What is this Blog About?
This question has become quite pressing, because I believe that I have not invested the proper time and resources into creating meaningful and informative blog posts. The original purpose of this blog was the disseminating of a wide array of knowledge and wisdom through the mediums of philosophy, politics, and sociology. However, this is narrow in its scope, because the boundaries should be placed at their furthest extremity, opening the realm of analysis and critique to an arsenal of tools from which to dissect reality with.
Therefore, it is right to insert physics into a discussion of organisation, if only for the purpose of putting out a perspective that alters the norm to allow for an expansion of ideas. How could anyone attempt at understanding the complexities of the spontaneous organisation of fireflies in a perfectly synchronized light show without applied mathematics set up in a non-linear graph? The explanation would be a grotesque qualitative assessment without the quantitative answers offered through physics in the form of equations and graphs.
Although, the reverse is also true, that the quantitative analysis allows access to a coherent amount of data, but the theory that actually explains the reasons, purpose and effect, is qualitative. So, it becomes a fusion of two dichtomous opposites that allows for an assessment that presents a totality of the situation. Furthermore, this goal of fusion becomes the purpose of this blog, from rationalism vs. empiricism to nature vs. nurture, in order to attempt at giving holistic representations of all situations.
A more thorough example would be a discussion of objective reason and subjective reason. These two are seen as sometimes polemicized opposites, that you can not have an objectively stated goal and also have a relativistic or pragmatic view of reason. The clash comes from the strict parameters that are presented in philosophy, which are unreasonable parameters from the standpoint that people are amorphous, autonomous individuals. Everyone can not have the same objective ideal of morality, and it is especially true that subjectively people interpret situations differently.
Now, even the subjectivity of the individual in each situation is overcast by the finite rules that all humans are bound by, that which dictates our interactive capabilities. This Humboldtian view, allows for the existence of a hazy objectively human ideal system, that can be utilized subjectively in the day to day practices of life. Instead of corrupting it by delineating strict parameters which would suffocate the system, it allows for merely finite amorphous rules to dictate the infinite means of which it can be utilized for.
These dualist relationships sprout up incessantly throughout the world, things seem to always contain their negation and positive assertion. With the stated goal of uniting the polar opposites, the integration of subjective and objective, and the founding of the amorphous, autonomous individual, what is the political stance that represents this fusion and broader perspective? Or would that itself being setting to stringent of standards? It would depend on the interpretation of the political stance, in this instance Libertarian Socialism (Anarchism), as capable or incapable of being amorphous and allowing for the autonomy of the individual to reason without coercive external forces.
That would be seen as a beginning to the fusion of these ideas, the intergration and interaction of oppossing forces, not as contradictions or as mutually exclusive, but as an equalizing opposition to maintain equilibrium of the society and individual. From the dialectical standpoint, it reverses the supposition of how things oppose from exclusion to inclusion. Stealing from physics and complexity theory the idea of cascading barriers, showing that ideas/people/science integrates as it sees cooperation of opposing forces as a more rational form of progress, rather than the competition which continously produces similar results as it cascades towards cooperation.
The blog is then about inclusion, fusion, and cooperation. From the interaction of multiple ideas comes the ability to decipher the underlying codes that hide on the tips of tongues and in the back of minds. That from the extremities one can reach the central point of balance between liberty and justifiable authority, between welfare and personal responsbility. From broadening the perspective, to the inclusion of mutually exclusive ideas into a group, and furthering the goal of cooperation, one can formulate a more amorphous and autonomous view of human nature.
Minimal Level
The point of a minimal moral level is so one does not incessantly strive for an idealized maximum, but the practical application allowing for the best results in action of daily life. From that minimal level one should be able to distinguish readily the correct course of action needed in different situations, allowing for subjective reasoning based upon an objective ideal.
When there is a connection of the subjective and objective, there can be reason and rationality. Either one on their own develops its own set of problems. Reasoning all the time will disallow any action, and rationalizing all the time would allow for grotesque action. Therefore, it becomes a symbiotic union, a shared reaction that produces the desired results of morality and efficiency.
The minimal level of morality is the Golden Rule, which is best said in its negative form.
“Do not do to others, that which you would not have done to yourself.”
It is reasonable, because it matches an objective ideal of freedom, because it is equitable and just to at in accordance what the self wants. It is rational, because it would not take long to understand what one’s own reaction in a situation of the same circumstances would be. Therefore, it has form and amorphous attributes, being neither an absolute nor a relative, but ambiguous.
With this form of thinking, rather than the exaggerated over-idealized beliefs of perfection, one can create a solid character. One without deficiencies in the moral or ethical realm, and also without deficiencies in the realm of action. It is the cooperation of the duality that leads to the best results, not the separation of.
One of The Marxist Problems’
During my recent reading of Jacques Rancieres, The Philosopher and His Poor, I began to take note of a reoccuring issue within the Marxist revolutionary praxis. It begins with Marx’s reversal of the Hegelian dialectic, where the idea no longer existed in a ‘realm’, but was present within the construction of the material world. This is the Hegel-Feurerbach-Marx line of dialectical materialism, which evolved from the Ideal to the Practical.
However, the issue arises in dialectics, that everything is dichotomous (duality) which aids in the materialist perspective, by separating the imitation from the real. This then leads it to leave the realm of the real, especially when talking of the proletariat. The proletariat itself becomes an ideal, a worker that is a philosopher, philosopher-worker.
This is definitively against Plato’s Lie (Ch. 1-2), that division of labor which supposedly allows the:
comparison of practices… intended to mark the incomparable character of natures -
Jacques Ranciere, The Philosopher and His Poor, pg. 16
This is where I do not see the clear break which is needed from this belief in fated ability and constructed ability. Marx, by creating a new group, the “Proletariat”, created an idealized hybrid that did not exist within the material world. Therefore, it substantiated the radical who was willing to leave the shop and propagate the communist message (ibid, pg. 83-84), and no longer work on the trade which was needed for the community.
It becomes then a contradiction, that to free themselves from their chains, the workers need to understand the social interactions around them, but at the same time have no time to study it. However, this could be an overcomplication by the Philosopher and Sociologist, who would then be sophists. Sophists for not recognizing the amorphous character of a human, and the plasticity of the brain.
The amorphous character is expressed well by the argument put forth by Socrates in Meno. This is called the ‘slave-boy’ argument (Meno, pg. 15-21), and shows the ability of a human to know based upon reflection. The mere act of searching and investigating produces the ability to understand, because in order to interact properly the skills needed must be normative, not extraordinary.
The ideal then can exist as an innate pattern within humans as to what they affirm as the correct perceptions of reality. This keeps it in reality and also remedies the issues of sophism, because it does not need to be learned externally. The proletariat does not exist, but rather the people who become enlightened through a critical self-reflection of reality.
Therefore, we can exit from the parameters set by Jacques Ranciere, in that they are set up by parameters that delineate a ‘true’ division of labor, which exists only as an individual is constructed socially. This means it exists only as the result of human interaction and existence. Marx, by creating an idealized ‘worker’, at the same time destroyed the idea of the individual, classifying those wanting for freedom as a supposed non-class of proletarians. This is, I think a fatal flaw.
Yemen
The drum beating is extremely strong from all sectors of the media and political hierarchy about Yemen becoming the new center of Al Qaeda:
Wall Street Journal : Al Qaeda’s Clear Message
NY Times: Obama Seeks to Assure Nation after Bomb Attempt
Council on Foreign Relations: Fraying Yemen’s Terroism Problem
What if any does the nation-state of Yemen have to do with terrorism, nothing, but the population does have separatists movements in the south. Any country can harbor and train a multitude of extremists, and by acting as if they have some sort of base, it makes them seem stronger than they are. It does allow us the cover to aid in crushing a separatist movement in an area where we fund brutal despots (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen).
The American public thinks that terrorists are capable of actual damage to the U.S., comparable to what damage we have caused in Iraq and Afghanistan. Except these people who we are supposedly at war with (does not follow any definition of real war) do not own tomahawk missles, F-16′s, or drones. They can barely build a bomb correctly, yet we are wasting billions (some would say a trillion dollars) trying to snuff them out.
Can we all just take a step back and admit to ourselves this is all about power. Power has to project itself, it has to seem dominant or it does not feel powerful. We ransacked and pillaged the middle east and central asia projecting our power, and these were the repurcussions. That these miniscule in scale attacks (World Trade Center= roughly 3,000 deaths; War in Iraq= over 300,000 deaths, some reports put it over 1,000,000 deaths many are civilians) show just who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed, because in reality we are the ones that kill, maim, and destroy in such a technological fashion that we accomplish what the terrorists are incapable of doing attempting to fight back.
One guy on a plane who can barely blow up a home-made make-shift bomb is considered a threat. Are we just ignorant, or blind, maybe dumb? Instead of evaluating our actions, we continuously use this us and them dichotomy from hell. This, they are the ‘other’, they hate us because of our freedom bollocks charade. Grow-up, if your dumb enough to believe that, then your dumb enough to believe that we are fighting a war on terror. We are controlling geopolitical interests in order to remain in dominant standing in the world.
We destroyed the economy for war and fake money, and we seem to be continuing down that same line of thinking. Until Americans grow the hell up and start acting like reasonable adults examining all the facts and being critical, we can just watch the slow demise of what was once a great civilization.
A Speech and Song
Some moments just touch us deep within, and draw out those emotions which infuse us with a stronger resolve to be idealistic, to dream of utopia. When that enlightenment, that revelation occurs the world stops for a moment and a spark ignites inside which carries us with a brilliant fervor. These moments can be speeches, dances, simple experiences of daily life, but on this occasion it was the depth of struggle hidden within the voice of an aboriginal baritone, Kutcha Edwards.
I was attending the City of Sydney Peace Prize Lecture given by an excellent journalist, John Pilger, a ‘Bondi boy’, a Sydney-sider. Funny to, because a year ago I had sat on a panel with other students and been allowed the opportunity to present one question to John, and that was one of the most nervous moments in my life. Now on the other side of Earth, I once again had the privilege to hear truth being spoke to power and feel the solidarity of my fellows in the struggle.
Throughout the lecture, one myth after another was relegated to the trash where it belonged permanently. Inside I knew that only in my mind was that myth annihilated, but wished it would spread slowly to all. The only way it would spread so far and wide would be if each of us went out and spoke out, utilized those unalienable rights for the correct purpose.
As the night moved along from point to point and the crowd roared and clapped, nothing was as uplifting as that song. It is not money the fight is for, it is not power, but the beauty of human creativity and artistic expression. The piano began, every person leaned forward, and the first line came out, “ I was born by the river, in a little tent – O, and just like the river, I’ve been running ever since.” Goosebumps rose upon my arms, my heart stopped, and in the next second I felt the euphoric sense of wonder. You could see John standing off to the side in the darkness with the same feelings as the audience, everyone was imbued with that fire in the soul. Then came the most powerful words of the song, the chorus of truth and hope, “ A change gon’ come.”
For in those simple lyrics is the message, the idea, the hope, the light, the truth, and the struggle. When Kutcha finished, not a soul in the Opera House was untouched, for all felt that struggle and knew that one day something will be done. As I walked out and away from the Opera House towards Circular Quay, me and my mate chanted,
“ ¡ El Pueblo Unido Jamas Sera Vencido!”
Iran and War
It is a wonder to me that even Fox News recognizes opposition movements within Iran (Protests Breakout at Funeral for Iranian Cleric), yet will also talk of the need to remove Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Ayatollah Khomeini. If an attack happens against Iran, the outcome will be twofold, with the government no longer negotiating diplomatically, and also brutal repression of the opposition movement when the government feels surrounded.
The fact of the matter is, that as long as Iran develops nuclear energy and is not acquisiencing to U.S. demands, the U.S. will continue to propagandize against the regime in power in Iran. A rather telling article by John Pilger, shows just how far governments in the U.S. and EU will push the debate irregardless of any facts. The point is to constantly have an enemy, to always have someone who is going to “attack”, therefore the citizens beg for security. However, the famous quote by Benjamin Franklin should be the standard instead:
”Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.” -Benjamin Franklin
And yet, counter to that very important philosophical statement, we have done both for the better half of this century. This is exactly why Iran is a dilemma, because from 1953-1979, the U.S. had instilled a despot known as the “Shah”. The brutal dictator imprisoned, tortured, and executed a multitude of Iranian citizens during his horrific reign, and it was during this time when we were developing Iranian nuclear capabilities. As Chomsky noted, it all had to do with if they were allied to us or not, and this depended on how much they would allow us to exploit their resources (Iran is Pressured because of its Independent Stance).
If America truly believed in its own ideals, and wanted them to not just be ideological falsehoods, it would respect the self-determination of the opposition. If that opposition needs assistance, it should be given on their terms, in order for them to flourish. Instead, we will most likely allow Israel to bomb them at some point, destroying the opposition, and solidifying the repressive regime.
The Cycle
As a person matures it is natural to internalize the world external to them in order to interact and operate with that reality. When the person internalizes, they alter that external reality in a minimal or maximal way and then reproduce it.
Internalization/Externalization Process
That alteration is during the reflexivity period, when the person thinks and acts upon the internalized idea. This is a very important part of the process of developing the individual self, because this is where limited free will becomes the decision maker. Based upon the assumptions one has about reality, one can reflect and alter the internalized role.
Ex. 1: Individual A watches a commercial showing a person driving a BMW, living a luxurious life. The point of the commercial is to connect the BMW to the luxurious lifestyle. Now, Individual A has the choice to accept this assumption, to alter it, or to disassociate with this assumption. That becomes the reflexive moment.
This leads into what should be considered the Cartesian method of epistemology. The most reflexive individual will be one who doubts all that is not clear and evident. That is the beginning of critical thinking, because one can deconstruct and then reconstruct based upon the assumptions that individual holds about society.
So, the point becomes a balancing of the individual and society, based in the individual itself, who has the ability to make decisions. Now, this can be argued, because the dominant mode of interaction is dependent upon the authority within each society. Reflexivity then becomes an embattled position against the coercive forces of society, whichever may be the the dominant authority.
Now, what is being theorized as the brains ability to change its assumptions about society is Bayes Theorem. Basically, you have an input-output system that rates information subconciously, where the rating becomes the percentage change to the assumptions utilized for interaction. The formula visualized is this:
Bayes Theorem
A is the prior assumption, B the new information, and P is how much impact it will change the prior assumptions.
This fits into the cycle, as it sits within the context of the individual making the decisions from information gathered outside the individuals own mind. Bayes Theorem becomes a social mechanism which develops the habitus of the individual.
Habitus is then the conditioning of the individual within in a distinct society/culture/subculture, which are the regulations of action in those situations. So, there will be dominant modes of interaction, however this all leads to that main compotent, reflexivity, which is the moment of determining one’s personal construction. How dominant the internalization of the external stimuli, depends on the individuals ability to critically reason and create a habitus that is seen as moral and manageable.
Progress and Existence
Humanity, in the last three decades began to assess it’s impact upon Earth from the actions undertook during the industrial era. When this happened, a plan began to materialize with wide usage of the word sustainability. The word held almost all the correct connotations, representing neither extreme nor unrealistic goals. However, it did not take into account that the word did not hold a connotation that as well as representing the median, also humbled the materialistic aspirations of capitalist societies. Therefore it acquired function as a political tool in order to delay what should have been the key point in the discussion, responsibility.
When a species exists in such an abundance defying all geological and climatological boundaries, and therefore impacts a greater portion of a biosphere it has a duty to do so properly. It does not reserve the right to externalize to any other outside authority in order to avoid it’s responsibilty to every other species. However, many people on Earth agree with that proposition and want solutions, because they recognize that the situation involves moral questions. The travesty is that instead of action, the people get rhetoric, instead of realilty, we all got a theatrical show, and not a single one of those countries, with actual powers, ambassadors batted an eye from their place of authority.
The following leads to the term called ‘progress’, which is what all these economically successful Western Civilizations and whatever lackey despots they have installed and pay for with the money that is socially paid for by the citizens for social development, say to justify the stagnation that occurs over their moderating and administrating these global affairs. What does that word ‘progress’ actually mean to the 2 billion people who merely subsists and lead nothing close to what we would call human lives? It would be much more moral and just, for theirs would be of survival and happiness. What is ours but the progress of conquering, whether if it is of countries, land, space, or physics?
When that assessment began of humanities impact on Earth, why didn’t anyone in the MSM ever ask to the public if all these global issues of poverty, starvation, sea levels, wars, drought, torture, and all the other ills currently going on could be the result of this pillage mentality maintained in the institutions that were constructed. Why didn’t they start talking about justice, truth, and other ideals when this was happening? Tell me, at what point does authority have to justify the philosophical assumptions it is operating with to the public?
Shouldn’t these major portions of administration also be open to debate and vote. If industry and agribusiness are over-polluting and over-consuming, then they should have to shut down and create a viable solution. The reality of their legal construction is to be absolutely contrary to any moral standard, and utilize a secondary metaphysical vice, greed, instead as the motivator for action. These monopoloistic, over-subsidized, and autocratic monstrosities are what have been considered ‘progress’.
If a society wished to reconstruct the term ‘progress’ and then accept a definition of existence that followed that goal, it would need to do so through participation of the people. The people who would be needed to participate the most would be the citizens of the most dominant nation-states. It is a matter of recognizing that these last 30 years saw a shift of focus from the moral dilemmas of humanities intraaction to the interaction of humanity with the biosphere. They forgot to remember that it is our intraaction that creates our interaction. When that happened, government was externalized (privatized) and the people became disillusioned with a convenient cause.
So, responsibility has become extremely important and that is all levels: personal, community, international, and authority. With a development of that we can follow to proper progress and whatever the people term as existence, however varied it may be. If the people decide to recognize their own individual exististence and the power in their numbers, then they can actualize their common goal.
Progress and Existence with Responsible Sustainability.
Obama and Health Care
The inauguration of President Obama happened about 11 months ago now, and still the healthcare debate continues; without a decision being made in the near future either. This is a travesty, because I went and looked at the Pew Research Center polls and the most important topic was Healthcare to the average American taxpayer, but over the past 4 months typically above 60% of Americans thought the debate was hard to understand.
Well, why would it be considered hard to understand, because when you go to the White House website and investigate the information they are providing, a child could utilize it. That in effect is the failure of the White House, the belittling aspect, the way in which it states over and over again the President’s plan, and disregards the actual process of creating legislation. It does not show you statistics, or the way in which the plan will operate, only rhetoric to market a plan.
Where is the cost-benefit analysis of Universal Healthcare, Public-option, or what it would take to expand medicare and medicaid? Where is the graphs that show the price of private insurance without a low-cost public competitor and projected cost if a low-cost public competitor enters the market?
Now, if you search around you will encounter statistics on the Congressional Budget Office website about Healthcare. You will find the statistics where instead of doing these forms of cost-benefit analysis, they instead studied the ways in which fining people for not having healthcare could aid in dealing with the deficit. That is a minimal view of the numbers, but in the realm of what is needed, the statistics act in such a manner. The statistics also show that Healthcare would not go from 128 billion (2010) to the cost of 1.8 trillion dollars (2019) as talked about by the CATO institute, and if it did, maybe it would be time to stop killing people abroad and saving people here.
It follows that health care costs in this country are ridiculous, and fault has also been placed at the rise in malpractice suits, and malpractice insurance. Yet, that is a minor portion compared to the costs of the monopoly private health insurers hold on the market in the USA.
We should ask then for our taxpayer money to go towards real explanations of the healthcare debate. That if we can spend money on the Senators and Representatives to exist, then we can provide a website that provides the correct information and not THE PRESIDENT’S PLAN does this. That is entirely to religious in its connotations for the american public.
Sheep Amongst Wolves
In these days and times
With the circumnavigation
By proponents of legislation
And Charity a Rarity
Driven by self-interest
Rather than mutual companionship
And isn’t this surreal
Fake alleviations
For masses told
That they should be saved
By a wolf imitator
Not a savior
So along these lines
They try to climb
From the abyss
Of this existence
Given to them
By the predators
In their Midst
