This appears to be an important post for you, Rono, a post simply quoting Kate. Care to explain why it's important to you?

I must say, your fascination with it is strange.

I notice you have deleted it from page one, and placed it here so it will cover my last post, and lo, and behold!, that makes it the lead post on this page instead of mine! Aren't you the clever one, though.


You realize what a metaphor is, don't you Ronald? I've done my best to explain it to you before. It's about a patterns, how patterns can be used to fit other patterns, or to frame ideas.

On a couple of occasions, now, you've indicated you thought this gerbil metaphor we've been playing with fits you. If it does, then I guess it does. It's up to you. No one can make you wear it. You have to put it on all by yourself.

This thread is about how patterns are used to program people and get them to put certain thoughts on certain other kinds of thoughts. That seems to me what Kate is talking about here. Thought patterns and how they are employed.

Gerbil see. Gerbil do. link

quote:

Originally posted by Kerry:
I think we all have a little 'trickster' element in us--and all of us should become aware of how 'tricksterism' works--but I believe the one profession that depends upon 'tricksterism' more than any other is lawyers.

Once several years ago, in a malpractice case against me, I was with the insurance company lawyer discussing the case (which was rather useless to discuss--because the lawyer was working at it for the terms of 'dollars and cents' and I thought I was working from it in the angle of 'what really happens') and I noticed on the wall that this particular lawyer had graduated from Baylor. Sizing him up that he was 'of the faith', I asked him if he wanted to read some verses from the New Testament with me. He readily said, 'Why, of course'--and he got out his Bible. I cited two verses in Luke, chapter 11, verses 46 and 52, which I think represent Jesus' condemnation on how lawyers use 'tricksterism' to their advantage (NIV versions below, respectively):

quote:

Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.--verse 46

"Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."--verse 52

The insurance company settled the case out of court--but, for this little bit, the lawyer did not know what to say--and added, 'That's interesting, I'll have to study it....'

I loved it!..........sort of a 'trickster to the tricksters', but, sometimes, that's all you have.....

Ahhh. I see.

quote:

Well, just look at what law is about. It's essentially about the attempt to take what we recognize intuitively, feel, or otherwise see as the a form of "truth" of how to treat our fellow human beings, and turning it into a code, with then the corresponding problem of interpretation, back and forth. Where better than in that transference of meanings for the trickster to ply his transformative wiles?--ren

Yes, but are we to approach this 'code' as a mandate--or suggestion? As people around here know me saying, if you don't trust the people that directly do the things, then, by exactly the same token, how do you know you can trust the people that oversee the people that actually do the things? It may just be adding another layer of bureaucracy without, in any way, delineating any more assured 'truth' out of any issue.

There's a statement from Clarence Darrow (of the Scopes Monkey Trial fame) about his own perspective of his profession as a lawyer in Ray Ginger's historical novel, Altgeld's America--The Lincoln Ideal Versus Changing Realities. That novel depicts the how the onset of the Industrial Revolution altered the perspective of the role of government in a democratic society from the 'ideal' of laissez faire that the agrarian early America espoused to a more 'interactive role' with the onset of industrial consolidation and resultant class stratifications and struggles. The book is mostly taking place in the city of Chicago where, in the latter half of the 19th century, the city grew from a moderate village of thousands to a major metropolis of millions by 1900.

Clarence Darrow was a prominent lawyer at the time who publicly stood for 'social causes'--but professionally and privately helped entities like cable car companies secure lucrative contracts with Chicago's city council. Many people wondered how he could do both--profess being for the poor while taking money from the rich for their own benefit. Clarence Darrow oftentimes ignored the requests to clarify his stand in this matter--however, to one of the women who had established Hull House in Chicago (a privately supported half-way house for the down and out of the city), Mr. Darrow gave a more complete explanation to her--the content and context of which seems to be lacking in today's 'corporate-government' collusions, I'm afraid. I'll copy the response from the book (starting on page 262):

quote:

Actually in his (Clarence Darrow's) memorial address to Altgeld (governor of Illinois at the time) he referred to his own inconsistency. Every man, he said, is rent by a perpetual struggle between his conscience and his desire for prestige and comfort. "A typical politician puts his conscience entirely aside and considers only the conduct which will serve his selfish end. The devoted fanatical zealot, who sees nothing but his duty to his fellow men, wholly forgets himself and lives only for the principles and convictions that take possession of his life...Probably no great statesman ever lived who was wholly true." But many of Darrow's acquaintances were not satisfied with such a general statement. Most of the queries he ignored. But he did not ignore Ellen Gates Starr, Jane Addam's most intimate associate since the founding of Hull-House, when she asked why he had taken the job of getting favorable amendments to the franchise of a street-car company.

I did it, said Darrow, for the money they paid me. He wrote to Ellen Starr that, judged by "the ordinary commercial and legal standards of ethics," he had been right to represent the street-car company. But "judged by the higher law, in which we both believe, I am practically a thief," he admitted. "I am taking money that I did not earn, which comes to me from men who did not earn it, but who get it because they have a chance to get it. I take it without performing any useful service to the world, and I take a thousand times as much as my services are worth even assuming they are useful and honest."

Years earlier, Darrow explained, he had discussed these matters with a friend named Swift, whose father owned a drug store. When the father died, Swift took all the patent medicines out in the yard and broke the bottles. He renounced his inheritance, left town penniless, lived strictly by his own code. During the 1893 depression, he raised a Coxey's army and marched to Washington. Swift, wrote Darrow, was a man who "has perhaps done some good in his way by refusing to compromise with evil." But was there some other way to do good? Was it essential that a good man should wear a hair shirt?

Darrow chose another way, deliberately. "I came to Chicago," he wrote. "I determined to take my chances with the rest, to get what I could out of the system and use it to destroy the system. I came without friends or money. Society provides no fund out of which such people can live while preaching heresy. It compels us to get our living out of society as it is or die." He explained that, if he were to refuse the business of tarnished clients, he would be prompted not by principle but by fear of public reproach. He cared very much what his friends thought of him, but he would not let it influence his actions. The vital thing, he emphasized, was not to allow professional interests "to influence me as a citizen to the support of measures in which I do not believe...."

In short, he would continue to represent the street-car companies or anybody else, for a fee; at the same time he thought street-car lines should be owned and operated by the city of Chicago. This sort of compromise, he thought, was forced on the honest man at a time when "society was organized injustice." The country, wrote Darrow, was ruled by business, and "business is legal fraud." There were only two classes: "the despoiler adn the despoiled." The only place to get money was from the despoilers; the despoiled had none.

It doesn't seem such candor is so forthcoming in today's rather 'hypocritical environment' (even as, in some ways, Darrow, himself, was a hypocrite--at least he compensated for those actions with some 'honest thought'--which I don't see happening nowadays--especially in 'the professions'....).

quote:

Yes, but are we to approach this 'code' as a mandate--or suggestion?

Are you asking that of someone who thinks for herself? Or someone who wants to conform to the group and is willing to accept the code as mandate? What I'm inclined to ask is "to whom do "we" appeal your question of "are we to"?" I'll work out my answer to that below:

The question I was raising was in the realm of convincing someone who thinks for themselves, always, then by that process questions the code, and wonders whether the code is appropriate for a given circumstance, and whether it appropriately follows a specific meaning and comprehensible course. It's in that process that I see the possibility for persuasion, and those who have the best skill with using the blurred edges of the conceptual categorizes to raise doubts about the specifics of the meanings have an edge in that game of persuasion.

Hypocrisy is not possible without some defined sense of value and truth applied to the definitional meanings of concepts, and then note that definitions are subject to vagaries around the edges, vagaries that often imply a need for clarification by general group agreement on the precision of meaning. Those vagaries in definitional precisions lead to misinterpretations, and then the possibility of a charge of hypocrisy might arise if a certain lack of continuity may be spotted because someone has deviated from the meanings of a series of conceptual notions in some way. Another familiar term used in debates to substitute for the more blunt term: "liar," is to suggest that someone is being "intellectually dishonest" with their use of the defined concepts and their explained position about them in a given argument.

In the end we have the freedom to recognize we are ultimately stuck with thinking for ourselves, whether we want to give our rational efforts over to someone else and trust theirs, or perhaps use their points expediently for other personal motives, even though we may not agree, or however otherwise we may choose about that which we perceive of others and what they have to say; if conscious, it seems to me that we can't help but make that choice, even to choose non-choice for ourselves is choice. In that sense there is no "mandate" but each individual agrees to the codes of a group, even if the alternative to agreeing might lead to incredibly unpleasant repercussions. For me, that brings up the issues of hierarchy and authoritarianism, and the intricacies of social beings and their perceived roles.

quote:

Yes, but are we to approach this 'code' as a mandate--or suggestion?--me

....What I'm inclined to ask is "to whom do "we" appeal your question of "are we to"?"...ren

I think, in the manner that Clarence Darrow is 'setting up the prospects of society and business', this issue has many factors in it that aren't just 'each person deciding as an individual'--and that's where the elements that lend itself to hypocritical actions and social dysjunctions lie.

While what I see as the American founding fathers attempting to do with democratic government was to try to make it more amenable to allowing the parameters of government to endorse 'individual judgment and responsibility' vis-a-vis 'individual rights' (and government's emphasis in 'supporting such rights' against any social contention, otherwise--including government, itself), I see the mechanisms of 'power acquisition' in a society doing just the opposite (even in a 'democratic society') in formulating the 'proper hierarchy and stratifications of society' against any 'individual judgment'.

The problem with that is this concept of 'we action'--and how that is to relate to, or compare with, the more individualistic 'me action'--and how our thoughts of 'proper function of society' (or even 'proper thoughts of such function') are to justify, or even clarify, that. Clarence Darrow saw that the 'we actions' of the Industrial Revolution countered much of the spirit of 'individual rights' as outlined by the American founding fathers--just as it does today. In that manner, the 'higher law' of 'individual rights (being 'free', for instance, to determine what 'love your neighbor as yourself' is to mean, or not, for both the individual and the society that individual finds themself in) is subdued by the mechanisms of social function that stratify (and regulate through such stratifications) that go against the very concept of 'individual rights'. I believe that the philosophical and 'moral' basis for such stratification goes as far back as Augustine's Original Sin thesis (where the 'individual', alone, is 'basically evil')--but it probably has been an 'unspoken basis' for social stratification every since civilizations and organizations began (and is still being used despite any prospects of 'individual rights' to the contrary)....and herein lies the contention that both the hypocrite and the trickster can exploit...


What's an 'honest person' to do with such a set-up? This I believe was what Clarence Darrow was trying to explain (in a rather 'dualistic manner', by the way). Since it is the 'set-up of the we' that has the power of 'social function' (just, by the way, 'because it can'), what is to be made of the 'me' that may disagree with that premise as it is being applied? As Darrow seems to describe, you 'go along with it when you have to' (and Darrow 'went along with it' quite well--raking in over $200,000/year even back then) and, then, you 'speak out against it when you can'....

It appears to me that the discussion has brought up the problem of "we" and "self" to a degree that is worth some serious attention, so we can understand each other and what we are saying.

One of the problems embedded in this discussion is the centuries old problem of deciding what anyone would want to consider to be "truth." We can find a record of the struggle to find a "we" version that can be "de"fined precisely in some way, going back to the Greeks. If I were to put it in any fairly succinct formula, I'd see that the struggle seems to be between finding an authoritarian prescription that resides in "objects" outside the self, and the recognition of the limits of self definition with those forms. This is a long philosophical argument that does not seem to have a happily "defined" conclusion for an all inclusive "we" but goes round and round, like the gerbil running on his irrationally defined circumference of a wheel inside his little defined cage. Oddly this thought came to me yesterday in a discussion on another thread, and I chose to illustrate Kant's answer to the "correspondence of truth" theorists of his day. I would put Kant's answer in the arena of the Twentieth Century phenomenologists, and he was considered one of their philosophical parents to their formulations:

quote:

Truth is said to consist in the agreement of knowledge with the object. According to this mere verbal definition, then, my knowledge, in order to be true, must agree with the object. Now, I can only compare the object with my knowledge by this means, namely, by taking knowledge of it. My knowledge, then, is to be verified by itself, which is far from being sufficient for truth. For as the object is external to me, and the knowledge is in me, I can only judge whether my knowledge of the object agrees with my knowledge of the object. Such a circle in explanation was called by the ancients Diallelos. And the logicians were accused of this fallacy by the sceptics, who remarked that this account of truth was as if a man before a judicial tribunal should make a statement, and appeal in support of it to a witness whom no one knows, but who defends his own credibility by saying that the man who had called him as a witness is an honourable man. (source)

As you might notice, Kant recognizes that truth is verbally "self" referential. One might notice that the entire lexicon of a language is "self referential" in that a dictionary uses itself to define itself. And thus we see that language, and rationality, becomes subject to this problem of self referentiality that we thinkers about it cannot seem resolve satisfactorily without some hopeful appeal to something outside ourselve, with the necessary action of belief, or faith involved.

To me, that's the core of my problem in deciding for myself how I want to approach any given issue. I remain conscious of that even when I'm talking about a "we" sense of things. To answer your honesty query, that's to me being honest with myself. My own sense of conscience I make up, out of the ingredients of my experience, on my willingness, whether conscious or programmed into a subconscious response, to adhere to what I perceive as societal norms. To be aware of that is the most honest beginning point in my awareness. To set things out in the way Clarence Darrow does in your quote a couple of posts up, is the logical machinations of my own self aware, self developed conscience set forth in language and logic. I have to be aware that these are not authoritarian maxims set forth as truth, but my own hypothesis formulated towards an attempt to describe what I may hope to be truth, and may hope to persuade others to agree with. Here's an example from your quote of what I mean by that, as formulated by Darrow:

quote:

Every man, he (Darrow) said, is rent by a perpetual struggle between his conscience and his desire for prestige and comfort. "A typical politician puts his conscience entirely aside and considers only the conduct which will serve his selfish end. The devoted fanatical zealot, who sees nothing but his duty to his fellow men, wholly forgets himself and lives only for the principles and convictions that take possession of his life...Probably no great statesman ever lived who was wholly true."

That's a formula. I can agree with it or not. I consider it a pretty good formula, as formulas go, and I consider the source in saying that, but, naturally, being me, I find flaws. Endless flaws and as usual I'm left with no sense of confident closure that I've just experienced a formula for truth. For instance, when I give it some thought, I realize I don't have any primary sources of information that I can turn to for verification of how any politician thinks, let alone a large enough pool of such to make a statement about "typical politician(s)." That's for me a serious problem that runs through all communication. I think it's such a serious problem that the whole question of what could possibly be meant by "democracy" is in perpetual limbo for me, never to be rescued, especially once the element of interactive communication that I always felt to be a requisite in the term reaches the problem of being somehow meaningfully exchanged at the level of a group that equals 300 million individuals scattered across a land the size of the United States, speaking a variety of dialects from a diversity of settings, despite a concerted effort at the "McDonaldizaion" of society through a variety of efforts, mostly commodifications. Then step back and think about globalization and I think: "let alone the entire planet of some 6.6 billion." What I mean by that is, I consider the most effective form of communication is face to face, where we have so much more of ourselves to observe and share in the communication effort, and that this internet effort, that consists of sharing abstract, self referentially defined concepts through language is a very poor and very distant second to that.

For those who like to make dogmatic, prescriptional formulas that are supposed to be taken as truth, I feel that needs somehow to be brought to attention they are self delusional. I think if more people saw that, eventually the dogmatists would be forced to find alternative forms of expressions. But I notice there is a strong penchant to accept other's dogma in societies of size and the necessary hierarchical complexity that goes with size. And correlated with that goes the whole nightmare of authoritarianism, and all the institutional programming that goes with it. And with that you get the self conscious awareness of what an individual, such as Clarence Darrow, who has a degree in thinking, as Elizabeth Warren put it in my above quote saying:

quote:

Most of the queries he ignored. But he did not ignore Ellen Gates Starr, Jane Addam's most intimate associate since the founding of Hull-House, when she asked why he had taken the job of getting favorable amendments to the franchise of a street-car company.

I did it, said Darrow, for the money they paid me. He wrote to Ellen Starr that, judged by "the ordinary commercial and legal standards of ethics," he had been right to represent the street-car company. But "judged by the higher law, in which we both believe, I am practically a thief," he admitted. "I am taking money that I did not earn, which comes to me from men who did not earn it, but who get it because they have a chance to get it. I take it without performing any useful service to the world, and I take a thousand times as much as my services are worth even assuming they are useful and honest."

Hypocrisy, if you want to call it that, is created by the very nature of a complex society, and the need to negotiate that complexity in order to survive as an individual. Those who "survive" better at the level of extracting a larger share of the pot might be those who are best at being sociopaths, or some such psychobabble, as it becomes a matter of ignoring the continuities of one's own self constructed system of ethics in the face of the facts of where the earnings can come from. The more complex the interactions with the institutional features of society, the greater the call to ignore individual ethical constructs and simply acknowledge the structural features of the situation on finds oneself in. What that seems to amount to in my estimation is an ability to suspend what I'd identify as a "valuing" of the conceptual structural features involved, and just seeing the the logic of those features and working with them as best one hypothetically can to achieve a goal and thus conclusion.

Where does one find the threads of participatory democratic interaction weaving through all of that? I've traveled all over this country many times, and I have moments when I see highways as cow paths, and suburbs as pastures, with the jobs people travel to in buildings that are like cow barns, where their work is extracted like a farmer extracting milk from his cows. Only the people don't even stand together in pastures where they graze, but rather in separate cells where they are fed propaganda through this box with a window into some abstractions called news and entertainment.

quote:

I think, in the manner that Clarence Darrow is 'setting up the prospects of society and business', this issue has many factors in it that aren't just 'each person deciding as an individual'--and that's where the elements that lend itself to hypocritical actions and social dysjunctions lie.

I see that I'm trying to say something similar, in my own way, but that's how I see it -- in my own way, you may not see it in the form I do.

quote:

Clarence Darrow saw that the 'we actions' of the Industrial Revolution countered much of the spirit of 'individual rights' as outlined by the American founding fathers--just as it does today. In that manner, the 'higher law' of 'individual rights (being 'free', for instance, to determine what 'love your neighbor as yourself' is to mean, or not, for both the individual and the society that individual finds themself in) is subdued by the mechanisms of social function that stratify (and regulate through such stratifications) that go against the very concept of 'individual rights'.

One of my deeper threads of thoughts that weave through my thinking involves noticing the significance of the Industrial Revolution upon the problem of individuality and the notion of self governance. This could amount to an extensive discussion. I won't go into all the possible directions that come to mind, but I'd like to point out that I agree with Darrow that the Industrial Revolution changed the nature of the body politic that the Founders of the US devised the Constitution to somehow meet as an agreement in self governance. The result of that was a hodge podge of changes that came about from what I would call a necessity of circumstances. Social Security would be an example of a negotiated result of that problem.

For example, notice that the theories that folks like Marx came up with that became what are called, with some derision, socialism, or communism, are the result of a transformation in society itself, where agrarian small business shop owners and artisans, became pools of labor. The pools of laborers discovered their individual and unique abilities which they might apply with pride to their shop, their craft, or their farm, was now in competition for repetitive jobs of production, and they were in competition for those jobs by their barely differentiated ability to do the same thing anyone else could do at relatively the same pace and minimal skill set. This eventually reached various crisis points and the recognition for group negotiation strategies emerged so that people who no longer had an ability to secure their own livelihood by their own self initiated, directed and actuated efforts found themselves up against vagaries of authoritarian control in the private authoritarian hierarchies we know as businesses, especially now the private collectives we call "corporations."

As I see it, the Founders of the country had no inkling that society would change in this way, and the constitution was poorly designed to accommodate the problem. Jeffersonian Democracy doesn't not seem to acknowledge this problematic set of circumstances. Marxism was also poorly conceived to accommodate the U.S. constitution, and other similar ones. Most of Marxist developed thought does little to acknowledge and set out definitions for individual rights. And thus we have this continuous conundrum.

quote:

One of the problems embedded in this discussion is the centuries old problem of deciding what anyone would want to consider to be "truth." We can find a record of the struggle to find a "we" version that can be "de"fined precisely in some way, going back to the Greeks. If I were to put it in any fairly succinct formula, I'd see that the struggle seems to be between finding an authoritarian prescription that resides in "objects" outside the self, and the recognition of the limits of self definition with those forms.-ren

Actually, with my own readings of history, it appears that the basic concept of 'individual thought coming from an individual' is a rather modern concept--at least with respect to 'defining it as such'. As Augustine's 'Original Sin thesis' implies, the proper perspectives of 'moral action' are 'determined, and implemented, from the top'--not 'realized from the bottom'--of any given 'social hierarchy', as far as I can think of, any where in the world....

In the ancient Middle East, that meant that every 'city-state' had its own god (or gods) that were to, in ways, be the 'social object' upon which to 'define morality'. In that manner, the 'city-state's social conscience' correlated to such a 'god-figure' and, in doing so, it was also defining the 'consciousness' behind it. Anything out of that paradigm would be described in modern terminology as 'sub-consciousness' (or 'outside of the proper perspective of conscience-function')--but, that is a little anachronistic in describing it as such because of the lack of 'placing consciousness within the individual' as the proper perspective of where 'consciousness eminates from'--all do to the lack of seeing 'conscience' coming from each 'subject' (as 'individual') and more from this 'city-state communal depository of conscience as its god'. Only in modern times have thoughts such as individualism and existentialism and even 'individual rights' have such matters been approached as even being a truly individual (as in 'every person') prospect....

quote:

Hypocrisy, if you want to call it that, is created by the very nature of a complex society, and the need to negotiate that complexity in order to survive as an individual.

'Complexity' is a weird concept when it comes to 'social functions'. Because of 'complexity', 'society'--and those in the 'positions of authority' in 'society'--can enact functions that they would never allow in any 'individual fashion'--such as 'preemptive war' and its 'justifications' (any 'preemptive death' by the hands of an 'individual' would at least be 'manslaughter'). Because of 'complexity', just like what this thread started with in describing the 'manipulation of the herd instinct', the most base, and instinctive, characteristic of the 'animal human' has an 'outlet to exploit' in the 'consumer environment'. Because of 'complexity', the primary motive of 'social function' is expediency over communality in 'reaching any goal'. Because of 'complexity', the 'ideal of singularity' (or any 'real sense of wholeness') seems too simple to 'believe as true'....

Somewhat similar to you, but I believe with a different 'emphasis' (or 'ultimate motive and goal'), I hone-in on 'complexity' by comparing it to my own sense of 'integrity of individual motive and action'. In some ways, it's my way of 'dealing with power implementations' by defining all 'implementations' as if it were done 'by me'--and seeing where that 'thesis goes'. In fact, much of my contentions with the very concept of 'complexity' deals with 'power implementations' done in 'its name', if you will.

This reminds me of an analogy that I first heard of from Stephen King's book, The Stand. I am not a Stephen King fan but my first wife was--and she showed me this statement years ago in that book and I still remember the gist of it. It goes something like this:

quote:

If you want to know the nature of man, let me tell you in a nutshell. If you take a man or woman alone, I'll show you a saint. If you put any two of them together, they will fall in love. If you put three together, they will recreate that marvelous thing called 'society'. Put four together and they will build a pyramid (with 'someone on top'). Put five together and they will make one an outcast. Six together and they will reinvent prejudice. Seven together and, in seven years, they will remake war. Man might have been made in the image of God--but human society was made in his opposite number and, with that, man is always trying to find his way back home....

Similar to R.D. Laing's thoughts on what 'society' really 'does for the individual', its 'mechanism of function' alienates as much as it resolves. That little rational dysjunction is 'complexity'....

In that vein, I relate more to Clarence Darrow's concepts of 'society as organized injustice' and 'business as legal fraud'....two 'elements allowed in complexity'....

quote:

As I see it, the Founders of the country had no inkling that society would change in this way, and the constitution was poorly designed to accommodate the problem. Jeffersonian Democracy doesn't not seem to acknowledge this problematic set of circumstances. Marxism was also poorly conceived to accommodate the U.S. constitution, and other similar ones. Most of Marxist developed thought does little to acknowledge and set out definitions for individual rights. And thus we have this continuous conundrum.

That was the point of Ray Ginger's book. It's NOT just the 'consolidating power of government' that 'democratic governments based on individual rights' have to 'guard against', it's any 'consolidating power'--the most significant one of today's world being 'corporate power'....and, if any entity is going to 'check that power', it will have to be another 'organized power'--which, most 'democratically', would be a 'representative government'....

While Marxism has some valid social points related to how the 'business world' can inappropriately skew 'man's efforts', 'socialized motives', enacted through such 'governments so directed', have no way to 'factor out socialized oppression' that every 'consolidating power' in world history has used against its subjects in applying those 'socialized priorities'. As far as I can see it, an 'oppression' that can only be checked by emphasizing 'individual rights' in any 'application' it proposes....every time.....

Keep the faith....

quote:

Actually, with my own readings of history, it appears that the basic concept of 'individual thought coming from an individual' is a rather modern concept--at least with respect to 'defining it as such'. As Augustine's 'Original Sin thesis' implies, the proper perspectives of 'moral action' are 'determined, and implemented, from the top'--not 'realized from the bottom'--of any given 'social hierarchy', as far as I can think of, any where in the world....

I'm afraid you lost me with that argument that the basic concept of "individual thought coming from the individual is a rather modern concept." I'm not sure what you are driving at to say that. I can only imagine you mean it in some formal sense, but I don't see that as pertinent to what I am saying with regards to the objectification and subjectification problems of defining knowledge and truth as can be examined in the philosophical record over the past few thousand years. I suggest you might take a look at the history of skepticism, beginning with the Greeks, the ancient Diallelos (Diallelus), mentioned in Kant's quote above, and even Plato's work -- I'm thinking of the allegory of the shadows on the cave wall, in particular, with the sense of an individual being a prisoner in a cave.

quote:

Plato believed that one can only learn through dialectic reasoning and open-mindedness. Humans had to travel from the visible realm of image-making and objects of sense, to the intelligible, or invisible, realm of reasoning and understanding. "The Allegory of the Cave" symbolizes this trek and how it would look to those still in a lower realm. Plato is saying that humans are all prisoners and that the tangible world is our cave. The things which we perceive as real are actually just shadows on a wall. Just as the escaped prisoner ascends into the light of the sun, we amass knowledge and ascend into the light of true reality: where ideas in our minds can help us understand the form of 'the Good'. Allegory of the cave

The structure of the problem of perception and the definition residing in the object outside self perception is as present, and I would say implicit, in those ancient arguments as it is today, whether formally acknowledged as an epistemology and methodology or simply recognized as implicit in the arguments. If you aren't comfortable with that, I'd suggest we abandon this part of the effort. I'm thinking that perhaps you've developed an esoteric version of individuality that may take more effort than I'm willing to expend to make sense of.

So I'm a little amiss at why you see it necessary to focus on the doctrinal ism-ness of individuality in order to acknowledge its principles at work in the epistemology of individualism and philosophical thought.

At this point I don't know where you are going with the rest of your discussion about city states and their gods and such. That's a metaphorical realm I'm unfamiliar with in regards to what I'm trying to express. I'm very uncertain about how you see the nature of the problem of truth and reason in our own philosophical Western tradition, at least enough to say why you see it to be different than what I've tried to say so far.

My experience with philosophers and their field is they tend to see these different emphases on how to determine and define truth as following different trends and schools of thought in broadly grouped ways that trace back to a Platonic rationalist approach and an Aristotelian empiricist approach -- in very gross and generalistic terms. It's not a pure duality, but it can be organized as one, and often is. Such is our dualistic rational tradition. So we tend to maybe look for, but also see this dualism in an approach to exploring the problems and theories of knowledge. My seeing of it is not through the language of selfness that has evolved, but through the expression of how thought is used in the working out of the ideas over time. The language of selfness does not mean to me that that it need to be expressed formally in an ism, that thinking about how to think about self emerged with that language of one of those "isms" about it, it means a way of expressing its nature and limits can be recognized in the nature of thought as it was expressed. To recognize that actual thinking about self was already there, one needs to look at the way ideas were worked as best we can by how they were recorded, and translated through languages over time.

One might ask questions like, who did the skeptics refer to as an authority for their skepticism? And it's likely to be no one, that I can find, but the individual's capacity to doubt. This capacity to doubt led to such expressions as "I think, therefore I am" by Rene Descarte. The legacy of the skeptics' tradition can be traced through to Descartes, who is credited with stepping off with the first of the thoughts on methodology itself that resulted in the modern tradition of rational thought that led to the "isms" of individuality you referred to:

quote:

René Descartes is credited for developing a global skepticism, as a thought experiment in his attempt to find absolute certainty on which to base as the foundation of his philosophy. David Hume has also been described as a global skeptic. However, Descartes was not himself a skeptic and developed his theory of an absolute certainty to disprove other skeptics who argued that there is no certainty. (source)

A three hundred level survey of existentialism class in college will often begin with Descartes.

Complexity can be described in many ways, but I'm trying to use it in a more generally structural sense. Then you can break it down to the details of how it works itself out. If you want to understand how I'm using the term "complexity," I refer you to Joseph Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies. That's the sense I'm using it, and I believe he's fairly clear about what he means by it. I really don't want to quibble much about it at this point. Another suggestive reading of Tainter, regarding this way of seeing complexity can be found in this 1996 essay, which can give at least a taste of what he means by complexity: COMPLEXITY, PROBLEM SOLVING, AND SUSTAINABLE SOCIETIES, by Joseph A. Tainter, 1996

The point I was trying to make with the reference to Marx, is that once the consolidation of power in collectives like corporations got loose in society, and the people found themselves subject to it in ways that their individual rights could not fully be used to guard themselves from a collective powers' potential to abuse, a complementary theory of group power was a very natural need in the vacuum that sort of power created, as we began to see the egregious violations that the hold of livelihood an authoritarian organized collective, like a set of like organized corporations, can have over the populace, and it turns out that a more or less "genius" of the time recognized that, and stepped forward with an attempt to theorize about it. Unfortunately, from my perspective, his focus was such that he left out some basic theoretical effort to formalize individual rights into his framework in the process.

If you can figure out how to get around that problem with individual rights and group rights that's come up in the last 150 years, you may be the next genius they'll be talking about a hundred years from now.

quote:

I'm not sure what you are driving at to say that.--ren

Part of the problem of 'projecting into objects--or even common abstract entities' the thoughts of persons is that very process of 'projecting'. Greek philosophers were big into that prospect--so much so that Aristotle even professed that 'all nature had a purpose, or meaning, that man could perceive' (which is scientifically inaccurate). In that manner, 'truth' was a 'projection' of some sort to perceive--whether using Plato's shadows, Aristotle's 'meaning of nature', or whatever they professed, the tone was 'project'. That places the source of 'truth' out there in some element or concept to 'perceive'--with the act of 'perception' being the primary component of 'interpreting'.

The modern concepts of phenomenology, existentialism, and even the modern principle of just 'granting individual rights to every individual', doesn't place the 'depository of truth' into any external entity, proper, for which 'projectors' can ascribe 'truth'. Instead, it makes the 'one who perceives' (or not, as the case may be) be the 'depository of truth'. In this sense, 'truth' is not an entity or object, it's a method, or process--but it's 'basis of fact' is any 'person'--that's the new 'modern perspective' that 'each person has a consciousness of their own'--not just to 'determine external truth'--but to 'determine how any truth they perceive relates, or not, to them'. It's 'ultimate resolution' must include not just the 'object, or entity, it considers, or not', but, more importantly, 'how it considers it--and with what, or not'--notice that when you add the 'or not' part, it can even acknowledge that such a 'truth' isn't even confirmed by 'external entities'. This doesn't apply the 'conclusion of truth' as being 'out there' to be 'agreed upon by the adept'--but understands that 'the basis of truth', if there is to be a 'truth' for 'each person', isn't 'out there' as much as it is 'in each person considering it, or not'--which, can be any person. In that manner, 'thought' is not just a 'communal agreement'--it's a 'personal endeavor'. Parts will 'agree'--parts 'won't'. But, this is the most critical point as I see it, it's not 'agreement' that 'determines truth' in this respect--it's in each person considering it. The philosophical, and political, ramifications of such a consideration are different.

Our founding fathers had a problem with this 'new thought' that professed that 'individual rights' for the first time in history, to, in any way, represent 'truth', had to include 'every individual'--women and slaves (just like 'ancient democracies') were excluded....at first. But, the 'writing was on the wall' and even the founding fathers, stuck, in ways, by the ancient 'projectors and perceivers of truth' onto 'objects or entities', saw that their political philosophies had yet to 'fulfill its premise of every individual'--but I believe they knew that was where this would eventually go--eventually to determine that 'consciousness' is not a 'social event'--it's a personal one. For each 'person'--that's where 'individual thought coming from every individual' as being both where the 'basis in fact' and the 'basis in truth' starts....and ends.....this is NOT what the ancients professed...but that is the philosophical basis for modern 'individual rights'...the point is 'not what is projected to'--but 'who or what is doing the projecting', if you will....and how that factors into any 'search or conclusion to truth'...while you, ren, seem to imply that's a 'dead end', since it is 'the mind that thinks' and it is 'thinking that promotes existence' and since it is 'such existence that is the basis of any thought', it's not as much a 'dead end' as it is a recognition that this is where all 'existence occurs'....in the 'thoughts of the individual'....how that 'plays out' in both society and its involving politics is based more on the proper role of any regulating entity must acknowledge that any 'resolution of truth' (if that is what 'this life' and 'this world' are to be about) must 'start and end' with the 'interpretor' more so than any 'projection' that can be mutually defined and agreed upon....'individual thought coming from every individual'. You may can 'discern patterns'--but that, in no way, can be a 'whole truth' unless it includes 'the one discerning'--and, that 'right' (and 'responsibility to resolve, or not') is given to 'every individual' (of autonomous age) in a 'modern democracy'--placing 'individual thought in every individual'....

The ancients did no such thing. Their 'democracy' wasn't for everyone. Their 'projections' were only for the adept 'to see'. The onus of 'individual thought' as we know it today wasn't there...that's a modern concept....therefore, the political ramifications of their philosophy is so skewed....

quote:

Plato is saying that humans are all prisoners and that the tangible world is our cave. The things which we perceive as real are actually just shadows on a wall. Just as the escaped prisoner ascends into the light of the sun, we amass knowledge and ascend into the light of true reality: where ideas in our minds can help us understand the form of 'the Good'.

Again, this assumes that this 'escape' is into 'something'--especially 'something else other than the thinker'. This not modern thought--or modern politics. The 'basis of fact' in 'thought' and 'politics' is 'the individual'--and there is no 'basis of fact' for any other 'thought'. Nothing else 'thinks'--and, as Thom Hartmann has so aptly pointed out (in Unequal Protection), nothing else should by 'projection or assumption' be allowed to 'remove such rights of thinking' that are rightfully placed in 'every individual'....'individual rights' so establishes that political perspective....and it's a modern concept....

However, it does seem we are 'losing that perspective' to the 'ancient perspective of projection' into 'something' as being the 'proper role of thought'. But, I don't see that as 'progression'--I see that as 'regression'....the only 'relativity to truth' when it comes to social and political (and philosophical) perspectives is that it is to not only 'be determined by the thinker', but, in some ways, it is 'the thinker'--as 'individual thought in every individual' would be....

quote:

The structure of the problem of perception and the definition residing in the object outside self perception is as present, and I would say implicit, in those ancient arguments as it is today, whether formally acknowledged as an epistemology and methodology or simply recognized as implicit in the arguments. If you aren't comfortable with that, I'd suggest we abandon this part of the effort. I'm thinking that perhaps you've developed an esoteric version of individuality that may take more effort than I'm willing to expend to make sense of.

May be so. I think this is getting stuck more on the implied assumption that this 'object perception' carries with it some form of 'application of purpose'--which further embeds 'truth' into an 'external event, or entity' to be 'interpreted'--when I am more emphasizing that the 'external event' as a 'truth' is secondary to 'the perceiver', himself. In the 'wholeness of truth' I am proposing, in a way, the 'perceiver' becomes another 'aspect of the truth'--and, not just in 'his or her manner of interpreting' as it is in just 'his or her being, proper'. While that onus may indeed be 'esoteric'--it's 'impact on the truth' is no less formidable. In fact, as I've said all along, the 'being as person' is the only 'basis in fact' that we have for a 'thinking entity'. No object that may be 'projected to' can 'think' as the 'one projecting'...there is no 'separate thinking entity' in 'society' other than 'each person as a thinking entity'....and to reach any conclusion otherwise is illusionary and has no 'basis in fact' (unless you can 'point to me this entity that thinks other than each person'--which I know you can't--but, if you disagree with that assessment, I'll listen to your thoughts to the contrary....).

quote:

So I'm a little amiss at why you see it necessary to focus on the doctrinal ism-ness of individuality in order to acknowledge its principles at work in the epistemology of individualism and philosophical thought.

Because, as any consideration to the 'proper depository of truth' (if that is a 'proper role of thought') is going to be in each 'individual'--or it doesn't 'exist' anyway....or, once again, you will have to convince me that 'some other entity thinks' that 'man projects to', and show me how you have 'determined that' in any 'basis in fact'....

As a 'thinking entity', the 'individual' is the 'be all/end all'...and, if man is to 'determine truth, or fate, by his thoughts', that, I believe, is the first thing he should acknowledge...not only does 'no other entity think'--but 'no other man can think for another'...the only thing we can 'gleen from another' are 'suggestions, or impressions, of thought' that we are to 'think for ourselves'....

In this everpresent 'search for truth', I think today's world has exhausted what 'exotericism' can 'show us' (in fact, I think the 'battle of God-believers', exoterically professed, that is now present on the world stage is depicting that very descrepancy in 'truth-seeking' vs. 'truth-applying' with regards to 'groups projecting their beliefs as if true')--we are now in the world where 'truth' is NOT an 'out-there' entity as much as it is 'in-here' perspective where the 'thought of truth starts' (and the 'resolution of truth ends') in the 'individual'...it is 'esoteric' only because its resolution as 'truth' isn't 'projected' like the 'applied world' likes to do...and the manner in which it is 'politically determined' is, also, so altered to an 'awareness' that doesn't require an 'application'--it just 'is'....

quote:

At this point I don't know where you are going with the rest of your discussion about city states and their gods and such.

City-states, and their involved 'gods', is where 'exoteric religion' in 'projected thought' and its involved 'exoteric morality' got started, ren. The 'proper depository of truth' in these set-ups were 'each city-state's deity'--and the 'consciousness' associated with it was so directed. Actually, that is exactly how the ancient Israelite's 'God' got started--as one of the many 'city-state gods' of the ancient Middle East. However, the Israelites made one very significant alteration in that concept--they 'made no graven image' of this 'God'--and they professed that such a 'God' made 'man' in 'His image'. This 'God' was changed from a 'tribal God' to a 'Universal God' by the Jewish diaspora--where the ancient prophets figured out that the 'promises of worldly possession' didn't 'pan out' as this 'God', through the early writings of the Old Testament, 'professed would happen'. At this point in the Bible, the 'tribal God exacting privilege and prosperity to His tribe who followed him' was altered to a 'Universal God' whose 'privileges and prosperity so promised may not be of this world'....and whose 'purpose and meaning' may be 'more than what this world has to offer'....which, as the 'image of God' implies, changed the 'tribal person' to the 'universal person'--now being expressed as the 'individual with individual rights'....

quote:

...an Aristotelian empiricist approach....

This is not exactly in line with what I'm trying to say--but it relates to it. The 'empirical approach' of Aristotle really wasn't that 'empirical'. Aristotle professed that 'all nature has a purpose'--and 'man' can 'determining that purpose'. Even at the time Aristotle made those pronouncements, there were those who saw problems with that. One of his followers asked: 'But what of men's nipples, what is their purpose in nature?'. Aristotle failed to recognize that this 'interpretation of empiricism' wasn't as 'empirical' as he professed--and certainly doesn't pass for the 'scientific empiricism' we use today (which, by the way, doesn't profess any 'defined purpose for all of nature'--it just 'uses the facts' in whatever way 'can be determined'--the same way that I am trying to exert the 'basis of fact' for any 'thinking entity' is 'the individual').

quote:

The point I was trying to make with the reference to Marx, is that once the consolidation of power in collectives like corporations got loose in society, and the people found themselves subject to it in ways that their individual rights could not fully be used to guard themselves from a collective powers' potential to abuse, a complementary theory of group power was a very natural need in the vacuum that sort of power created, as we began to see the egregious violations that the hold of livelihood an authoritarian organized collective, like a set of like organized corporations, can have over the populace, and it turns out that a more or less "genius" of the time recognized that, and stepped forward with an attempt to theorize about it. Unfortunately, from my perspective, his focus was such that he left out some basic theoretical effort to formalize individual rights into his framework in the process.

That's because the political expression of 'socialism', while 'professing a selfless cause', disregards a 'basis in fact'--which is that the 'only thinking entity' is the 'individual'. While 'socialism' aptly accuses the 'collective power' of corporations, business, and capitalism, it fails to recognize that it, itself, is a 'collective power' that, if left unchecked by recognizing 'individual rights', lends itself to exactly the same type of 'collective power oppressions' that all 'collective powers' have exerted everywhere in history--whether that be 'religiously based', 'ideologically based', or in any other way, 'collectively professed'.....that's why I emphasize that any organization exerting power do it only by openly and publicly professing it's 'application of power' with respect to any 'individual rights' it is 'endorsing' or 'rejecting' in doing so...just as I interpret how our founding fathers established 'Constitutional regulations' around 'individual rights'....

Kerry, I appreciate your well worked out ideas about individualism and how you integrate them into your discussion. I've worked out much on individualism myself and I don't have any quibbles with your version. We have similar patterns of understanding there. Though I question anyone's interpretation of seeing so much "vision" in the Founders about the evolution of the individual. They were just as innately exclusionary in their thinking as the Greeks, and they were coming out of a dark period of history at the time that did much to form the thinking of the early stages of liberal thought they inherited.

I think where the crux of our approaches to this differ is in what I feel you've spent most of your post trying to to convince me about, and that's the difference in perception about self, the individual, that may have been in the minds of the Greeks some 2300 years ago and what you perceive as a progression of rational modern thought about individualism today. While I can see the possibilities of your view, I don''t see the necessity of it, and without that sense of "necessity" I don't find it convincing. I do see that there is a linear narrative of history that expresses a similar view, and I was taught that view as well. My own revisionist history "genes" rebel against it, however. Yours seems to coincide with what I understand to be "progressive thought" (whether you consider yourself a progressive or not, I wouldn't know, but the notion of a progression of intellectual development, especially in Western thought seems to be implied by what you say and how you frame it.); I tend to hold progressivism at arms length.

The first point in your argument is where I'd like to point out what appears to me to be our differences in how we work our minds on this topic. Here is how I'd put my response: I can't find myself able to agree with your analysis of projection as an effort to perceive into an external entity with all the Greek philosophers, and certainly not with the way you applied it to Plato's works, especially the very phenomonological implications I find in his theory of forms (innate ideas) in the self, which I can see included in his Cave allegory. I feel like I can see why we aren't communicating on this, but I don't see any way to get past the problems I'm sensing at the moment. It seems to have a lot to do with how each of us has formed our minds, and the narratives we create from that.

I think that first quote you picked from Plato's cave from my fuller quote gives me a place to work out an explanation of what I see as how you are seeing this and why I'm not persuaded.

Actually, what you said about Aristotle represents what I see as one of two major trends of philosophical thought that's worked its way through a number of philosophies to the present. And it's that distinction, which is not mine alone, that my discussion was developed around. I'm going to suggest, once again, why I see a different trend that began with Plato, because without that, I'm not sure where we can go on this from here. Now the point of difference here is, I don't see any reason to put Plato in the same camp with Aristotle, as you have with your notion of "projection into objects." I do agree that Aristotle struggled with that projection sense you've described, and he developed philosophical ideas that others felt compelling in that line of thought to have given him credit for being the genesis of a whole tree of philosophies in Western thought, but I see much in Plato's works that does not imply the necessity for assuming that same sense of projection into objects that you've lumped him into.

Even your word "projection" implies to me a potential for self awareness of an internal image that must be projected outward on the world. The shadows on the cave wall are internal projections. The explanation of that selected quote you explained in your own way comes out quite differerently for me, perhaps as a result of how I tend to interpret the metophorical allegory of the Cave, especially once I remove your sense that it is about "escape."

From the quote:

quote:

The things which we perceive as real are actually just shadows on a wall.

the wall to me in that allegory is symbolic of internal awareness. I suggest from Plato's own writing he could have had that very same awareness. I think it's very possible that a schism between the natural world is even greater today than it's ever been in human history, and perhaps it's difficult for a 21st Century Westerner to grasp that at one time, some 2000 plus years ago, there may have been less of a sense of a schism between the self and the natural world, and thus it could have been said:

quote:

the tangible world is our cave

because they felt the tangible world so intimately.

And I don't feel a need to interpret this as you have as implying something projected outward either:

quote:

Just as the escaped prisoner ascends into the light of the sun, we amass knowledge and ascend into the light of true reality: where ideas in our minds can help us understand the form of 'the Good'.

To me, the statement is symbolic, but not about gettiing out of the cave as if getting out of the mind, but recognizing that the forms in the mind (Plato's theory of innate ideas, where all knowledge existed) need to be examined and understood within the mind itself, thus such statements as this famous one from Socrates:

the unexamined life is not worth living

There are thus many possible implications of internal awareness. With regards to Plato's own awareness about this issue, I wondered why you ignored this part of the explanation with the quote you selected from my larger quote:

quote:

Humans had to travel from the visible realm of image-making and objects of sense, to the intelligible, or invisible, realm of reasoning and understanding.

Because that opens up a different set of possibilities for me, once I see that he is going from the internal world of images and sense (the shadows) to another realm of the internal world, that of abstract reasoning, where the shadows are illustrated and colored with internal reasoning.

And you've overlooked the implications of the skeptics from that time as well. As far as the skeptics are concerned, "phenomenology" would be a modern word to attempt to describe what they were doing, but I see no reason to assume that they couldn't do what is described by phenomenology just as easily without the word. To assume they couldn't is a categorical Worfian language hypothesis -- or a form of linguistic determinism -- which has no major force of persuasion about the nature of language to convince many of us that it's a necessary case, though many are persuaded by it, I'm well aware. I just leave it as an open possibility.

It seems to me that without going back to Socrates and Plato, knowing what we know, learning their language as they spoke it, it would be difficult to know how they actually perceived what they tried to explain in their language and which has come down to us through translations. Given what I've come to understand about precontact consciousness, the Greeks could have been much more self aware than what you seem to imply has come about progressively through an evolution of philosophical thought into what we like to call modern consciousness -- the mere fact of intellectually developing a theory of self as we know it through those philosophies you noted. I should think that what we've been doing is trying to close the schizophrenic gap between humans and nature that's occurred though centuries of "civilized" thought, which may have been a process that began over 2000 years ago with dualistic philosophical thought. But I admit, that's how I've come to see it. I see nothing in what you've said to convince me I have to see it some other way.

Back to the Plato quote: You commented here about that whole selection of the larger quote you picked from:

quote:

Again, this assumes that this 'escape' is into 'something'--especially 'something else other than the thinker'.

For my part, I can see no logical necessity to assume that. You can choose to see it that way, it seems to me, and perhaps you would want to, if it fits your carefully constructed world view, I don't choose.

So this leads me to this observation: I do see a pattern in your thinking that tends to lay out a linear progression of intellectual development, and that implies to me a process of cognition that may put your thinking in what we now call the "progressive" realm. I am not compelled by any sense of necessity to see things in that progressive way, myself, so we may only find agreement if we want to on this issue of projection into the external world.

Let me share one more little thing. When I described:

quote:

The structure of the problem of perception and the definition residing in the object outside self perception is as present, and I would say implicit, in those ancient arguments as it is today, whether formally acknowledged as an epistemology and methodology or simply recognized as implicit in the arguments.

You responded with:

quote:

May be so. I think this is getting stuck more on the implied assumption that this 'object perception' carries with it some form of 'application of purpose'

Honestly I don't see that as a necessary logical conclusion from what I've said, I certainly woudn't come to it on my own, and it, along with what you followed with:

quote:

--which further embeds 'truth' into an 'external event, or entity' to be 'interpreted'--when I am more emphasizing that the 'external event' as a 'truth' is secondary to 'the perceiver', himself.

seems to significantly miss my point and take what I was intending in a different direction. I'm trying to express that I see a certain trend of thought in Western philosophy, one going back to that sense of projection into an object, as you put it, and another on the sense of recognition that ration and logic are our alternatives to ever being certain that the match of our innate ideas with the external object are exact. And that is the sort of binary historical struggle that goes back to the Greeks. What was also part of that statement you quoted was my already developed effort to show that the Greeks had also expressed the rational, skeptical questioning of what we can know about those external objects.

I think that's where the problem in communication on this idea about self resides at the moment. I'm not sure how better to express it nor how to go about resolving it.

--------------------.

Sort of a summary:

I'm not sure I have much to say about the rest of your analysis once I make it clear where we differ at this point. I find a consistent arrogance (I include myself at some point here) in our modern thought towards those who came before us. I try to humble myself with recognition that modern humans like us, with what are probably the same cognitive capabilities already in place, were walking around 40,000 years ago, and they didn't evolve to that point with the help of Western rationalistic dualistic thinking.

At this point I'm not sure how you've exactly answered this question:

quote:

So I'm a little amiss at why you see it necessary to focus on the doctrinal ism-ness of individuality in order to acknowledge its principles at work in the epistemology of individualism and philosophical thought.

It seems what you've told me implies it's because the Greeks couldn't have known it as "we" do without the progression of modern thought. I don't see how we can solve that one. We'd have to talk to the Greeks, it seems to me.

I of course am well aware that 'empiricism" was a gross generalization when I made it. But I was attempting to point out two threads of thought that flow from the "theory of innate ideas" -- or another term, the rational perspective -- of Plato, and the sense of awareness of an external object combined with possibility of analytical, objective observation of those objects as the empirical perspective would have it. A book I picked up some sixteen years ago, and I'd highly recommend to anyone interested in the problems of objective empiricism, is The Philosophy of Science. Its more than seven hundred pages contain essays from most of the major philosophers of science, and together they chart the rise and fall of logical positivism and a turn towards a new consensus on major issues in science. Without some sense of the spectrum of thought on these subjects, I feel we would just be floundering here on this board if we attempted to make any arguments about what we mean specifically about any of the general concepts in science, like "empiricism."

And of course, "yes, yes, yes" on your analysis of socialism, Marxism or whatever, and more. My only reason for bringing it up is to see it as a "structural" force that has a kind of necessity that arises from another structural force.

The problem I see is a conundrum of these forces of collective power and the philosophical possibilities for the individual that you've described, I don't see the solution to that conundrum in a world that's increasingly determined by the power of hierarchical collectives, but if you do, with your densely packed and well worked out theory of individualism, and if you can in some way get that view into action, you'll be the next genius. Right now I still see us subject, as a whole, to the Gerbil Bill of 1984.

quote:

Though I question anyone's interpretation of seeing so much "vision" in the Founders about the evolution of the individual.

The founding fathers formalized and legitimized 'anti-Augustinianism' in making the 'individual, alone, basically good' with the simple, but often-quoted, premise of 'innocent until proven guilty' (whereas most every other 'collective power' starts with the 'Augustinian' perspective of 'guilty until proven innocent'). It's a subtle change but it carries with it significant ramifications altering how 'all other prospects of authoritarian control' are to be viewed....

The 'vision', as you call it, I see as a conscious effort on the founding fathers to 'prioritize the individual' and 'subdue collective power' in doing so--and the 'revolution' so acted upon was as much a 'change in thought' as it was a 'change in politics'...I think we have lost sight of that and are being inundated, again, with the prospects of 'evil individually' needing to be 'subdued by the good collective entity'. We are 'reverting back to Augustinian priorities'--with the assistance of 'church-based politics'....

I know you don't like to think in such 'dualistic terms' as 'good and evil'--but, in order to understand what you are up against, I think it pertinent to 'carry the context with it' in 'describing the contending distinctive elements of opposing social initiatives'--as long as we have an 'us vs. them', we are going to have 'good vs. evil' and all the other dualities that 'us vs. them' allows in one form, or description, or another....

quote:

While I can see the possibilities of your view, I don''t see the necessity of it, and without that sense of "necessity" I don't find it convincing.

What's 'to be convinced about' in this, ren? Do you agree--or disagree--that the 'only thinking entity' is 'the individual'? If you 'disagree', I would like to here what else you think 'thinks'--and how it does so. If you agree with this perspective, then if rationalityj is going to be the basis for all 'political thought', the only rationalizing entity in any social order is 'the individual'. If you accept the premise that 'the individual' is the only 'rational entity', then I would see the necessity of emphasizing the function of 'the individual' in promoting 'rational political manuvers'. Or, maybe you don't think 'rationalization' is the best method, most 'just method', to 'control people' in any 'social order'?

quote:

Here is how I'd put my response: I can't find myself able to agree with your analysis of projection as an effort to perceive into an external entity with all the Greek philosophers,

While Greek philosophy predates Augustine, the idea of 'proper functioning society' being 'led by the adept' is similar to Augustine's 'individual as evil' premise because it, also, is an exclusionary premise when it comes to 'proper organization of power'--even as it has some 'democratic principles' of 'dispersing some of the power' to the 'elite' as a 'democratic element' before world history resorted back to the 'centralizing dictatorialship' of 'emperors' in the Roman age--which became the basis of Augustine's 'centralizing morality' of Original Sin. This has never been countered as a political or philosophical prospect until the modern age--and never so formally regimented into a governing entity until the American Revolution. That's how I see it...and, I also see elements of political power in America today trying to undermine the very premise of 'individual rights' upon which American was founded after a very long, hard, struggle to bring 'the individual' out of the 'prejudice of power' that subdued its influence...ignorantly, I might add....

quote:

Even your word "projection" implies to me a potential for self awareness of an internal image that must be projected outward on the world.

Actually, the psychological concept of 'projection' does just the opposite--in the field of psychology and psychiatry, the concept of 'projection' is used to 'subdue the awareness of oneself' by projecting any particular attribute to another--or 'groups of others'. It's best worked out in the 'marriage paradigm'--where any trait tending ascribed to the 'opposite sex' that one may sense in oneself is 'projected into the person that represents that opposite sexual role'--and, therefore, is able to be 'personally disregarded' by the other sex. Say, for instance, 'the man' is 'supposed to be tough'--and 'the woman' is 'supposed to be caring', then, such 'roles' are dealt with subconsciously, accordingly, in many situations (when 'caring' is needed, the 'woman' comes forth--when 'toughness' is needed, the 'man' comes forth, that sort of thing). However, there can be a problem with such a subconscious prospect, innately portrayed, when the 'proper functions so projected into the proper roles' don't actually coincide with the basic persona of the one 'playing that function'--and neurotic and psychotic 'dysfunctions' over such 'social vs. personal mismatches, or discrepancies' can result in such mental discordances. After all, it could be a 'sensitive man' and a 'tough woman'--and, then, 'standard role models' that allow for discongruent, less 'socially acceptable', elements of the one to be 'projected into the other' to be 'subconsciously resolved and acted upon' don't work as well and, if not consciously resolved (usually with 'professional help'), can lead to various forms of psychological 'dysfunctions'...all due to 'lack of awareness' of what is transpiring in that set-up by the 'act of projection'....

quote:

there may have been less of a sense of a schism between the self and the natural world,

Perhaps so, but that doesn't mean that it was, in any way, 'more true' to perceive it as such. Just like I pointed out with Aristotle's student questioning how one can say 'all of nature has a purpose that can be discernible by man' when 'some parts of nature seem to have no purpose at all'--so, what is that to say about what 'is discernible by man' through 'nature'? Also, as a 'natural scientist', myself, I conceptualize 'instinctive behavior'--that very behavior that 'nature endorses regardless of any individual player'--as being 'subconscious'--and, therefore, 'unaware' with regards to who or whatever is 'playing that role' as if 'by rote'...'instinct' is fundamentally 'choice-less'--and, 'lack of choice' supports 'unaware action'....

quote:

the unexamined life is not worth living

How do you go through the 'process of examining a life' if there 'aren't choices to compare and contrast' with that 'life'? 'Nature'--and 'nature's instinctive behavior' has 'no choice'....to be 'one with nature' is to 'exclude all other possibilities' involved in 'choice'...so, yes, we see these entities in totally different manners....not that 'nature', per se, is 'wrong' (or 'evil')--but, to say that it is 'ONLY nature' I think misrepresents 'man's capacity to awarely choose'...and man's true 'relationship to nature'--it gets back to this dilemma of 'is thinking of something' coming from the same source as the 'something it is thinking of'--and, if not, where is 'it' (the 'capacity to think of something apart from that something') coming from?

quote:

the Greeks could have been much more self aware than what you seem to imply has come about progressively through an evolution of philosophical thought into what we like to call modern consciousness

While I think their 'order of thought' is impressive, I don't give them the 'vision' you seem to (remember, I gave that to the American founding fathers.......). In this respect, and exactly as I am comparing the 'American founding fathers', their 'vision' did NOT translate into a 'social, or political, manuver' that 'matched it'--or, if it did, they were NOT ascribing this 'capacity to everyone'--only, the 'adept' capable of, and in a position to, doing so...

But, this is where I guess I need to qualify my issue of 'individual', here. No 'group'--or any element of 'group'--can contain what I mean by the 'ideal of individualism' that I see the 'American founding fathers' instigating in the philosophical, religious and political thought and actions they took. If you are to 'characterize' the individual beyond his or her 'capacity to think on their own', you've missed the point, and the premise (as I see it), of 'individuality'...even the American founding fathers didn't want 'mob rule'--especially done in 'individuality's name'....

quote:

It seems what you've told me implies it's because the Greeks couldn't have known it as "we" do without the progression of modern thought.

I don't see them 'acting on it' in the manner that our own history has done so in inculcating this concept of 'individuality' and 'individual rights' into our national persona--used, as it was, to abolish slavery and grant women equal rights of suffrage. Has that ever happened in history before the modern age, ren? No, because the influence of the 'evilness of the individual' pervaded most of history until the 'modern age' despite 'the Greeks influence'....

quote:

The problem I see is a conundrum of these forces of collective power and the philosophical possibilities for the individual that you've described, I don't see the solution to that conundrum in a world that's increasingly determined by the power of hierarchical collectives,

I don't either--that's why I emphasize the historical precedence of 'individuality' as I understand it....we are losing that 'precedence' to a 'more ancient order' of 'hierarchy' supported, by the way, by all the 'authorizing entities' like 'government and church' (along with the 'new age corporations').....

I see it as a lesson....and a warning.....

Keep the faith....

I don't have much time right now so this one is going to be even less edited than some others. I'll look at it later and see if I can improve or clarify anything.

quote:

What's 'to be convinced about' in this, ren? Do you agree--or disagree--that the 'only thinking entity' is 'the individual'?

How could you possibly pose that question after all this? Of course I agree and that's my point in seeing what I see about what I said about the implicit phenomenological awareness in Greek thought. Do you recognize what I'm seeing and why?

What's to be convinced about is that you know what the Greeks understood about their own minds and how they viewed them. That's what I see you trying to convince me about in most of your previous post. I'm not convinced. That's what I was trying to explain to you. It's a major point for me in the discussion. If we can't recognize the problems and acknowledge them, we talk around and around. So I attempted to bring out the problem as I see it. I see you still going around and around.

It appears to me your analysis begins with Augustine, and most of your constructed sense about the individual is based on something out of that. Mine is about thought, and thus I work with philosophy because it is closer to a representation of how thought worked from the individual. If I want to talk about the individual and how a person uses their mind to represent society, I like to be close to the primary source. Making generalizations about Greek society as a whole from a metaphorical analysis of how Augustine saw the individual in Judeo/Christian terms is not in the realm of ideas that translates for me to the primary sources I have familiarity with, sorry. I just can't make it work. I see that you've worked through it that way and it makes sense for you. I have no background in that area so I can't get what I know to work into what I perceive as your complex metaphorical system. Perhaps it's the same for you.

Good and evil is a binary construct. I see it as merely that. I don't put any value one way or another on it. I don't involve it as another layer in my thinking about thinking itself, I see it as a component. It seems important to you, but at this point I feel it puts our individual analyses on different planes. Yours seems to involve the logical linearity that reasons some evolutionary development in human consciousness, mine is more focused on thinking about thinking and how that sets up different constructs of social thought, and how those may be useful in understanding social systems, from simple to complex (complex meaning increasing degrees of hierarchy and hierarchical institutions systemically intertwined). In that process I don't consider myself an "us" or a "them." Thinking in dualistic terms is simply what rational thought is about, and I use it. But I also see limitations to being in it, and I try to find ways to get back from it for perspective. It's very difficult to express how I do that, and I am aware of that difficulty.

quote:

Actually, the psychological concept of 'projection' does just the opposite--in the field of psychology and psychiatry, the concept of 'projection' is used to 'subdue the awareness of oneself' by projecting any particular attribute to another--or 'groups of others'.

Look, I don't see this all that complicated. The "self" awareness I'm referring to isn't necessarily above subconscious or liminal. I'm just not concerned with the supraliminal arguments about the concept of self in the way I'm working with this. I see the dead end of doubt in trying to make all those notions of self work out in a satisfactory way. I'm well aware of the psychological theories about projection. I watch people project themselves all over me on this board in their efforts to make their arguments personal. I know who I am and I know they don't, so it's obvious they are projecting something internal, how ever they've come to it. You've overly complicated it. However an individual uses their ideas, they obviously come from the individual to begin with.

The point I'm making about Plato is he seems to recognize that as best anyone can tell 2300 years after he's dead, and so did other Greeks. We can't know for sure. We can't even talk to them and get a better sense of it, we can't probe them. I'm raising the issue of doubt, then, that's all. I am not willing to make your rationally derived conclusions for the same rationally derived reasons you are arguing for individualism -- I have doubt. All your explanations don't do anything extra to change that for me, because you are explaining what I already understand. Plato talks in his works about a dividing line that can't be crossed between the self and the outer world that is sensed and perceived, so he hypothesizes that the forms that are perceived are more or less reflections of innate forms in the individual. To "bring those innate forms into the light of day" one must employ ration and logic. That's the argument I see him making. It's an argument that implies to me he recognizes that we are limited by our own internal ability to make sense of the world we are immersed in, "like a cave."

quote:

Perhaps so, but that doesn't mean that it was, in any way, 'more true' to perceive it as such.

If you could just stay with the "perhaps so" you'd recognize that's where my discussion is limited as well. I'm not trying to prove your next thesis that follows in the sentence. That's also a perhaps so to me. It's not: if not one, then the other. Both are binary possibilities, not necessarily opposed, not necessarily chosen one over the other. Not necessarily chosen at all. I'm only putting up the possibility of it and the doubt that I feel in following your line of reasoning which makes choices I don't feel compelled to make. And that's what I mean by "not convinced."

We both have a background in the natural sciences, Kerry. I have perhaps a different set of possibilities I see from innateness than just the "instinct" as you describe it. I don't know how you've looked at it. I don't have a sense of that. I haven't seen much discussion from you in the area I'm most familiar with, which I got interested in back in the seventies. A correlate to innateness in modern science is rooted in psychological nativism. Nativists include such groups as the cognitive scientists like Jerry Fodor, Steven Pinker, Noam Chomsky (his professional work in linguistics, not his politics), George Lakoff, and my primary catalyst into all of it, Gregory Bateson. As a group, they would fall into the family of philosophical thought I see originating with Plato's philosophy, and if any one particular point can be noted, his theory of innate ideas. As one who has examined myself, the way I think, see and feel as closely and questioningly as I'm able, I tend to see the same limits to knowledge these rationalists see. The doubters questions seem to have the same answers this general set of thinkers, scientists, and philosophers keep coming up with. In the end I see what I do as hypothesizing, hypothesis testing, and at best a speculative on going truth testing.

I don't know if you are familiar with what I'm familiar with, but I don't get a resonance from you about it that I get from the many others I do know, who are. But I understand it's esoteric and the discussion becomes esoterically language-oriented as a result. So I'm doubtful, that's all. I'm not really sure where you are coming from, it seems like a mixture of things that don't always cohere for me. I could suggest some books if you aren't familiar psychological nativism, and are interested, I'd think you would be, given what you've said about instinct. Here's a wiki site that talks about one of Steven Pinker's books The Language Instinct. I picked it because it has the word "instinct" in the title, and it does a good job of talking about what I learned about innate cognitive language features in a graduate program I never finished in the late 70's on psycholinguistics.

For me to explain how I see differences in your discussion of instinctive behavior and the problem of choicelessness you've presented, I feel a need to know something about how you see these ideas in "psychological nativism." You see, from my perspective, these innate forms are what give us our infinite potential to examine our lives. The idea of an innate universal grammar, is that with these supposedly innate set of limited rules that have evolved to where we all share them as modern humans, we can create an infinite range of organizational expressions and explanations. Recent neurological evidence suggests that Boca's area is selectively activated in ways that may meet the criteria that would support the theory of a universal grammar.

quote:

While I think their 'order of thought' is impressive, I don't give them the 'vision' you seem to (remember, I gave that to the American founding fathers...Smiler....). In this respect, and exactly as I am comparing the 'American founding fathers', their 'vision' did NOT translate into a 'social, or political, manuver' that 'matched it'--or, if it did, they were NOT ascribing this 'capacity to everyone'--only, the 'adept' capable of, and in a position to, doing so...

Fine, give it to whomever you want. I'm not likely to be convinced, because I work to the edges of doubt, and then I work, best I can, with what's within that. I've given you my hypothesis that gives me enough to work on to produce doubt. I hypothesize that human consciousness has a set of characteristics that can be expressed in a number of different ways, and is not determined by language, but rather language, and culture, are reflections of that consciousness and it can take many forms. So I doubt that the Greeks didn't have the consciousness. To believe it from studying the words left behind and looking for linguistic replication would put me in the camp of the languistic determinists, and what I see makes that position far too doubtful for my comfort. I don't know if you've ever actually read the Athenian Constitution, but it reads more like epic narrative then our modern day codification of laws.

quote:

But, this is where I guess I need to qualify my issue of 'individual', here. No 'group'--or any element of 'group'--can contain what I mean by the 'ideal of individualism' that I see the 'American founding fathers' instigating in the philosophical, religious and political thought and actions they took. If you are to 'characterize' the individual beyond his or her 'capacity to think on their own', you've missed the point, and the premise (as I see it), of 'individuality'...even the American founding fathers didn't want 'mob rule'--especially done in 'individuality's name'....

That's fascinating, Kerry, but I don't see what good it does some poor soul that goes back and forth to his job at the office and his suburban home, and gets to vote for the candidate that comes out of the "Group Consensus" that begins with collective sets of various kinds with various types of group set influences.

quote:

I don't see them 'acting on it' in the manner that our own history has done so in inculcating this concept of 'individuality' and 'individual rights' into our national persona--used, as it was, to abolish slavery and grant women equal rights of suffrage. Has that ever happened in history before the modern age, ren? No, because the influence of the 'evilness of the individual' pervaded most of history until the 'modern age' despite 'the Greeks influence'...

Different circumstances require different actions. If we have a universal set of limited rules to work with, the possible results of decision making in any given period would have had many other possible choices involved as well, choices that weren't acted upon. Approaching it as an anthropologist with a set of cultural theoretical modeling theories to pull from, I can see societies as a basic problem solving set, and the set includes all we can possibly come to understand about how the society actively organizes itself within its own set of defined "cultural grammars" and how the individual people each behave with the tools of that grammar set at their disposal, each having to interpret it for themselves in an ongoing dynamic matrix of others doing the same.

quote:

I don't either--that's why I emphasize the historical precedence of 'individuality' as I understand it....we are losing that 'precedence' to a 'more ancient order' of 'hierarchy' supported, by the way, by all the 'authorizing entities' like 'government and church' (along with the 'new age corporations').....

I see it as a lesson....and a warning.....

Well... yes, but how does the individual act on that precedence? How is it translated into the matrix of collective power? Most of the individual choices occur within a system of hierarchical institutions, and the choices become absorbed by those institutions, which are implicitly collective by nature. The individual becomes subsumed by the structure of the institutions, and the choices reflect what's possible within that structure and the larger systemic structures.

Maybe it's helpful to tie this together by noting that what I see about that human created institutional set of systems that humans form their behaviors within, is correlative with nature as well. Nature is a set of systems that humans can adapt to in a more direct way than through the medium of their hierarchial institutions, which is what has evolved over the past ten to twelve thousand years, supposedly, once agriculture was invented, and the whole set of what some call "memic" cultural specializations that became our hierarchies, evolved out of that. I see that the individual what interact with nature with much the same set of individual principles I hear you trying to describe in rational terms. But I don't know how to discuss that with you at this point.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: /rén,

quote:

What's to be convinced about is that you know what the Greeks understood about their own minds and how they viewed them. That's what I see you trying to convince me about in most of your previous post. I'm not convinced. That's what I was trying to explain to you. It's a major point for me in the discussion. If we can't recognize the problems and acknowledge them, we talk around and around. So I attempted to bring out the problem as I see it. I see you still going around and around.--ren

While you seem to be adamant about how 'you see this', I'm not really certain you've seen the point about how 'I see this'. The Greeks may have adequately conceptualized the 'philosophy behind the mechanism of thought', they did NOT inculcate that 'philosophy' into their 'political actions'--in as succinct and consistent manner as did the American founding fathers. It's this 'discrepancy between thought and (political) action' that I have a contention with in the 'vision of the Greek philosophers'. This only came about (with much straining and conflict throughout history) in the modern era...

I may add to that as I go along. And, the best way that I see I can do that is 'point by point'...

quote:

It appears to me your analysis begins with Augustine--ren

Augustine provides the best philosophical basis for this 'anti-individualism' that pervades much of the 'collective rights to authority'. While such actions 'pre-date' Augustine, he's the best philosopher in elucidating the point of the 'good' of 'collective authority'--especially against the 'evil' of 'the individual'. And, you have to keep in mind a couple of points about the 'historical context' in which this issue is embedded. One, 'collectivization' (if you will) of man into 'larger and larger social groups' was done with the prospect of 'organizing it' through such 'collective concepts' as 'communal gods'. Two, 'individuality', as we perceive and understand that concept, was not contended with, in any way, as a 'reaction to' such 'collectivization' until the modern age--particularly because the concept of 'the individual' as, in any way, 'properly separating itself from the collective' was not even a developed 'entity' until the modern age ('individual thoughts to the individual person')...

quote:

Yours seems to involve the logical linearity that reasons some evolutionary development, mine is more focused on thinking about thinking and how that sets up different constructs of social thought. In that process I don't consider myself an "us" or a "them."--ren

But, any 'social order' that distinguishes itself in any way from any other already has the 'us vs. them' set-up that can be represented by any 'dualistic form'--including 'good vs. evil'. That was my point. 'Abject individualism' (which is practically based on the idea that 'each person can think for themself') is not fundamentally 'dualizing'--establishing 'social orders' against 'any other social order' is...so, if you are going to speak of 'social order', and you are going to compare and contrast that, in any way, to another 'social order', you are going to have 'dualizing tendencies' in doing so. That's not 'individualisms' cause--or fault--that's 'competing social orders' fault. So, if you are going to talk of 'social order' in the fashion of 'comparing it to another', you have 'dualizing tendencies'--that was my point in 'keeping it in context'....

While 'good and evil' may not have any 'absolute' context for you (and I can see that point), if you are going at this issue from the perspective of comparing 'different social orders', then, the very prospect of 'comparisons' will have some parts as 'good' ('favorable', etc.) and some as 'evil' ('non-favorable', etc.)--so, as far as I can see it, 'rejecting good vs. evil' paradigm is, itself, 'doing so by comparison'--which, paradoxically, uses the 'good vs. evil' paradigm to do it because you are still 'deciding on a comparison'...and, in a way, you are 'using trickster logic' all along the way. If you are 'aware' that that is what you are doing, then the 'logic' is no longer from the angle of the 'trickster' (the Jungian archetype who capitalizes on the 'advantage' coming from 'unawareness'--oftentimes as if it 'was aware').

quote:

Thinking in dualistic terms is simply what rational thought is about, and I use it.

And, if rationality is to be the 'order of the day' (politically-speaking), then we will have 'dualistic terms' to deal with. If there is a 'higher order of thought', and 'rationality' doesn't hold 'that answer', then, it won't be a 'political perspective' if 'rationality' is to be how 'people are to be controlled' politically. Furthermore, if you are to profess that 'there is a better way than rationality to control people', then, by the prospect of 'defining what better means', you have set-up the 'dualizing potential' of 'rationality' in doing so...you cannot 'escape' that prospect if 'rationality' is to have anything to do with 'establishing social order'. And, if it doesn't, then you've negated the original premise that 'rationality is the best way to control people'--and, with any 'irrational' means you offer, 'the trickster' is set and ready to 'take advantage of it'....

quote:

However an individual uses it (projection), it obviously comes from the individual to begin with.

Yes, but is this 'individual' doing it from a perspective of 'awareness'--or is it more from an angle of 'social cohesion' for 'cohesion's sake' without any awareness of what it actually may mean to actor, themself--or even the results that such action may entail in respect to the short or long term consequences of that action? If they are 'not aware', then, there is 'an angle for the trickster to exploit'....

quote:

I am not willing to make your rationally derived conclusions for the same rationally derived reasons you are arguing for individualism, I have doubt.

And, if the 'source of such doubt' is coming from somewhere besides 'you, the individual', I have concerns....

quote:

All your explanations don't do anything extra, because you are explaining what I already understand.

That's great. Sometimes the 'point of awareness' is 'realizing you already knew it'. It isn't 'always a rational perspective' when you are talking strictly about 'the individual'--and that's not my point or problem with this discussion. My point and problem with this aspect of 'understanding' is how that is to be applied in any way--especially to another against their will. That's the 'political part' to this that I don't see 'the Greeks' addressing....

quote:

Plato talks in his works about a dividing line that can't be crossed between the self and the outer world that is sensed and perceived, so he hypothesizes that the forms that are perceived are more or less reflections of innate forms in the individual.

'Us vs. them' can personally be translated into 'me vs. you'. Yes. And, all the potentials of 'projection' can be done politically, also. A 'monarchy' can be seen as the 'projected compendium' of its subjects 'gaining power' by 'associating with the monarch' (it's 'me and the king' against the world, sort of thing)--and, by such an association, claim what elements are 'kingly' ('socially prestigious') and what 'aren't'....

Which brings to mind my understanding that the archetype of 'trickster' was originally conceptualized as 'the jester in the king's court'--where it is 'only the jester' that can get by 'ridiculing the king' to the king's face....

quote:

As one who has examined myself, the way I think, see and feel as closely and questioningly as I'm able, I tend to see the same limits to knowledge these rationalists see.

I am not as concerned about 'rationality's limit to knowledge and awareness' as I am about using anything else but 'rationality' in 'controlling other people'. And, as I understand the American founding fathers, that was exactly their concern (that is the 'historical context' I am using).

Let me quote Thomas Jefferson in this regard because it may clarify some of 'where I'm coming from'. I've quoted this before even on this forum (and, in my history of writing on forums like this, I've quoted it often). This comes from the appendix of Stephen Mitchell's book, The Gospel According to Jesus--For Believers and Unbelievers (all bold emphases will be mine--all italics were in the original):

quote:

You will next read the New Testament. It is the history of a personage called Jesus. Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions: 1, of those who say he was begotten by God, born of a virgin, suspended and reversed the laws of nature at will, and ascended bodily into heaven; and 2, of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition, by being gibbeted, according to the Roman law, which punished the first commission of that offense by whipping, and the second by exile, or death in furea.

Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a God, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, and that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement; if that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus was also a God, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love. In fine, I repeat, you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything, because any other persons, or description of persons, have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision. I forgot to observe, when speaking of the New Testament, that you should read all the histories of Christ, as well of those whom a council of ecclesiastics have decided for us, to be Pseudo-evangelists, as those they named Evangelists, because these Pseudo-evangelists pretended to inspiration, as much as the others, and you are to judge of their pretensions by your own reason, and not by the reason of those ecclesiastics.

Now, you may see why I 'emphasize' Augustine...and the 'rational basis' against Augustine....

I may try to complete this later.

Keep the faith....

First, note I did some editing of my previous post, I don't know what that might do to change anything. Just some details.

quote:

While you seem to be adamant about how 'you see this', I'm not really certain you've seen the point about how 'I see this'. The Greeks may have adequately conceptualized the 'philosophy behind the mechanism of thought', they did NOT inculcate that 'philosophy' into their 'political actions'--in as succinct and consistent manner as did the American founding fathers. It's this 'discrepancy between thought and (political) action' that I have a contention with in the 'vision of the Greek philosophers'. This only came about (with much straining and conflict throughout history) in the modern era...

I see your point and it makes no difference to me or how I approach this. So, what next? If you want to keep arguing your point go on, I'm not disagreeing or agreeing. So I don't see why you'd want to waste your time with something I already understand.

quote:

I am not as concerned about 'rationality's limit to knowledge and awareness' as I am about using anything else but 'rationality' in 'controlling other people'. And, as I understand the American founding fathers, that was exactly their concern (that is the 'historical context' I am using).

Do you mean "persuasion"? What's not rational? It's all conceptual, whether through projection or whatever.

quote:

Now, you may see why I 'emphasize' Augustine...and the 'rational basis' against Augustine....

I always did, but it doesn't change anything for me to see that. I think you have a good argument for individualism, and I wouldn't abandon it if I were you, I'm sure; for argumentative purposes, I imagine it's served you well.

You keep coming across as something of a languistic determinist. That may help to explain to me what distinguishes how you see "rational" from how I'm trying to express the other possibilities I'm seeing in "psychological nativism." But I don't know how that will help you!

Well, my wife gets aggravated if I spend too long at the computer and it does appear we've hit something of a 'snag' in our discussion. In reading some of your other writings, I sense you have an aversion to 'individualism' of a sorts. It appears that that is due to your positioning of a 'collective entity' that, somehow, with respect to political, philosophical, and psychological perspectives, 'trumps' the individualist's cause. Your explanation seems to conclude 'that's all we have to work with'--and that may, indeed, be true in this world today.

I can counter that with the prospect that we should resort back to the very premises upon which we 'operate as a social entity'--and, then, center my position on the theme as I have. If it's 'rationality', only the 'individual' is a rational being. If it's, in some way, 'social justice', define 'justice' in terms that don't include 'individual rights'. If it's some supravening 'social order' that is based on some 'natural element', then, 'individuality' is rightfully subdued to the 'collective element'--but don't try to 'rationalize' it beyond just 'getting along with it' because I don't think you can...

As far as 'elements of nature' go, it reminds me of a recent program I saw on Discovery or Animal Planet or somesuch. The program was about domestic and wild hogs--and how different they were. The domestic hog is docile and gentle--considered one of the 'smartest of the domestic animals'. The wild hog is aggressive and confrontational.

When my mother and father were just getting started, there's a story about them raising a hog to eat. However, when it came time for the hog to be slaughtered, my mother wouldn't let my father do it because she now knew the hog as a pet.

However, this show had a interesting point to it. Ferral hogs. Ferral hogs were once 'domestic hogs' that, for whatever reason, got turned out into the wild. And, here's the interesting point: Once the domestic hog was 'turned out into the wild', hundreds of 'generations of domesticating' were lost and, within a matter of just a few weeks, the hog's hair grew coarser and thicker and the hogs tusks grew longer and sharper, and the characteristics of the hog were just as aggressive as it's wild cousin. When 'turned out to nature', within a 'matter of weeks', the hog lost its 'domesticating influence' that had been working on it for hundreds of generations.

You may not think so, but I think there is a 'message to man' in this 'story of nature'. 'Individualism', to me, is NOT 'mob rule'--but many seem to present as such. 'Individualism', as I perceive it, takes an advanced, and secure, society to function. If we are to 'opt for nature' above 'individualism', we really may not be aware of what that 'nature' means to the 'animal human'....

Another 'lesson'....and 'warning'....but, whatever, I guess, in some ways, we all get to 'choose' the way we live whether it's in a 'Jeffersonian democracy' or a 'fascist dictatorship' even if the 'limits of such choice' are so directed.....

Keep the faith...

Kerry, I don't have an aversion to individualism. I'm so individualistic I'm virtually unemployable. I've been privately employed nearly all my life.

What I don't see is how to translate my individualism into something I can extract from a larger system that has its own ontology, a set of logically interlinked systems that I must inevitably adhere to, even as a private contractor. I have much disagreement that there's much of an element of individual initiative involved in this notion I keep hearing bandied about of a "free market," but that's another issue.

Arguments I advanced when I first came to this board were towards developing rhizomic nodes of participatory democracy where individualism can act itself out in a social context and not get lost in collective power plays. I don't have a clue to how to reorganize the political systems I see in place on the planet now. In the seventies we were bandying about ideas regarding a reorganization into ecological regional political zones for the US, which wouldn't really have been that different structurally from the Constitution that Iraq has in place, waiting there for the mess to settle down to see if they can collectively act on it. The Kurds are the only set of governates to organize a region.

quote:

You may not think so, but I think there is a 'message to man' in this 'story of nature'.

I completely agree. But not the story explanation described in quite the way you described it. It's rather based upon that individual nature we have, given, as completely natural genotypic beings with those basic innate components towards which I've raised the issue of "eco-psychology." One of the few on this board I consider a friend at this point, Chris DeGetmon, has also raised the issue many times, in many ways, and bases his whole life on it now. He's opened yet another thread on that topic: Diamond Approach/EcoPsychology...

My own history with the concept goes back to the mid seventies, some outward bound experiments in northern Minnesota with inner city kids from gangs in Chicago, and the transformations in individual awareness, self confidence, self actuation we observed, with just that short exposure to nature and to learning some basic survival skills. That's a concept that's been developing since then and it's evolved into a branch of its own, with formal, academic knowledge being shared, beginning in the nineties, called eco-psychology.

I bet you are familiar with the concepts: phenotype and genotype. The change you described in those hogs is a change in phenotype, while the genotype remains constant. The intellectualized idea of individualism is a kind of "phenotypic" solution. I argue that there is an innate individualism, it's what we evolved and already were as full fledged modern humans, the earliest detected now I see were here some 164,000 years ago. Earliest Evidence Of Modern Humans Detected

As I've said, my wife is from Canada. We've mused over the differences that Canadians appear to have over the prospects of 'their government'--and how we Americans approach it (especially us Americans from Texas). Canadians appear to trust their government--many Americans do not. Canadians appear to believe that 'their government has their interests at heart', many Americans do not--which is why Ronald Reagan was so successful in his 'anti-government' positioning in the 1980's (I just wish he had been just as adamantly 'anti-corporation'--but, that's a supplemental story).

Recently, my wife and I attended a local seminar put on by a local college professor espousing 'indigenous housing' in our area--which, for a semi-arid desert region, is adobe. In that seminar was the first time I had heard the concept of 'peak oil'--and how only 150 years into the Industrial Revolution we had expended out more than half of the world's resources of oil and timber. Along with adobe housing (which has a lot of properties that cheapen energy costs), the professor espoused 'self-sustained housing'--something I've played with for a long time reading things like Mother Earth magazine and such. My wife and I both liked the concept--for different reasons. She, being the 'eco-friendly' Canadian that she is, was all for the 'environmental impetus' of this issue. I, being the ultimate individualist that I am, was all for doing anything to get away from the influence of Big Business and Big Government as much as I possibly could. Same result--two different 'causes'....

And, I think that's where part of our issues are meeting a 'snag'--the confusion between 'cause' and 'process' in 'social entities'. You, ren, seem to emphasize 'the process'--I'm more concerned about the 'cause'. Where they may meet in reality is part of this problem....with any dyscongruities, again, able to be exploited in 'trickster fashion'....

quote:

I don't have a clue to how to reorganize the political systems I see in place on the planet now.

Neither do I. However, assuring that 'the process' confirms 'the cause' may be one place to start. Which is why I am constantly arguing that laws should be formulated under open consideration on how they affect 'individual rights' from the onset--not wait until a Supreme Court has to decide it. Open and up front....

quote:

I bet you are familiar with the concepts: phenotype and genotype.

Well, I don't know of a whole lot of organisms that can alter their phenotype in adulthood--the 'domestic hog' apparently can. I suspect it revolves around an increase in testosterone (for both males and females, by the way)--which is the 'male hormone' that does increase the 'male characteristics' of aggression and confrontation in nature. In that respect, this is a 'natural incidence' of the 'male/female' duality at play being 'adjusted' by the environment....

quote:

I argue that there is an innate individualism, it's what we evolved and already were as full fledged modern humans, the earliest detected now I see were here some 164,000 years ago.

I argue that 'history' can be read as having an 'evolving awareness factor' for both the 'body politic' that represents human cultural mores as well as the 'body person' whose mind and mores are so 'adjusted'. And, like esoteric religion, I worry that ignorance of such a progression, just like 'resorting back to nature', will lead to man's regression into more confrontational and alienated states and I see the 'world stage' set up right now to challenge that 'awareness factor'. And, if we don't emphasize 'awareness' all along the way, I fear 'regression into the wild' will be the result.....

And, once again, what else 'can be aware' other than the 'individual seeking awareness'?

This is somewhat amusing as I was just browsing the excerpts offered for Thom's new book, Cracking the Code.

From what I read of the section on Hobbes, whom Thom cites as the father of modern day conservatism, your position is somewhat reflective of Hobbes, and other conservatives, on the essential nature of humans:

quote:

Kerry:
I argue that 'history' can be read as having an 'evolving awareness factor' for both the 'body politic' that represents human cultural mores as well as the 'body person' whose mind and mores are so 'adjusted'. And, like esoteric religion, I worry that ignorance of such a progression, just like 'resorting back to nature', will lead to man's regression into more confrontational and alienated states and I see the 'world stage' set up right now to challenge that 'awareness factor'. And, if we don't emphasize 'awareness' all along the way, I fear 'regression into the wild' will be the result.....

Thom, from Chapter 1:

quote:

Thom:

quote:

Hobbes:
...no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

Hobbes was also quite certain that he could see the truth of this in the natives living on the American continent, although he had never visited it or met any of them.10

Even today most modern American conservatives believe — wrongly, in the opinion of liberals and most anthropologists—that all American Indian tribes lived in a state of constant hate and warfare against each other before the arrival of the “civilizing” Europeans. On the other hand, most modern American liberals will assert that the majority of American Indian tribes lived in relative peace and harmony both among and between each other and that tribal confl ict was the exception brought about mostly by changes in climate from generation to generation.

According to Thom, I'd have to say my perspective tends to be the liberal one on basic human nature.

quote:

And, once again, what else 'can be aware' other than the 'individual seeking awareness'?

I ask, how can the individual be other than "aware'? My question, then, is in regard to how that awareness is applied by the individual. How does one use one's cognitive tools? I would put it as "awareness in process." Your argument tends towards an awareness of ideas, concepts, with a more ratonal, supraliminal focus. I think you've hit it quite well, and we've worked out what we can, best we can with these differences:

quote:

And, I think that's where part of our issues are meeting a 'snag'--the confusion between 'cause' and 'process' in 'social entities'. You, ren, seem to emphasize 'the process'--I'm more concerned about the 'cause'. Where they may meet in reality is part of this problem....with any dyscongruities, again, able to be exploited in 'trickster fashion'....

I would see your sense of "cause" as a conceptually based problem, which invokes a rational causality process that can be traced. From my more process point of view, I would tend to see that conceptions are more metaphorically transformative, and can be invoked in the moment and thereby formed as needed to fit the task. Thus the form the concepts are being applied to becomes consequential, not the conceptual forms themselves, which are more like tools. Of course understanding rational causality is not ignored, just not emphasized the same way. Curiously and fascinatingly different approaches.

And we've been over our different senses of the trickster already.

quote:

which is why Ronald Reagan was so successful in his 'anti-government' positioning in the 1980's (I just wish he had been just as adamantly 'anti-corporation'--but, that's a supplemental story).

Yes, well, another time to develop that, perhaps, but one of my views of the process of how things have gotten to this point, with the Constitutional rules we started with over two hundred years ago, is that corporations and government coevolved to correspond to each other and to attempt to reflect the Constitutional guidelines. If we want to tinker with one, we have to tinker with the other. Both are essentially legally defined collectives. At least some colonies were chartered corporations, after all.

By the way, fascinating that the domestic hogs have it built into their genetic code to transform their phenotype so quickly to meet new environmental challenges -- or is that "old," more primal challenges?

quote:

your position is somewhat reflective of Hobbes, and other conservatives, on the essential nature of humans:--ren

First off, most of my family (who were diehard Bush supporters until quite recently--I never was) would disagree with 'me' being called 'conservative'. I've always been pro-abortion, anti-Iraqi War, anti-corporate control, pro-government subsidies (in certain areas), and adamant that 'individual rights' trump all other concerns of 'government function or intervention' unless explicitly detailed otherwise as to why not....

quote:

I ask, how can the individual be other than "aware'?

Depends on what you mean by 'aware'. Is 'being awake and oriented' enough to call it 'aware'? Not in the manner I am using the term, no. Being 'conscious' is NOT the same thing as 'consciousness'. And, 'consciousness', proper, is NOT the same thing as being 'aware'--not in the sense of 'fully accounting for every motive and action they do' with respect to ultimate consequences and long (or even short) term repercussions of such 'motives and actions'. That takes someone who has a solid grasp of themselves--and the consequences of the roles they consider 'playing'.

quote:

From my more process point of view, I would tend to see that conceptions are more metaphorically transformative, and can be invoked in the moment and thereby formed as needed to fit the task.

Yep, you're right, I'm adamantly a 'professed causative person' when it comes to 'authorized activity'. The problem I see with the 'process' of 'metaphorically transformative functions' is the same problem I see with 'complexity'--it lends itself to disingenuous behavior under the 'umbrella' of 'metaphor'. An exagerated example would be the 'metaphor of the Holocaust' being a 'transfixing assertion of power against dissention'......

Start with 'professing the cause'--then, see if 'the actions (or behavior)' support or reject that profession. That lays the 'accountability' exactly where I think it should be--upon those asserting the action....

quote:

Of course understanding rational causality is not ignored, just not emphasized the same way.

That's what I disagree with. The 'cause' should be on everyone's mind that is exerting any 'action'--everytime and all the time....

quote:

.....corporations and government coevolved to correspond to each other and to attempt to reflect the Constitutional guidelines. If we want to tinker with one, we have to tinker with the other. Both are essentially legally defined collectives. At least some colonies were chartered corporations, after all.

Well, in that case, I'm in total agreement with Thom Hartmann in his book, Unequal Protection--ie. one part of the reason for the American Revolution was to get rid of 'unrepresentative corporate control'--specifically of the East India Company and its 'monopoly' that the British government endorsed for the colonies. Also, like Ray Ginger's Altgeld's America depicts, at the time when 'unrepresentative corporate control' was exerting very undue influence in the politics and economics of America, it was incumbent upon the government to curtail it. 'Government', in that respect, acted as a 'counter-balance' against 'corporate control'--something that was totally lost with the 'Reagan revolution' when the 'powers of government and the powers of corporations' joined forces against any 'will of the people'....

I would disagree with your time line. The Civil War entrenched an already powerful elite in firm control of the federal government.
The Hayes-Tilden election fraud was something very familiar to those paying attention to the electoral fiasco of 2000.
The rise of the progressives was a real concern to the elites, with demands for labor organization, pure food and drug laws, and a reduction in the number of hours labor was forced to work in order to survive
Before WWI the Socialists were growing in power and influence to a degree that few would suspectif all they read was the standard corporate MSM version of U.S. history.
After WWI the "radicals" were smashed by the Palmer raids, illegal deportations and a general use of the law to squelch any pesky reformers.
F.D.R. did the minimum needed to avert a social upheaval, cleverly using the new propaganda tools of radio and film to disguise the nature of the acquisitive system the citizens were yoked with.
After WWII Federal monies were poured into a military state, this had stopped the depression and , it was hoped, would prop up the new global empire which the U.S. now held.
Reagan merely stripped away the pretense of fiscal responsibility, driving the nation deeper in debt for the benifit of the minority which claimed to be in favor of "free market economics".
Bush I, Clinton, Bush II have all worked to drain the nation white with a "new international" economy, which has only driven the debt load higher while securing the already powerful controls of international finance.
The nation state is now only a shadow figure, of no importance to those in control of wealth.

quote:

The nation state is now only a shadow figure, of no importance to those in control of wealth.--Don Smith

I agree with that. 'American ideals' are just another 'bargaining chip' to manipulate 'corporate power' in what I think this Iraqi War really depicts--the first 'multinational war' disingenuously done under the guise of 'fighting for freedom' as an 'American cause'....

quote:

First off, most of my family (who were diehard Bush supporters until quite recently--I never was) would disagree with 'me' being called 'conservative'. I've always been pro-abortion, anti-Iraqi War, anti-corporate control, pro-government subsidies (in certain areas), and adamant that 'individual rights' trump all other concerns of 'government function or intervention' unless explicitly detailed otherwise as to why not....

I didn't attempt to say you were a conservative, . The idea that humans would fall back into that somewhat "regressed wild state" without your complicated system of intellectual awareness is what I was referring to. Thom sees that as a defining factor, from his cognitive science approach in his book, for the underlying make up of conservatives. I just thought that was amusing that you happened to say that about the time I was reading it. It's my quirkiness to notice such things, my stupidity to mention them. I don't really know what you think about it, but we do have some major differences in cognitive styles, that seems fairly clear at this point.

quote:

Depends on what you mean by 'aware'. Is 'being awake and oriented' enough to call it 'aware'? Not in the manner I am using the term, no. Being 'conscious' is NOT the same thing as 'consciousness'. And, 'consciousness', proper, is NOT the same thing as being 'aware'--not in the sense of 'fully accounting for every motive and action they do' with respect to ultimate consequences and long (or even short) term repercussions of such 'motives and actions'. That takes someone who has a solid grasp of themselves--and the consequences of the roles they consider 'playing'.

Not to me, what I'm referring to doesn't depend on any meaning of aware. I don't know anything about any abstract "its" you may have in mind, either. What I say is to be alive is to be de facto aware, can't be avoided. The only question then is how you use your cognitive awareness tools, which would consist of a wide range of your very own living features, including your own, self-created and potentially always changing mental models, which many folks devote much time to constructing. Your argument for consciousness is nicely self-definitional and I'd identify it one of your mental model tools. Unless you have some sort of magical authoritarian mechanism for enforcing it on others, anyone can and will come up with their own version. It may work like yours, it may not. Seems to me what I do works just fine for me whether I agree with yours or not. I suppose if it didn't I'd be locked up or executed.

quote:

Yep, you're right, I'm adamantly a 'professed causative person' when it comes to 'authorized activity'. The problem I see with the 'process' of 'metaphorically transformative functions' is the same problem I see with 'complexity'--it lends itself to disingenuous behavior under the 'umbrella' of 'metaphor'. An exagerated example would be the 'metaphor of the Holocaust' being a 'transfixing assertion of power against dissention'......

Start with 'professing the cause'--then, see if 'the actions (or behavior)' support or reject that profession. That lays the 'accountability' exactly where I think it should be--upon those asserting the action....

Apples and oranges -- and pehaps another illustration of why we are talking past each other. Authorized activity is something else, not my self actuated behavior, which is what I'm talking about. Your exaggerated example has nothing to do with acting in the moment, it becomes yet another categorical, conceptual, rational abstraction. Dishonest, disingenous behavior in the moment could actually get you killed. I don't have to try to rationalize how to be honest of whether I am the cause of my own behavior, personally. Reality you face can be conceptually interpreted but it best be darn close to what is, if there's any danger involved, no matter what concepts you stick on it. Accountability cannot be eluded. One can lie to oneself about it, I suppose. I suppose, too, if you are stuck in a single loop learning process it might help to do some rationalizing about your own causality. But if you develop a double-loop learning style, you could then bring to the surface your underlying mental models, and seeing those and how you've constructed and employed them, can be useful in solving the complex problems of how things are going to be as you engage your environment, and they change over time as you improve your strategies. This makes behavior more of a strategy process in the moment than a linear causality process.

quote:

That's what I disagree with. The 'cause' should be on everyone's mind that is exerting any 'action'--everytime and all the time...

That seems like a strange and fairly convoluted way of seeing your own intellectualization process, and then of trying to translate that into action, but if it works for you, I say go for it! Personally, I'm not all that concerned about placing blame, so determining causality seldom comes into play. I simply approach all situations in good faith, and with a good heart towards everyone and all of nature, and do the best I can with what I find in the moment. I work on my skills of listening, empathy, sympathy, sensitivity, articulation -- I'm sure there're more, but I hope you get the picture -- and I try my best to negotiate a peaceful path for myself through the many and varied situations I come upon. That includes these very weird, abstract word exchanges on these message boards.

quote:

Well, in that case, I'm in total agreement with Thom Hartmann in his book, Unequal Protection--ie. one part of the reason for the American Revolution was to get rid of 'unrepresentative corporate control'--specifically of the East India Company and its 'monopoly' that the British government endorsed for the colonies. Also, like Ray Ginger's Altgeld's America depicts, at the time when 'unrepresentative corporate control' was exerting very undue influence in the politics and economics of America, it was incumbent upon the government to curtail it. 'Government', in that respect, acted as a 'counter-balance' against 'corporate control'--something that was totally lost with the 'Reagan revolution' when the 'powers of government and the powers of corporations' joined forces against any 'will of the people'....

I'm glad you agree with Thom Hartmann on those issues. My perspective on it might be a little different than Thom's, in that I see that the Constitution was set up in error by letting the states individually be responsible for how they chartered the corporations. Thom's position that I've heard him make is that the Founders were very concerned about the potential power of corporations. Well, if they were, they screwed up tactically, in my opinion. Put that mistake together with the upcoming industrial revolution the founders didn't foresee, and you get these altogether too many possibilities for sensibly managing the legal control of corporations. Put that together with the economic pressures that arose, with the state charters to play off against one another in a competitive way, when the attractive economic potential of collective capital is in the mix, you get what happened. Corporations and their influential members became increasingly powerful political groups. Control was bound to break down somewhere even if the US had remained thirteen states -- and look how that went. The industrial revolution was a global event. That combined with the control of interstate commerce at the federal level, where the Supreme Court could have a hand, was just too much for the US constitution to maintain a proper perspective on the so-called will of the people, in my opinion. And the breakdown had already been underway by the time the corporate personhood mistake took place in 1886.

quote:

This makes behavior more of a strategy process in the moment than a linear causality process.--ren

I'm not quite sure why you call my manner of approaching this a 'model basis' approach. I'm proposing no more of a 'model' than those who exert the action being responsible to 'the cause' they exert. In government, I see that 'ideal cause' as being 'endoring individual rights' in a Jeffersonian democracy. Therefore, in any governmental intervention, the 'cause' of 'individual rights' should be openly addressed in every potential action considered by government. What's the 'model' in that?

Your 'strategy process in the moment' is just like all the other prospects of 'complexity', 'metaphorically transformative', and, now, 'strategy in the moment'--all ignoring the motive behind this ubiquitous 'process' and offering the opportunity of the 'process' preempting any defined purpose. When that happens, as far as I can see it, that means that 'any purpose' will do as long as the 'process is workable'--and I don't see that excluding anything like 'oppression' or 'violation of rights' as long as 'the process is working'. And, I have a problem with that being how any nation of people supposedly 'free to determine that for themselves'. If there is no 'check and balance' in that manner, only 'process', then, that 'process' can represent any form or function--even if it is fundamentally without any hint of 'social justice'.....

Or, if you want to approach my problem with your assessment as you, so far, have stated it, how do you, in any way, consider 'social justice' in this 'process' you propose to be the basis of any 'social function'?

quote:

Originally posted by Don Smith:
I would disagree with your time line. The Civil War entrenched an already powerful elite in firm control of the federal government.
The Hayes-Tilden election fraud was something very familiar to those paying attention to the electoral fiasco of 2000.
The rise of the progressives was a real concern to the elites, with demands for labor organization, pure food and drug laws, and a reduction in the number of hours labor was forced to work in order to survive
Before WWI the Socialists were growing in power and influence to a degree that few would suspectif all they read was the standard corporate MSM version of U.S. history.
After WWI the "radicals" were smashed by the Palmer raids, illegal deportations and a general use of the law to squelch any pesky reformers.
F.D.R. did the minimum needed to avert a social upheaval, cleverly using the new propaganda tools of radio and film to disguise the nature of the acquisitive system the citizens were yoked with.
After WWII Federal monies were poured into a military state, this had stopped the depression and , it was hoped, would prop up the new global empire which the U.S. now held.
Reagan merely stripped away the pretense of fiscal responsibility, driving the nation deeper in debt for the benifit of the minority which claimed to be in favor of "free market economics".
Bush I, Clinton, Bush II have all worked to drain the nation white with a "new international" economy, which has only driven the debt load higher while securing the already powerful controls of international finance.
The nation state is now only a shadow figure, of no importance to those in control of wealth.

I missed your post, Don, while I was composing.

My last paragraph in my above post should show I agree more closely with the way you see it. Corporate forces began to work almost immediately against the legal restrictions they encountered in the states, and it appears from my reading that during Jefferson's presidency he was already dismayed at what he saw happening.

And as I said earlier, the Federal government and the corporations co-evolved, with the states coming along in their various and sundry ways.

I think there are plenty of signs that nation states may be a passing step in this global corporate hegemony that's been developing for over 500 years, just as colonies were a stage. Although I suspect we are looking at a variety of collapse scenarios before the "grand vision" of the elites will ever come about.



The Process of World Colonization to Nation States, 1492 to 2007

quote:

Originally posted by Kerry:

quote:

This makes behavior more of a strategy process in the moment than a linear causality process.--ren

I'm not quite sure why you call my manner of approaching this a 'model basis' approach. I'm proposing no more of a 'model' than those who exert the action being responsible to 'the cause' they exert. In government, I see that 'ideal cause' as being 'endoring individual rights' in a Jeffersonian democracy. Therefore, in any governmental intervention, the 'cause' of 'individual rights' should be openly addressed in every potential action considered by government. What's the 'model' in that?

I'm not talking about your approach. I'm referring to how I work things.

quote:

Your 'strategy process in the moment' is just like all the other prospects of 'complexity', 'metaphorically transformative', and, now, 'strategy in the moment'--all ignoring the motive behind this ubiquitous 'process' and offering the opportunity of the 'process' preempting any defined purpose. When that happens, as far as I can see it, that means that 'any purpose' will do as long as the 'process is workable'--and I don't see that excluding anything like 'oppression' or 'violation of rights' as long as 'the process is working'. And, I have a problem with that being how any nation of people supposedly 'free to determine that for themselves'. If there is no 'check and balance' in that manner, only 'process', then, that 'process' can represent any form or function--even if it is fundamentally without any hint of 'social justice'.....

It works for me.

quote:

Or, if you want to approach my problem with your assessment as you, so far, have stated it, how do you, in any way, consider 'social justice' in this 'process' you propose to be the basis of any 'social function'?

I'm not trying to engineer society through the idealization of the individual, as you are. I wouldn't try to do what you are trying to do.

quote:

I'm not trying to engineer society through the idealization of the individual, as you are. I wouldn't try to do what you are trying to do.--ren

I think 'engineering society' is misrepresenting my position, ren (in fact, I think your 'process' engineers the society a lot more than my 'cause' does). I don't center on 'process' because I think 'centering on cause' will 'create its own process'. 'Process prioritizing' reminds me too much of 'policy-implementation'--and I HATE 'policy-implementations' in my profession. It hampers how I can approach any problem I see under the guise of 'standard of care'--and I think it is GROSSLY overrated.

As an example, there's a law called HIPAA ('Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act') that is supposed to 'protect your privacy'--but, the only one it 'protects your privacy' from is 'family and friends' (at your request--which, by the way, was always the way it was before this 'policy-implementation')--everyone else (including every government and insurance agency) has access to this information. Plus, it was my understanding that 'right to privacy' was an implied right from government--not one with government. I suspect it's 'purpose' isn't for 'your privacy'. It was something like the HIPAA regulation (it supervenes in areas that don't directly relate to medicine) that prevented news organization from photographing the caskets coming back from the Iraqi War (unless that agency got written permission from every family who had a casket present there)--that's a subtle form of media control done in 'right to privacy's name' (even at the time, the news personnel were commenting that 'they were just caskets, you couldn't even see the persons in them'). I see it as a form of Orwellian doublespeak--but, I think our world is quickly developing an 'Orwellian plot', anyway--with things like 'Intimidation leads to Liberation' right along with 'War is Peace'....maybe even add your 'process and policy' over 'cause' as the 'right motivator for people'....

I'd like to know what the reason for the 'process' is--and, then, decide for myself whether I agree with it or not. You, ren, don't seem to be so motivated to do so.

So be it....

quote:

Originally posted by Kerry:

quote:

I'm not trying to engineer society through the idealization of the individual, as you are. I wouldn't try to do what you are trying to do.--ren

I think 'engineering society' is misrepresenting my position, ren (in fact, I think your 'process' engineers the society a lot more than my 'cause' does). I don't center on 'process' because I think 'centering on cause' will 'create its own process'. 'Process prioritizing' reminds me too much of 'policy-implementation'--and I HATE 'policy-implementations' in my profession. It hampers how I can approach any problem I see under the guise of 'standard of care'--and I think it is GROSSLY overrated.

As an example, there's a law called HIPAA ('Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act') that is supposed to 'protect your privacy'--but, the only one it 'protects your privacy' from is 'family and friends' (at your request--which, by the way, was always the way it was before this 'policy-implementation')--everyone else (including every government and insurance agency) has access to this information. Plus, it was my understanding that 'right to privacy' was an implied right from government--not one with government. I suspect it's 'purpose' isn't for 'your privacy'. It was something like the HIPAA regulation (it supervenes in areas that don't directly relate to medicine) that prevented news organization from photographing the caskets coming back from the Iraqi War (unless that agency got written permission from every family who had a casket present there)--that's a subtle form of media control done in 'right to privacy's name' (even at the time, the news personnel were commenting that 'they were just caskets, you couldn't even see the persons in them'). I see it as a form of Orwellian doublespeak--but, I think our world is quickly developing an 'Orwellian plot', anyway--with things like 'Intimidation leads to Liberation' right along with 'War is Peace'....maybe even add your 'process and policy' over 'cause' as the 'right motivator for people'....

I'd like to know what the reason for the 'process' is--and, then, decide for myself whether I agree with it or not. You, ren, don't seem to be so motivated to do so.

So be it....

I'll just talk in general here, I don't really have a good solution for answering what I see you saying.

On another thread, we are talking about "weasel words", and I thought Kate just made a salient point about what we are wrangling with there:

quote:

The real problem with weasel words, strategically used, is that they mask meaning and allow for various interpretations. When the words take on their most specific and precise meaning is when the writer, who has some power to insist on the specific meaning of any given weasel word, lets the weasel out of the bag and says "no" and "because" here's what [weasel word] really means.

and Vaudree followed with an emphasis that points to the strategic user of weasel words and suggests to me at least how to perhaps uncover whether or not the person in a discussion is a weasel word artist or just someone with a muddled mind, because the result of what they are doing with words could look the same either way:

quote:

Of Course! There is an art to being technically accurate yet totally misleading. Sometimes the distinction between being truthful and misleading and actually lying can be quite small.

And so we have a representation of a way of looking at this whole system of using words to describe how do protect privacy in a bill and we have the way the meaning can be misconstrued in ways that do not protect our privacy. The actual intent of creating such misleading propositions, and passing them into law may never actually be proven, but certainly the effect can be seen, as you noted. The result of that problem can be seen on the many discussions going in this country right now about the possibility of a government conspiracy involved in those horrific events on 911.

I tend to step back and notice that it is in the nature of language, and interpretation, that exact formulas to produce a precise result, is virtually impossible. Some folks conclude that the lawyers have plotted this out from the beginning to assure they will never be unemployed. That's looking for cause. I don't do that, I just look at the systemic models and try to see patterns and pobabilities. I can do vertical analysis but I run out of patience. Other people don't.

It appears to me people can be set up with cognitive frameworks that tend to work themselves out in different ways -- whether that's innate or experientially derived is unclear. I seem to be set up now, from what ever life experiences I had at an early age and or innate qualities, to do certain kinds of thinking problem solving that involves systems analysis and strategic planning. I "discovered" this -- not knowing anything about it to begin with -- when I first started working as a writer, doing technical writing for businesses in the early eighties. An editor in one of the consulting firms I contracted with noticed something in my style and approach to doing these fairly complicated eight page brochures I was doing to sell franchises, and he asked me if I thought I could do a systems analysis business plan. He gave me a model to look at, and I could see fairly quickly what it was about, and so I had a chance to do one. I evolved from that to strategic planning, which involves doing systems analysis and then putting together a plan based on all sorts of criteria, and "what-if" scenarios. I never gave much thought to how or why I could do it with virtually no background in business, until I was asked by a consulting firm to train two of their MBA's to write a strategic plan. It was hopeless, they couldn't seem to grasp certain concepts involved with seeing the strategies for themselves. So I gave them a series of boilerplates and told the guy who hired me what I did and what I thought, and that I'd be happy to consult in the future if necessary. Eventually they had to find someone to replace the two guys, because it just "wasn't in them" to do it. They were great at analyzing the parts, they just could get the strategy aspect in a way they could articulate into a plan.

My interest is in how a process works, how it can work, all the "what ifs" about it, all the systemic parts involved. I'm not concerned with personal motivation. I'm not ever completely certain that weasels are "intentional" weasels or it just works out that they seem like weasels because of the nature of language and individual interpretations that are involved. Furthermore, I don't feel a need to be sure. It's seems plausibly possible either way and I can leave it at that. So I move "looking for primary cause" to the bottom of the list, and never seem to get to it. That's a personal strategy, based on my cognitive skill set, I would say. That's why I'm not drawn to certain types of discussions on this board, like the 911 theory discussions. That formula puts me in a different frame of mind from those who focus on Constitutional "originalism" and "textualism." I tend towards what is called the "living Constitution" theory of interpretation, because I see the fallacy of believing that a set meaning was ever possible to determine, and that we have to come from our living, direct sense of innate humanity, which I see and trust in myself in the way I deal with people, if we are to make sense of these rules in the moment. I don't believe any strategy is going to guarantee a perfect, concrete result, so I prefer one that appeals to my intelligence and flexibility with interacting in a ever changing world, or a "process."

I hope that helps clarify what I've been saying in some way.

quote:

I'm not ever completely certain that weasels are "intentional" weasels or it just works out that they seem like weasels because of the nature of language and individual interpretations that are involved.--ren

True. And, as you know, I'm not 'sure', either. But, I am sure that 'that understanding' is 'the trap door' from which the trickster operates.

With regards to HIPAA, and as far as 'right to privacy' is concerned, you need to note that a patient already had the 'right to privacy' from his or her 'friends and family' even before the law was enacted--in fact, it's always been an intricate part of the professional relationship of 'patient and doctor' (taught to you 'from day one' in medical school). Furthermore, it's always been an intricate part of the relationship of 'public knowledge and implementations' to 'private rights and concerns', anyway. Even before HIPAA, had, for instance, those caskets been open and someone had recognized one of the dead bodies as being one of their lost loved ones that they didn't know had died, yet (or, even if they already knew but didn't want it 'publicized to the world'), they could sue for damages. Even before HIPAA, a patient that felt that a doctor or hospital had 'violated their rights to privacy', they could sue for damages. So, there were already laws in place to 'protect this privacy'--and mechanisms of remedy when such a breach occured. So, why HIPAA?

Let's get back to that issue of the caskets, again, and look at the specifics of the issue a little closer. Had those caskets been open, any 'family member' could have sued for 'breach of privacy interests' and claim any remuneration for 'damages' that may have resulted in that breach--including any 'pain and suffering' of any family members (or patients) so affected. So, they were already 'protected by the law'. And, since HIPAA guarantees no more of a 'protection against this' than already existed, we're left with the same question: Why HIPAA?

The caskets in consideration that were to be photographed by the news agencies were closed, not open. Each was draped with an American flag and on board a cargo plane back to be buried in America. This couldn't have insulted any particular family member because none of the caskets could be recognized apart as, in any way, exposing any one person's 'privacy'. In fact, as the issue stood, the only entity that knew the names involved in each casket was 'the government'. If 'the government' had no vested interest in this situation and it were left to the private interests of each player involved, there would have been no infraction of the law because there was no 'private interest' unduly exposed to be used as 'evidence in court'. So, in this case, HIPAA was being used as a 'law to protect the private interest of those involved' when 'no one had a private interest involved'--because 'no evidence was presentable in court to indicate a private interest'. And, the only entity that 'knew all the names in the caskets' was 'the government', itself--that gave itself the 'right' to 'protect a private interest' that didn't exist. And, were it to 'exist', those 'interests' had other ways of 'being protected' other than the 'issuing of government mandates'. And, since this 'mandate' was NOT protecting, in any way, any 'interest it was professing to protect', whose 'interest' was it really 'protecting'? Why, of course, the 'entity that has no private interest', 'the government', itself--especially considering that 'too many caskets coming back' might look bad for 'the war effort'. And, you are going to tell me, ren, that those who 'implement this regulation'--especially in this circumstance--don't see that?

Um, I'm afraid I'm going to have to claim 'BULLSHIT!' on that one, ren. And, I think it puts your assessment above about how this 'may not have been intended by the weasels, themselves' in a different light (at least it does for me)....

quote:

Um, I'm afraid I'm going to have to claim 'BULLSHIT!' on that one, ren. And, I think it puts your assessment above about how this 'may not have been intended by the weasels, themselves' in a different light (at least it does for me)....

Good for you.

I'm done playing in this gerbil box, though.

quote:

I tend towards what is called the "living Constitution" theory of interpretation,

My wife (the Canadian who's now student teaching American history to eight graders) thought it strange that many of the men who were arguing 'the meaning of the Constitution' in The Federalist Papers were, also, the ones who helped write it. After all, she theorized, they wrote it--why don't they already 'know what they meant'. I responded, 'Because they meant the precepts to this government to be interpreted actively, not passively. Even their understanding of the words wasn't the be all/end all to what they meant. Like the Bible as a 'Living Word', they were meant to be interpreted as the situations brought themselves forth.'

But, this 'liberal interpretation' can be used against the very purpose of the Constitution if you don't watch out--just like Thom Hartmann describes in Unequal Protection, the mechanism may be used to even usurp the fundamentals to 'the cause' by misusing 'the process'--and allowing 'corporations' such 'individual rights' that were to be for 'real persons'.....

One more comment with respect to this 'policy-implementation' called HIPAA (pronounced 'HIP-uh'). This acronym stands for 'Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act'--and it was passed with the idea that 'inappropriate disclosure' of 'private information' can go against one's ability to obtain and maintain 'health insurance'--especially if having to change jobs, get different policies, or any other situation that has one's insurance records 'reviewed'. Now, doesn't 'guaranteeing the right to privacy' sound like a strange way to do that? Especially if you consider what I've already said, 'that information' is available to insurance companies anyway (besides that, even if you 'changed insurance' and either 'did not disclose' or were even 'suspected of not disclosing' pertinent information that could alter your policy, the insurance company may not pay out any benefits on those premises alone). So, if 'protecting your rights to continued health insurance' was 'the cause' of this regulation, why didn't it, as a legislative manuver, make it that 'no insurance company could refuse to give you benefits no matter what your history is'? And, of course, there would be still the situation where the costs and implementation of such 'policies' may still have to be 'faught out in court'--but, this 'regulation' doesn't prevent that, anyway. So, again, what does it 'do'?

This reminds me of an issue Thom Hartmann described in his book Unequal Protection, sometimes, some industries want the 'government regulations' to 'identify their role' with respect to 'their responsibility to the public' by such 'regulations'. That way, it reduces their liability strictly to 'what the government defines'....

Kerry, I'm really done with this thread and onto other topics, I think we mapped out enough about the trickster concept, and we've had a chance to see a bit about the way we each use our minds, which I've enjoyed.

If I was curious about your problem, I'd look into who wrote the legislation, try to map out what their special interests are, and what back room deals may have gone into getting it passed by legislators who probably didn't bother to read it. Possibly you could map out some hypothetical answers to play with.

If you are really disturbed, you can cast your vote for your representatives.

I did something along those lines with the recent bankruptcy bill, which was written by industry lobbyists in an achingly complex legalese form that legal scholars are still unpacking, creating a bill that may put millions of Americans into what amounts to debtor's prison, just as a major lending/monetary crisis is about to descend, the worst of the housing bubble may be in the year following the election, some predict.

What appears to be happening in our so-called representative "democracy" is, the trend is for moneyed special interest groups through lobbyists now sit side by side with legislators, or even composing on their own, as the legislation is being created.

quote:

If you are really disturbed, you can cast your vote for your representatives.

I'm not sure how that's even feasible in today's climate where you add this:

quote:

What appears to be happening in our so-called representative "democracy" is, the trend is for moneyed special interest groups through lobbyists now sit side by side with legislators, or even composing on their own, as the legislation is being created.

This best effort I can give it (and, like my wife continues to remind me, it may even be useless) is to 'speak out' on forums like this...and see if something 'keeps'........

Otherwise, it feels more like that Eddy Grant tune, Electric Avenue, where Eddy taunts 'Who is to blame in what country, never can get to the one...heh, heh, heh....'

quote:

Originally posted by Kerry:

quote:

If you are really disturbed, you can cast your vote for your representatives.

I'm not sure how that's even feasible in today's climate where you add this:

quote:

What appears to be happening in our so-called representative "democracy" is, the trend is for moneyed special interest groups through lobbyists now sit side by side with legislators, or even composing on their own, as the legislation is being created.

This best effort I can give it (and, like my wife continues to remind me, it may even be useless) is to 'speak out' on forums like this...and see if something 'keeps'........

Otherwise, it feels more like that Eddy Grant tune, Electric Avenue, where Eddy taunts 'Who is to blame in what country, never can get to the one...heh, heh, heh....'

My comment was intended as my version of dry, ironic humor; I hope you'll appreciate it as that.

quote:

My comment was intended as my version of dry, ironic humor; I hope you'll appreciate it as that.--ren

It would be humorous--if it wasn't so real....

I was able to watch episodes 3 and 4 of The Century of Self. I think the 'me movements' (Esalen, EST, etc.) of the '60's and '70's failed to recognize that, while 'me-ness' is essential to 'rationality', it's not sufficient to 'confirm rationality's thesis'--that takes comparing and contrasting. Verse 22 of the Gospel of Thomas says it most succinctly, I think, when it 'compares' '...when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside....then you will enter the kingdom.'.

I want to draw your attention to the closing statements in episode 4 of Robert Reich--his appeal was to reason and rationality as the only way to thwart 'motives without consciousness' that these 'public relations specialists' were exploiting.....

The problem with 'public relations specialists' is that there knowledge of 'how to manipulate the way people think and act' does NOT correlate to 'what's the right conclusion that thinking reaches'.....

At any rate, I did look at both episodes 3 and 4 of The Century of the Self.

quote:

It would be humorous--if it wasn't so real....

Perhaps that's the value of irony over deprecating, slapstick comedy. The ironic one finds oneself embedded in the irony as well, rather than distanced from it so one can laugh at others -- or even a distanced self. Irony for me comes as a result of the realization of the complexity and paradox of the situations, the double binds our reasoning presents to us, and the realization of what any problem solving effort must involve.

quote:

The problem with 'public relations specialists' is that there knowledge of 'how to manipulate the way people think and act' does NOT correlate to 'what's the right conclusion that thinking reaches'.....

It's up to each of us to become conscious of what's involved, because what's involved affects each of us, individually, as it is aimed at our individual motivation level. There is also an ability to learn as a group, by sharing the patterns of these mental models involved and thereby sharing a consciousness of the process of manipulation. That itself can be explored in a process we've identified as thinking about thinking. It is something that can actually be "taught" so to speak, though taught is a misnomer, because its more like calling attention to and observing a process that already takes place within each of us. It's not something that can be followed by rote, quantified, and tested. That's a bit of a problem for an education system that involves measurement so that the individual can be boxed and packaged for the meat market.

quote:

Irony for me comes as a result of the realization of the complexity and paradox of the situations, the double binds our reasoning presents to us, and the realization of what any problem solving effort must involve.--ren

And add that there are still 'problems to solve'--and what's 'to solve it' for 'everyone to see' if it's NOT 'rationalism'?

quote:

There is also an ability to learn as a group, by sharing the patterns of these mental models involved and thereby sharing a consciousness of the process of manipulation.--ren

As you probably should know by now, 'I' have a problem with the concept of 'learning as a group' if it's to mean anything else other than a 'metaphorical statement'. What's this 'entity as a group' that 'learns'--how does it do it as a group, and how does it 'know' anything if it's not 'each member' that 'knows it'?

There are many examples where 'group knowledge' is the 'wrong knowledge'. One in medical history deals with a Hungarian physician named Simmelweis who lived prior to the 'bacterial age' that had developed (and researched and published) a method to control puerperal fever (a particularly rampant form of post-partum infection in women who have recently delivered) after noticing in his Viennese hospital that medical students that delivered a woman shortly after dealing with cadavers had higher incidences of these infections post-partum than did the midwife students (who didn't deal with cadavers) in the other part of the training hospital. He correctly concluded that it was something the medical students were getting on their hands after dealing with the cadavers and correctly had them wash their hands in a form of solution that did end up killing off the bacteria. He got great results in reducing the death rate of women who had just delivered from this infection and he published his results in the 1840's. However, the 'antibacterial theory' wouldn't be out until another 40 years and no one in the medical establishment heeded his results--and, just like the 'outcast Samaritan' in Jesus' 'Good Samaritan' parable, 'Hungarian physicians' weren't seen as being 'of the best stock' in the European community at the time (that was the English, Italians, Germans and French). It infuriated Simmelweis that no one listened and he started writing letters to many of his esteemed colleagues that 'they were killing people by just not washing their hands'--but, since there wasn't an established 'theory' that explained why that would happen (and he was from Hungary), they still didn't listen to him. Simmelweis died in an insane asylum after giving himself a fatal infection with a dirty knife. Forty years later, the man who did get credit for the 'aseptic technique' in medicine (Lister) even stated that 'Simmelweis knew this forty years ago'. And, just to give you an idea of how 'groups function' when it comes to 'rational knowledge', after the bacterial theory and aseptic techniques were established 'orders of the day' in medicine, the Ob/Gyn part of the medical establishment on a whole still refused to use aseptic technique in their operations and procedures until after the turn of the century (the only country that did do it on a regular basis was Hungary) when, finally, 'another study' from their part of the profession came out to conclude 'aseptic technique saves pregnant women from this disorder' (at the time of Simmelweis, a very prominent Ob/Gyn physician in Europe, a man by the name of Scanzoni, who still has a forceps named after him, had read Simmelweis and declared him to be 'deranged'--what 'caused pregnant women to get this disorder was their state of mind with regards to the pregnancy, itself'--and that stayed as the 'main theory of puerperal fever' for the Ob/Gyn department until the turn of the century and long after the rest of medicine had already gone to aseptic technique).

'Groups' don't think 'as a whole'--even if they 'function as such'....

There are more modern examples. I, personally, think 9/11 is one of them.....

I see rationalism as a linear, analytical focus, which I've tried to describe for you and you should be able to understand what I mean by now without mistranslating it, as you seem to have, in your effort to create an "entity" of what is indicated as group thinking.

Nevertheless, I'll try again, and offer some examples.

I see rationality as something we do within a broader spectrum that looks at rationally detailed problems that can be analyzed vertically, or in and of themselves as a problem. Once problems are somewhat understood and worked out, these can be then put into models that contain sets of vertical, rationalally analyzed problems, and then one can do a horizontal process that looks at the models, or frames of thinking, which can be organized systemically in different ways and learning can be approached then, strategically, by seeing how the models can work together systematically. You can call that rational, as well, but I like to distinguish it from the vertical analytical problem solving process because for me its visually horizontal and integrative of the distinguishable problem sets. I don't know if you can think that way or not, I assume you can, you just may not see it that way. Many individuals apparently cannot, many very bright individuals, but that's difficult for me to imagine because I can. I don't even think words, most of the time, unless I take the effort to. I'm mostly visual.

Here's what I mean by "group" thinking. It's a process that's being attempted institutionally in organizational settings, the one described here is an educational institutional setting:

I think, therefore I am resistant to change

These ideas organized in this way are the results of cognitive science developments over the past thirty five to forty years. The concept described in the above link is called "deutero learning," and in that link it is being applied to how an organization can learn about "itself" using the collection of individuals' abilities to think in mental frames, and to think about mental frames, and to learn to learn new mental frames which will be more conducive to the improvement of the organization itself, so that a kind of collective group awareness emerges, from the conscious awareness and intent of the individuals as a set of awarenesses of mental frames.

If this can't be done as a kind of self actuated awareness by members of the organization, what's the alternative? I'll offer one: hierarchical organization, chain of command, and an authority that makes organizational decisions as the CEO.

Thom Hartmann was an early student of one area of it and he's been a teacher of "Neuro Linguistic Programming." He currently has a book written from the framework of that field: Cracking The Code: How to Win Hearts, Change Minds, & Restore America’s Original Vision

For more research, if you care, "deutero learning" is a term attributed to Gregory Bateson. He also called it "learning how to learn."



Additional sources:

Problem-based Learning

Action Learning

Approaches to Deep and Surface process studies

Reflective Practice

Mind and Nature: A necessary Unity - by Gregory Bateson

There is a man from MIT on the internet that writes on a forum I used to be on. His expertise was 'model-based reasoning'--and, while there are, indeed, parts to it that seem to follow the evidence, there are parts that do not. This man was also big into the 'mimesis characterization' of human behavior ('copying the behavior of others') and how 'changing the pattern can change the behavior'.

I just wish humans were so succinct--and so simple. But, in my experience, they are not....

If you actually google 'Simmelweis and aseptic technique' (like I did here while back), you will see that poor Simmelweis still doesn't get much press. Out of the usual thousands of hits you get with any given google search, this one only gets you three:

The lesson of Simmelweis

In fact, what surprised me is that first hit on that list is mine--in one of the threads of that other forum (the man using all the diagrams is the MIT professor I was referring to) I used.

I, also, am a 'visualizer'--I found that out in medical school when I could ace the practical exams (parts where you had to actually view the cadaver or look under a microscope)--but I wasn't real good in the didactics.....

However, 'thinking about thinking' still doesn't qualify what you are really to 'use in thinking'. As the old adage goes 'Garbage in/garbage out'--and your conclusions are only as good as the 'facts' you work with--and those 'facts' are confirmed by rational analysis in any hard science (that also emphasize 'reproducible and independent' data) and 'thinking issues' I know of. In fact, if any 'data' you use cannot be indepently confirmed by the researcher using it, that just may be 'the garbage' that disrupts the entire analysis...and, as I've said, the only 'thinking entity' that really exists is 'the thinking individual'....and any 'rational assertion for control', to me, needs to recognize that....

quote:

However, 'thinking about thinking' still doesn't qualify what you are really to 'use in thinking'. As the old adage goes 'Garbage in/garbage out'--and your conclusions are only as good as the 'facts' you work with--and those 'facts' are confirmed by rational analysis in any hard science and 'thinking issues' I know of. In fact, if any 'data' you use cannot be indepently confirmed by the researcher using it, that just may be 'the garbage' that disrupts the entire analysis.....

Well, then, you probably don't do what I do. If it doesn't "qualify" it doesn't qualify for you, not me. I don't dismiss rational thinking, I just don't bother with going over something I already figured out unless it looks like I need to, or unless I'm helping someone work through it. That has other benefits, which I suspect are those being sought with meditation. My mind is mostly at peace, and I have tremendous energy most of the time, which I can focus strategically. That's the best I can describe it. I'm told I seem very laid back.

There's a point where I go through something with someone, and I see I'm not connecting, and I quit. I step back, I look, and try to see the problem. When I discovered I could not teach strategic planning concepts to a couple of MBA graduates from DePaul University, very bright guys, I didn't force past what I could see were the impediments. They couldn't get out of the root hairs is how I would put it. They had these little rational obsessions they kept focusing on, like crutches.

Obviously you either know what is at that site I linked, or you don't think you need to look because it's the same as "Simmelweis" which you already "know." That's, by the way, not how I come to see I've already figured something out and don't need to bother with it.

quote:

If it doesn't "qualify" it doesn't qualify for you, not me.

Fine if whatever you are 'qualifying' is, also, 'for you, not me'. But, if you are in any way asserting this as an action against me and you are not rationally explaining your actions, that action, to me, by definition, is 'oppressive'. And, the only thing that can counter an 'oppressive assertion' is a 'rational explanation'.....

Let me direct this in a different manner because I think this is the crux of my position. Are you, ren, using this form of 'thinking manuvers' in managing or controlling other people in any way? If so, how in your mind do you 'work that out' if it's, in any way, disagreed upon by the ones you are 'managing or controlling'? It's 'not that important that they know because you know'? It's 'not that important because, while they may not know now, they will know later--and, if they don't know later, they cannot learn'? Or, is it 'important that they know'--and, if so, how is that confirmed?

quote:

Originally posted by Kerry:

quote:

If it doesn't "qualify" it doesn't qualify for you, not me.

Fine if whatever you are 'qualifying' is, also, 'for you, not me'. But, if you are in any way asserting this as an action against me and you are not rationally explaining your actions, that action, to me, by definition, is 'oppressive'. And, the only thing that can counter an 'oppressive assertion' is a 'rational explanation'.....

That's not true, Kerry. I just refuse, that works. They ain't shit they can do. If I'm on their property, I leave. If they are on mine, I'm very egalitarian, I give everyone the same thirty seconds to git before I pull the trigger. You wouldn't believe how well that works with all sorts of sales persons, even the one's selling Jesus, who try to oppress me with their rationales about what I'm supposed to need.

quote:

Let me direct this in a different manner because I think this is the crux of my position. Are you, ren, using this form of 'thinking manuvers' in managing or controlling other people in any way? If so, how in your mind do you 'work that out' if it's, in any way, disagreed upon by the ones you are 'managing or controlling'? It's 'not that important that they know because you know'? It's 'not that important because, while they may not know now, they will know later--and, if they don't know later, they cannot learn'? Or, is it 'important that they know'--and, if so, how is that confirmed?

Anything and everything I consider is free choice left up to the individuals to learn at their discretion and according to what makes sense to them. I'm not a manager.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by /rén:
I think, therefore I am resistant to change

Ren - Thanks for the interesting link/article. It's always interesting (to me at least) to become aware of other instances of Bohm Dialogue filtering out into the social consciousness.

A few excerpts that caught my eye:

"Mental models resist change."

"If the individual cannot link the new information to an existing mental model, he or she may construct a mental model to understand the new information or discard the information as irrelevant, unimportant, or wrong."

"In fact, people are notorious for sticking with their current mental models despite poor and even disastrous results."


This one especially rings true with me:

"Because mental models are essentially invisible to people until a deliberate effort is made to bring them to the foreground, the initial task for changing them is bringing them to the surface, exploring their structure, and talking about them with minimal defensiveness."

**An excellent description of what commonly may occur in the Bohm dialogue process. Which isn't surprising as this quote from the article is attributed to Peter Senge. Debate, instead of exploring the mental model which is brought to attention encourages defending the abstraction rather than exploring it's nature.

I also agree with the articles conclusion:

"People often are unaware of their mental models and their effects, yet these models determine what people pay attention to and therefore influence what people do and how they do it. Left unexamined and unchallenged, mental models influence people to see what they have always seen, do what they have always done, be what they have always been, and therefore produce the same results."

Thanks again - Howard

Howard, you are very welcome.

I hope you find something there that can help you in your efforts at trying to encourage cooperative learning efforts. I'm playing with it in my own ways, with what little ability I have in that department, being a Third Century Chinese recluse and all. I haven't a clue what the results of my efforts might be, I must confess, but I'm having fun!

quote:

Fine if whatever you are 'qualifying' is, also, 'for you, not me'. But, if you are in any way asserting this as an action against me and you are not rationally explaining your actions, that action, to me, by definition, is 'oppressive'. And, the only thing that can counter an 'oppressive assertion' is a 'rational explanation'.....--me


That's not true, Kerry. I just refuse, that works. They ain't shit they can do. If I'm on their property, I leave. If they are on mine, I'm very egalitarian, I give everyone the same thirty seconds to git before I pull the trigger. You wouldn't believe how well that works with all sorts of sales persons, even the one's selling Jesus, who try to oppress me with their rationales about what I'm supposed to need.--ren

Is this another example of your 'dark humor', ren? Now, don't get me wrong, I am from Texas, so tote all the guns you want. I'm not against that. Personally, I'd trust you with a gun as much as anyone with a uniform on....and, if you got out of line, well, I guess I'd have to tote a gun of my own......

But, your statement taken in the context of 'group behavior' is incongruent with the concept of 'group'. 'You' are pointing the gun (or having the gun pointed at you) personally and individually (on 'your own personal property, by the way')--so, I'm not sure how that factors into this 'group processing' you otherwise seem to be promoting. This 'dynamics of learning' that takes you 'deeper and deeper' into 'something'--but, apparently, it's NOT 'the truth', right? Because that 'word' gets lost in the 'group dynamics', it appears to me. And, once you can debase any sense of 'truth' out of the 'group process', then, other 'qualifying terms' like 'corruption, oppression, and lying' don't have the same influence on 'our thoughts'....

quote:

Anything and everything I consider is free choice left up to the individuals to learn at their discretion and according to what makes sense to them. I'm not a manager.--ren

After this, Howard W mentions 'Bohmian dialogue'--that was a big concept with this MIT professor. As far as I could discern, 'Bohmian dialogue' was a sort of 'cordial interaction' of learned people 'discussing out certain issues'. As I told the MIT professor, that's fine and good in a controlled environment, and it probably works pretty well when you have a 'captive audience' (such as a classroom) that, by their participation, are volunteering their compliance.

However, that's not all of real life--and it certainly doesn't match the world I've experienced.

A few days ago, CNN had the Democratic presidential debates and Wolf asked each 'Which is more important--security or individual rights?' Chris Dodd and Hilliary Clinton said 'security'--some of the others, especially Bill Richardson of New Mexico, said 'individual rights' (but he was 'just a governor')--and I think he aptly stressed the point of something to the effect that 'without individual rights, security has no cause' (he may not have said it exactly like that but that was my take on it). At any rate, I would agree--'security at all costs' is a guarantee of oppression....

quote:

Is this another example of your 'dark humor', ren?

I would call that "the shock factor" in my communication strategies. A way of trying to disrupt someone who seems a bit too focused and isn't listening.

quote:

But, your statement taken in the context of 'group behavior' is incongruent with the concept of 'group'. 'You' are pointing the gun (or having the gun pointed at you) personally and individually (on 'your own personal property, by the way')--so, I'm not sure how that factors into this 'group processing' you otherwise seem to be promoting.

Kerry, let me try to help you with your sense of incongruity here. Now just remember, this is just a suggestion:


Significant Point A: I am not promoting anything. If you see me as promoting something, I suggest you look at your own motivations for guidance on how you perceive others, and perhaps even what's involved in your own motivations. A standard mental model is to project what we do onto others. A "learning to learn" process involves self recognition of that. If and when that sinks into your thinking process, then you can simply go to the next point and just begin looking and deciding for yourself what appeals to you about anything I say.

I'm offering you some group dynamic insights that others have been working out for some fifty years now, in hopes of trying to find ways to get out from under what they (and I) find to be an authoritarian oriented "power of the rationale" argument collective action, an argument which I personally reject. It makes me a somewhat difficult person to deal with until someone comes to grips with that in themselves, as well. Fact is I don't even own a weapon anymore, don't really need one, though I can use them, probably better than most. I was shooting Starlings on the fly with an ancient, single shot 22 that didn't even have any sites left on it when I was about 12 years old. I don't give flying **** (said with a smile) what you or anyone does with what I say and I don't even care if you look at what I say.

I'm just doing the best I can to let you know where I stand when you try to "talk me into something," by suggesting what I say is "incongruent" with something else, but I'm not using what I say as a counter argument. I'm not offering you any counter argument. That's your paradigm, not mine. All I do is say the best I can, what I do.

In general I don't talk much. It's difficult to use body language in this environment, but I grew up using body language with animals so I tend to rely on that form of communication a lot. The "power of reason" comes after my personal sense of volition about things, which, of course, is entirely mine to do with as I please. No one can "take" that from me if I'm conscious and my mind functions as it does right now. I can only give it away. I am very conscious of that. That's a pre rational consciousness as I see it in my "learning to learn" process.

If you want to follow someone's directions and argue with them about whether they make sense, that's your choice as far as I'm concerned. No one can make anyone else think. Although they may try to trick them into thinking they can through various tricks of persuasion. I can see coercion in lots of different ways, but I always stay solid with my own sense of personal choice. Staying solid with that is essential to any "learning to learn" process, whether involving a group or not.

Kerry, the point I see where you are having problems with what I'm saying is in the realm of personal "volition." If I don't want to agree with someone, that's a volitional act on my part. I consider that my immediate choice: "Do I want to participate and agree or not?" If it's involved in a group, I can always withdraw from the group if I don't agree, which I do, even if my body is present. That's so, even in the structure of something like the military, though it may have dire consequences for me when I carry it out. I thought that out pretty thoroughly when I was about 19 years old when I discovered how trapped I'd gotten myself.

I've been a contractor for most of my life, I write contracts I can get myself out of to minimize the dire consequences after learning the hard way about that sort of effect in the military. That's what I call "strategic" thinking from my "learning to learn" process. I'm happy to play your rational explanation for my behavior game with you, but at some point you need to recognize where I see "bad faith" coming into your own efforts which ignore basic truth in what I'm telling you with these obvious efforts on your part. You may have convinced yourself there is a "smiling trickster," I don't know, maybe that's why you seem so blind and keep folding these rationales back into the discussion like an over beaten egg. If you don't recognize your own ability to say "no," how could you recognize mine? You certainly won't notice when I've said it. Without that, how can we really be "respective" of each other's true equality in that regard, and with the limits to what reason can do? In general, I find sales oriented people to be disrespectful. Sales oriented people can just be someone selling an idea, like proselytizing a religion. My so-called insane mother had a wonderful metaphor she used to describe them: "the guys with the crocodile smiles." Guys with their smiling faces and their oily smooth words of questions and reasons to convince you to "buy" something. Or perhaps the smiling trickster you see in your mind?

Individual "rights" is just an abstract set of rationales that can be twisted in various ways in various contexts. What I want to do of my own volition is not abstract for me. But I think it might be perceived that way for a nihilist, a true nihilist, one who's duped themselves out of recognizing their own self volitional freedom. I think the ultimate nihilists are the marketing minds of the Twentieth Century, folks like Bernays, and their many progeny in marketing departments of corporations, and especially those who now guide political campaigns. They've learned the art of self delusion, projecting self delusion, and the result is group self entrapment in systems based on reasoning. You're obviously free to choose how you want to do it. That's what I do. I choose. And I do it for my self.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: /rén,

quote:

Originally posted by Kerry:

After this, Howard W mentions 'Bohmian dialogue'--that was a big concept with this MIT professor. As far as I could discern, 'Bohmian dialogue' was a sort of 'cordial interaction' of learned people 'discussing out certain issues'. As I told the MIT professor, that's fine and good in a controlled environment, and it probably works pretty well when you have a 'captive audience' (such as a classroom) that, by their participation, are volunteering their compliance.

However, that's not all of real life--and it certainly doesn't match the world I've experienced.

Hello Kerry - I don't wish to obstruct in any way your conversation with Ren, so I'd simply like to suggest that Bohm-style dialogue is much more than cordial interaction. The core of the process is 'experiential', as in direct observation of 'real life', internally and externally. It's also largely about 'knowing oneself'. To a large extent it's a very direct focus on the real life situation described in the article linked by Ren, which I quoted at the end of my earlier message: "People often are unaware of their mental models and their effects..."

Bohm-dialogue directly addresses this lack of human awareness which is leading to some serious challenges for us human beings (as well as for other forms of life).

Again, I don't wish to obstruct this conversation, so I'll just offer a link to the Bohm, Factor, and Garrett Dialogue Proposal, to use at your own discretion.
Dialogue - A Proposal

Regards - Howard

quote:

Kerry, let me try to help you with your sense of incongruity here. Now just remember, this is just a suggestion:


Significant Point A: I am not promoting anything.

Really? You could've fooled me:

quote:

Here's what I mean by "group" thinking. It's a process that's being attempted
institutionally in organizational settings, the one described here is an educational institutional setting:

I think, therefore I am resistant to change

That whole list depicts 'mechanisms of promoting' as far as I can tell, ren....

quote:

If you see me as promoting something, I suggest you look at your own motivations for guidance on how you perceive others, and perhaps even what's involved in your own motivations.

I'm not sure why you feel so compelled to make this something that has me 'look at my own motivations' in anything. The only 'motivation' I am professing in any 'dynamics of group behavior' is, if any action is done upon another against their will, that it be solely done under the domain of rational justification. Period. I am also going so far as to say that that defines 'civilized society' as we have come to know it--if it's not a voluntary action, the reasons for that cause against its voluntary compliance should be open and up front--as rational and as complete as its imposition demands. Nothing else defines 'civilized behavior' as far as I'm concerned. Furthermore, any semblance of 'control' done, in any way, subconsciously by the instigators involved is to be exposed as the charlatan oppressor that it is--making the 'process' of human endeavors no more than the 'goals' they can define or promote. This is as far away from the spirit of Jeffersonian democracy as I see it as it can possibly be. But, anything that 'promotes a process' for any 'institution', as an 'institution', and not by (or, 'through') any 'institution' for 'its members sake', goes against the premise of 'Jeffersonian democracy' as I see it....

quote:

I'm offering you some group dynamic insights that others have been working out for some fifty years now, in hopes of trying to find ways to get out from under what they (and I) find to be an authoritarian oriented "power of the rationale" argument collective action, an argument which I personally reject.

The 'rationale', as you put it, is the only 'power' that every individual can possess on their own--even as it may take the consideration of others to 'confirm' (at least in 'group interactions'). Also, as I see it, this 'rationale' is the only 'motivator for power' that DOES NOT lend itself to 'authoritarian orientation'--because, if it's a 'motive' that not everyone can understand and its still imposed upon them, then it will harbor at least some components of 'authority'...

quote:

I'm just doing the best I can to let you know where I stand when you try to talk me into something, but not with what I say as a counter argument.

'Talk you into something'? This is a discussion that I think involves an issue of 'motivation in groups' vs. 'verification in parts (individuals)' and where 'power implementation' rightfully lies between the two. You position 'group dynamics' as something that trumps 'individual thought'--or any form of confirmation of 'individual thought' in 'groups' (which I would call 'rational thought'). You seem to fall back on that 'motivation for guidance' even as you accuse me of resorting to the same tactic in my 'individual rights' and 'rational guidance' stand. And, then, I'm 'talking you into something'.

I would rather go at this from the angle of what can be determined about the 'contention' you seem to think this is all about in what we are discussing than any 'talked into' on your part that seems to me to prejudice your considerations of 'my motives'....but, so be it....

I have been fairly specific--as far as anything that could relate to 'group dynamics', I'm talking applied power that does NOT already carry with it the characterization of 'voluntary compliance' in any part it asserts--and, if that is to be determined to be appropriate, it can only be done so by explaining itself reasonably--or, if that is not to be seen as a necessary and sufficient cause to applied power, then, as far as I can see it, you're left with some form of authoritarian control whose degree of unreasonable application of power will directly relate to its 'capacity for oppression, corruption, and lying' to its subjects....

quote:

It's difficult to use body language in this environment, but I grew up using body language with animals so I tend to rely on that form of communication a lot.

I'll grant you that. But, in an honest attempt to resolve our contention, I'll reiterate my point. I want NO 'power implementation' in any form or suggestion to be a 'subconscious imposition'--especially if done against any other's will. Issues of 'compliance', 'guidance', and whatever 'motivator-factors' you want to name, are not to me to be without saying with this sense of 'voluntarism' and truly be a 'civilized society'. Another 'contention' we may have is considering what 'motivates voluntarism'. While you seem to believe it is something in which 'group dynamics' can, in ways, 'manipulate subconsciously', I am adamantly against any implementation that does not exert itself by 'open and up front explanations'--which I see as being primarily 'rational' because 'rational thought' is the only thought that carries with it an 'equal footing' between all the actors involved--especially the 'rationale' of 'individual rights' that can be considered (and 'agreed upon') by those involved....

quote:

The "power of reason" comes after my personal sense of volition about things, which, of course, is entirely mine to do with as I please.

A sort of 'intuition'. Ren, hear me, I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with 'intuition', 'sixth sense', 'suspicions', or whatever 'personal senses' of 'motivation' you may contain, [I]in you controlling your own life. I have a problem with that, in any way, being extrapolated to the 'method of controlling others' without first being critiqued through our 'rational element of thought'...and checked by that 'rationale' constantly....so, any 'group dynamic' that doesn't emphasize that I suspect inheritly from my understanding of human history as well as my own personal experiences (as I 'intuit') indicate to me....if it's NOT 'rationality' that is the primary tool 'to control others with', it WILL BE 'authoritarian' to some degree by its lack of 'rationale', exposed for everyone to see....I don't really know how else I can get that across....

quote:

Kerry, the point I see where you are having problems with what I'm saying is in the realm of personal "volition." If I don't want to agree with someone, that's a volitional act on my part. I consider that my immediate choice: "Do I want to participate and agree or not?" If it's involved in a group, I can always withdraw from the group if I don't agree, which I do, even if my body is present. That's so, even in the structure of something like the military, though it may have dire consequences for me when I carry it out. I thought that out pretty thoroughly when I was about 19 years old when I discovered how trapped I'd gotten myself.

I appreciate those thoughts, ren. I really don't want to put too fine a point on it but, again, this is 'you dealing with your own motivation', and that is fine. Whatever others can do to help, instruct, confirm, or deny, is all fine when it comes to dealing with your own motivations. However, if you take part, in any way, of coercing others by any implied or confirmed 'power implementation' that, in any way, disregards the others will, then it better be explained in a rational, open and up front, manner to undermine its already 'authoritarian appearance' if it's not being done voluntarily to begin with and still be 'civilized' as far as I'm concerned...a 'rational society', operating on 'rational grounds', continually explaining any of its impositions 'rationally' (and, by the way, that implies any rational contentions against it to 'confirm its explanation'), is the only truly 'civilized society'...and the only confirmable action against irrational 'authoritarian impositions' done under any guise of 'authorizing entities' be they 'government, church, corporation, or any other comparable institution'...

quote:

If you don't recognize your own ability to say "no," how could you recognize mine?

I not only honor my ability to 'say no'--when it comes to any 'authoritarian imposition' against anyone else, I honor their ability to 'say no' unless, and until, it can be explained in as open and up front a manner as can be determined why another is not allowed to 'say no' against any imposition done upon them....

quote:

Guys with their smiling faces and their oily smooth words of questions and reasons to convince you to "buy" something. Or perhaps the smiling trickster you see in your mind?

Only if that trickster is trying to get me to see an 'us' that doesn't involve a 'me'.....

quote:

Individual "rights" is just an abstract set of rationales that can be twisted in various ways in various contexts.

I don't see it really that 'elusive'. When judging another, the concept of 'individual rights', to me, basically means 'put yourself, as an individual, in their position, as an individual' and use that as the rational basis to 'judge them'--and the 'rationale' against which to implement any power.....

quote:

Originally posted by HowardW:

quote:

Originally posted by Kerry:

After this, Howard W mentions 'Bohmian dialogue'--that was a big concept with this MIT professor. As far as I could discern, 'Bohmian dialogue' was a sort of 'cordial interaction' of learned people 'discussing out certain issues'. As I told the MIT professor, that's fine and good in a controlled environment, and it probably works pretty well when you have a 'captive audience' (such as a classroom) that, by their participation, are volunteering their compliance.

However, that's not all of real life--and it certainly doesn't match the world I've experienced.

Hello Kerry - I don't wish to obstruct in any way your conversation with Ren, so I'd simply like to suggest that Bohm-style dialogue is much more than cordial interaction. The core of the process is 'experiential', as in direct observation of 'real life', internally and externally. It's also largely about 'knowing oneself'. To a large extent it's a very direct focus on the real life situation described in the article linked by Ren, which I quoted at the end of my earlier message: "People often are unaware of their mental models and their effects..."

Bohm-dialogue directly addresses this lack of human awareness which is leading to some serious challenges for us human beings (as well as for other forms of life).

Again, I don't wish to obstruct this conversation, so I'll just offer a link to the Bohm, Factor, and Garrett Dialogue Proposal, to use at your own discretion.
Dialogue - A Proposal

Regards - Howard

Howard, you are more than welcome to join this conversation. I can see we are actually at a point that you stress in your interactions with others. That point where you say, just look at what's actually going on. Beyond that there is no expectation that everyone see the same thing in the same way.

The mental model I'm looking at here at the moment, is the general mental model of rational thinking and persuading others with reason and logic. I find that understanding that as a model seems to be a key point for me in this learning to learn process I'm interested in. He and I have already covered the limits to rational understanding, and I don't feel I can express it any better than I have. I am at the point here where I am offering and then it's up to him to look and see it for himself. So for me that's the limit to my input on that score.

If you have any insights into how to get that across, you are welcome to join, or if you see it in some other way, that too. This is a free an open exchange of ideas, and I stress, for Kerry's sake, "free exchange."

quote:

Really? You could've fooled me:

No, Kerry, the point is you could have fooled you.

I'm just offering, you are driving the "counter argument" vehicle. And that's what the rest of your argument is to me. I've already left you running inside your wheel in your gerbil cage. Everything you are saying is your problem.

If that's how you see it, ren, so be it.

I 'see' where our contention is and I guess that's all that I will agree to in your 'counter argument' to me....

quote:

I 'see' where our contention is and I guess that's all that I will agree to in your 'counter argument' to me....

Lol.

I don't disagree with you in the least. So for me there's no contention.

I see how you've created a contention with me, however.

Let me ask you something, when you were a kid and you said "no," did your parents let you say no, or did they force you to give a reasonable argument for saying no? You don't need to tell me one way or another, I'm just asking somewhat rhetorically.

quote:

Let me ask you something, when you were a kid and you said "no," did your parents let you say no, or did they force you to give a reasonable argument for saying no? You don't need to tell me one way or another, I'm just asking somewhat rhetorically.--ren

That's me 'as a child', ren. I don't see 'other adults' as 'children'. I preempt all 'authoritative applications against autonomous beings' as requiring 'rationalization' in order to resemble, in any way, 'justice'.

Your 'experiences' seem to lend your 'conclusions' into another direction, ren. At least that is how 'I' see it.

Mine direct me differently. There are practical applications to this that I have to 'contend with' everyday. I won't bore you with the details at this point unless the conversation goes that way but, for now, I'll say that 'personal responsibility' that I believe is inherent in 'individual rights' can--and, in many ways, 'has'--been misconstrued by 'group processing'. In the past, with 'disease', at one point, I can see that the 'patient/physician' relationship was something like 'me and you against them' ('them' being 'disease', 'obstructing interferences', etc.). Now, with the help of the 'grouping process', I see that it has developed a different priority and it feels more like 'them and you against me'......

'Individual rights' is my only claim to 'resort back to personal responsibility'. As such, it's not just a 'right'--it's a 'responsibility'. 'Grouping behavior', in many ways, dilutes--or undermines--such a 'responsibility'--and, dileteriously, as far as I see it....

I wonder how much personal responsibility is possible in an Eddy Bernays world.

When you think about it, material need is created out of whole cloth, beyond the basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.

quote:

Originally posted by /rén:
I've already left you running inside your wheel in your gerbil cage.

Every now and then, the wheel catches on a piece of bedding, abruptly halts and throw me out. It's then that I get an "aha"!

Fill the cage with lots of bedding. Get thrown out of the wheel as often as you can.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

quote:

Originally posted by polycarp:

quote:

Originally posted by /rén:
I've already left you running inside your wheel in your gerbil cage.

Every now and then, the cage catches on a piece of bedding, abruptly halts and throw me out. It's then that I get an "aha"!

Fill the cage with lots of bedding. Get thrown out of the wheel as often as you can.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

quote:

Originally posted by Kerry:

quote:

Let me ask you something, when you were a kid and you said "no," did your parents let you say no, or did they force you to give a reasonable argument for saying no? You don't need to tell me one way or another, I'm just asking somewhat rhetorically.--ren

That's me 'as a child', ren. I don't see 'other adults' as 'children'. I preempt all 'authoritative applications against autonomous beings' as requiring 'rationalization' in order to resemble, in any way, 'justice'.

Your 'experiences' seem to lend your 'conclusions' into another direction, ren. At least that is how 'I' see it.

Mine direct me differently. There are practical applications to this that I have to 'contend with' everyday. I won't bore you with the details at this point unless the conversation goes that way but, for now, I'll say that 'personal responsibility' that I believe is inherent in 'individual rights' can--and, in many ways, 'has'--been misconstrued by 'group processing'. In the past, with 'disease', at one point, I can see that the 'patient/physician' relationship was something like 'me and you against them' ('them' being 'disease', 'obstructing interferences', etc.). Now, with the help of the 'grouping process', I see that it has developed a different priority and it feels more like 'them and you against me'......

'Individual rights' is my only claim to 'resort back to personal responsibility'. As such, it's not just a 'right'--it's a 'responsibility'. 'Grouping behavior', in many ways, dilutes--or undermines--such a 'responsibility'--and, dileteriously, as far as I see it....

Kerry, I see what you are saying, and I appreciate the dilemma you are in as a medical practitioner with some very real responsibilities to deal with. I'm not in your circumstances and I can't say what I might do.

I can only say that between you and me in real life circumstances I would be probably the most fair person to deal with you've ever had the luck to run across. And it would have little to do with rationalizations about personal responsibility, it would have to do with how you actually treat me and how you responded to how I treated you in return.

As far as you and the "grouping process" you have in mind is concerned, I happily leave that one up to you.

quote:

Originally posted by --Kate:
I wonder how much personal responsibility is possible in an Eddy Bernays world.

When you think about it, material need is created out of whole cloth, beyond the basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.

I always try to keep in mind there's a lot more involved with what I do than I can control myself. Sometimes give and take is beyond reason, it's just down to what I want to do. I'm responsible for that, I don't care about any Eddy Bernayses.

quote:

Originally posted by /rén:

Howard, you are more than welcome to join this conversation. I can see we are actually at a point that you stress in your interactions with others. That point where you say, just look at what's actually going on. Beyond that there is no expectation that everyone see the same thing in the same way.

The mental model I'm looking at here at the moment, is the general mental model of rational thinking and persuading others with reason and logic. I find that understanding that as a model seems to be a key point for me in this learning to learn process I'm interested in. He and I have already covered the limits to rational understanding, and I don't feel I can express it any better than I have. I am at the point here where I am offering and then it's up to him to look and see it for himself. So for me that's the limit to my input on that score.

If you have any insights into how to get that across, you are welcome to join, or if you see it in some other way, that too. This is a free an open exchange of ideas, and I stress, for Kerry's sake, "free exchange."

**Thanks Ren.

Looking at the most recent exchanges here, what comes to mind for me is the importance of 'the first step'. By that I mean that if one starts with a 'debate-like' approach, and the conversation gets heated to some extent, it then becomes increasingly difficult for particpants to 'step-back' and openly observe what is occuring.

For this reason (and other reasons), the first step seems to be a very important one. To my understanding, the first step is to be aware of the approach that is going to be taken for a conversation.

If a person has already discovered that 'to let him or her look for themselves' is what leads to real understanding, then the optimum first step would seem to be a moving away from an approach like adversarial debate, which encourages defending abstractions.

Many people here seem to have tired long ago of my repeated questioning of the debate approach, but my understanding tells me that addressing the nature of the approach 'up front' can and does open up the possibility of more genuine 'looking for oneself'...where people don't totally resist such a suggestion.

One of the "mental models and their effects" that many people seem "unaware" of is the dysfunctional nature of adversarial debate. And, as the article you link correctly stated: "until a deliberate effort is made to bring them to the foreground", then such dysfunctional behaviors will often remain below the level of awareness.

After attempting to address this dysfuntion for many years, I'm pretty aware that people tend to resist such suggestions, but regardless, this seems to be part of the process of "bringing issues to the foreground."

So that's my long-winded way of suggesting that I feel an important first-step is to 'bring to the foreground' the suggested approach of 'looking for oneself', 'holding loosely' one's beliefs and opinions in order to openly explore, and to create a 'safe', 'non-defensive' learning environment. Otherwise, we get more of the same polarization and entrenchment...it seems to me.

With adversarial debate I'd suggest that the chances of learning taking place seems to basically be 'slim to none'. With cooperative exploratory dialogue that changes to 'slim to not so bad'. And when people begin to see it's increased learning potential, the learning potential increases to 'quite likely'.

I'm not trying to bore you or anyone here with another dialogue rant, I'm simply making a general suggestion, to anyone who might be interested, that expecting any real looking to occur where debate is the unstated-approach is probably wishful thinking, to my estimation.

Without bringing such issues 'to the foreground', the cultural default of defending abstract positions will likely be the process occuring in most conversations.

That's how it seems to me anyway.....

Regards - Howard

quote:

For this reason (and other reasons), the first step seems to be a very important one. To my understanding, the first step is to be aware of the approach that is going to be taken for a conversation.

If a person has already discovered that 'to let him or her look for themselves' is what leads to real understanding, then the optimum first step would seem to be a moving away from an approach like adversarial debate, which encourages defending abstractions.

Many people here seem to have tired long ago of my repeated questioning of the debate approach, but my understanding tells me that addressing the nature of the approach 'up front' can and does open up the possibility of more genuine 'looking for oneself'...where people don't totally resist such a suggestion.

Now, that said, Howard, can you recognize in any of my interchanges here an effort on my part to do just that?

I ask you because I am consciously aware of "the first step" as you call it, I have made many efforts in many of my discussions, not to lecture about it but to actually do it. The reason I have chosen that as a tactic is because I notice that many people don't seem to respond to lecturing. It seems logically a part of the primary problem of what is to be noticed itself. So, I thought perhaps some direct action might work. That's my experimental method in this environment. So I'm wondering, here you are, an "expert" in the Bohm method, or at least someone who has actually experienced it first hand rather than intellectually, and I'm wondering if you can at least recognize what I'm doing? If you can't, I perhaps need to find some other strategy.

I can tell that others can't seem to adjust, but I keep trying different things, and I keep hoping -- for what, I assure you I can't say for certain, but I hope some recognition will go with a seeing, if whatever it happens to be ever happens to occur. Sometimes I'll get: "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree." And I might point out, we aren't disagreeing, I'm doing something different, and if you could see that, you wouldn't perceive what I'm saying as disagreeing, but maybe something of a different nature.

Essentially, what I'm doing is addressing the problem as it occurs instead of framing it "up front." That solves what I see as an innate framing problem that often sets up a resistance I've noticed to looking at the mental model approach. There's a certain gestalt element to this that I'm drawing from.

As a teaser question, perhaps you could identify the abstract positions you see being "defended" here?

quote:

Every now and then, the wheel catches on a piece of bedding, abruptly halts and throw me out. It's then that I get an "aha"!--polycarp

That does seem to be how it works a lot of times, doesn't it, polycarp?

While I am a big adherent to rationalization being the central controlling element in 'society' at all times, it might come to a surprise for some here to know that those who know me on a daily basis don't see me as 'all that rational'. One colleague stated recently 'You're smarter than you act. You are crazy like a fox.' (and he meant it as a compliment). After my 'converting carwreck' in school those years ago, one observer remarked 'You may be one of the few that can buck the system--and get by with it' (that may put a new light on my own fascination with 'the trickster'--I personally understand the issue...). In fact, in school later on, one of my professors commented 'You know, the administration wanted to kick you out of

Most 'insight' comes in 'leaps and bounds'--and, 'out of the blue'--as far as my experience goes....however, to me, that doesn't undermine the impetus to prioritize 'rationality' in 'controlling others'...

Shortly after my converting carwreck (and while I was still struggling with the sensations of mania), I was doing a history and physical on a man in the hospital that was in there for uncontrollable back pain. In the course of the interview, I found out the man had a brother who was an alcoholic. At that point, I told him my story with my alcoholic father--I even waxed on philosophically about how I see that some alcoholics are caring people who find themselves in an uncaring world. After the interview was over, I got up and the man remarked 'You know what, my pain is gone'.

Did 'I' do that? I don't even want to handle that 'rationally' (when his history, maybe ren understands why....)...it does point out to me that a lot of 'suffering' people undergo aren't elements of physicality that 'rationality' ('physical medicine-wise') would 'answer'...and, sad to say, it's never happened in that manner since...('the perfect is the enemy of the good')....

We are talking 'control' here as I see it--man's 'control'....

quote:

When you think about it, material need is created out of whole cloth, beyond the basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.--Kate

True. Gives you new meaning to 'our role' as 'creators'...just like 'the image of God' could imply (esoterically)....

quote:

As far as you and the "grouping process" you have in mind is concerned, I happily leave that one up to you.--ren

I think 'any process' that imposes itself upon an individual 'against their will' is a form of 'grouping process' (inadvertent one at that in many instances--and, as far as I can see it, only 'just' if rationally, and openly, explained for all to see....).

quote:

If a person has already discovered that 'to let him or her look for themselves' is what leads to real understanding, then the optimum first step would seem to be a moving away from an approach like adversarial debate, which encourages defending abstractions.--Howard W.

That's a valid point. But, we truly live in a 'contentious world'. You might 'get rid of it' by 'complacent understanding'--you might have 'to fight fire with fire'....

quote:

One of the "mental models and their effects" that many people seem "unaware" of is the dysfunctional nature of adversarial debate.--Howard W

It does 'alienate as much as it resolves' in many cases (R.D. Laing's argument against 'society's impetuses in general'). But, our entire court system is based on the premise of the 'adversarial system'.

I guess you could call the mental equivalent to 'the war effort'. With that said, it's interesting to note that 'cancer chemotherapy' got started exactly from the 'war effort'--with one of the first 'chemotherapeutic regimens' used being 'mustard gas'--exactly the same agent used in World War I....

'Waging war' implies 'an enemy to defeat'. And, 'cancer treatment' is similar to the 'war efforts of today'--is it better to 'kill the enemy'--or 'work with the enemy to coexist'?

quote:

So that's my long-winded way of suggesting that I feel an important first-step is to 'bring to the foreground' the suggested approach of 'looking for oneself', 'holding loosely' one's beliefs and opinions in order to openly explore, and to create a 'safe', 'non-defensive' learning environment. Otherwise, we get more of the same polarization and entrenchment...it seems to me.

As far as social control goes, I think my position is a fundamental issue. If it's not by 'rational means' that we control 'others' with, what is it? And, since the concept of 'justice', to me, implies a 'verifiable cause to justice', what 'verifies' if it's NOT 'rationalism'?

quote:

Without bringing such issues 'to the foreground', the cultural default of defending abstract positions will likely be the process occuring in most conversations.

I don't think it's just 'the expression of an abstract concept' that the problem--or the point to my position. It's the application of an abstract concept against someone else's will--how is that done if the other doesn't 'see it for themself'?

quote:

I can tell that others can't seem to adjust...--ren

The process of 'adjusting' needs to be more scrutinized in many issues I see, ren. Who holds 'the right' to 'have others adjust'--and why? The only 'just' answer I see is 'rational'....

quote:

Essentially, what I'm doing is addressing the problem as it occurs instead of framing it "up front."

This is treacherous material you are presenting, ren. If it's 'not up front' and it's an authoritarian manuver, there is room for oppressive assertions...

This reminds me of that experiment I think was done at Princeton in the '60's where the experimentors took college students (generally 'smarter than average') and, under the pretext of doing something else, the study was testing how far a 'normal person' would go in creating the 'suffering of another' if 'authority told you to do it'. Using an actor and fake 'shocking device', an official-looking person in a lab coat kept telling the college student to 'turn up the electric shock' in each 'inappropriate answer' the actor gave--to the point of the last level being clearly marked 'potentially fatal'. How many 'went all the way' when 'an authority' told you to do so? It surprised many of the researchers--somewhere up to over 80%.....

quote:

quote:

I can tell that others can't seem to adjust...-

The process of 'adjusting' needs to be more scrutinized in many issues I see, ren. Who holds 'the right' to 'have others adjust'--and why? The only 'just' answer I see is 'rational'....

Nobody "holds" such a right. Your question indicates your perception of what I mean. But the perception I'm reading through your words is not what I mean when I reflect what you say on my meaning. I'll try to give you a better sense of my territory, but the best I can do is this mapping process here.

I'm referring to my effort to communicate and my own perception of how well communication is taking place when I wrote that.

What I'm saying is ultimately more a guess than a certainty, so "know" is misconstruing word, The real question I would bring up: Do I know others can't seem to adjust, or am I guessing?

I'm guessing.

I'm guessing based on an exchange of maps with each other, the map I get back doesn't seem to draw what I'd expect it to draw if it's about the same territory. Does that make any sense?

The mental model concept Howard and I are talking about is something personal to each individual. Each one of us has to make our models in our own way. In our attempts to share our models we must look for reflection from others to see if we can in some way gauge the extent to which our model has been understood. That reflection comes back to us in various ways. In person, there's a whole lot of body language to read. Here, we are stuck with the limits of language models. The other person is in the same limitation fix. Thus, communication remains an ambiguous process no matter how certain we'd like to be. I try to approach it with a sense of fun, like a communication game. I take risks that put people off I know, and I try to be sensitive to that, in hopes that I can recover. Sometimes I don't always look like I care, but that's usually due to frustration.

quote:

This is treacherous material you are presenting, ren. If it's 'not up front' and it's an authoritarian manuver, there is room for oppressive assertions...

To me there's no way any of this can be treacherous. I've had some real mind trippers work on me and I came through intact, so I know from direct experience independent thinking is doable. In this environment, you can just shut off the computer if you get overwhelmed, I figure.

If I tell you what I'm doing up front, and you read it with your mental model, my experience is people translate what I say into their model. If, I see the models at work, and I try to point to them in the process, then I have some hope that I can call something to their attention at that moment. That you might be inclined to translate that into a control impulse on my part could be read as your own insecurity in your own sense of how you perceive things. I see nothing controlling whatsoever in someone attempting to call a new thing to someone's attention in the moment. I actually don't know if or when such a moment will come about. So there isn't any pre-planning involved, just my own ability to be sensitive to myself and what I'm seeing in the moment and my spontaneous and creative potential. It's actually far less controlling that setting out a program that I am then going to set about teaching someone. That to me is authoritarian in nature, not spontaneous awareness.

If you see me as an authority who can tell you what to do, I apologize, because I had no idea I could come across to you or anyone that way.

I've brought those experiential experiment discussions to the board. Another is the Stanford Prison experiment. What they strike me as is experiments in the power of institutionalism and form as it has been programmed into people from birth in this society. It's then to me a revelation of forms embedded in people that they don't recognize are already there. It also indicates, perhaps, how people are unable to muster their own rationalized sense of self within a perceived, authoritarian environment, and they haven't developed the tools to perceive it directly, and therefore to respond to it directly. The response I see you talking about to authority is a rational one.

For you, I imagine, it might work in that environment, because I see that you have been developing your rational ideas for a long time. When I refer to shifting to something else, I'm referring to my response when you said the only response is a rational one. It's not the only one. I can say no. I know that. I did it in a little room off a stage in a church when I was 12, and four large men were trying to talk me into being "saved." At stake, it turned out, was my friendship with one of their sons, which I valued, and the rest of the family, which I valued. But one thing I knew, I did not want to be saved. And they couldn't change my mind. I think they could have threatened to shoot me, it wouldn't have made a difference. I had that setness I get, I'm stubborn, yes, and I wasn't going through with it. When I lost a friend I valued and the friendship of a family over it, I learned even more about the importance of me being me. Nobody's going to blackmail me with friendship, no one ever has. I don't know where that comes from but it's there for me. I fear that people are blackmailed by society in much the same way. So my interest if I have any is that each person be encouraged to make their own decisions, rational or what ever they want to use to make them.

Thom likes to talk about different mental styles, and he does a little story about his own family in the third chapter of "Cracking the Code." He talks about thinkers, seers and feelers. I try to enhance all of those ways in myself, and my decisions can come from any of them or anywhere else, I don't care, but I know it when I know it. See page forty if you want to read what he says: Cracking the Code Chapter 3

And finally:

quote:

I think 'any process' that imposes itself upon an individual 'against their will' is a form of 'grouping process' (inadvertent one at that in many instances--and, as far as I can see it, only 'just' if rationally, and openly, explained for all to see....).

My guess at this point, given that I don't even know if you have looked at what's being discussed at that link, is you have a mental model about groups and control. Whatever is introduced to you gets translated through your model. It appears to me that the possibility that control is not the underlying feature of this "mental model, learning to learn as a group" discussion presented there, is not something you are considering, possibly because it isn't conceivable from your experience, possibly because you've made some assessment about me and what you think I'm about. I'm not going to rationally discuss it with you because I'm not sure if you have even looked at it. As I have said, I'm not promoting it. I merely offer it to you for your interest and information. If after looking at what's said there you are convinced it is what you are indicating you see it as, then that's how you see it. That's all. That's all that Howard ever says. Just look, see what you see.

Whether any of us can actually share anything remains an unknown in my mind. Even what you think of as rational is suspect to me. What cannot help but be your free choice and decision. I personally won't be "persuaded" unless I choose to be. I'm confident of that. I'll consider what someone says and take it into my own counsel. If someone tries to take it beyond that with me, they won't like what comes next.f I expect the same from anyone else. I don't want anything beyond that. I don't want the responsibility of persuading someone.

quote:

When I refer to shifting to something else, I'm referring to my response when you said the only response is a rational one.

I think this may be a central contension in our discussion, ren--and it appears to center around what we are talking about when it comes to the proper role of 'rationalism' and 'group interactions'. If the point of any member of the 'group' is to have the others reach some predetermined point, or conclusion, one which may harbor an incentive to adjust another's behavior, I see 'reaching that' in a 'rational fashion' as being the one most conducive to a fair and just conclusion. It's this aspect of 'predetermined point'--and 'authority's role' affecting that assertion that is my problem with your statements.

In one arm, you and Howard W seem to state that it's all about 'dialogue' between all the players to elucidate, as you say, a 'spontaneous awareness'. Besides the fact that I suspect the concept of 'spontaneous' when it comes to any 'group function' (and believe more likely the Bernayses-type 'mind manipulation' at play in 'group awareness' --feeling that 'insight' is always made 'aware' by, and confirmed through, personal endeavors and, like 'society' as a whole, 'group functions' may deter, or promote, such personal endeavors of gaining 'awareness'), I suspect that any 'method' other than 'rationalization' lacks an exposing issue that I think 'awareness' is dependent upon.

Maybe you're right. Maybe it's 'just me'--but, it's statements like this one (from your 'I think, therefore I'm resistant to change' connection above) that I 'suspect' to the core as being more a 'method' to prejudice than 'reveal':

quote:

Mental models are powerful because they frame and influence the way educators and school districts perceive, understand, interpret, and act upon their world. However, not all mental models are functional or correct. Change requires that we unlearn negative mental models and learn new ones, and staff developers play a critical role in designing and delivering the kind of professional learning that can help educators do so.

All of that is scattered with the very elements of 'distinguishing analysis' that only 'rationalism' openly resolves. The idea that any 'mental model' is to be considered 'functional or correct' vs. those 'that don't' is a 'distinguishing analysis conclusion'--or it is an assertion through a 'propaganda technique'--when it is to be applied in any way in 'groups' as a whole. The very consideration of 'unlearning negative models' and 'learning new ones' to be 'managed' as if 'knowledge', in any way, towards any 'desired endpoint' as a 'group' screams to me 'Orwellian manipulation' if this 'conclusion' is to be 'managed as a group' whether any particular 'member' (or 'individual') is to see its veracity or not. 'Designing and delivering' says the same thing to me....

quote:

Do I know others can't seem to adjust, or am I guessing?

'Adjust' says the same thing to me. If it takes 'adjusting' to become 'aware', you are already prejudicing the response--and how that, in any way, confirms 'spontaneous awareness' (or any 'awareness'), I don't know...

quote:

The mental model concept Howard and I are talking about is something personal to each individual.

Not if there is to be, in any way, a goal in which these 'mental models' are 'adjusting to'...especially against any reason offered by any one 'member' in the 'dynamics'....

quote:

In person, there's a whole lot of body language to read.

While body language is extremely useful in acquiring an 'intuition' as an individual, 'body language' as, somehow, a 'lesson' or 'message' to learn through a 'group function' is not. It can be just as prejudiced (especially as a 'distinction for group models')--with the same pitfalls that are inherent in the epistemiological dilemma between 'what is meant' and 'what is understood' in any 'social interaction'--as 'any language'.

'Body language' applied in 'group dynamics' is more likely to lend itself to charismatic impositions. While I have nothing personally against that, per se, I am deeply concerned over the very likely possibility that such a 'group process' so managed by one adept in 'body language' as being oppressive--not enlightening. Adolf Hitler was one of many 'charismatic' dictators whose 'body language' was just as important as his statements...I think such a possible conclusion to 'body language dynamics' needs to be rationally scrutinized....

quote:

Thus, communication remains an ambiguous process no matter how certain we'd like to be.

True. That contention is addressed in the 'uncertainty principle' that rational thought exposes. 'Rationalism' doesn't just expose what 'we can agree is certain'--it also exposes what 'we can agree is speculative'--and applied authorizations, if rationally-based, can be so directed....'Speculative assertions' require repeated re-analyses...

quote:

I try to approach it with a sense of fun, like a communication game.

I certainly do NOT want to deter you from that action. However, if you are intent on 'adjusting', 'correcting', determining 'what is right and what is wrong', in any way, it's no longer 'a game'...and I would rather know what your intent is and, then, decide for myself my input in that endeavor--or not, as the case may be....

quote:

If I tell you what I'm doing up front, and you read it with your mental model, my experience is people translate what I say into their model.

That can be one issue at stake. However, in the 'argumentative angle' that our legal 'adversarial system' promotes, Gerry Spence (the lawyer known for his Karen Silkwood case), in his book, How To Argue and Win, advises that the way to 'win an argument' most definitively is confirm 'your point' by using 'the other's mental model'. If you can't do that, neither you nor the one you are 'arguing with' have any 'mental method' in common to 'determine any issue with'....and, how you are going to 'adjust that' without 'imposing', somehow, especially without reason (or 'rationale') to do so, again, I don't know...

quote:

That you might be inclined to translate that into a control impulse on my part could be read as your own insecurity in your own sense of how you perceive things.

I guess you could say that. However, on my own behalf, with my above statements, I hope you get a sense as to why I 'suspect' any issue of 'correcting' that doesn't 'explain itself'....

quote:

I see nothing controlling whatsoever in someone attempting to call a new thing to someone's attention in the moment.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I do think others can help someone else along on 'the road to enlightenment'--one at a time...however, I don't think it can, in any way, be done as a 'group process'....

quote:

It's actually far less controlling that setting out a program that I am then going to set about teaching someone.

You see, this is part of this problem about what we are talking about. I see both 'setting out the program' and 'teaching' as 'presetting the conclusion' towards whatever 'goal' such a 'set' or 'teaching' is to attain. In that manner, it is neither 'spontaneous'--nor 'insightful'...

quote:

If you see me as an authority who can tell you what to do,

That's not the only issue. Authority 'telling you what to do' is not as much a concern for me in this issue (as I see it) as authority 'manipulating you into doing it'--especially if such an authority doesn't explain what it's doing....

quote:

It appears to me that the possibility that control is not the underlying feature of this "mental model, learning to learn as a group" discussion presented there, is not something you are considering, possibly because it isn't conceivable from your experience, possibly because you've made some assessment about me and what you think I'm about.

It's not really an 'assessment about you'--I don't know you. I do make some presumptions based on what you say--but I realize they are just that, 'presumptions'. I'm trying to address 'my problems' with your 'models'--and your prioritizing a 'model-approach' as to 'how to think'...all of which, to me, suggest that such 'models' hold the key to 'enlightenment'--or 'awareness'....as church oftentimes 'mistakes the package for the present', such a preemption over 'model-basing' in 'proper thought processing', to me, 'mistakes the method for the message'....

quote:

I personally won't be "persuaded" unless I choose to be. I'm confident of that. I'll consider what someone says and take it into my own counsel. If someone tries to take it beyond that with me, they won't like what comes next.f I expect the same from anyone else.

Now, that's funny, I expect nothing more, either....

Aha!

quote:

If the point of any member of the 'group' is to have the others reach some predetermined point, or conclusion,

There you go! That's not even close to what I'm thinking.


I offer you "open."



-------------

I can let go, can you? I can say I can let go, can you believe it? Or maybe... what does it mean if I say "I can let go" to you? I don't know.

-------------

Essentially, Kerry, and I say this kindly, not meaning any disrespect, I see that you are looking for a fight. You want there to be a contention here.

It appears that if I don't want a contention and say so, I still have a contention with you, because while I don't want one, you do, so my not wanting one is itself contentious with what you want.

Hmmmmmm.

But I see that's not really a rational contention, it's an "I want" contention.

So, I'm willing to let you "want." How's that?


Or I can give you those thirty seconds.

-----------------


Sadly, I grow tired of it. I'm just repeating, like I'm in a cage running on a wheel. It feels like codependency. Like I'm the enabler.

Howard may want to play this game with you. He likes wrangling this way. He's very patient.

And you are right! And you always will be!

Enjoy!

quote:

As a teaser question, perhaps you could identify the abstract positions you see being "defended" here?

**I was referring to the resistance that was present when you said: "Where I am offering and then it's up to him to look", and, "If you have any insights into how to get that across..."

The specific abstraction, to my understanding, isn't really that important. I could search for the specific example, but the real point is that people are continually defending abstract beliefs and opinions instead of simply doing the 'looking' that you are suggesting. Asking if anyone is interested in trying a different approach seems to be a good way of bringing this into awareness, regardless of the fact that many people will resist such a suggestion or mis-interpret it as a lecture.

Ren - I had a long explanation that I just deleted, (minus the short piece above), as I just don't seem to be able to explain my perspective very well right now. I've been fooling with this response for over two hours and I just can't seem to get my brain to come up with an explanation which seems like it's communicating clearly. My mom recently had brain cancer surgery which seems to clearly be making it difficult for me to address this adequately. I'm actually down at my moms house in San Diego right now in order to take her to an appointment with the cancer oncologist tomorrow (today, it's now 1:30 a.m.). I didn't realize this would be so difficult for me, but now it's clear that my brain just isn't going to cooperate. So I'm going to have to regretfully leave it here for now.

I think I got the gist of what you are suggesting, but I still think it's important to verbalize things which people may not be aware of, or which they may have no past direct experience with which to clearly make sense of it, even at the risk of being mis-interpreted as lecturing. Or at the risk of many people resisting it.

Perhaps we could explore this at some future date when I'm functioning on all cylinders?

Regards - Howard

quote:

Essentially, Kerry, and I say this kindly, not meaning any disrespect, I see that you are looking for a fight. You want there to be a contention here.--ren

'Looking for a fight'? That's a little more 'negative' of a connotation than what I think I'm presenting, ren. I'm showing just as I see it, there's a contention with any 'dynamic' that sees itself 'adjusting', or 'correcting', its members 'as a group' and it be an 'awareness function' in general. If there is no 'predetermined point or conclusion', then, why 'correct'? Why not just approach it like it's 'individuals getting together to see where they differ, see what they have in common, and see what they can do with that'? And, more important as to how 'what they do with that' is managed, in any way, as a 'group function', 'agree as to how to do that'? That sort of 'thinking', to me, lends itself to applying any incentive as a Jeffersonian democracy--with 'checks and balances' and 're-analyses' with respect to 'common goals' all along the way....

As I've said, ren, it's statements like these that make me suspicious of the 'group's intent'--or any 'leader of the group' that so expresses this intent (and I've explained why):

quote:

Maybe you're right. Maybe it's 'just me'--but, it's statements like this one (from your 'I think, therefore I'm resistant to change' connection above) that I 'suspect' to the core as being more a 'method' to prejudice than 'reveal':


quote:
Mental models are powerful because they frame and influence the way educators and school districts perceive, understand, interpret, and act upon their world. However, not all mental models are functional or correct. Change requires that we unlearn negative mental models and learn new ones, and staff developers play a critical role in designing and delivering the kind of professional learning that can help educators do so.


All of that is scattered with the very elements of 'distinguishing analysis' that only 'rationalism' openly resolves. The idea that any 'mental model' is to be considered 'functional or correct' vs. those 'that don't' is a 'distinguishing analysis conclusion'--or it is an assertion through a 'propaganda technique'--when it is to be applied in any way in 'groups' as a whole. The very consideration of 'unlearning negative models' and 'learning new ones' to be 'managed' as if 'knowledge', in any way, towards any 'desired endpoint' as a 'group' screams to me 'Orwellian manipulation' if this 'conclusion' is to be 'managed as a group' whether any particular 'member' (or 'individual') is to see its veracity or not. 'Designing and delivering' says the same thing to me....

If you are there 'just to know each other', why 'group it'? If you think that even that question is 'looking for a fight', we have two different ideas on what 'communication' means, it appears....

quote:

I can let go, can you? I can say I can let go, can you believe it? Or maybe... what does it mean if I say "I can let go" to you? I don't know.

Alcoholics Anonymous has a saying 'Let go and let God'--and it means just that. Since, sometimes, alcoholics get 'hung up' on the 'incongruities of the world' (which, as my dad noted, becomes 'just another reason to drink'), sometimes it's better to 'let it go'. If that still is a problem because you, personally, don't know how to 'deal with it' and its 'incongruous character' and you still believe 'something must be done about it', then, you 'let God' when you realize nothing you, personally, do will make any difference.

AA also likes the 'Serenity Prayer':

quote:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.

But, 'letting go' is hard for me in 'solving' any issue--and, at heart, I'm a clinician...I approach the 'letting go' part as being where 'our limits of knowledge don't offer a clear answer'....

quote:

Sadly, I grow tired of it. I'm just repeating, like I'm in a cage running on a wheel. It feels like codependency. Like I'm the enabler.

Vs. what, ren? Not that I don't appreciate your dilemma, but you promote this 'running in a cage' theme as an explanation of 'my position' on this--what's yours? If you don't 'like the cage', what is it you're positioning yourself to do that 'gets you out of it'? Does 'model-based thinking' (or even the 'study of model-based thinking') do that for you (sounds like it could be just 'going from one cage to the other')? I'm really asking that question if you don't mind....

quote:

Perhaps we could explore this at some future date when I'm functioning on all cylinders?

If we can 'find all cylinders'.......

By the way, Howard W, I hope your mother does fine. I know the ravages of cancer personally, also. My mother died of lung cancer. I wish I had more to offer....

quote:

Perhaps we could explore this at some future date when I'm functioning on all cylinders?

I'll be happy to, Howard.

I'm very sorry to hear about your mother, and I send all my best to her and you.

Howard, I'm sorry to hear about your mother. My father died in the seventies and a good friend of mine said something to me that was the only positive thing to come out of the experience. He said, "it's a learning experience". That helped me and I'll always be thankful to him for that.

What I learned was that at some point, you only have one chance to do everything right. When my mother died last year, I spent nearly all of the last month with her. I didn't get everything exactly right, but got close enough that I have no regrets.

With the state of medical technology I hope you and your mother have years together in front of you. Best wishes.

Kerry,

quote:

But I see that's not really a rational contention, it's an "I want" contention.

It appears that if I don't want a contention and say so, I still have a contention with you, because while I don't want one, you do, so my not wanting one is itself contentious with what you want.

Hmmmmmm.

So, I'm willing to let you "want." How's that?

quote:

And you are right! And you always will be!

quote:

I can let go, can you? I can say I can let go, can you believe it? Or maybe... what does it mean if I say "I can let go" to you? I don't know.

quote:

Howard:

quote:

ren: As a teaser question, perhaps you could identify the abstract positions you see being "defended" here?

**I was referring to the resistance that was present when you said: "Where I am offering and then it's up to him to look", and, "If you have any insights into how to get that across..."

The specific abstraction, to my understanding, isn't really that important. I could search for the specific example, but the real point is that people are continually defending abstract beliefs and opinions instead of simply doing the 'looking' that you are suggesting. Asking if anyone is interested in trying a different approach seems to be a good way of bringing this into awareness, regardless of the fact that many people will resist such a suggestion or mis-interpret it as a lecture.

I don't have Howard's patience, and to do what he suggests is not an obligation of any kind, it's a gesture of good will. You already have all the food you are going to get on this one, Kerry.

quote:

I don't have Howard's patience, and to do what he suggests is not an obligation of any kind, it's a gesture of good will. You already have all the food you are going to get on this one, Kerry.

Don't take this wrong, but, while you argue 'my positioning' fosters something like a 'co-dependency' as if, somehow, 'I' am 'clinging to rationalism' inappropriately, your evasiveness to clarify your position with respect to this 'adjustment of model-based thinking' (especially against any 'rational question concerning it') smacks of a condescending posturing on your part, ren. While you espouse how 'great' this 'process' of 'model-based thinking adjustment' is, you ignore any potential consideration that I think questions its content and extent with respect to 'proper thinking procedures'.

But, that may be what you are after in this case, I have no idea. Maybe it's like you are trying to play the 'therapist' to me and have me 'ask and answer my own questions' concerning this--whereas, you can aloofly assure yourself it's 'the right thing to do' without question or consideration of any other's concern. I guess you must see it some other way, but that's hard for me to determine because I see nothing else other than you claiming its usefulness, yet you not considering the content and extent of what makes it 'useful'--that's not a part of your parlay in 'claiming it', it appears....

Well, like I've said on more than one occasion, so be it....as such, I see that we have defined the 'limits of our cooperation' with each other in this conversation....

What I'm after... and if that's nothing?



Please stop!

Check your assumptions,

Can you shift your mind?

It's like this:

quote:

As I've said, ren, it's statements like these that make me suspicious of the 'group's intent'--or any 'leader of the group' that so expresses this intent (and I've explained why):


quote:
Maybe you're right. Maybe it's 'just me'--but, it's statements like this one (from your 'I think, therefore I'm resistant to change' connection above) that I 'suspect' to the core as being more a 'method' to prejudice than 'reveal':


quote:
Mental models are powerful because they frame and influence the way educators and school districts perceive, understand, interpret, and act upon their world. However, not all mental models are functional or correct. Change requires that we unlearn negative mental models and learn new ones, and staff developers play a critical role in designing and delivering the kind of professional learning that can help educators do so.


All of that is scattered with the very elements of 'distinguishing analysis' that only 'rationalism' openly resolves. The idea that any 'mental model' is to be considered 'functional or correct' vs. those 'that don't' is a 'distinguishing analysis conclusion'--or it is an assertion through a 'propaganda technique'--when it is to be applied in any way in 'groups' as a whole. The very consideration of 'unlearning negative models' and 'learning new ones' to be 'managed' as if 'knowledge', in any way, towards any 'desired endpoint' as a 'group' screams to me 'Orwellian manipulation' if this 'conclusion' is to be 'managed as a group' whether any particular 'member' (or 'individual') is to see its veracity or not. 'Designing and delivering' says the same thing to me....



If you are there 'just to know each other', why 'group it'? If you think that even that question is 'looking for a fight', we have two different ideas on what 'communication' means, it appears....

If it's 'nothing', why 'adjust', 'correct', or, in any way, determine which 'model' is 'effective' and which isn't, ren.....

Let me add one other thought into this 'mix'. I don't have the book right now (it was the college Psychology textbook by Zimbardo in the '70's), but, in searching for the experiment that had most of the 'subjects' shock the actor to 'potentially fatal' levels upon the 'instruction' of an 'authority' (it's in there, I just couldn't find it), I did come across a statement by Nathanial Hawthorne that said something to the effect:

'Man doesn't think in terms of good and evil, right and wrong, until in the direct process of acting'

Or, something like that. At any rate, it promotes, to me, the idea that the crux of the 'good and evil' ('right and wrong') decision-making doesn't occur at the time someone is 'thinking of it'--it occurs at the time someone is 'doing it'....

Finite and Infinite Games

quote:

Finite and Infinite Games


There are at least two kinds of games: finite and infinite.

A finite game is a game that has fixed rules and boundaries, that is played for the purpose of winning and thereby ending the game.

An infinite game has no fixed rules or boundaries. In an infinite game you play with the boundaries and the purpose is to continue the game.

Finite players are serious; infinite games are playful.

Finite players try to control the game, predict everything that will happen, and set the outcome in advance. They are serious and determined about getting that outcome. They try to fix the future based on the past.

Infinite players enjoy being surprised. Continuously running into something one didn't know will ensure that the game will go on. The meaning of the past changes depending on what happens in the future.

All games are inherently voluntary. There might be consequences of not playing, but there is always a choice required. Driving in the right side of the road, shaking people's hands, and paying taxes are games one has a choice about playing. There are certain rules and boundaries that appear to be externally defined, and you choose to follow them or not. If you stop following them you aren't playing the game any longer.

There is no rule that says you have to follow the rules.

All finite games have rules. If you follow the rules you are playing the game. If you don't follow the rules you aren't playing. If you move the pieces in different ways in chess, you are no longer playing chess.

Infinite players play with rules and boundaries. They include them as part of their playing. They aren't taking them serious, and they can never be trapped by them, because they use rules and boundaries to play with.

In a theatrical play the actor knows that she really isn't Ophelia. The audience knows that she really isn't Ophelia. But if she does a good job, Ophelia can express herself through the actor. The playing is most enjoyable when it is both clear that it is chosen play, that it is the actor doing it voluntarily, and at the same time it is so convincing, following the rules well enough that it seems real.

You can play finite games within an infinite game. You can not play infinite games within a finite game.

You can do what you do seriously, because you must do it, because you must survive to the end, and you are afraid of dying and other consequences. Or, you can do everything you do playfully, always knowing you have a choice, having no need to survive the way you are, allowing every element of the play to transform you, taking pleasure in every surprise you meet. Those are the differences between finite and infinite players.

These ideas are paraphrased from the delightful book:

"Finite and Infinite Games - A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility" by James P. Carse