Romanov, emperor of Russia, to be his wife. He later named her Empress in 1715, which she remained until a year after his death. They had children, and as with all royal families, some which continued in the role of the monarchy, some which did not.

Many consider her life to be the model for the story of Cinderella, while others consider her the model and earliest most successful example of someone scheming to use the opportunity provided by the power of an intimate personal relationship to advance themselves materially and socially with those of great monetary and social power, without earning it on their own through the merit of the achievement of their work.

Of course there are many examples of those that have fallen for that very strong, cheap and easy temptation, the most famous recent public example of which was of course Anna Nicole Smith. Future family line predictions of a repeat of such behavior are of course imprecise.

Some future Romanovs might have taken after the behavior of their grandmother, but of course some were much more like their grandfather, earned their place on their own effort and initiative, and accidentally fell in love with strong beautiful women based on the truth of what it was like to be with them. Alexander I would be an example of one who took after his ancestral grandfather.

It is said...

..that those children not named heirs, although by blood Romanov, retained the name Skavronskaya. Some moved to Vilna, then considered part of imperial Russia , now Lithuania , where they lived as nobles until the time of the events of Soviet revolution, when the turmoil and peril of events led them to petition for asylum to U.S. officials.

U.S. officials agreed to the request, upon the condition that they live in the United States as ordinary citizens, under a different name with no priviledge of treatment or help to maintain social position. This was because the whole concept of the U.S. Constitution and revolution was against the idea of monarchical authority. As the reign of Catherine the first had conflict with England , they felt they had no choice and fled to the United States to save their lives. The family was composed of the parents and 5 children, most very young- a girl and 4 boys. The children had typical slavic names- like Antonin, Stanislaw, Josef, .....

After the revolution culminated in October 1917, the Soviets rounded up and executed the Romanovs that remained in Russia .

It is said that...

The Skavronskayas lived normal lives in the United States under a different name, and at the end of WWII, U.S. officials, essentially in command of all what are now NATO countries, and thus with access to other governments records, did a complete listing of all Romanov descendants in their countries, and with their own Russian history experts did a geneaological analysis of them and determined and told the Skavronskaya family- by blood directly "Romanovs"- that they had the strongest historical lineage to the Romanov dynasty of the remaining descendants of the Romanovs, and that they could follow the tradition of naming heirs according to historical custom, with the provision that henceforth only the "heirs" themselves would know.

So....

..sometime in the 50's or 60's, one of the group of children that fled, now a grandfather himself, asked the mother of the oldest grandson to bring him over for a private meeting- with just the young child and the grandparents. At that private meeting he told him the story, that the name they lived by was not their name, that it was Skavronskaya, and that he was a direct descendant of Peter the Great and Catherine the first, and that he was named the "heir". He was told that they were not "royal" because it was not recognized, that his grandfather was following the custom, and by lineage it would be him.

...and so it is said that descendants of the Romanovs, Russia's royal family, are still living in the United States .

However....

...it is clear, if the legend is true, that U.S. officials did not have a firm grasp on "monarchical" logic.

1) the recognition of royalty is a matter of the nation of that royalty- only they can make it official by recognizing it as head of state (which time has long been gone in the world), or as ceremonial....(Great Britain and Spain)..throughout history Russian nobles, and other royal families bypassed and skipped over those considered "unsuitable" ...

2) the notion of "monarchy" is about a type of "superiority" of family bloodline...which was only preserved through history with wealth, social position, achievement and "pedigree" of the people of that country...which was only varied from by "matches" with other royal families of Europe.

It would be completely absurd to encourage the custom of "heirs", without allowing the preservation of the other trappings, for without the preservation of Russian or Royal bloodline and positions of honor, no government in the future, nor would the people of Russia, even if inclined to the historical nostalgia of Russian royalty, recognize ANY such descendants- even if only ceremonial- as "royal".

Over time there would be nothing sufficiently Russian and/or of the level of excellence that a people would connect with a sense of the "historical greatness" of their past. Thus without the preservation of Russian bloodline and social position, it would be completely ridiculous and meaningless to encourage, or continue, such a custom.

They would be seen in Russia as average joe's with a story to tell. Therefore, both there and here, that and a kroger card get's these Romanovs a discount on specially tagged items and after $100 of purchases, a $10 credit to their card.....

But, it is a good story.....of the only Lithuanian family with an ancestor on the big stage of "world" history.....

....and so from time to time, some Lithuanians toast "Skavronskaya"...in honor of Catherine the first, and Peter the Great, and for the health of all those with Lithuanian and/or Russian heritage....

(In the history of Philosophy, ancestors are Bertrand Russell from Mothers side, and Paul Ricoeur from fathers side, Ricoeur and I talked about it when I attended his seminars at U of Chicago divinity school in 1989-1990, and my grandmother visited him there in the late 1970's).

B: From Websters- "Pretender: a: one who lays claim or asserts a title to something: A Claimant, specifically, a claimant to a throne who is held to have no just title.".
...and so enjoy the incomparable, the enduring and (in my opinion) by far the BEST of the 80's.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9txBYBwLTew

ahhhh, memories of college.... from the album "the Isle of View"

Stripeik & Thompson Stories:The Romanovs, The Tudors, William Thomson, James Madison
1) The Romanovs: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanov
2) The Tudors: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_dynasty
3) Thomson -Ireland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelvin & 4) James Madison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison

Luczak & Blaise/Lefebrve Stories:Rurik Dynasty, Casmir Pulaski, Wojtyla, The Capets, Blaise Pascal
5) Rurik - Ukraine/Russia(minor) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurik_Dynasty
Volkonsky
The Pretenders- 'Angel of the Morning
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=O6YXISe1Fbs&feature=related
6) General Casimir Pulaski- Poland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_Pulaski
According to Paul Ricoeur- the direct line of descendents of Pulaski, as of the 1990's, went by the Polish name Wojtyla. 7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Wojtyla
Ricouer also said that the famous Wojtyla had Skavronskaya heritage. All I know is that when he was elected Pope, we remarked that he looked exactly like my lithuanian grandfather and his brothers- face, body bone structure, posture & walking gait. It was uncanny.

8) The Capets- Bourbon Orleans Branch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capetian_dynasty
9) Blaise Pascal- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal

I was intially interested in Geneaology research, being the first born in my family, as were my parents, grandparents and grgrandparents etc. in the family lines of our Russian*(Stripeik), French, Irish, & English heritages.

Leonardo Boff: Liberation Theology's Unannounced Hostile Attack on Catholicism

2008-05-04T14:28:00.001-05:00

A close reading of the first few chapters of Leonardo Boff's 1977 book 'Passion of Christ, Passion of the World',(Orbis), reveals an unannounced all-out attack on Catholic Theology.

Some of the interpretations made by Boff are:

1) Page 4, biblical texts are not direct accounts of Jesus
2) Page 10, The classic view of Jesus as savior is not historical, and not from the account of the apostles.
3) Page 10-11, Jesus is a man, "just like us"
4) Pages 11-13, the historical situation of the time of Jesus is like that of Latin America (present day 1977)
5) Page 16, according to Jesus; as Boff interprets it; human beings are "enslaved" by tradition, religion and law
6) following Jesus, salvation is not to be achieved through traditional church rites or laws, but in behavior towards one's neighbor- what Boff calls the "de-absolutization" of religion

The argument in #6 creates the appearance that the relationship; between what is written in the bible and the rites and laws of the church; in a logical sense, is one that is necessarily and naturally opposed. It depicts, in a way that is not directly stated, that the practices of the church are not correctly focused, thus merely hierarchical and bureaucratic. A different interpretation, less hostile to the church, would place the rites and practices of the church as the means to facilitate and achieve this "behavior towards one's neighbor" espoused by Jesus.

The sum of these 6 positions is a theological attack without the announcement of one- without the announcement of opposition. It is a theological ambush from within, a systematic attack on the biblical texts, on the traditional view of Jesus, on the separation between savior and parishioner, and on church practices and tradition. It is, in effect, a total theological assault. It is the very same kind of separation as Martin Luther's, only without the writer leaving the church and without the announcement of "this is wrong" or "I am against".

I hold some of the same theological positions as Boff, and because of this I am not a practising catholic.

Common Value (commensurability) in Marx, Seen Through Dewey

2008-05-02T10:53:00.000-05:00

There is a fruitful analysis to be done by applying the Dewey terminology of "instrumental" and "final" ends in 'Experience and Nature', to Marx' concepts of "use value" and "exchange value". The notion of relative value in Marx can easily be seen within the spectrum provided by the two Dewey terms. Because of this, the extention of the position of "relativity" to "incommensurability of values" in 'The Fragility of Goodness' is plainly ridiculous.

Marx says in 'Capital' that the exchange of commodities magically transforms the "social relation between men" into the "relation between things". This is possible only because, as a biological creature that "needs", man is also a thing. Because of this, and because the state of ourselves is that of same biological things, commodities can be made equivalent in value through the mechanism of money. It is only because of this common state that commodities can be priced, and because as "things", commodities are "things of need" where price reflects both the relation of things to the spectrum of biological need, and also the "social relation among men"- the social order.

A commodity is a form of embodied labor because the action of labor transforms the material into a "thing of desire", useful- in Dewey's language- as an effect. It is in this way that Marx' analysis of embodied labor in 'Capital' already expressed an embodied realism.

"Use value" as depicted in 'Capital' is thus confined within the common human spectrum of need, and although individual choice varies from person to person, and in this way value is therefore "relative", aggregate patterns of these choices have been established in the distribution of dollar spending and don't fluctuate significantly over time.

There are differences between income class, and priority to utilize resources to control and benefit from the process of exchange, but there exists no innate difference that designates or distinguishes the winners of social contests as being of a different species that justifies the degradation of the common person to the status of subhuman. This distinction is false and contrived.

Contradictions in Dewey's 'Experience and Nature' and 'The Essential Dewey- Vol. 2' Philosophical Positions

2008-05-01T14:49:00.000-05:00

The readings in 'The Essential Dewey- Vol. 2', and the interpretation of these readings provided by Hickman and Alexander, overemphasize "the instrumental" function in the philosophy of John Dewey.

This conflicts with Dewey's own registering of the value of the instrumental presented in 'Experience and Nature' on Page 205 (Dover Publications) in the Chapter 'Nature and Communication':

"Communication is uniquely instrumental and uniquely final. It is instrumental as liberating us from the otherwise overwhelming pressure of events and enabling us to live a world of things that have meaning. It is final as a sharing in the objects and arts precious to a community, a sharing whereby meanings are enhanced, deepened and solidified in the sense of communion. Because of its characteristic agency and finality, communication and its congenial objects are objects ultimately worthy of awe, admiration, and loyal appreciation. They are worthy as means, because they are the only means that make like rich and varied in meanings. They are worthy as ends, because in such ends man is lifted from his immediate isolation and shares in a communion of meanings. Here, as in so many other things, the great evil lies in separating instrumental and final functions. Intelligence is partial and specialized, because communication and participation are limited, sectarian, provincial, confined to class, party professional group. By the same token, our enjoyment of ends is luxurious and corrupting for some; brutal, trivial, harsh for others; exclusion from the life of free and full communication excluding both alike from full possession of meanings of the things that enter experience. when the instrumental and final functions of communication live together in experience, there exists an intelligence which is the method and reward of the common life, and a society worthy to command affection, admiration, and loyalty".

Similar passages of a fuller reading of Dewey are found also on pgs. 184-185 "use establishes a genuine community of action", pg. 179 "the establishment of cooperation in an activity in which they are partners".. in another passage in 179 that can be condensed to "meaning is a distinctive cooperative behavior", and on pg. 171 "the import of logical and rational essences is the consequence of social interactions, of companionship, mutual assistance, direction and concerted action".

The main thrust that underlies the instrumental function of "transaction" overly emphasized by Hickman and Alexander, is human cooperation to realize the benefits and belonging of social action, concerted action.

The main conflict, the contradiction, in the construction of the ethical essays in Volume 2 is that the "moral moratorium in the everyday" in 'the Good of Activity' (from 'Human Nature and Conduct'), contradicts the text of 'Experience and Nature'. It does so because the emphasis is on merely individual action with no foresight of consequence of conduct within the social dialectic depicted in 'Philosophies of Freedom'. The fact that an individual who wishes to execute (carry out) his aims within an association group, a society, must be able to do so over time, not merely once. This makes the maintenance of those relationships within society a fundamental instrumental priority. It is in this way that one understands Paul Ricouer's comment on Dewey- when asked in the Hans Jonas Seminar in 1990- that "the moral is instrumental", and primarily instrumental over and above any singular aim the individual wishes to achieve, because it instrumentally maintains channels of cooperation for the continued achievement of aims.

This glaring contradiction between what is expressed in 'Experience and Nature' and what is expressed in the 'The Good of Activity' demonstrate flaws in the construction of Philosophical positions in the Dewey corpus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTuSDNRJYmE&feature=related

'Existence and Value' & 'Faith and It's Object' "Dovetail" in the Work of John Dewey

2008-04-18T15:43:00.000-05:00

The analysis of the process of "valuation" in the chapter 'Existence and Value' in John Dewey's 'Experience and Nature', dovetails with the chapter 'Faith and It's Object' in 'A Common Faith'.

What we achieve what comes to "realization" through the "valuation" work of judgment,(described in 'Existence and Value') is the determination of what our aim is- what is it that is "valuable" or "significant"(Dewey's word). This becomes the idea of our action, the hoped for result of which is the "ideal". It is practical and real.

From 'A Common Faith'- chapter 2, Faith and It's Object, pG. 43 (Yale University Press)
"An ideal is not an illusion because imagination is the organ through which it is apprehended. For all possibilities reach us through the imagination. In a definite sense the only meaning that can be assigned the term "imagination" is that things unrealized in fact come home to us and have power to stir us. The unification effected through imagination is not fanciful, for it is the reflex of the unification of practical and emotional attitudes. The unity signifies not a single Being, but the unity of loyalty and effort evoked by the fact that many ends are one in the power of their ideal, or imaginative, quality to stir and hold us."

pg. 49

"What I have been objecting to, I repeat, is not the idea that ideals are linked with existence and that they themselves exist, through human embodiment, as forces, but the idea that their authority and value depend upon some prior complete embodiment- as if the efforts of human beings in behalf of justice, or knowledge or beauty, depended for their effectiveness and validity upon assurance that there already existed in some supernal region a place where criminals are humanely treated, where there is no serfdom or slavery, where all facts and truths are already discovered and possessed, and all beauty is eternally displayed in actualized form".

"The aims and ideals that move us are generated through imagination. But they are not made out of imaginary stuff. They are made out of the hard stuff of the world of physical and social experience.....the new vision does not arise out of nothing, but emerges through seeing, in terms of possibilies, that is, of imagination, old things in new relations serving a new end which the new end aids in creating".

pg. 56-57

(on the change in intellectual climate due to increased knowledge and means of understanding)

"The.. change enables man to select those elements in natural conditions that may be organized and support and extend the sway of ideals. All purpose is selective, and all intelligent action includes deliberate choice. In the degree in which we cease to depend upon belief in the supernatural, selection is enlightened and choice can be made in behalf of ideals whose inherent relations to conditions and consequences are understood...Religion would then be found to have its natural place in every aspect of human experience that is concerned with estimate of possibilities, with emotional stir by possibilities yet unrealized, and with all action in behalf of their realization. All that is significant(meaningful/valuable) in human experience falls within this frame".

In Kant this is termed; in the Critique of Practical Reason; "the concept of the object of practical reason", and is described by Kant as being between what we can achieve and what we can't- thus between the "possible" and "impossible". Thus the insistence by Hickman and Alexander against Dewey utilizing any sense of "value" or "ideal" in the corpus is overstated to emphasize the instrumental aspect of "valuation". It is located in the 2nd essay of 'A Common Faith'.

A Story for Fans of Old Hollywood & French Cinema..

2008-04-10T10:09:00.005-05:00

My grandmother on my father's side was a fan of old Hollywood, just not a fan of b-movies. Here's why.

My great-grandmother Claire came to the U.S. from Brittany after WWI with my very young grandmother, married and settled in Amboy Il.. It is important to know the Amboy area to understand the time and local history.

http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Amboy&state=IL

In Amboy my grandmother Willamene lived a normal life. She went to school and church, and spoke french with her mother in the home. In 1928 on a sunday school trip to the nearby town of Grand Detour she made a BIG splash with a handsome young lifeguard/aspiring writer. The splash she made actually spanned across a few early chapters in the young man's life. Such romances are the classic motivation for smart young men to learn the language of the families of young ladies so as to win the favor of their mothers.

It was near the end of 1968 in my grandmother's kitchen on TRIPP ave. in the Chicago south suburb of Oak lawn, after discussing election results posted in the Chicago Sun Times and a summer family assignment for the State of Illinois monitoring student activity at the Democratic National Convention- in order to understand the sum total of the years political events- that the subject of this story came up. My grandmother told me that the young man even wanted a song for them, so my grandmother said she wrote one on the spot, right then. And so the young man told her that she was a "swift tailor". She sang me the song, and even today it seems that I can still hear every word, as if it happened yesterday.

Taylor Swift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6s5cxBN8mA

But as it happens so often, young men get restless, and as a result young ladies get their feelings hurt....

Before he cheats
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSG4Cml7HXs

and then because of the result, as it also happens so often, sad young men repent, plead, ...

Wedding bell blues
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkMhWQgkZ8c

Billy don't be a hero
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDq_xJlF0TE

...and their pleas fail. So it was that my grandmother's best friend introduced her to her brother, my grandfather, who worked in his father's store. They had come from Poland after WWI, and so my grandfather spoke Polish with his parents growing up.

And this is why my Grandmother was not a fan of b-movies...

As Paul Harvey would say.."now you know the REST..."

Fascism and Dreadful Argument Construction in 'The Fragility of Goodness'

2008-04-07T13:55:00.005-05:00

1) The Central argument of Martha Nussbaum's 'The Fragility of Goodness' is in chapter 10, which restates Leo Strauss' fascist interpretation of Plato from his 'History of Political Philosophy'. Chapter 10 performs this restatement by flipping the traditional arguments for systematic practical reason and law on their heads.

The argument in chapter 10 is that the experience of life is too arbitrary and complex for a system of practical reason, and depends rather on training and experience. Strauss says that the self sufficient individual rises above convention. This is ridiculous logic. The whole notion of law is that it serves as a guide to practical reason by common prohibition by checking the arbitrary actions of individual desire and in doing so institutes freedom through order. The system thus utilizes the best common wisdom of experts developed over time, and the spectrum of individual behavior then falls within the categories of the system of penal code.

The thrust of the argument in chapter 10 is to persuade to rely on authority only- that the ability to choose practically is an "art" of the most sophisticated- rather than the ordinary person utilizing and being guided by the authority of knowledge accumulated. This is nothing less than pure fascism.

"Practical insight is like perceiving in the sense that is is non-inferential, non-deductive; it is, centrally, the ability to recognize, acknowledge, respond to, pick out certain salient features of a complex situation. And just as the theoretical nous comes only out of a long experience with first principles and a sense, gained gradually in and through experience, of the fundamental role played by these principles in discourse and explanation, so too practical perception, which Aristotle calls nous, is gained only through a long process of living and choosing that develops the agent's resourcefullness and responsiveness:" pg 305

2) There are some that object that "luck" is not treated in Kantian morality. This is not true. Pg. 54 of the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (Beck) "it is nothing less than the participation it affords the rational being in giving universal law. He is thus....for, as an end in himself, he is destined to be legislative in the realm of ends, free from all laws of nature, and obedient only to those which he himself gives".

The restraint of law upon the behavior of the individual serves as a guide for practical decision making, and provides freedom through order. See also A.E. Dick Howard 'Magna Carta', introductory comment by English official..that the magna carta was formed to overcome the arbitrary fiat of the sovereign.

Consistency Problems in Argument Construction
3) The Attack on commensurability of values contradicts the common condition of the "reach of need" mentioned at the end of chapter 9, and also contradicts the common basis of natural law in Strauss- the fear of death from violent attack.

4) The need for training and experience for the "art" of
practical reason contradicts the "superiority by birth" theory of "Pearls before swine". The need for training presupposes that there is no innate superiority.

5)The reading of chapter 13 of Hecuba is merely rationale to justify revenge, and the conclusion of Nussbaum that "nothing human is trustworthy" is a restatement derived from Strauss' John Calvin interpretation that "man is totally depraved".

Other problems
6) When I first read 'The Fragility of Goodness' I stopped at the Schopenhauer comment in the 3rd chapter because that comment is a ridiculous conclusion to the "wisdom" that greek tragedy teaches us. The person who concludes, through the experience of tragedy, that all there is in life is pain and death has learned nothing. The "wisdom that drips on the heart from suffering" in the experience of the tragic stems from the root of communication from suffering in Adorno- "The physical moment says that suffering ought not to be", connected with the beauty of the need of others. The fact that because we die, teaches us that the love of others is a precious gift, and that the wise in life therefore organize and direct the activities of life away from war and death. The "wisdom" learned through the tragic is the "fragility of life", and because of this fragility, life, especially the life of those we love, is precious.

(the quote from Schopenhauer-pg. 79: "The purpose of this highest poetical achievement is the description of the terrible side of life. The unspeakable pain, the wretchedness and misery of mankind, the triumph of wickedness, the scornful mastery of chance, and the irretriveable fall of the good and the innocent are all here presented to us; and here is to be found a significant hint as to the anture of the world and of existence...The motives that were previously so powerful now lose their force, and instead of them the complete knowledge of the real nature of the world, acting as a quieter of the will, produces resignation, the giving up not merely of life, but of the whole will-to-live itself".)

7) The Schopenhauer comment and the "nothing human is trustworthy" comment, reflect the abyss of self pity of the fatalism of Strauss raised to a fatalism. This thinking is no better whatsoever than that of Jim Jones.

8) The reading of Aristotle that good character will not fail under adversity, therefore that Sophie's choice victims will commit suicide, contradicts Strauss Basic claim of natural right directly. This reading in itself is then contradicted by the Hecuba conclusion that anything human can be debased by adversity. Which is it people? If anything and everything human can be debased, why hold the sophie's choice people accountable to a standard that does not exist?

9) Another poor construction is in the transposition of the greek notion of "self-sufficiency". There is no such thing, as the motivation of action, correctly depicted by Ms. Nussbaum as "reaching"- for others, things etc.. This notion of "self-sufficiency" was pretty much dispensed with after Hegel's description of the "master-slave dialectic", where Hegel shows conclusively that the master is as much dependent on subordinates or more, than the subordinate is on the master. This is because this "reaching" means that man is mutually dependent. This is evident every time earnings of a company go down. Those that depend on "sales", depend on people- both customers and employees.

10) The book is therefore a total mess with regard to consistency of construction.

11) Contradictions

A) The most glaring set of contradictions in the doctrines of fascism have to do with the "moral luck" argument in Nussbaum's 'Fragility of Goodness'. This is because the argument; that extraneous factors outside our control effect our success or failure, our victories or our tragedies; undermines the whole notion that there is such a thing as "innate superiority". It is a complaint that implies that "superiority" loses because of "luck".(and loses quite often because of "luck", or otherwise why make the complaint)

B) If an individual is "innately superior" in function, intelligence, etc., then they don't need "luck". They also then shouldn't feel the need, or even want, to be protected from "luck". Free legitimate contests would prove their "superiority", over and over again.

C) "Chance favors the prepared mind"(see Dutch) is an argument that "luck" favors the "superior"; where the "bad luck" argument in 'Fragility..' argues with equal strengthTHE OPPOSITE.

Which is it folks?

D) So much for belief in the "will-to-power". They don't really believe in that, or really in their own "superiority". If they had belief, they would relish free untarnished contest.

12) Things Already Learned Before Age 6

2) The "grand lessons" of suffering are learned by the great majority(Patterson) by age 6- "don't do that it hurts", "stop that it makes...". Because these are learned by age 6, we learn to not hit but help, to not hurt but heal. This is what has led my life, and the lives of all our family members.

That is why if an administration violates this basic principle learned from the common phenomenon of human suffering, those opposing based on the "injustice" should do the opposite when in power.

It is precisely why the method in 'the Folly of..' is foolish in the extreme, because it is a "teaching" of something already learned.

Those that use that method identify the wrong opponent. It is not the public that violates the basic learning of a 6 year old, it is those in power or those going for power that violate it. The public doesn't do the harm, and didn't in 47'-48'.

Because we know this, it is not the emotional element of man- the "affective fragility" that is to blame. Because we are in control of what we choose to do, this is why we are culpable for our actions in a just and equitable system of law.

That is why it is so ridiculous to constantly "reprove"; through the "justification drama" of torture; the basic affective fragility of a human being. Doing so proves nothing. It only proves what we already know by age 6. There is that emotion, yes, and there is a psychological "cycle" that it is contained in(suffering, release, anger). So what..we are "human". It's what we do in our relations with others that counts.

Because of this it is not what an individual does at the point of a gun, or under imposed suffering that is the measure of his/her character. It is what we do when free, when we have power, that determines an individual's character. As Lincoln said, "If you want to test a man's character, give him power".

There are points of hope though.

13) In the chapter that features the Schopenhauer quote that I oppose here, I couldn't help but notice that the modifier that describes the quote- i.e. "dreadful"- is somewhat equivocal and therefore unclear.

On the one hand the way this word appears can read to mean "dread filled", and on the other hand it can read to mean "terrible"- as in "inaccurate". It was very strange reading the book after meeting her at the Paul Ricoeur conference at the University of Chicago in 1998, as the arguments and construction for me convey such a dark view, while her personal presentation (at least to me) in public, did not convey such pessimism. In fact I found her manner and disposition to be the opposite.

It is because of her pleasant disposition that I therefore choose the latter meaning of the word as the intended meaning of that modifier, until the time I hear otherwise from her in person.

14) Ms. Nussbaum acts contrary to one of the central false observations in the book- that "nothing human is trustworthy", in her dedication in the very beginning of the book. The fact that she dedicates the book in an admiring way to a former classmate that committed suicide undermines this very dictum of her own view of others. For Ms. Nussbaum there was a person worthy enough the loss of which she mourned. If indeed she really believed that "nothing human is trustworthy", there would be noone worthy of her love. Such a dedication says much more about the truth of Ms. Nussbaum and what she believes, than any of the observations presented in the book.

"Sophie's Choice" and Practical Reason in 'The Fragility of Goodness'

2008-04-07T13:19:00.000-05:00

I will do an examination of the wider concept of "Moral Luck" as presented in Martha Nussbaum's 'The Fragility of Goodness', but will first speak to the "Sophie's Choice" situation that is presented in the second chapter.

The conflicts of the "Sophie's Choice" scenario are four-fold in an ascending manner. The base choice presented is between two choices of evil action. This is the decision itself, which splits into two confrontations with conscience- with the consideration of the killing of each of the persons in both choices. Then there is the conflict between "killing or not killing", which Ms. Nussbaum addresses, and then between "killing or being killed", which is the primary conflict.

The primary conflict is thus framed from the viewpoint of one who is "being forced by external circumstances or people, to make a choice between two evils".

The "Sophie's Choice" scenario proves without doubt that a theory of the individual as completely evil is wrong, and in fact proves the OPPOSITE. People in that situation, as in the movie, never say "to heck with it, kill em' all, I don't care". They choose the lesser evil, which is thus the greater good. The nature of man tends toward the Good. The victims of being put to that choice view their choice in the only way they can, which is to save as many lives as possible.

Nussbaum's depiction of the stages of reflection in the carrying out of the choice indicate that once denial is overcome, then the Kantian depiction- that there is no conflict between the principles of practical reason- holds. The choice is made and justified.

'Philosophy in the Flesh' and Embodied Realism- Antecedents and Problems

2008-03-28T13:27:00.000-05:00

'Philosophy in the Flesh' and Embodied Realism- antecedents and problems.

Regarding the Lakoff/Johnson requirement of "thought that works in the world", two questions arise: First, would other analyses of "action in the world" be considered examples of embodied realism at work, even though the method as philosophical stance is unstated- unattributed? Second, I think that the aim of Embodied Realism- of thinking that works in the world- is heading in the right direction, but aren't there already examples of systems of Embodied Realism?

1) Kant- Isn't Judgment a thinking that works in the world, and as Kant calls Judgment the faculty of pleasure and pain. Kant, reread through the "embodied" formulation of the sensus communis stumbled upon by Adorno- "the physical moment says that suffering ought not to be", and through the derivation of the basis of respect in the critique of judgment of "our mutually dependent pathological nature". The notion of "purpose" in Kant roots desire squarely through the Critique of Judgment.

Read Kantian Morality now through the prism of an "embodied" sensus communis. The categorical imperative is then the dictum from common suffering, the forward expression of what Strauss roots as 'the basic claim' of natural law, elaborated by Ricoeur and myself.

This then makes the notion of autonomy, not "radical" as suggested in Charles Taylor's Hegel- 'Aims of a New Epoch', but natural and constitutive of a common human condition.

This reading was always present but spread throughout the 'Foundations of a Metaphysics of Morals, Metaphysics of Morals, the Critique of Practical Reason, the Critique of Judgment, and Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone (which mentions the results of the radical evil of "self love", as the suffering of others.)

Read then this way, Strauss' concept of the basis of Natural Right is contained within Kant.

Of course, then, it is appropriate to read the passive contemplation of form as being "struck by" the object in the judgment of the beautiful, and also to read the reordering that occurs in the faculties as "being moved by" what is being received by the senses.

2)Freud through Ricoeur- The work of Freud; translated through Ricoeur's 'Freud and Philosophy'; in the functions of the pleasure principle, the death instinct, and cathexes, expressed through the "unearthed" symbols of the dreamwork.

After all, in 'The Conflict of Interpretations' Ricoeur uses Lakoff and Johnson's exact terminology, but in a different way, in describing Freud's work as an "archaeology of the subject". And what are the "bones" that we find- the markings of desire- embodied desire? The expressed symbols of the dreamwork, the "skeleton" of which Freud critically depicts, and which Ricoeur elaborates in phenomenological description. Their exact method, in reverse, as the expression of the symbols of the dreamwork in the narrative, is a fact, in the exact same sense as their exploratory methodology.

3) Doesn't Ricouer assume such a stance in Time and Narrative, with analysis of the "action of time", in and through the fact of the narrative-i.e. the action of time in Aristotles depiction of plot in the Poetics(Aristotle), in the action of the soul in Augustine's concept of "distentio animi", and in the demonstation of fictive time in Proust and Woolf, etc..

Wouldn't then works such as this be considered contributions to a genre that could be called Embodied Realistic, such as Ed Casey 'Remembering', Lyotard's 'Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime', Derrida's 'Truth in Painting', Susan Buck-Morss' 'The Dialectics of Seeing', and others?

4) The authors mention intellectual debt to John Dewey and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. To what extent does Embodied Realism owe a debt, or relate, to the basic dictum of Dialectical Materialism "Material forces determine consciousness, and vice versa"? Clearly Marx analysis of labor (working), and the depiction of commodities as embodied labor speak directly to consciousness determining material forces, thus working in the world.

5) Cogito Ergo sum- This view of embodied realism easily extends to a critique of the "subjective turn" of Descartes. Descartes' reduction to the certainty of doubt- that I can doubt sensation and doubt thinking, but in this doubting I cannot doubt that I doubt- isn't this simply limiting, and the corresponding formula "Cogito Ergo sum" taken too literally ever since?

For can't the same reduction be applied to seeing and feeling? As doubt is simultaneously the feeling of uncertainty. I can doubt the accuracy of what I see, of what it means, but I cannot doubt that I do see, and feel, etc. That while I see and feel, I cannot doubt that I am.

As certain as my toe hurts, I exist, as certain as I see, I exist. It appears that Descartes made a mistake in the formulation of the reduction.

6) Metaphorical proposition testing as method. The Method employed in Philosophy in the Flesh, of metaphorical proposition effectiveness testing is nothing new, and has a long history of results in advertising effectiveness, direct marketing, political polling and focus groups. Being that the method stems historically from these, to claim radical break would be incorrect.

7) Since so much is clearly a part of history, wouldn't a broader survey work, like that in 'Time and Narrative', be more effective for gathering under the umbrella of Embodied Realism, a synthesized understanding of how thinking works in the world? It is clear that a survey of what has already been learned across these contributions would be necessary to formulate a wider understanding of embodied realism.

Response to Emerson and Cavell- on "Conditions Handsome and Unhandsome"

2008-02-28T12:29:00.000-06:00

Stanley Cavell quotes Emerson in the beginning of the book, "Conditions Handsome and Unhandsome" to frame his discussion of "Emersonian Perfectionism":

"I take this evanescence and lubricity of all objects, which lets them slip through our fingers then when we clutch hardest, to be the most unhandsome part of our condition".

My reply is: Emerson misspeaks because he loves the evanescence of ‘new things’ too much.

1) ”Culture” is not meant to tell us how to live, but to use art to provide small insights about how others have lived or want to live. So in the sense that Emerson speaks of being self-reliant, of not needing culture to live- to make decisions by, he is right, a man in the end must stand for himself and his actions. But Emerson is also wrong, because in the end he "does for himself" by using the wisdom and insight of those that have come before. Emerson is also wrong if he thought he had come to a point where he could not be instructed or inspired by the wisdom, performances, and actions of others. He can play ‘little wing’ like srv or Hendricks?!

This is an attitude I would characterize as "wanting or expecting" too much from the world while also being full of one's own power. It is the false hope that never-ending ‘new things’ can provide joy and satisfaction, and the disappointment that they do not.

If Emerson makes the switch to creating for others he can constantly create real beauty, and there is real joy in that.

2) It’s funny that Cavell titles the book about the Emerson evanescence quote but doesn’t address the dynamics of it in the book at all. Look to the 'Critique of Judgment', about the reordering of the cognitive faculties that constitutes the feeling of beauty. Then apply that to the evanescence of ‘new things’…all ‘new things’ are in essence a small reordering of the faculties- a reordering of ‘our world’- and thus carry with them the ‘aura’ of beauty, however small, however large. The affect of this reordering fades, but how we approach treating this in our lives is more attitude. If we take these instances as additions that help us, that we carry with us to look at the world, we can find more beauty in it- in the everyday.(see 'Synthesis in Kant's Aesthetical Idea')

3) The part concerning moral perfectionism is mislabeled by Cavell. It is in error. Where Emerson words portray an "elitism", this isn’t moral perfectionism. Moral perfectionism focuses on one’s self, and what one can do to try to perfect his own character. This would be characterized in the dictum…”I will try to give the best of myself to my family, my work, and my neighbors”, and then living it.

The quote Cavell refers to is what is called the attitude of “moral superiority”, which is quite different because it has to do with the comparison with others. This is found in Kant’s ‘Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone’- where the ‘better man’ wins the kingdom of god. This is properly a type of practical catholic theology or philosophy of religious morality. It is what I call ‘identity justification’- to justify the sense of worth of the individual in relation- as "above"- others.

There’s nothing ‘perfectionist’ about this attitude. It is merely a sublimated degradation of the other.

That’s why I’ve always found this kind of book to be a little ‘whiny'. If you want the world to be better, don’t complain about how bad others are, (and then foist horrible things upon them because you’ve justified it)go live your life and help people when you can. That would be more in line with the ‘thinking’ espoused in Heidegger's 'What is Called Thinking', and more in line with a corresponding ‘acting’ from this 'thinking'.

Then again, from the 911 phone calls, the expressions were not of hate or vengeance, they were about love.

4) The chance is there to really change things for the better. First just to stop working against, and then by working in the right direction. The map is in the word.

Strauss on Machiavelli, Luther and Calvin

2008-02-05T13:56:00.000-06:00

1) With regard to Leo Strauss' treatment of Machiavelli in "History of Political Philosophy", Strauss' comment regarding "the elimination of orders" reveals the thinking as "annihilatory", or a philosophy of annihilation of the governing structures of the sovereign. This is again properly a wartime Ideology, from a "thinking under siege", of making the sovereign "enemy". This is not the basis for a philosophy of governing of a population.

2) As far as the essay on Luther and Calvin goes, the overemphasis Strauss' places on the nature of man as "totally depraved" follows from the logic of a wartime ideology. The individual human being is the recipient of the transference and becomes the image of the "ideal enemy". In these two thinkers- Luther and Calvin- there is "justification through faith" alone, and not works. But this is because the comparison made is between the sinner and GOD, and thus all acts are depraved in comparison with the infinite nature of GOD's greatness. This does not mean there is no goodness however in relationship with other men. (A replay "Challenge flag" has been thrown as to the source of this thought, and upon review and reflection it appears that the challenge is correct . This part of the argument was formed by Paul Ricoeur and conveyed in informal conversations with myself, Marcello Villaverde and others during a break in a seminar on the work of Han Jonas at the University of Chicago Divinity School in 1989- 18 years ago. Ricoeur called this viewpoint that of the "abject suppliant", and I believe referred to the quote from the book of Job- "my god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me"- to indicate the proper perspective of this view)

This type of feeling of the sublime is characterized in the Critique of Judgment as "the dynamically sublime", in the comparison of 'might' , 'dominion', or power. But again this stance is not that of the relationship of man to fellow man, but of man in relationship to the infinite in nature(or GOD). It is therefore a properly religious stance of humility and consciousness of the weakness of man in comparison with the greatness of the power of nature/god.

Kant does not explore this idea religiously, but finds it in aesthetic judgment.

3) In the Hans Jonas seminar on a break when Ricoeur talked to us about the work of Strauss, he indicated with puzzlement the presence of a "numerology". It befuddled him how it even made it into the book, and so he said he separated it from the rest of Strauss' admirable work. Again when he came to Chicago, I believe in 68, Ricoeur said that he and Strauss bonded because Strauss had been on the blacklist and Ricoeur had spent time in a concentration camp in WWII.

My response to the inclination of some toward numerology is found in the chapter "Unity.." in the Variations. Numbers are the objectification/sublimation into a concept of "the object of our desire". It is objectification of the basic impulse in human life of calculating "how to get" what "we want", and "how many" "do we need". It is this sublimated desire in the concept of numbers that leads minds to figure some other innate relationship of meaning between the numbers themselves, and the outside world. It is the effect of superstitious thinking. Numbers themselves do have an innate relationship with the outside world- through "what we want or need".

I therefore have no desire whatsoever to explore this aspect of Strauss' work any farther.

Murrow Was Wrong- They Were Not "All Guilty"

2008-01-24T12:15:00.000-06:00

In the movie "Good Night and Good Luck", after receiving unjust consequences of the Tydings committee McCarthy hearings, Edward R. Murrow concludes that "We Are All Guilty", including the viewing public. He was wrong.

The movie "Gladiator" could work as a message movie about the senselessness and blood-lust inherent in the crowd, the mob....but to place blame and enmity on the individuals in the general public and in the mob because of a supposed sense of inferiority of intelligence or evil nature is misplaced and incorrect in the cases of the viewers of the proceedings of both the House Un-American Activities Committee and the Tydings Committee McCarthy Hearings.

This is not because there doesn't exist such thing as a "mob psychology", there does, but because of the effect that an individual being in the presence of groups, being in the midst of groups, has on the behaviors and judgments of individuals and there sense of responsibility and urgency. This effect applies to all no matter how intelligent, unless they've been specifically trained.

Irving Janis' book 'Groupthink' applies to smaller group decision making fiascos like the Bay of pigs, jury manipulation, and others because the individuals in these groups aren't stupid at all, but being in a group in effect "makes them stupid" because it affects proper judgment.

Murrow was only partially right in his statement, "we are all responsible". Because of social science- because of demonstrable, provable fact- that's not how it works.

In a study a writer did an article for the Chicago reader entitled "Town without Pity", about the behavior of witnesses of events and why these witnesses don't act to help. He did it in the wake of the NYC jogger rape. Why did all these people watch the rape and do nothing? He wrote about it with the good samaritan story of the bible as a backdrop. Among the conclusions in the action experiments conducted of "people requiring help by observers"- were that 1) the less urgent task the individual observer had the more likely they were to help, 2) the less social standing the victim had, the less likely to help, 3) the higher social standing the possible samaritan had the less likely to help and 4) the more observers of an event there were, the less chance any one individual would act.

The last conclusion came down to the fact that if there are more perceived fellow observers to an event, the less social and individual responsibility the observer feels to act. This applied across the education and social standing spectrum, unless the individual observer had specific training. This is therefore a negative effect that the perception of being in a group has on the normal decision making of the individual with regard to taking action to help. The people aren't stupid, and the people aren't callous and bloodthirsty individuals in their hearts, but the larger group they perceive that they are a part of, the less they WILL act because they think that someone else is already doing it.

So the pain and tragedy experienced by the Huac and Tydings committee victims was real, but the inaction of the viewers wasn't the result of the stupidity and hearts of darkness perceived about the individual members of the general public. The fact that the members of general public didn't react to help was a result of the very dynamic that the invention of the television, and the perception of the single viewer being in a mass group of viewers had on the these individual viewers.

Murrow was wrong about his viewers, they were not "All Guilty".

Human Nature and Free Will

2007-12-16T08:02:00.001-06:00

Aristotle says that Man is a "human animal". Because of this man has "aggression". Yet the level of aggression one has is no matter in judging human action, because we have free will.

This means that no matter how we feel, no matter for what reason- it is our choice to act from this feeling, or with this feeling, to do whatever we wish to try. Man can sublimate his aggression, can channel his aggression, or through transformation can change his aggression.

Therefore it matters not what he feels, but how he acts and what he does. Then his aggression gets: 1) masked through sublimation which buries it; 2) channeled and focused through his power- thus transformed- into a positive endeavour; or 3)through his power dissolved into nothing.

In both the latter cases, a person can possess a "monstrous" aggression throughout all his body and all his thinking- but NOT in his heart. Therefore his aggression can become transformed each and every day into good, into love, or through forgiveness into nothing. It is then invisible in the record of his action, but shows in the intensity and force of his action, through the excellence in performance, and through the intensity of his love for others.

Because this aggression can be changed there is nothing to have fear of, and nothing to hide from others, because it is channeled into good, into love, or into work. Someone like this is just fine with every part of who he is, because it is from our acts towards others that we are judged.

This power of the tranformation of aggression, and suffering, through the power of forgiveness and free will can become a daily healing of the self. Through the transformational power of free will, we can choose to change and perform the behavior of who we want to be, and perform the behavior of what we want to do.

Man can change because Man has the power of transformation. Man has free will.

Transparency - One of the Responsibilities of both Government and Citizenship

2007-12-13T14:17:00.000-06:00

Why transparency of government is so important to citizens, and coversely why it is a responsibility of citizens to honestly and faithfully go about their lives with each other and with their government, has to do with the freedom of the individual and the source of his or her action, and is presented in the paragraph below by Hayek.

From "The Constitution of Liberty" by Friedrich A. Hayek

"We can probably include all forms of violence under coercion, or at least maintain that a successful prevention of coercion will mean the prevention of all kinds of violence. There remains, however, one other kind of harmful action which is generally thought desirable to prevent and at first may seem distinct. This is fraud and deception. Yet, though it would be straining the meaning of words to call them "coercion," on examination it appears that the reasons why we want to prevent them are the same as those applying to coercion. Deception, like coercion, is a form of manipulating the data on which a person counts, in order to make him do what the deceiver wants him to do. Where it is successful, the deceived becomes in the same manner the unwilling tool, serving another man's ends without advancing his own. Though we have no single word to cover both, all we have said of coercion applies equally to fraud and deception."

The Value in Being a Good Citizen- From "Democracy in America"

2007-12-12T11:23:00.000-06:00

The value in being a good citizen, following the rule of law, and the benefit of living in a democracy.

From 'Democracy in America' by Alexis De Tocqueville,- part I, 'Notion of Rights'

"After the general idea of virtue, I know no higher principle than that of right"....

"The man who submits to violence is debased by his compliance; but when he submits to that right of authority which he acknowledges in a fellow-creature, he rises in some measure above the person who gives the command. There are no great men without virtue; and there are no great nations,- it may also be added, there would be no society,- without respect for right; for what is a union of rational and intelligent beings who are held together only by the bond of force?..."

"The government of the democracy brings the notion of political rights to the level of the humblest citizens, just as the dissemination of wealth brings the notion of property within the reach of all men; to my mind, this is one of its greatest advantages".

First Amendment Free Exercise Clause-"Some Keep the Sabbath"..

2007-12-11T15:06:00.000-06:00

The first amendment protects freedom of the exercise of religion in the United States, which means citizens can demonstrate their religious beliefs in different ways. My favorite poem expressing this right and deeply shared sentiment, and a more private approach to religious belief is in the famous poem by Emily Dickinson- "Some Keep the Sabbath Going to Church".

"Some keep the Sabbath going to Church-
I keep it, staying at Home-
With a Bobolink for a Chorister-
And an Orchard, for a Dome-

Some keep the Sabbath in Surplice-
I just wear my Wings-
And instead of tolling the Bell, for Church,
Our little Sexton-Sings.

God preaches, a noted Clergyman-
And the sermon is never long,
So instead of getting to Heaven, at last-
I'm going, all along".

The Description of the Truth of This Time in Our Country's History

2007-12-10T10:47:00.000-06:00

The description of the truth of this time; the transition from the 20th century through the first decade of the 21st century; in our country's history will need no great and intricate new philosophy of government, nor any new grand theory of history, nor any new dazzling tool of economic theory. The description of the truth of this time in our country's history has already been written and lies plainly in the words of Thomas Paine, from the "Rights of Man".

And so it was that...

"If there is a country in the world, where concord, according to common calculation, would be least expected, it is America. Made up, as it is, of people from different nations,* accustomed to different forms and habits of government, speaking different languages, and more different in their modes of worship, it would appear that the union of such a people was impracticable; but by the simple operation of constructing government on the principles of society and the rights of man, every difficulty retires, and all the parts are brought into cordial unison. There, the poor are not oppressed, the rich are not priviledged. Industry is not mortified by the splendid extravagance of a court rioting at its expense...."

"A metaphysical man, like Mr.(Edmund)Burke, would have tortured his invention to discover how such a people could be governed. He would have supposed that some must be managed by fraud, others by force, and all by some contrivance; that genius must be hired to impose upon ignorance, and show and parade to fascinate the vulgar. Lost in the abundance of his researches, he would have resolved and re-resolved, and finally overlooked the plain and easy road that lay directly before him." pgs. 134-135

The "Rights of Man" was presented to George Washington with these words:

"To George Washington, President of the United States of America

Sir,

I present you a small Treatise in defence of those Principles of Freedom which your exemplary Virtue hath so eminently contributed to establish.- That the Rights of Man may become as universal as your Benevolence can wish, and that you may enjoy the Happiness of seeing the New World regenerate the Old, is the Prayer of..

Sir,
Your much obliged, and Obedient humble Servant.

THOMAS PAINE"

The Beauty Present in Everyday Life

2007-12-01T12:47:00.000-06:00

In the Critique of Judgment Kant describes what it means to say that something is beautiful. He says that the beautiful is a kind of reordering,- through a touching of the supersensible substrate- (beyond the sensible) the feeling of which is what we know as beautiful. It is one way of saying that when we feel beauty, we are touched by god.

For me the examples of beauty I have been privileged to witness are below.

A) Kant says that in human art that which is beautiful is also what is “exemplary”, an example and ideal of the combination of capability, sensibility, and technique, that when experienced produces the feeling of beauty in us. We know this beauty through the work of history’s famous masters, in those celebrated as the world’s finest.

1) The magnificent paintings of Marc Chagall in the Musee National de Marc Chagall- “La Message Biblique”, off of Rue Cimiez in Nice. My favorite is the painting “Abraham and the Three Angels”. It is much larger than appears in books and expresses with awe and reverence the theme of the divine captured through the figures in much of Chagall’s work, and in the use of color in all of his work.
2) The impressionist collection at the Art Institute of Chicago.
3) Itzhak Perlman playing solo at the Chicago Symphony Orchestra with Daniel Barenboim conducting. A truly magnificent performance and virtuosity without compare.
4) Yo Yo Ma at Ravinia.
5) The architecture of Helmut Jahn and Frank Geary.
6) The skylines of the cities of Chicago and Seattle.
7) Notre Dame in Paris, Notre Dame in Vieux Montreal, the Rockefeller Chapel at the University of Chicago.

Most of us personally witness these kinds of beauty as “extravagances” and “rarities”. Just as rare are the beauty found in the far away places of nature that we see just as less often.

1) The Dancing fires of the sky that reach to the firmament of the Northern Lights.
2) The spectacular color of the Smokey Mountains in the third week of fall in the drive along the Blue Ridge Parkway from eastern Tennessee to North Carolina, and in the drive from Eastern Tennessee to Ashville North Carolina.
3) The sweep of the bay of angels in Nice. The cliffs of Nice and Ville Franche-Sur-Mer, and the drive on the pas corniche between Ville Franche and Monte Carlo.
4) The iridescent blue of the Caribbean.
5) The spectacular colors of scuba diving off of Cozumel.

Then there is the beauty, now common and accessible to us, brought to us through the miracle of electronic media.

1) A documentary of Picasso showing a demonstrated ability to paint that is beyond belief.
2) Beethoven’s ninth symphony, Tchaikovsky’s 4th symphony, Mahler’s ninth symphony, and the entire soundtrack of the film “Amadeus” containing the music of Mozart.
3) The incomparable acting of Meryl Steep in “Sophie’s Choice”, Julia Roberts in “Erin Brockovich”, Hallie Berry in “Monster’s Ball”, Denzel Washington in “Glory”, Tom Hanks in “Philadelphia”, Shirley McClaine in “Terms of Endearment”, Marlon Brando in “the Godfather”, Al Pacino in “Looking for Richard”, and Charlize Theron in “Monster”, and of course others.
4) The incomparable directing of Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorcese, Francis Ford Coppola, and Sidney Pollack.
8) The literature of Gabriel Garcia-Marquez, Charles Dickens, William Faulkner, Saul Bellow, and Cormac McCarthy. The poetry of Walt Whitman, Robert Frost and Emily Dickinson.
5) The Philosophical constructions of Kant, Hegel, Levinas, and Ricoeur. The Theology of St. Augustine, Jurgen Moltmann, St. Paul, St. John, and Pope John Paul II (The Great)
6) The great singers- too many to mention. For me especially the great female voices which shower down like the voices of angels.

And of course many others brought to us by electronic media.

Deeper and more dear to us is the beauty of nature found in the Areas surrounding places we love. For me the drive on highway J in the Mark Twain national forest, through the ridge valleys that appear to depict the pastoral beauty and tranquility of 100 years ago along highway j.

The drive from Morrisonville in central Illinois, which has the flattest farmland. Because it is almost all farmland, the scene of these drives is always a blanket of color that stretches are far as the eye can see. Green, green, green of the spring through to mid-summer. Golden, golden, golden in the fall. The richest black, black, black after harvest. The shimmering, sparkling and blinding white, white, white when fresh snow covers the fields and the sky has no clouds. For me, and probably most others I know, these beautiful scenes found are the most beautiful places we know, those that can be found near to us, because we are home or are going home.

The most beautiful words to us as Americans are the words of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the writings of Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton and Madison- of the rule of law and nonviolent change through the democratic process- through elections, and legislation.

The most beautiful and profound words I know are the words of Christ and the theology of nonviolent Christian forgiveness in the New Testament of the Bible. To be a follower of Christ, to be a true Christian, means to follow these words in your daily lives and acts- to give the best of yourself in everything you do- with our family, with our work, and with our fellow citizens and neighbors.

The most beautiful thing I have ever experienced, by far, is the smiling face and the presence of someone I love.

The Beauty of the World, and thus the Beauty of God, are right in front of each of us, and are present to each of us, in various ways, and in the most common ways, every single day.

"Sophie's Choice" and the Logic of Sacrifice

2007-11-25T14:04:00.000-06:00

I saw a promo for the movie “Sophie’s Choice” the other day. This brings to mind what I call the logic of sacrifice, of -at that moment -choosing the lesser of two inescapable evils.

It is the story of a holocaust survivor played by Meryl Streep, who when entering Auschwitz with her two children was presented with a horrific choice. (thus the reason for the title of the movie) Sophie, at the point of the gun of a German guard, is forced to choose between which of her two children is sent immediately to the Nazi gas chambers and die. Sophie initially replies that she can’t choose, but the guard then demands that if she does not, he will kill all of them right there. Sophie makes her choice.

What a horrific predicament! The audience has no anger for Sophie, but just sympathy. The actual behavior she presents is completely counterintuitive and beyond the scope of any normal behavior. Sophie chooses to have one of her children killed!

Without witnessing the threat on film, when seen solely from the view that one child was chosen to be killed by her mother, our reaction is- “oh my god, who would do that!?” Without seeing the presentation of the threat of certain death to the rest of the family, such behavior is absolutely unbelievable.

Under such a circumstance what would you do? What would all of your family do, to save yourselves? Would you sacrifice one member to save the rest from certain death? Would you lie? Would all of you lie?

When looked at in complete context what Sophie thought she was doing was choosing to save her other child and herself. She chose the lesser of two inescapable evils, doing something completely against a mother’s instinct, and completely against decent human impulses, for the benefit of the rest.

When looked at from the viewpoint of someone in that situation, what Sophie chose makes perfect sense and follows a perfect logic.

Sophie had no idea from previous experience that the choice before her was merely a phantom- the presentation of a false reality. We know in retrospect that the Germans killed everyone they could at Auschwitz. Armed with this knowledge, Sophie’s actual choice may have been different.

Armed with the knowledge that the possibility of safety for the other members was a lie, Sophie could either hope that all wouldn’t be killed and choose one of her children as she did, or Sophie could see that the death promised was actually the truth, and that it was, in actuality, promised for all. With this knowledge Sophie could choose to stand up to them. In the movie it was presented in a way that Sophie didn’t- and couldn’t- know that the latter option was available.

This is the logic of sacrifice that applies to all of us, of choosing completely counterintuitive behavior in the face of inescapable evil. It is the choosing of the lesser part of two inescapable evils, because of the threat of certain death, for the benefit of the rest.

A Very Good Thanksgiving

2007-11-23T11:06:00.000-06:00

It was a very good thanksgiving yesterday. We went to my nephew’s house, enjoyed our company, ate some good food, and talked. This was one of those rare occasions where you actually have a meaningful conversation with your family, and they show real understanding about the personal struggles and successes of your life. You also can give them updates about what is going on in your life with a good attitude, and because they care about you, with this new information, this inspires them about the possibilities open to their own futures.

Like any good get together, the conversation and laughter in the beginning was almost raucous. Some people get disturbed by the cacophony of such noises, don’t like crowds, and don’t see themselves included. For me however, I am fine with the haphazard inclusion and isolation, because I like and understand crowds. Also the cacophony from the gathering is from the voices I love, and therefore it is all music to me. I for one; in such a spectacle; could easily see the love in their eyes, and could see in their eyes even a sense of pride to be part of our family.

Yes, thanksgiving is a day that can bring everyone together, confirm that relationships have been restored and strengthened, and restore spirits. It is for these blessings that on thanksgiving, and really everyday, we thank god.

Thoughts for Thanksgiving- What it Means to Give the Best of Ourselves

2007-11-21T15:52:00.000-06:00

Some thoughts for this thanksgiving, on what it means to give the best of ourselves in everything we do.

I wrote in a previous blog:

"So living our lives the best we can and giving the best of ourselves in everything we do- in our work, with our friends, loved ones, and fellow citizens- that is the way to battle the ugliness described in the article of which my friend refers".

And how do we do this, when at times the world can treat each of us so brutally- through forgiveness, in order to walk forward to the possibilities in the future with an open heart.

"The real fecundity of the will, its magic and its transformative character is shown when malice is transformed in the ethical in the act of human forgiveness. In the divine-like sweep of forgiveness, malice is transformed into the Ethical. It is here where the act becomes relation, in the negative act of anti-violence. Here is where we create something, ex nihilo, in an ethical effort towards another. It is how man lives from pain. It is context meeting its opposite in a moment where man becomes/ approaches, God; and God becomes/approaches man. It is formation and reformation, an emergence and affirmation simultaneously.

Forgiveness is the only beauty, the only creation".

(from The Kant Variations, the Chapter- Emmanuel Levinas and the Love of Knowledge)

Everyone- have a warm and safe thanksgiving.

We Battle Ugliness Best By Giving the Best of Ourselves

2007-11-17T11:05:00.000-06:00

My good friend sent me an email on the ugly story of an intentional myspace hoax perpetrated by adult neighbors to torment an O'Fallon Missouri girl that at least contributed, if not directly led, to her suicide. It is one of the most vile stories of human ugliness in recent memory in the St. Louis area.

How we battle such ugliness is by living our lives with a good heart. Yes, at times people can be vile. I believe though in that we should live our lives the best we can, and treat people with respect. This is what our justice system really stands for- what it protects- our common goodness.

So it is by living our lives the best we can and by giving the best of ourselves in everything we do- in our work, with our friends, loved ones, and fellow citizens- that we most effectively battle the ugliness described in the article of which my friend refers.

The Lie Aggressors Tell Themselves- And Tell Others

2007-11-07T13:13:00.000-06:00

Secretary of Defense McNamara once posed a question:

"How much evil must we perpetrate before we are able to do "good"?"

This question reveals three important aspects of the view and disposition of aggressors:

1) The need for total domination of others by the 'control freaks' in charge, and the feeling that aggression is warranted, is necessary, to achieve it. The U.S. at that time, and at this time, had superior military power. Those in charge itched to use it then to prove their superiority, and itch to use it now- to prove their 'greatness' by domination.

2) It is the lie the aggressors of history tell themselves to cloak their aggression and violence in goodness and legitimacy: To sublimate- make themselves feel better about- what they do to others. Regardless of the pain they cause, and the evil they do, there is an overwhelming need to see it as 'good' or as an instrument of good. It is the same dynamic and attitude of a 'wife beater', who in his mind rationalizes that it was the actions of the wife that 'caused' him to beat her.

3) These people who have the need for domination have no clue about how to do 'good' for others, and history always bears it out. The oppression never stops but expands, and there is always another enemy where to direct the aggression. They have no empathy and see no commonality for others lesser than themselves- the citizens, the people. If they did there would be no need for the repression in the first place. The good they want to do is never found and never done, because it lies not in their hearts.

McNamara's question reveals the lie at the heart, and in the heart, of aggressors.

What is the Good That Our Country's Greatness Aspires to Serve?

2007-11-04T20:02:00.000-06:00

Some will say that in matters of purpose and efficacy that all individuals are not born equal- that some possess innate gifts and talent that others do not. In some there is a facility for math and science and the understanding of abstract and complex equations, in others the facility for organization, for medicine. In others there is a facility for music, in others for languages or painting. In athletics there is the phrase `You can not put in what God has left out'.

Sometimes the role 'chooses you' as the facility comes so easily, so naturally to the level of function- absent in almost all other people. Difficulty in function is overwhelmed by gift, by the rare facility, by the uncommon, so much so that indeed it is not even the same level of difficulty of which two people speak. For every person on earth, to some extent this is so.

No Race has advantage over any other here, nor does either sex have advantage, nor does any Nation.

Perhaps as a man I find that I possess a gift of function- why must I demand more money from this when this is precisely the level I am good at- because I can master more functions than others? Why must I deny others of the dignity of life when I am merely meeting up to the level of my own capability? If I can try more- shouldn't I? If I can do more- shouldn't I? if I can make more for others shouldn't I?

But as we now clearly hold our temporary domain over the world, dominion is only a question in the order among men, and has no real function in the survival of the species. That question has been answered, that challenge has been met.

The level of competence, function, and power of a higher position should be compensation in itself. The work is more challenging, more interesting, more engaging, and the individual so capable. On line monitoring markets in London at 5:30 a.m., meeting with managers of different properties discussing systems at 9:00, at 10:00 overlooking reports and the details in the system-looking for glitches; phone calls to subordinates giving feedback and then monitoring decision processes through 11:00....

Perhaps as a man I look and see others less capable, or with a different facility and say that I would not want their life because mine is more exciting, because mine is more challenging, because theirs is menial, elementary labor, unskilled and exhausting, because I see no creativity or imagination- Why then must I degrade their material life?? Why must I place these gifts in the service of dominion, for my own self interest??

What is this contest that I need to make myself- not the better, but feel the better?- and use my reason and intelligence as if they were only the instruments of a supreme lullaby, as if their supreme use were to sublimate the trauma of human comparison, to justify the material judgment in the ordering of other men for our benefit.

Out of the womb without food or care You came, You would not have lived one week. But came a common woman, your mother, and doing nothing extraordinary, but with a common gentle care, she nurtured your frailty and your Possibility but with a common love. As it was her duty to do her best, so it is your duty to do your best- to nurture the world by the possibility of your gift- to give the best of yourself, but with a common love.

Why should anyone expect any less of myself?? Why should I demand so much more for myself because of this gift?? Why should I make less of others because of it? Why should I demand more money and make the wretched more?? Have I really done all I could??!!

Justify yourself to the horizon of achievement and to the possibility of your gift, of what you can give and do for others.

It is time for us in the United States that each of us ask what good we are making for the world, for others, with our dominion, with the gifts of our country? Are we making a world of fear without freedom? ...of work without reward? ...of dominion without community?

It is time to ask what good the greatness of our country aspires to serve?

Founders' Vision of Religious Freedom- Response to Colleen Carroll Campbell

2007-11-04T19:56:00.000-06:00

St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist, Colleen Carroll Campbell's November 1st piece, 'We've Drifted From Founder's Vision of Religious Freedom', deals with a Chicago area first amendment establishment of religion case. I think Ms. Carroll Campbell is right on the money.

She writes:

"The latest salvo in America's war over prayer in public schools was fired in Illinois last week when atheist activist Rob Sherman sued his daughter's suburban Chicago district to protest a new state law that mandates a daily moment of silence. Sherman and his 14-year-old daughter, Dawn, said the 15-second silent period observed in her high school is interrupting her education.

The Shermans have a habit of sweating the small stuff. Dawn successfully campaigned to scratch "God Bless America" from her school's homecoming song list this fall. Her father has battled to remove religious symbols from city seals, sever the link between the Boy Scouts and a local police department and stop student recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance".

"Through a series of rulings on largely symbolic matters, judges have sent a powerful message that religious faith is something citizens should keep to themselves".

"That message does not match the vision of America's founding fathers. Contrary to claims by revisionist historians, the founders did not see the First Amendment as a way to purge religion from the public square. They saw it as a way to prevent the establishment of a state church that threatened to stifle authentic religious expression and make religion subordinate to the state".

"The founders considered religion essential to America's character and crucial to the endurance of a vibrant, virtuous democracy. George Washington said "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity. John Adams warned that our Constitution was designed "only for a religious and moral people" and is "wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

My response:

Ms. Carroll Campbell

I think that your St. Louis Post-Dispatch column is right on the money that the Shermans are extending their views of the establishment of religion in the public sphere too far. Your column also does a pretty good job of portraying the double-edged sword of the religious clauses of the first amendment- the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

Most laws treating religion deal with the lines of the balance between the two. On the one hand, law protecting against the establishment of religion can impinge on the free exercise of it. Laws over-allowing the free exercise, where free exercise becomes promotion, step into the realm of the public establishment of religion.

I agree with your assessment that religion had a prominent place in the minds of the founders, and in the founding of the United States. James Morone's book, 'Hellfire Nation', does a pretty good job detailing one side of the role of religion in the public life of U.S. History, where the evangelistic aspects of righteous moralizing intruded upon and damaged the secular freedom of Americans.

The history you cite from the other side of this argument, I think is persuasive concerning the limits drawn by your argument. The founders obviously did not think that religion could be eliminated completely from public life. I agree with your assessment- the Shermans are going too far in their interpretation of the establishment clause and are pushing their own levels of the tolerance and free exercise of religion in the public sphere on others. Your short paragraph deals nicely with the reasonable common-sense need for balance.

"Surveys find that the public resents such extreme secularization efforts. Proselytizing and force-fed Bible verses have no place in public schools, but most Americans can distinguish between catechism classes and 15-second silent periods".

Ms. Carroll Campbell is right. It is fine if the Shermans don't want to be forced to pray- they can do anything with their 15 seconds of silence they want. But to want to eliminate the 15 seconds altogether because others are praying is ridiculous, and infringes on the freedom of others to do with the 15 seconds what they want- including pray.

An argument of the role of religion in American life, from the moral perspective, I would say in line with your sensibility, is Pope John Paul II's (The Great) encyclical letter 'Evangelium Vitae' (the Gospel of Life), which magnificently decries the over-secularization of everyday life, that has developed so far into a 'culture of death'. As the great Pope stated:

"Even in the midst of difficulties and uncertainties, every person sincerely open to truth and goodness can, by the light of reason and the hidden action of grace, come to recognize in the natural law written in the heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15) the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree. Upon the recognition of this right, every human community and the political community itself are founded".

and then later...

"In fact, while the climate of widespread moral uncertainty can in some way be explained by the multiplicity and gravity of today's social problems, and these can sometimes mitigate the subjective responsibility of individuals, it is no less true that we are confronted by an even larger reality, which can be described as a . This reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable "culture of death".

This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another".

So to extend the public sphere legal argument of the role of religion in public life, to the moral argument, the balance between first amendment religious clauses deal indirectly with the moral balance of freedom of the individual where that freedom becomes freedom of the powerful to do evil to others.

I would say that the battle for where the balance is drawn between free exercise and establishment, directly affects the moral balance between individual freedom, and evil done to others.

Our Constitutional law must balance between freedom to exercise religion and the establishment of religion, to preserve freedom, to preserve a sense of public obligation and morality, and to protect the individual in the war of the powerful against the weak.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Luczak II

The Folly of the Use of Terror

2007-10-22T01:36:00.000-05:00

From 'the Kant Variations'- Unity in the House of Reason

haysod552.blogspot.com/2007_08_01_archive.html

Fear makes nothing. Fear learns nothing. Fear does nothing, joins nothing, loves nothing. And the sky of terrorists has claws throughout, swiping down, staring at others always, watching others like prey, and the winds hiss and whisper. Each path is mined, and as we walk this path we can hear the hideous laugh rise from the mantle of terrorists and we know that we are stalked. It is this way everywhere under the firmament of Terror, everywhere throughout the sky of Terror, and throughout all of this, everywhere and at all times there is no-thing, and all of this is no-thing.

Fear sits in the anguish of nothing and says that it is everything. Fear withdraws exposure of the self from the act, and paralyzes the self. There is no unity in fear, but only when we move from it. The production of fear by violence never unifies those to its cause, because there is no unity in the message. Defeat experienced in the contest of living may indeed feel like degradation but it does nothing to tell us how to live, it shows us not another way, but focuses on a pain that no other can ever take away, and that all men must live with. Terror attempts to paralyze, to stop the judgment of the world, but enters a world in which men do fear, but act anyway, do fear, but make anyway, do fear, but work anyway, do fear, but love anyway.

Terror has no voice, can say nothing but only that it has been wronged, that it is victim. Terror does not try again. The mistaken belief of Terror is that violence is power. What Terror wishes to change it cannot, for through violence there will change none of the production and capability of the world. Terror is a magnification of the weakness of the self, an attempt to show others a degradation and weakness that when felt, will change thinking. Terror thinks that the world will see it as capable and it will be restored. Terror sees its position only, and sees no difference between themselves and others, but sees itself less for it. Terror feels degraded and wishes others to feel degraded as well, only then according to Terror will the attitude change that `causes' the degradation to occur. What Terror does not see is that its' message does not connect, not because we are distanced and do not see, but its message does not connect because we have felt our own weakness, and we allow it.

We work from our weakness, and see the possibility that arises from it. Once death is accepted as a principle throughout the structure of life then No violence can ever make us feel less than dead. I do die, once I accept this the violence of what you do to me will never make me feel that you are great, will never bring approval, will never bring me together with you, will never make you capable, will never make you more. The `I' is weak, I accept this about myself, but together `we' are more, and in this more, together, there is nothing that violence and terror can do.

Richard J. Luczak II

The U.S. Constitution- A Document of Honor- Needs to Be Restored

2007-10-12T07:53:00.000-05:00

The United States Constitution is not only the foundational law of the land, it is also a document of honor.

What I mean by that is that the Constitution declares the nation founded and does so indicating the terms by which we will govern ourselves. It is a statement to the world about how we will conduct ourselves, and for what we will hold ourselves responsible.

In this manner the U.S. Constitution is and was meant to be an 'upright document', our message as honorable men to the world, and to ourselves of the principles and rights we hold dear.

This is what it means to live by the rule of law. It's principles are thus truth, honor, and responsibility.

We need to restore executive conduct to the level of honorable conduct and honorable leadership, through an administration that is strong enough to live by what it says, and to say exactly what it means and intends.

It appears that this administration and its members use dissimulation when possible and hide behind the cloak of honor of the offices of the administration, to appear honorable to the public, while doing whatever they please until being brought to accountability. (for example- the shifting rationale for starting the Iraq War, the shifting prosecution of Jose Padilla, and vice-president Cheney's interpretation of not being part of the executive nor legislative branches)

Those that act by the principle of dissimulation to the public, while pursuing goals by other means, may have high public office, and at this time may have power beyond measure- but their characters; in the most common terms; belong to the smallest of men- behaving like undisciplined adolescents who take delight in the lies told about others. They therefore have nothing in common with the real leadership of the founding fathers. Through the unforgiving looking-glass of time, these leaders are always shown for the pretenders they were.

The most infamous names of history, associated with the basest of human hearts, are known so not because they were hideous and weak as individuals and didn't attempt to achieve anything, but because they were accomplished and placed in positions of trust- and through this trust their character and hearts shown by the methods they chose to inflict upon others.

The truth of their methods, and the truth of their hearts, has always been exposed through the looking-glass of time, no matter what 'lofty goals' were expressed to the public. So it shall always be, no matter what measures are attempted to conceal their crimes.

These leaders were never loved, never admired, and never followed, but merely survived, as most all people in their own countries and others smiled and nodded yes to survive, cursed them in their beds, and breathed sighs of relief and joy at their deaths.

And so through the looking-glass of time history HISSES their names- as if they were plagues and curses upon the people- known throughout the whole world by their methods. Names such as Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Milosevic and Pol-pot, places such as Auschwitz, Darfur, Cambodia, Kosovo, and Rwanda. Names such as Karadovic, Goebbels, Eichman, Mengela, and Chemical Ali.

What methods will be brought forth for this administration for the world to see through the looking-glass of time? Will there be names in this administration that history and the world HISS when they are mentioned? We already know there are places that are already considered so- abu ghraib, guantanamo, the word 'rendition', and the secret prisons that one day will be brought to light.

It is time for this country to be led by the words of our great document, to become upright once more, and lead the world through the strength and principles of truth, honor, and responsibility.

The Consent of the Governed, Article V, and Originalism

2007-09-11T23:46:00.000-05:00

Ahkil Reed Amar; in his article ‘The Consent of the Governed: Constitutional Amendment outside Article V’; in the March 1994 Issue of the Columbia Law Review;1 argues for the validity of a non-enumerated Constitutional amendment that is grounded in the history of the constitution outside of Article V.2 The purpose of this article is twofold. The first purpose is to address the premise of Amar’s argument, and the second purpose is to elaborate on the significance of Amar’s research and arguments for a theory of popular sovereignty and this theory’s impact on the jurisprudence of ‘Originalism’.

Amar’s article argues that there is an avenue for the American people to achieve the ratification of a constitutional amendment without the procedure of amendment proposal or ratification indicated in Article V of the constitution.3 Amar states that a majority of the people can petition the government directly with an amendment proposal for constitutional convention, and that the government would be obligated to accept this proposal because of the incorporation in the constitution of the first principle of ‘popular sovereignty’ of the people -the power of ‘We the people’ to change or abolish government whenever we please.4 Amar states that such an amendment could be ratified by a simple majority of American voters.5 Amar argues that this principle is announced in the declaration of independence as a founding principle.

We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable(natural) rights… that…governments…derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of (its) ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”.6

Amar then begins the elaborately constructed defense of his position with his premise. “Begin by noting what Article V emphatically does not say. It emphatically does not say that it is the only way to revise the Constitution”.7 I disagree. A simple and careful straightforward reading of Article V shows strong evidence in the text that Article V does say in a strong sense that the two procedures for amendment proposal are the only ways for amendment proposal. Let’s look at the words of Article V:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;”..8

Article V enumerates two methods, which according to the Article “in either Case, shall be valid as Part of this Constitution”. Obviously the key words with regard to the simple incorrectness of Amar’s premise are the words- “In either case, shall be Valid”. ‘Either’ is an exclusionary conjunction which limits the scope and significance of the connection to a choice between one term under consideration or the other term under consideration. The phrase ‘either one OR the other’, always denotes directly a choice between two. The word ‘Either’ groups only two terms in the English language- while eliminating the inclusion of any other possible choices, unless otherwise indicated in the language preceding or following. There is no such language in the text of Article V that otherwise indicates any other choices. In other words, the text says clearly: there are two methods to propose an amendment that are valid- and your choices are only between one method or the other.

Article V needs no other clause indicating exclusion of other modes of amendment outside of this language because the restriction is achieved by the economy of use of the limiting conjunction ‘either’, which confines the choice options, while excluding all others, solely within the text present in Article V. The phrase “shall be Valid” thus confers validity on what is limited by the previous limiting conjunction- ‘either one method of amendment proposal, or the other method, and no others, are valid methods of amendment proposal.’ The phrase “In either case” also indicates that both methods cannot be attempted simultaneously in the proposal of a specific amendment, otherwise the language would have read- ‘in both cases’, or ‘in these cases’. Furthermore, the use of the conjunction “or”, in the clause on ratification methods denotes the same restrictive choice structure- ‘one or the other’.

“when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress”;9

The plain language and meaning of the text of Article V couldn’t be clearer. The language in the paragraph enumerates the only two choices of method of proposing a valid constitutional amendment, describes the only two valid choices of methods of ratification of an amendment, and restricts the power of Article V for amending 3 provisions in the constitution until a specific future time. Amar’s premise upon which is built the remainder of his structure of argumentation for a valid non-enumerated constitutional right of amendment is clearly false through a careful reading of only the text of Article V. The elaborate construction that follows in Amar’s article based on this false premise thus easily falls apart.

What Amar’s evidence and arguments attempt to present is the support in an historical basis for a valid non-enumerated process of constitutional amendment. For these purposes the research fits the argument in only a weak sense. The combination is unconvincing as a historical case for the validity of constitutional amendment outside Article V, as Professor Monaghan has clearly demonstrated.10

First, the specific popular sovereignty language of needing a mere majority for ratification as listed by Amar in States Bills of Rights,11 was not adopted by the founders in the U.S. Constitution. Combine this with Monaghan’s research showing that the history demonstrates that the Founders attempted to limit the popular sovereignty of the people through the supermajority requirement in Article V12 and through the Federal use of elected representatives13 to propose amendments, and the case for a direct popular sovereignty submission of an amendment has no direct support in the research.

Second, the reference to ‘first principles’ to alter or abolish by revolutionary popular sovereignty indicated by Madison14 aren’t adopted into Article V either. There is thus a tremendous legitimacy problem with Amar’s proposal due to the discrepancy between the population requirement of only a majority for submission and ratification in Amar’s proposal, and the supermajority of ¾’ths of the States actually indicated in Article V. The previous lower thresholds proposed by delegates were rejected,15 indicating that the founders as a whole wanted the supermajority threshold. So Madison’s indication in the passage referenced by Amar doesn’t appear to be definitive of the founders’ intent, just one founder’s intent.

Some problems with Amar’s proposal: What argument would justify legitimately attempting to circumvent the supermajority requirement by a political party to pass an amendment that proposes drastic ideological and structural change, that couldn’t also be used to justify an opposite ideological and structural change by the opposing political party- should they achieve a majority? How does one judge that government has become ‘destructive’ enough to require alteration or abolition, while at the same time not be ‘destructive’ enough so that the voting fails at achieving a supermajority? And if it is destructive enough to change through extra-constitutional revolutionary means, how does one determine that government is destructive enough to alter with a majority, but not destructive enough to abolish? Or that government is destructive enough to abolish with only a majority, and not with the supermajority indicated for mere amendment by Article V?

Amendment proposal under the mere majority espoused by Amar, would include election rules that would heavily favor the current majority party, in attempt to make permanent the majority. Were Amar’s amendment proposal and ratification methods valid, after the 2004 elections, with republicans capturing 30 states, they would have been justified in claiming majority popular sovereignty right to: 1) repeal the 14th amendment, 2) make the ‘unborn’ Citizens, 3) eliminate all taxes for entrepreneurs, and more. I side with Monaghan’s admonition here,16 that time has proven that the supermajority requirement in Article V for limiting sweeping change through amendment was wise.

The stability provided by the supermajority requirement in Article V, combined with the Article’s ability to change, may very well be the balancing factors that have allowed our form of Government to last so long, with only the one serious attempt in our history to abolish it.

Furthermore, the examples of Popular Sovereignty in the preamble and infused throughout the Constitution listed by Amar actually work against Amar’s argument for the purposes of establishing the validity of amendment outside Article V, because they confer legitimacy that amendment of the Constitution through Article V is the exercise of the will of the people, is the very exercise of popular sovereignty, as difficult as it may be to achieve.

The non-enumerated constitutional amendment proposed by Amar has no legality through the constitution, and is such extra-constitutional. The right for the people to alter he cites in the Declaration of Independence is thus fulfilled through Article V, and this leaves the right to abolish- which is clearly an extra-constitutional revolutionary right only exercised when the people decide the constitution and form of government are ‘destructive’ enough to do so. Any attempt to alter the constitution outside Article V thus would legally have to be considered a complete discarding of the Constitution as a whole, and the reestablishment of a new Constitution, to validate this change.

The Unintended Benefit of Amar’s Popular Sovereignty Research in the ‘Consent…’

What Amar’s research unintentionally presents and supports is the historical basis and support for the popular sovereignty legitimacy and dynamism of Article V itself, and this combined with the locus of foundational constitutional authority in the Declaration of Independence phrase “the consent of the governed” thus undeniably infuses the dynamic principles of fundamental change, popular sovereignty, and ongoing citizen participation in the people’s interpretation of the Constitution and thus also in the interpretation and consideration of Supreme court decisions in the application of the Constitution, as undeniably supported by the original intention of the founders. The reading of popular sovereignty consent through the prism of Article V dynamism, is therefore essential to the application of the Constitution by Supreme Court decisions, and forever destroys the intellectual foundations of today’s static Originalism as authentic and consistent as a method of constitutional interpretation.

The three theoretical foundations of today’s static Originalism as a valid method of constitutional interpretation for jurisprudence are thus undeniably intellectually undermined by the history of the founding. 1) The position of Originalism based on the authority of the framers is undermined because the framers themselves deny primary authority, and place it rather in the agreement of the people. 2) The dynamism in Article V undercuts any static conception of original intent, because as the constitution can be modified, so can the intent and scope of the constitution through amendments that negate the authority of original scope and intent of the founders. 3) The historical fact of the birth of the constitution- ratification- through compromise undermines the Originalist argument of consistency, as fundamental change to these principles in the form of a future bill of rights was agreed to by the Federalists in the deal of ratification.

1) The Consent of the Governed

Federalist #22:
“The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority”.17

The Declaration of Independence:
“that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it”18

The authority given the constitution is not the authority derived from the pronouncements of great men, or from comparison of Great men to other men, and thus also not of the founders in comparison to today’s citizens. The authority given the constitution, the “just power” according to the Signers of the Declaration of Independence and the original fountain of all legitimate authority, according to Hamilton in Federalist #22, is derived from the “consent of the governed”. The consent of the governed is the agreement of those governed, to be governed in the manner prescribed by the words in the constitution. It is thus the agreement of the people with the law that creates the authority of the Constitution.

These are the words of the framers themselves- that the power comes not from the measure of the framers and their achievements throughout history, or the greatness of the words themselves, but comes from the agreement of the people with the words of the law issued by the Constitution. The Constitution thus starts not with the preamble, but with the “consent of the governed” through the ratification by the people that these are the words that announce our union, and that these are the words by which we agree to be governed.

The basis of Originalism, which lies for today’s static Originalists in the authority of the framers, and which looks to the intent of the framers in the drafting a specific provision, is thus located incorrectly by today’s originalists, and this basis is undermined by the words of the framers themselves. The framers clearly say that they themselves are not the authority, that the “just power”, the original authority is derived from the “consent of the governed”- i.e. the agreement of the people.

Thus the phrase the “consent of the governed”, combined with the power of fundamental change in Article V, not only serves as the original justification of authority of our constitution as it was established in 1787, but serves as a call to the participation of today’s ‘citizen-framer’ to consider the constitution, and how it is applied, and thus to grant consent, or deny consent and demand alteration, through first amendment freedom of speech and it’s extension to the states through the 14th amendment. It is not the call of founding fathers to lesser men to follow what the founders proclaimed, but the call of founding citizen-framers to current and future fellow citizen-framers across the ages to join in the continued revolution of representative self-government, to consider the constitution and its application and to give consent or deny consent, and demand alteration through the ballot box in reelecting or replacing their political representatives based on this consent or denial of consent. It is thus the primary duty of citizenship for the individual citizen to make known their consent or denial of consent of any act of government, including the application of the Constitution through a Supreme Court Decision.

This then directly calls for the continued participation of the people in the consideration of, and the granting or the denial of consent of the application of the constitution in cases by the opinions of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the power to issue an opinion that radically changes the application of a provision, and according to the constitution it must be followed, but if it is an application that does not have the consent of the governed, the agreement of the people, then that opinion has no “just power”. This means that if a justice purposefully votes according to their own ideology, or because they think they know better, with conscious disregard of the disagreement of the people, then they vary fundamentally from the single central principle of the constitution of the founders, and thus have nothing in common with the founders.

Justice Black in Milk Wagon Drivers Union V. Meadowmoor, 312 U.S. 287, concurs.

“in reaching my conclusion I view the guaranties of the First Amendment as the foundation upon which our governmental structure rests and without which it could not continue to endure as conceived and planned. [Footnote 4] Freedom to speak and write about public questions is as important to the life of our government as is the heart to the human body. In fact, this privilege is the heart of our government. If that heart be weakened, the result is debilitation; if it be stilled, the result is death”.19

Footnote 4: “Thomas Jefferson, the great strategist of the campaign to bring about the adoption of the Bill of Rights, a campaign which he began even before the Constitution was adopted, said as to one of the guaranties of the First Amendment: 'The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter”. 20

Justice Black here refers to the importance of Freedom of Speech, i.e. the reason why Freedom of Speech is important. The importance of Freedom of Speech for Black; what is as important to government as the heart is to the human body; is the public conveyance of the true status and level of the consent of the governed to the elected representatives of government. Black refers here not only to the ability of the citizen to freely be able to speak if they so choose, but refers also to the very necessity that speech by the citizenry about the public questions be present- and that it must be free in nature- in order for representative self-government to properly function. Jefferson confirms in footnote 4 that the consent of the governed is nothing less than the opinion of the people, and that the conveyance of this consent or denial is vital to legitimate representative government that claims “just power”.

Today’s Originalism attempts to eliminate the foundational element of popular sovereignty at the core of government, by eliminating the citizen’s active role in the consideration of accepting or denying consent to a new application of the law in a Supreme Court decision. Originalism says ‘don’t consider for yourself, you are not competent, especially in comparison to these great men- so just follow’. The history of the intent of the framers is then substituted for the content and consequences of the scope and application of the words of the Court’s opinion. In the retelling of the history, in most cases lengthy and involved, the Ordinary citizen becomes educated as to the history and to the intent of the framer through this retelling, and in this education realizes they are not an expert, and thus quickly determines that their own competence fails in comparison. The offer to associate the citizen with the opinion of the ‘great men’- the framers- renders an easy and painless transfer of authority.

Today’s Originalism is thus not only a method of interpretation and jurisprudence, but simultaneously a technique of the Originalist camp to get the members of the public to give up their authority as citizen-framer to consider for themselves, through an association by proxy with the authority of the founders through the history of the founders intent. Now any citizen is free to do only this much in the interpretation of a constitutional ruling if they so choose, however they should be reminded that this was not the intent of the framers. The original opinion of the people; after considering the law and its application; properly constitutes what the framers termed the “consent of the governed”. The framers formed the words not from the extreme greatness and originality of themselves in generating new thought, but from the collective truth of freedom in the human condition observed and developed over the years. They merely recognized the truth of where liberty originates, as Learned Hand states that “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women”.21 It was this truth that the founders followed in the words they used, many derived from the Magna Carta22 5 and ½ centuries earlier.

2) The Concept of Original Intent in the Constitution is Dynamic Because of Article V

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;..”23

Because of the almost unlimited scope of change of amendment in Article V, the original intention of the founders was not only that there would be change to the Constitution, but that this change included the possibility that what the founders originally intended for the scope and application of law, could itself be changed by the intentions of a future amendment’s drafters, and once ratified this fundamental change would then be undeniably valid.

This fundamental amplification of application and intent is precisely what the adoption of the 14th amendment accomplished. By introducing catalyst language that expands the application of the bill of rights and other rights to include binding the States, the 14th amendment lawfully and legitimately expanded the original intention of the drafters, through the intentions of John Bingham and ratified by the people. As demonstrated throughout his article, the 38 examples and arguments detailed by Amar24 provide overwhelming historical evidence that the right of the people to alter the constitution, through Article V, was irrefutable in the intent of the framers and are demonstrated throughout the speeches and documents of the framers. Amar’s research irrefutably demonstrates that it was clearly the original intent of the framers that change to the constitution- even fundamental change contrary to their original intentions- be able to occur. Thus Article V infuses the Constitution not with a rigid and static conception of original intent, but with a dynamic conception of original intent.

Hence in the history of Constitutional amendments and the Constitution itself there is a progression of original intent that starts with the original constitution, changes with the ratification deal in 1787, and this change is confirmed with the addition of the bill of rights in 1789, and then progresses again each time with the addition of each amendment, changing with the addition of the 13th, and 15th amendments, and changing fundamentally with the addition of the 14th amendment.

An original intent reading of the Constitution that opposes incorporation of the 14th amendment thus denies or ignores the dynamism of intent inherent in Article V and the Constitution’s history, and that interpreter cannot be deemed a faithful follower of a faithful doctrine of original intent, because the founders inserted this fundamental dynamism into the Constitution. Future citizens of the United States were thus clearly seen as fellow citizen-framers in the ongoing project of self-government.

The unintended significance and utility of Amar’s research and arguments in the article is thus the overwhelming historical evidence for support for the truly dynamic popular sovereignty character of the Constitution and Article V as it applies to an accurate depiction and meaning of the text of the Constitution over time, and of original intent over time. Amar’s research in this article establishes the evidentiary historical basis of Article V and first principle popular sovereignty dynamism beyond any doubt, and with this work provides the evidentiary basis for the argument that logically destroys any shred of credibility in the historical underpinnings of the position of those who interpret the Constitution based on a static conception of the intent of the original framers.

3) Madison’s Ratification Deal Undermines the Theory of Original Intent

Madison indicates in Federalist #40 that the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution was essential to secure ratification by the anti-federalists.

“The states would never have appointed a convention with so much solemnity, nor described its objects with so much latitude, if some substantial reform had not been contemplated”.25

The signing statements of the “Massachusetts Compromise” and of other states ratifications, show that changing the Constitution of 1787 was a condition of their very ratification of it. The History of the founding shows that the deal to accept the Constitution was at the same time an agreement to change the Constitution.

Because they were the political minority and thus not in power, I contend that it was the anti-federalists concerns for their own personal freedom and rights that established the true level of what they thought constituted freedom. As they were the authorities of the states where they were from, they neither needed nor wanted civil liberties protection on the state level. But they did need protection from their political opponents, should the Federalists become authoritarian and oppressive once the constitution was ratified.

Acting in their own self-interests, the anti-federalists examined the guarantees in the main body of the Constitution, considered the future impact of the law on their own lives, and decided these guarantees weren’t enough. They needed to be guaranteed by those in power the rights of freedom of speech and of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom from the government establishment of religion, and guaranteed from those in power unjust persecution by due process protection. So they made a deal with the Federalists. They would agree to ratify the Constitution and come under the Federalists power- they would agree to be governed- if these freedoms were guaranteed in founding law. This was the source of the states ratification of the Constitution and the true historical moment of popular sovereignty for the Constitution, the true moment of the consent of the governed that provided legitimacy, and “just power”, to the 1787 Constitution.

The governing power didn’t really want to grant individual freedom and liberties, but to gain the consent of the governed it was forced to do so. This provides both the original and popular sovereignty model of free citizens for interpreting and considering their constitution. The anti-federalists didn’t merely listen and follow the arguments of those in power- the Federalists- they consulted English law, their own state constitutions, and the text of the main body of the Constitution set before them, and then determined how they wanted to be governed.

This interpretation of the main body of the Constitution by the anti-federalists was thus the original constitutional interpretation, not the one by Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, and the methods used by the Anti-federalists provide the model that should be followed to apply or change the Constitution. As indicated earlier, the deal to establish the Constitution was thus at the same time also a deal to amend the constitution. Through the dynamism and power of popular sovereignty in Article V, the anti-federalists changed the original intent of the Federalist framers, and brought the Constitution and their own civil rights to reality. Through their own concerns against the possible unjust suppression of the majority in power, and against what they wanted for their own people, the anti-federalists admitted the truth of what they considered the authentic level of freedom for themselves with the proposal of a bill of rights that limited the use of unjust Federal power against themselves.

The fact that the ratification of the constitution occurred out of compromise of the principles of the Federalist founders thus undermines the certainty of the Original intent of the framers argument for today’s static Originalists, because despite the intentions of the framers in the drafting of the 1787 original constitution, they changed this intent when they agreed to amend the constitution at a later date.

Raoul Berger’s- ‘The Transformation of the 14th Amendment’,26 provides the basis of the consistency argument for Originalism in the beginning of the book,

“the “original intention” of the Framers, here very plainly evidenced, is binding on the Court for the reason early stated by Madison: if “the sense in which the constitution was accepted and ratified by the Nation… be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable (government), more than for a faithful exercise of its powers”.27

Consistency in the application of law to achieve consistency, security, and stability in the exercise of Government thus forms the core of Berger’s jurisprudence in expounding the Constitution. But how can this type of consistency be rationalized by Berger, when the generation of the Constitution came not from the ideas of the 1787 Constitution, but from the compromise of the ratification agreement to amend? Wouldn’t this mean then that historically the democratic principle of compromise sits at the root of finding social balance and order in the drafting of and acceptance of the law?

Madison’s phrase that “The sense in which the constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation”, does not only refer to the authority of the framers in the generation of the draft, but refers also to the acceptance and ratification of the Constitution by the citizenry- i.e.- the “consent of the governed”. Berger’s own evidence for his rationale equally proves the opposite, and is textually a popular sovereignty argument that Berger somehow turns into evidence of authoritative generation. Berger here is either blind to, or chooses to ignore, the fundamental popular sovereignty element at the heart of the text of his own rationale. Berger’s need for consistency from a single source of authority overwhelms the public role of the participation of the public in the acceptance of the law. Once again Originalism misreads the evidence.

What this means, practically, is that Berger denies today’s citizens the right to give or deny consent with regard to how they are governed under the Constitution. In Berger’s reading, only the citizens at the time of ratification were autonomous and self-governing, only they were free. Today’s citizen for Berger has no role in determining whether a Constitutional application through Supreme Court Opinion is accepted or not. For Berger, Citizens are obligated to only follow, and to obey. For Berger there is only one moment of the “consent of the governed”- the 1787 ratification.

The Federalists consulted, drafted the main body without a bill of rights, received negative feedback, equivocated, and then through the principle of democratic popular sovereignty, compromised in a deal with anti-federalists. The history is hardly the certainty of Moses coming down from the mountain as God’s chosen messenger and proclaiming the law as given by God. The popular sovereignty democratic principle of compromise, historically has as much place at the table of original intent as the selected words of individuals dressed up in authority.

4) Textualism as Faithful Originalism

“Justice Story Said, “Every word in the Constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common-sense meaning, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify or enlarge it.”28

The opinion of the people; to deny or give the consent of the governed; with regard to an application of the constitution through a supreme court opinion, is clearly just such a context. Textualist jurisprudence, combined with a consideration of the measure of consent of the governed, is thus a truly conservative and cautious Constitutional jurisprudence, and a truly faithful Originalism. It applies the law through the text of the constitution in a plain reading of the words on the page. These words change only when the proper methods of proposing an amendment have been followed, when the proper methods of ratification have been completed, and when the public denies the consent of the governed. Then it is left to the justices of the Supreme Court to apply any direct changes from the amendment and any changes to other Constitutional provisions that the new amendment may effect.

An example of a jurisprudence that thus reflects the real belief of follower of faithful Originalism- progressive original intent- would be found in the jurisprudence of Justice Black. Black’s well known textualist application followed from the words on the page, and the significance for the application of law for individual rights fundamentally changed with Black’s faithful interpretation of the text of the 14th amendment. Black recognized the nature of the change by which the prism of the words of the 14th amendment affected provisions involving individual rights, and he faithfully applied the law through this new prism. Black thus followed the original intent of the framers of the 14th amendment, which through Article V followed the intention of the drafters of the bill of rights, which through Article V followed the intention of the original framers of the Constitution. And so our Constitutional law progressed, and so original intent progressed, through the lawful mechanism of dynamism indelibly inscribed in Article V.

What implications does this have for theories of incorporation of the 14th amendment? Through the force of authority of Article V, the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment, because they have been ratified by the people of the states and are thus law and must be applied, and with overwhelming public agreement, this collective authority deems that only a theory of total incorporation is truly valid.

Does this mean that the ‘selective incorporation’ advocated by Justice Brennan and the ‘refined incorporation’ advocated by Amar are wrong approaches? No. Contrary to their own pronouncements and attempts to distinguish themselves through definition, it is my opinion that both Brennan and Amar ARE in fact under the umbrella of ‘Total incorporation’. There’s no evidence in either of their theories that argues against the fundamental change that the text of the 14th amendment has on the Bill of rights and other individual Constitutional rights.

In fact, evidence exists for the opposite. Amar’s chapter- ‘Reconstructing Rights’ in his outstanding book ‘The Bill of Rights’,29 argues and details incorporation through a type of Total incorporation approach. It’s not that all the amendments ‘don’t incorporate’ it’s just that incorporation of the words of the text of the 14th amendment have no effect on Constitutional application for these amendments. Amar’s question – “whether a (right) is a personal privilege- that is- a right of individual citizens”, 30 announces a principle of examination for evaluating a provision. His question is a tool of interpretation and application that identifies the common characteristics of individual provisions of the Constitution that are affected in application by the words of the text of the 14th amendment. The fact that he applies this question to how the 14th amendment affects a provision evidences his adherence to attempt to apply the 14th amendment throughout the entire Constitution.

It is virtually the same with Brennan’s theory of ‘selective incorporation’, although his terminology of “fundamental provision”31 is on the face of it more vague than Amar’s examination principle of ‘refined incorporation’. In both cases Brennan and Amar deal with the specific application of the words of the text as they affect or do not affect application of all other provisions of the constitution. Their disagreements of application are thus within the rubric of the attempt of total incorporation. As Justice Brennan has written:

“The position of the states in Gideon illustrated that federalism is better served by incorporation of the guarantees of the Federal Bill than by a case-by-case assessment of the degree of protection afforded to particular rights”.32

All provisions of the Bill of Rights need not be affected equally by the 14th amendment, but the examination by the interpreter to determine if and how much they do- that is the mark of a follower of ‘Total Incorporation’.

‘Total incorporation’ thus looks to see if the text of a provision is affected by the text of the 14th amendment, and attempts to apply it. If a provision ‘incorporates or not’ is thus determined between the interchange in meaning in the relation of the words between the provision and the 14th amendment, as applied by the interpreter. Not looking to see if the text of the 14th amendment changes the application of the provision, based on the antiquated theory of static Originalism- this is the hallmark of the opponent of Incorporation. The interpreter who does this denies the validity of the 14th amendment, and thus denies the revolutionary dynamism inscribed in the Constitution in Article V and its implications for the concept of Original Intent. This interpreter thus flies directly into the face of the law and the framers. Brennan and Amar are not this kind of interpreter, and whether they thought so are not, are both much closer to Black’s Jurisprudence with regard to the application of the 14th amendment than either of them thought. ‘Selective incorporation’ and ‘refined incorporation’ are thus different types of applications under the umbrella of Total incorporation’ of the 14th amendment.

The textual reading of the 14th amendment by; Amar in Chapter 8 of ‘The Bill of Rights’;33 is defining for analysis to determine whether the 14th amendment intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights. From Amar’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s Opinion in Barron- “Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations in the powers of the state governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention.”34 - to the equivalences he demonstrates between the terms in the Bill of Rights “rights and freedoms”, and the terms “privileges and immunities” in the 14th amendment, to the inverted equivalence between the phrasing introducing both the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment, “Congress shall make no law..” and “No state shall abridge..”, this chapter is a defining textual reading and argument for the incorporation of the bill of Rights.

That Amar shows that Bingham drafted the amendment specifically with the intention to respond to and reverse the Barron opinion just adds further defeat to today’s static originalists that the 14th amendment was intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights.

“In reexamining that case of Barron, Mr. Speaker, after my struggle in the House in February 1866,…I noted and apprehended as I never did before, certain words in that opinion of Marshall. Referring to the first eight articles of amendments to the Constitution of the United State, the Chief Justice said: ‘Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention.' Acting upon this suggestion I did imitate the framers of the original Constitution…..imitating their example and imitating it to the letter”.35

5) From the sources of influence, through research, to the basis of a New Citizenship

I contend there are two sources that predominantly influenced Amar’s ‘Consent of the Governed’. The first is Bruce Ackerman’s characterization in his book ‘We the People’36 that the three most transformational constitutional changes in U.S. history were extra-constitutional. The second is Amar’s implicit admission that the equal rights amendment influenced his position of amendment outside of Article V, to the point that the self-evident truth that women are created equal, justifies its validity.

First, Ackerman’s central paragraph on constitutional change in his book “We the People”:

“Founding Federalists > Illegal Constitution; Reconstruction Republicans > formal Amendments; New Deal Democrats > Judicial Rediscovery of Ancient truths: this schema suggests a subtle but unmistakable decline in the constitutionally generative capacities of the American people. Apparently, we the People have never again engaged in the sweeping kind of critique and creation attempted by the Founding Federalists”.37

Next, from the last two paragraphs of ‘The Consent of the Governed’:

“Women today constitute a majority of both the Massachusetts and American polities. They are today governed under a federal Constitution largely the making of men who died long ago, men who may not have had their interest foremost in mind. If either the Massachusetts or American People is sovereign, women- in combination with like minded men- could by simple majority vote alter or abolish patriarchal rules in the federal Constitution… For me at least, one of the best reasons for embracing the “First Theorem” is the self-evident truth that women, too, are created equal”.38

Briefly, I contend that Ackerman’s characterization in ‘We the People’, that all three instances of revolutionary change in the history of the Constitution- the founding, the 14th amendment, and the new deal- are constitutional. The succession of the Southern states from the union provided a constitutionally valid supermajority of Republicans to fashion the conditions for the successionists’ re-inclusion into the political structure of the United States- it was therefore a legal supermajority within the authority of the Constitution, and thus a legal ratification of the 14th amendment. Roosevelt’s court packing, although unusual in U.S. history, is certainly within the Constitution. Only the ratification of the original constitution was revolutionary, but of necessity also just inside the legal frame of the constitution, and certainly within the spirit of the declaration, and should be considered a part of the original declaration of the founding of the nation that is the constitution. The ratification was in essence the declaration of the founding of the nation, and thus an integral part of the constitution. As I noted earlier, ratification comes first, then the preamble.

Second, it is my contention that Ackerman’s accurate depiction of the extraordinary nature of the three transformational Constitutional events and his conclusion from this that “we the People have never again engaged in the sweeping kind of critique and creation attempted by the Founding Federalists”, heavily influenced Amar’s thought concerning the chances of ordinary passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. This, combined with Amar’s willingness to wield his academic research and polemical sword in the name of a cause he believed in, led to the intellectual overreaching in his attempt to match the history of popular sovereignty with the possible validity of constitutional amendment outside Article V, and with this work provide the intellectual basis for Women to submit a popular sovereignty based Equal Rights Amendment, and then ratify it.

Even though the argument in “The Consent of the Governed..” is misdirected because of what Monaghan calls Amar’s “personal philosophy”,39 the research that came from it was impeccable, and forms the basis for the absolute destruction of the intellectual and historical foundations of static Originalism, and helps lead to the reformation of a more dynamic popular sovereignty Originalism that is faithful to the first principles of federalist self-government indicated in the Declaration of Independence and Federalist #22.

The new Faithful Originalism is formed from the call through the ages from the founders; in the Declaration of independence, through Article V and the first and 14th amendments; to today’s citizen-framers, to consider the history, consider the words of the Constitution, and consider how the application of Supreme Court Opinions and new laws affect both our freedom, and our social order. Then it is the responsibility of today’s citizen to grant or deny their consent, and to make this choice known to their elected representatives. From this call, Supreme Court Justices must consider this factor in the application of the constitution in all cases, if their decisions and opinions are to have “just power”.

The advent and development of communication and information technology provides today’s citizen new tools by which to easily obtain information on Constitutional issues as well as state and local government issues of all kinds. Citizens can then make their decisions, and register their agreements or disagreements more easily and accurately. It is therefore also the responsibility of the Courts as appointees who wish to be in league with the founders, and apply the law through opinions that have ‘just power’, to know and consider the status of the citizen’s consent with regard to a case. It also at the same time accentuates the active role of today’s citizen-framer, and makes the call from the framers a responsibility of the citizen to participate. It is a call to participate in the ongoing revolution of representative self-government.

George Washington said that:

“The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and alter their Constitution of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all”.40

Providing the opinion of the people, the consent of the governed, is just such an “explicit and authentic act”. This is the “New Citizenship” call of responsibility to any voter with access to phone, computer and internet service- to obtain information, educate themselves, and then march alongside the framers throughout and across history and raise their voices, and call and/or write letters to the editor and/or to their representatives. It is the citizen’s duty to vote and communicate their agreement or disagreement to their elected representatives, and to the Courts.

“(James) Wilson proclaimed the power of the people in the strongest of terms, “That the supreme power, therefore, should be vested in the people, is…the great panacea of human politics. It is a power paramount to every constitution, inalienable in its nature, indefinite in its extent. For I insist, if there are errors in government, the people have the right not only to correct and amend them, but likewise totally to change and reject its form..”41

In these ways citizens make known the consent of the governed in “specific and authentic acts of the whole people”. By doing this today’s citizens do their duty to provide government with the measure of the “original source of all authority” and “just power”, in and through each and every individual citizen’s denial or granting of consent.

Richard J. Luczak II

Notes

1. Akhil Reed Amar, The Consent of the Governed: Constitutional Amendment outside Article V, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 94, No. 2 (Mar., 1994), pp. 457-508.
2. Amar- pg. 457.
3. Amar- pg. 457.
4. Amar- pg. 459.
5. Amar- pg. 459.
6. The Declaration of Independence
7. Amar- pg. 459.
8. Article V, U.S. Const.
9. Article V, U.S. Const.
10. Henry Paul Monaghan, We the People(s), Original Understanding, and Constitutional Amendment, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 96, No. 1. (Jan., 1996), pp. 121-177.
11. Amar, pgs. 469-475.
12. Monaghan, pg. 125.
13. Monaghan, pg. 126.
14. Amar, pg. 470.
15. Monaghan, pg. 144.
16. Monaghan, pg. 197.
17. Federalist 22, The Federalist Papers,
18. The Declaration of Independence.
19. Milk Wagon Drivers Union of Chicago, Local 753 v. Meadowmoor, 312 U.S. 287 (1941)
20. Milk Wagon Drivers Union of Chicago.., Footnote 4.
21. Learned Hand, The Spirit of Liberty, National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys Website, http://www.criminaljustice.org/public.nsf/ENews/2002e67?opendocument
22. A. E. Dick Howard, Magna Carta: Text and Commentary, University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville and London, 1964
23. Article V, U.S. Const.
24. Amar, pgs. 457-498.
25. George Washington Williams, What, If Any, Limitations Are There Upon the Power to Amend the Constitution of the United States?, The Virginia Law Register, New Series, Vol. 6, No. 3. (Jul., 1920), pg. 168.
26. Raoul Berger- The Transformation of the 14th Amendment, Harvard University Press, 1977, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England
27. Berger, pg. 3.
28. William P. Potter, The Method of Amending the Federal Constitution, University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol. 57, No. 9, Volume 48 New Series. (Jun., 1909), pg. 590.
29. Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction, New Haven : Yale University Press, c1998.
30. Amar, The Bill of Rights…, pg. 221.
31. Amar, The Bill of Rights…, pg. 221.
32. William J. Brennan Jr., The Bill of Rights and the States: The Revival of State Constitutions As Guardians of Individual Rights, New York University Law Review, October 1986, pg. 543.
33. Amar, The Bill of Rights…, pgs. 163-180.
34. Barron v. The Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243
35. Amar, The Bill of Rights…, pgs. 164-165.
36. Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Cambridge, Mass. : Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1991.
37. Ackerman, pg 43.
38. Amar, The Consent.., pg. 508.
39. Monaghan, pg. 128.
40. Potter, pg. 593.
41. David Castro, A Constitutional Convention: Scouting Article Fives Undiscovered Country, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 134, No. 4 (Apr., 1986), pg. 956.

The Basis of the ‘Spirit of Liberty’ & It's Continuing Restoration

2007-08-20T20:08:00.000-05:00

Judge Learned Hand states in his famous speech `The Spirit of Liberty' :

"What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, nearly two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest".

What Judge Hand refers to in the first answer- that the "spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right"- is the very basis of the need for law, which is based in the fundamental character of the human condition, which is human fallibility. The human body of a single man is fallible, the power of a single man is fallible, and human judgment is fallible, and because of these basic human fallibilities there arises the need for community, for the help and power of others to protect us, and to join us and make us greater. There arises the need for community and the help and power of others to help us determine the truth.

By myself, I am weak, but with others together, there is a strength and power accessible to the individual that is non-existent for merely oneself. That strength is the pronouncement and enforcement of common imperatives derived from the common fallibilities, fears, and hopes that reside in each man, woman and child, and that allow us to be free. These common characteristics derived from the `sensus communis', the `common sense' we all possess, form the basis of a collective wisdom that dictates what is allowable and what is not in our common quest to be free from each other, while at the same time being free with each other.

The fallibility of judgment present in the spirit which is "not too sure", forms the basis of the necessity for a common objective process for determining whether someone has indeed violated one of the common strictures that construct our freedom. Since I am fallible, others are fallible by themselves as well, and with this basic distrust in the judgment of authority of a single man or woman, let us then put down a set of procedures to follow that we all agree upon that allow all of us to come to a more objective judgment that someone is guilty of violating a stricture.

This objective method, this `due process' is thus integral to the spirit of liberty, because it forms a more objective basis for judgment, a common judgment, where the truth of the facts, as WE discover them and as WE agree on them together, determine guilt in the matter separate from the authority and musings of one man or woman. So we rely on each other and our commonly derived process to come to this judgment of the violation of strictures we agree upon, and impose upon each other.

Because of these fallibilities we must seek to understand the minds of other men and women, which provide knowledge and wisdom other than our own, and because we live with others, liberty is found not only in the rebellious ability to act on one's own, for oneself, but is found within the order and freedom created from our common strictures. Freedom from oppression, freedom from want, freedom from violence, and in these ordered freedoms I am free from the tyrannies that would be imposed by others, and they are free from those that would be imposed by me.

Because of this common fallibility, this `common sense', we are like to each other, and in this common truth exists the basis for equality under the law- that we should weigh the interest of others alongside his own without bias, because the basis upon which we are free relies upon the common shared dignity of personhood, the truth of the facts of the case, and not the assertion of power of those in authority.

Both the `great' and the `least' share the quality of human fallibility, as all men share the traits of our common humanity. No man is superhuman, infallible, and thus above the rest, and so we should be heard the same, and judged the same, with regard to the truth of the facts, derived from our commonly derived process, our `due process', as equal under the law. Therefore there is no liberty by oneself, but only in the order among men, in and through community.

It is a liberty of order- an `ordered liberty' that balances individual freedoms with the freedom of the community. The spirit of such a liberty is thus never authoritarian, but democratic and thus autonomous, with a faith in the common goodness of other citizens and a faith in their voices to say the truth of the facts as they see it, about the law that we give to ourselves.

The 'Spirit which is not too sure that it is right'; based in our fallibility; also denotes that because we are fallible, the attempt to achieve the highest liberty for our society is an ongoing process of striving, or self-improvement. We must constantly strive to achieve greater liberty through our laws, and through our society, and thus continuously restore in law the spirit that resides in our hearts.

The spirit of liberty, as described so eloquently by Judge Hand, is thus found in the spirit of community, formed from the respect of others, from the Spirit that lies in the heart of each man, woman, and child, and created from the strength of our mutually fallible nature and our mutually empowering reliance on each other.

Productivity and the Defeat of the American Employee

2007-07-26T19:51:00.000-05:00

Productivity as a Relentless Attack on the Value of Labor

The standard economist explanation for the relative variation in the increase in income between the top 20% and the remaining 4 groups in the CBO report- "Income Changes in Low Income Households With Children"- from 1991-2005, is "that productivity gains throughout the years resulted from a fundamental reconfiguration of the american workplace and along with the strong economy of the mid 1990's allowed firms to capture increased profits." Let's look at "productivity".

Productivity expresses the relationship between a standard unit of economic output, and the input unit's or cost over a period of time needed to produce it. It often is expressed as labor productivity, which is measured by output over a year and the numbers needed to produce it. An employee can increase productivity by getting better at a job skill, which increases the number of units produced in the same time, detailed famously by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations- On the Division of Labor. He can use a tool which makes his work easier, again enabling him to produce more in the same time. An Owner can use a machine to replace human labor, making many more things in the same time. An owner can combine the use of machines and a more efficient process and skill, such as Henry Ford did with the advent of the assembly line. (now Michael Dell and Jeff Bezos). He can get a newer machine that outperforms the old one, and he can get others to do the same job for less. He can use a new mathematical formula to put more planes safely in the air, his research and development department can come up with better performing devices for the same or less cost, giving him market advantage.

Productivity, because it contains labor cost in the equation, is the mathematical formula that expresses a business owner's desire to pay less and less for labor. It expresses the business owner's fight against the value of labor as a principle, that business owners compete against their own labor (employees) whenever practical. Thomas Friedman states in "The World is Flat" that the driving force of globalization is that companies relentlessly pursue to cut costs- which sounds to me like a different sentence stating the same thing. (That's why there is a Giant hole in his argument in "The World Is Flat" concerning India and East Asian development from Globalization. It doesn´t matter one iota if the Indians at these jobs are trying to raise themselves and their salaries, because of the relentless pursuit to cut costs, corporate management will never allow the raising of salaries. "Love them and leave them later for something cheaper"- that's the globalization motto. Mexico IS the model for Globalization as Flint was the model for closing a factory in Michigan and moving one to Mexico.)

Let's look at 5 examples of "Productivity Gains" for American companies, managers and workers:

1) Firms achieved productivity by moving factories from the U.S. to countries like Mexico, Indonesia and elsewhere where they pay the workers much less, then brought the products back to the U.S.. This was done expressly to eliminate U.S. workers, pay the foreign workers much less, and keep the difference for their companies and their bonuses. So the company and it's owner- or owners- were in competition with the EMPLOYEES for payroll resources. This was seen as "Productivity Gains" and was the beginning of what we now know as Globalization.

2) The development of information technology as a tool for productivity began when the personal computer and software combined in the efficient generation and storage of documents. This mechanized the human intelligences of memory and organization, and went far beyond the human limits and accuracy of memory and human intelligence, because it was faster, always (for the most part) complete and accurate, contained far more information storage capacity than the human brain, and could be shared by others, rather than limited to the clerk's memory. So business owners used it as an extension of memory, the organization of files, the generation of documents, and the minimization of storage, all at the click of a mouse. The first productivity gains after some time came from the reduction in the number of people in the firm needed to maintain the firms files, and the increase in space that could be used for income producing activity. The owner fired the employee because he was in competition with the employee for payroll resources, and kept the difference for himself. The was also seen as "Productivity Gains".

3) Office software enabled the generation (by today's standards, of rudimentary spreadsheet reports) that could be done because it was so much faster to put them together, and businesses used these for crude analysis of business data. The development of the internet led to instantaneous transmission of information in the form of electronic files, that were delivered over phone lines. This enabled better inventory control, and the tracking of costs. These were also "Productivity Gains".

4) Once the "triple convergence" of the "ten flatteners" occurred, as depicted in Friedman's "The World is Flat", and firms discovered they had an opportunity once again to fire U.S. workers- they did. They gave these jobs to foreign workers in East Asia for a much lower amount, have them perform it there and transmit it over phone and data lines, and keep the money difference for themselves. They gave it the economic name- OUTSOURCING. Once again the owners were in competition with Employees for payroll resources.

5) Simultaneously, illegal immigrants from Mexico and other countries in Latin America, moved to the U.S. in huge numbers, and again American Workers were replaced, and illegal immigrants given jobs illegally (i.e. with NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW) at lower wages by business owners, who again kept the difference. This is allowed because once again owners are again in competition with employees for payroll resources.

The Defeat of Manager and Employee Intelligence, and the Devaluation of the American Worker- The Two Americas We Now Face
f)... One particular aspect of the development and utilization of information technology has been disastrous for the economic well being of almost all the ordinary employees and unit level to middle-managers of medium and large private companies in the United States. This was not planned by Microsoft or Intel, but was a product of the law of unintended consequences. Here is why. As stated earlier the development of the pc and office software mechanized and expanded functions of human intelligence- memory, organization, and intelligence and put these functions into a machine to be used at a business or home. Once the internet began to develop, business experts from various industries saw a huge niche Microsoft was not filling, which was to form companies to provide software, online, and on-location professional business management and organizational services to medium to large private local businesses for the owners and upper management. They wanted to systemize; or in some cases manage themselves; the operations of these businesses at a reasonable cost at the highest professional level in each industry. Information and expertise at the top level that was in the past only available to fortune 500 companies and their MBA's; or through business books; was now available as functions to medium to large business owners and upper management at the click of a mouse.

Systemization occurred at every level of operations, from human resource functions at the unit level employee handbooks detailing general company procedures, department handbooks that detailed job descriptions, and departmental procedures, to inventory control, operational opening, closing procedures checklists, sales process details, point of sale processes, payroll management, project management, to today's most up to date integrated customer relationship management (CRM) programs- which include automated time management schedules and contact letter generation. It brought ground level accountability and standardized manager and employee performance to the level of the operations director who could now monitor through detailed and accurate spreadsheets and reports- rather than through the conduit of the district manager or unit manager- the operations of the units. All the managers and employees had to do was to follow their operational check lists and practice, input the data, and execute.

What this industry expert utilization of the internet did, along with the advancements of the pc and office software, was to combine to bring the intelligence and organizational experience of industry leading experts, and make it a digital proprietary product and service the business could own and use. The expertise resided in the businesses ability to purchase, rather than in the skill and experience in the brain of a manager or employee that needed to develop, or had developed, over time. Few of the old employees had skills, knowledge, and experience comparable with these professionals, and so most business ideas provided by these employees to upper management and ownership were then seen as antiquated and amateurish to the skill, knowledge and organization provided by the experts. These educated and accomplished experts were competing nationally for the Business's account and dollars by competing against The Business' mangers AND employees locally. It was Ivy League, Big Ten, and Fortune 500, with years of trained experience, against local high school graduates and others with some college.

So what this accomplished was to greatly diminish or abolish; in the eyes of upper management and ownership of the firm, in comparison to the experts; any level and appearance of usefull intelligence that could be provided by the employee to the operation and success of the firm, other than simple execution of checklists. It therefore greatly diminished the relative value of the labor skill of the employee to the firm, as a much greater level and extent of expertise now was proprietary to the company, and in the control of upper management and ownership. Employees are now seen as less intelligent, and less valuable to the strategic and day to day operation of the business than they were before, as all knowledge, experience, and expertise can easily be passed on to new employees through electronic files, or through retraining sessions provided by the providers of the service. That is why companies justify the restriction of the growth of- and incrementally cut pay plans, salaries, and what hourly wages they could. I heard one implementation consultant "joke" once to another manager, "you know the 'KISS' method, keep-it-simple-stupid, well you're the stupid part of it." It makes every business an automated factory. Owners and upper management used these services and information, not only to compete against their market competitors, but once again to compete against their employees for payroll resources and to devalue employed labor. This is a never discussed component of the true meaning of the phrase used by Economists- "Fundamental reconfiguration of the American Workplace". It wasn't just a reconfiguration of the machines we use and how we use them, and the reconfiguration of business supplier relationships, but also a fundamental expansion for owners of the access to, and management of, the knowledge and execution of workplace tasks. As a result of more knowledge and control in owners hands, this made obselete, in the minds of owners, the value of intelligent contribution that could be provided by the employee to the success of the business.

This is the reason that Wal-Mart pays so little, because all functions are seen as rote functions, and not the product of an intelligent contribution- at least not in comparison to that of upper management and ownership. Employed Labor is seen as limited to the rote execution of the function of proprietary assests of intelligence owned by the company. This is why businesses all over the country feel justified in cutting the payment of health insurance and 401k's for employees.

This has happened and has been happening to employees and management in most all retail businesses, including restaurants, car dealerships, real estate agencies, and even to doctors. Insurance companies were able to build computer models from the data derived from the exam of the doctor, that restrict payment of care based on the information provided. Insurance companies in effect used information technology to become medical experts and decision makers in order to control what care the patient is to receive. This for them makes family practicioners more like survey takers of the initial information, than primary care givers, and this is why Doctor's salaries have been under attack and diminishing, because medical expertise is no longer proprietary to Doctors. This is what is called a "Productivity Gain".

It means nothing to them that actual excellence in execution by managers and employees takes skill, talent, intelligence, and creativity, because the information on how to perform the job for the owner is proprietary, they own it and do not depend on the manager and employee. The manager and employee are not seen as thinkers or planners, but are seen as blind followers that merely execute.

This diminishment and defeat of the intelligence of the American Worker is what provided the stage for Globalization. It wasn't just the technology, but also the justification by owners and upper management, that unit level managers and employees are less intelligent, much less valuable, and thus replaceable, and that their contribution doesn't deserve decent income, health benefits or retirement benefits.

This is the Two Americas We Now Face, one separate and above, and one for the rest.

Mission Statement

2007-07-26T19:17:00.000-05:00

"The New Citzenship" is a blog that explores Citizenship Issues Pertinent to American Life- topics which range from Economics, to Politics, Foreign Policy, Democracy and Philosophy. The goal of this Blog is to add to the public debate that advances the promise provided by the Freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution.