This is our May, 2005 editorial
Go directly to 2005 May News
Hegemony isn't societal control, it's classically social stupidity!
Doug - 30Apr2005
December, 2004 through November, 2005
You are here:
|global warming rant,
what is democracy?,
fav flicks list & why?
our fav TV ad,
Apple's Itunes & IPod,
Banesh on de Broglie,
Who likes Quantonics?,
|why we cannot
fix global warming,
|a gentle spirit,
on Where Is
|Relook at EU,
A sound track,
Quantonics OS X,
|A silly GW fix,
|Doug rants on
Doug offers his best
expectation of global
warmings' current cyclings
|Russert, Katrina, &
|Murtha gets it, Libby's foot?,
Why WJS hated religion,
Still a Republican?
A Sting WinWinWin,
Admin calls US 'the people,'
Talk/Walk vis-à-vis Walk/Talk,
Confidentiality of News: Society vis-à-vis Individual?,
Technologies vis-à-vis Quantologies,
Can meaning be unambiguous?, and
May, 2005 News:
We are indefinitely postponing disclosure of our current efforts on cell chip emerscitectures and emerscentures. Ditto our opinions on issues of 'social' security. (Simply, only individuals can genuinely provide their own security. In general, classical society degrades individual security by confiscating individual wealth and then squandering it on maltuitive social 'projects' like war, social engineering, homeland defense, 'climate change,' prohibitio a recidere, i.e., active prevention of any 'outside' our the cultural OSFA locally Demos will-decided 'amoral,' 'immoral,' acultural practices, etc. Doug's opinions.)
We found another yummy article titled, 'Where Is Liberal Passion?' Said article is by Michael P. Lynch in The Chronicle, which appeared in The Chronicle's April 22, 2005 issue.
We highly recommend this article to our community. It covers most problematic issues of USA's 'democratic,' 'liberal,' 'republican,' 'conservative' society and politics. Lynch is just a superb writer, genuinely one of best we have recently read. He ferrets a litany of complaints why liberals appear to have gotten their asses whipped by a conservative party that apparently has real backbone. Dialectical conclusion? Liberals need more backbone. Liberals need to be more 'conservative.' And indeed, in our opinion, that appears to be where Lynch wants to take liberals...in a more conservative direction. How do we know? He tells liberals that they need to be more objective!
Lynch essentially tells us, some liberals believe, conservatives have backbone and liberals lack backbone, therefore conservatives have passion and liberals lack passion.
If one's island of reason, logic, and truth lies in classicism, one can fathom how some liberals arrive at that conclusion.
Then Lynch goes on to say that if liberals are going to gain passion and backbone they must become more egalitarian (i.e., righteous; this is transparently a liberal code word for 'political correctness'), intolerant (of intolerance), and objective. In other words Lynch and one of his protagonists Michael Walzer (who wrote Politics and Passion: Toward a More Egalitarian Liberalism, YUP, 2005) appear to suggest that liberals should become more conservative.
But should they?
To keep Doug's own leanings in fair and full view, readers must be aware that Doug considers himself as a
Doug's liberalism should be taken in an approximately pre ~1900 sense. Those liberals by today's liberal standards might be called "conservatives." Doug sees both liberalism and conservatism co~here~ing when and only when most individuals commence understanding that reality is n¤t classically mechanical, formal, substantial, material, dialectical, objective, excluded-middle and thus contradictory. Doug believes that Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, and all their adherents have simply blown any potential for their followers' adept understanding of reality.
Usually, but n¤t on this web page, we show conservative as conservative and liberal as lieberal. Why? Conservatives dialectically 'con' their conned-stituents, while liberals dialectically 'lie' to their conned-stituents. One may replace our use of 'dialectically' in that last sentence with 'politically,' without loss of semantic. Bottom line here: One may not use dialectic without innately conning and lieing.
If that offends, mayhaps you should back out of this web page 'now...' ...more to come...
Doug - 4May2005.
What notions, according to Lynch and Walzer, do liberals and conservatives already share? Let's offer more of Doug's notorious side-by-side lists. We can offer two lists. One shows shared notions upon which liberals and conservatives disagree. Another shows shared notions upon which they almost wholly agree...share consensus:
|local, cultural reason, culture-by-culture||...............reason...............||one absolute reason fits all|
|relative, pluralistic, heterolithic||............objectivity............||ideal objective OGC and OGT fits all|
|diversity (we would say "multiversity" and "omniversity") is nature's way (note that 'di' is dialectical and hints at dualism; dualism usually 'di' alectically 'creates' two EOOO monisms...)||...............society...............||monolithic democracy is the solution to Earth's problems: the new world order (major conservative problematic: democracy is a dialectical notion, a dualism; democracy is an Attic Demos will dichon(majority, minority))|
|individuals contract with local society on agreed acceptable 'behaviors'||........social contracts........||OSFA society is above individuals and governs via state-authored 'law'|
|any society tolerantly permits limited variations on 'correct' democratic thing-king||.........herd thingking.........||society intolerantly permits only democratic (our way of) thing-king|
One - conventional 'socio-political' view of a world society as a,
One - closed reality/universe in,
One - the (pre)existing substantial context
deliberation, thoughtfulness, intellectual carefulness, "peace first and war as a last resort"
Lynch and Walzer both quote Yeats, "The best lack all conviction [best adhere quantum uncertainty; bettership], while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity [worst adhere dialectical certainty; wors[e]ship]." Our intra-quote brackets.
|............confidence............||arrogance, gloat, "bring it on," aboriginal troglodytic conviction, "make war not peace, jihad, we'll put some gravy on 'dat SoB"|
|freedom, ubiquitous overweening equality (note: equality is a dialectical notion)||..............purpose..............||control, power, hegemony, status (note: stat(e)us is a dialectical notion)|
|vision is an individual value; vision is heterolithic||................vision................||vision is a cultural value; vision is monolithic; Demos will thence Demos vision|
|liberal socialism: "society makes individuals who sign common social contracts with society"||..............freedom..............||Bush: "religious
society keeps individuals secure; religious society makes
Hitler: "individuals make society"
Mussolini: "society makes individuals"
Islam: "one Muslim religion makes all individuals"
Catholicism: "one universal church makes all individuals"
|seeks absolute equality among all individuals; a level, socialist playing field; liberal socialism despises any notions of extraordinary individualism (a major liberal problematic)||..............equality..............||
cherishes socially-managed, hegemonized individual 'free' enterprise with absolute 'inequality' with state confiscatory exploitation of individuals
conservatives somehow, almost dyslexically (due their innate anti evolutionary fundamentalism) intuit a grand physial meme: "there is n¤ harmony without heterolithic (n¤t monistic) discord," which we can say another way, "there is n¤ emergent progressive change without intrinsic inequality!" Ask yourself, "If equality were natural, why would we have to struggle to learn how to play golf? How would your children learn to play a violin without heterolithic discord showing them a better way?" (We must acknowledge that discord is heteroculturally islandic which demands some tolerance to achieve coexistence. N¤t all discord can | should be 'eliminated' to achieve utopian idyllic global ordered OSFA 'equality')
conservatives adhere nature when it comes to political notions of equality (noun) and equal (adjective): there isn't any ideal dialectical notions of equal and equality are just bogus, folks by all measures equality can be naught but uncertain
|reason is dialectical, thus rational, capable of righteous, intra-culturally-unambiguous assessment||..................reason..................||reason is dialectical, thus rational, capable of righteous, uni-culturally-unambiguous assessment|
|one closed universal reality exists||..................reality..................||one closed universal reality exists|
|all people's minds must be educated and trained to social consensus||............social-control............
|all people's minds must be educated and trained to social consensus|
|reality is measurably, verifiably quantitative||.................quantity.................||reality is measurably, verifiably quantitative|
|(in Doug's view, this is a huge liberal faux pas) society is above individual||................hierarchy................||society is above individual (conservative society ceases viability without this)|
|(while pluralistic: attenuates societal control) are quantitative||..................values..................||are quantitative (while monistic, monastic, dialectic notions of stoppable 'quantity' nurture certainty of OSFA: hegemony)|
Let's look at a classical definition of politics. Our MS Bookshelf shows this hierarchy, n¤t duplicated perfectly:
|Politic:||Good policy (noun, adj.)||
|Skill (noun, adj.)||
|Intelligence, wisdom, wise (noun, adj.)||
|Intelligence, wisdom, intelligent (noun, adj.)||
Now we want to ask a crucial question. We cann¤t overemphasize importance of this question!
What does classical politics do to and with all those nouns and adjectives? It turns them into bivalencies! Examples? One is either brainy or 'not' brainy, sage or 'not' sage, good or bad, commendable or not commendable, "you are either for us or against us,"...
What is politics' great deign to feign? Classical dialectic: dichon(either, or) AKA 'con.' Conservatives are politically passionate about either | or! Their passions find their bases in naïve, sillygistic, unfounded, inept, simple, stupid, local dialectical thing-king! Liberals sense that they are on a better trail, though they are n¤t yet k-nowing how to omnifferentiate their views from conservatives.
When we pause and ponder each of our nouns and adjectives above do we actually surmise either or? N¤! We see Bell curves for each, stochastics for each, probability di(omni)stributions for each. Actually, we see Wittgensteinian Bell curve ensembles of stochastics (AKA EWings), and omnistributions for each, right? See QLO.
But conservative (and some liberal) politicians dichotomize all, a la Dimbaughlb and EOOO'Reilly! Listen to what they say! Write their words down. Almost total dialectical objective linguistic bilge!!!
Liberals do it. Conservatives do it. Independents do it. Worse, they do it using classical unremediated dialectically objective 'definitions' of each of those nouns and adjectives.
Even worse, politicians claim righteousness, justness, correctness, and wisdom in their dialectical assessments. But is n¤t that a lie? Isn't certainty a lie? Isn't certainty politically stupid?
What is an obvious tell that politicians have to lie? They practice dialectical opposition! How can two parties be politically opposite and right, just, correct and wise? Society, if dialectic works, should be one time, one place, ideally, absolutely capable of assessing which party's platform is right, just, correct, and wise. Observed reality of that incapability evinces dialectic's, thence politicians' deign to feign. If that simple fact is n¤t patently obvious to you at this juncture you are wasting your valuable time in Quantonics!
If dialectic works, how can liberals and conservatives oppose one another while righteously, justly, correctly, and wisely disagreeing? If dialectic works, why don't they always objectively, ideally, dialectically, rationally, absolutely, consensually, agree? If reason is simply an either | or, why doesn't dialectic work, politically?
Is dialectic decidable? It claims objectivity and rationality. Then why are opposed politicians undecidable? Why aren't either lieberals or conservatives decidably either right or wrong?
Here we see that it is easy to grasp that politicians are dealing with n¤n dialectical hermeneutics and attempting to treat them dialectically. What do we get? Chaos! And that is what we have today in our USA: political chaos, political nonsense, political ludicrousness all spawn of dialectic. Suddenly, we fathom a novel HotMeme emerging:
Why do conservatives have passion? Why do liberals appear to lack passion? Conservatives are living and believing in a contrived, dialectical unreal 'reality.' They are treating all as dialectical. Dialectic appears to make all 'simple.' 'Easy.' 'Decidable.' 'Uncomplicated.' Simple minds love dialectic. For them, dialectic eliminates ambiguity,...
There is even a Canadian company which claims to offer software 'tools' which "eliminate linguistic ambiguity." See www.idilia.com which is located in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Idilia, Inc. offers "word sense disambiguation technology." If they are doing this classically, dialectically, mechanically, formally, objectively their claim to fame is a deign to feign, in our opinion. However, if they are doing this subjectively, rhetorically, sophistically, quantum~really, then we hail and salute their efforts! Bravo! Note that we recommended in 2004 that Google take that latter approach! Doug - 7May2005.
...uncertainty indeed dialectic eliminates quantum reality! Conservatives appear to be passionate because they assume they are dialectically 'right,' 'certain,' 'good,' etc. Conservatives are practicing dialectical gloat and liberals are calling it passion. Worse, some liberals are saying that liberals should be more like conservatives so that they can "share the passion," "share the gloat."
We agree that liberals need more backbone, but we think their passion will have incredibly more power and political visibility when they eschew conservatives' classical dialectic.
Aside - 23-24Sep2005:
Richard Shweder (UChic) quotes Clifford Geertz (Princeton, emeritus) saying something valuably similar:
"And then there is 'The World in Pieces: Culture and Politics at the End of the Century' in which Mr. Geertz takes on 'borderless capitalism' and the connections between globalization, multiculturalism and the reemergence of ethnic and religious identities. Against the odds he is in search of a liberalism 'with both the courage and the capacity to engage itself with a differenced world.' His version of liberalism, he notes, is committed to state neutrality in matters of personal belief, to individualism, liberty, procedure, the universality of human rights and, especially, the equitable distribution of life chances. Critics of liberalism around the world argue that liberals are prevented by those commitments 'from recognizing the force and durability of ties of religion, language, custom, locality, race, and descent in human affairs, or from regarding the entry of such considerations into civic life as other than pathological - primitive, backward, regressive, and irrational.' Quite characteristically, as always resisting all received dichotomies, he replies, 'I do not think this is the case.'" Our bold and color.
(Wouldn't those critics' bold red text remarks apply too then to anthropology, history, sociology, epistemology, linguistics, etc.? Is Cantonese pathological to English? Is yellow skin pathological to black skin? Are Egyptian hairless cats pathological to European tabbies?
And what does irrational mean? To nearly everyone of Western culture today "irrational" means 'not' dialectical!
Also observe how change, natural selection, and choice (i.e., heresy) are all pathological and irrational to (Un)intelligent designers, radical Catholicism and radical Protestantism. Ditto pluralism! Now who are those whom are primitive, backward, regressive and anti-coquecigrues? Doug. )
First, in our view, Clifford Geertz is Earth's first and foremost quantum~anthropologist!
Second, it shows how Geertz has already addressed countless issues surrounding what Lynch and Walzer are classically, objectively, dialectically wringing their hands about.
Third, "a differenced world," one which Geertz is addressing is n¤t a classical monism, rather in his and our views "a di(omni)fferencing world" is quantum~plural, ~fluxing, and ~REIMAR, plus.
Fourth, social dialectic depends upon a monism (e.g., "state, nation, society, culture, etc."). That is why Geertz shows us that n¤nmonistic "relativism disables [dialectical] judgment." Our brackets. But Geertz believes in pluralism, which to dialecticians appears as relativism, and so dialecticians call Geertz a relativist. As Shweder implies, "Geertz is n¤ relativist!" Better, Geertz comes within microns of inferring a quantum~everywhere~associative~included~middle, which jibes what Mae-wan Ho writes below. (Please take some extra timings to read surrounding text...) What Mae-wan shows and we augment significantly with graphics and descriptions of ensemble QLOs, mitigates even obliterates liberal critics' red text comments just above.
Fifth, we agree, We "[d¤ n¤t] believe this is [a better] case." "But, but, but Doug...How can you agree with Geertz?" We almost always agree with Geertz. That said, we have to put all those bold nouns above in Quantum Lightings. Let's list them in order, "...liberalism, itself, world, state, neutrality, belief, individualism, liberty, procedure, universality, life, chances, critics, commitments, force, durability, ties, religion, language, custom, locality, race, descent, affairs, considerations."
What are Geertz and Mae-wan Ho showing us?
When we use dialectic to define and assess all those nouns, indeed any nouns, we treat them as classical, analytic, dialectical objects. We di 'stinguish' them, di 'fference' them, we di 'scriminate' them, and so on ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Those 'di' prefixes are what Pirsig calls "SOM's (dialectic's) knives."
But real nouns are not objects. They may not be treated dialectically. Pirsig tells us they are Patterns of Value. Better they are Hermeneutic PoVs! 'Di' simply doesn't work anymore. We need 'omni' in place of 'di.' We need quantum reality in place of dialectic reality!
As we show in our quantum likelihood omnistribution (QLO) graphic below, nouns as ensemble Pirsigean PoVs are (may be represented by) QLOs, and to great advantage for all Earth people. Say it again, with passion:
- We need 'omni' in place of 'di.' (BAWAM in place of EOOO)
- We need quantum reality in place of dialectic reality!
Our entire Quantonics web site dedicates itself to those, and many more, mandates...
Bottom line: Dialectic's deign to feign: "Dialectic manufactures several absolute truths!" Coquecigrues' hermeneutics: "Dialectic manufactures unlimited contradictions." Again:
HotMeme "Dialectic generates chaos!" HotMeme.
Interestingly, anti contradiction 'does not equal' absolute truth. Classical dialecticians believe that absence of contradiction is evidence of proof. Popper, et al., brought us this dialectical malediction of 'ideal dialectical thing-king.' Quantum thinkq~ing is holographic. Any energy well in any human mind as (essentially) unlimited potential quantonic (quantum~wavings) interrelationshipings with every other energy well in said quantum~stagings (mind). We see holographic energy~wellings interrelationshipings as massively plural, ensembles of plural nexi. Classicists try to force them dialectically into either-or dichotomies. Conservatives thingk 'state -ic' either-or. Liberals thinkq both~all~whileings~and~many. Conservatism is backbone, AKA "state-ic stux sux," while liberalism is pragmatic courage, "pluralistic dynamisms' fluxings (changings) are crux."
Doug's "...holographic energy~wellings interrelationshipings as massively plural, ensembles of plural nexi" opens a quantum~thinkqing gnostic gateway, and a n¤væl lavender, heliotrope pathway out of SOM's dialectical box. A narrow pathway, indeed. A tiny gate and only a lonely stone to hint its locus. Instead of yellow brick dialectical dichonic objects, we see logos' light~essential wavings: quantons. Holographic quantons waving bricks from SOM's dialectical wall.
Please observe reader, how...now in CeodE 2009, USA liberals are commencing n¤væl Chautauquas down quantum~reality's logos~coherent heliotropic pathways. It's happening, Phædrus, it's happening! Doug - 10Mar2009.
Doug - 23-24Sep2005.
(Be sure to examine, under our Available Light URL above, links to Martin Ryder's site at Denver, Colorado. We think Ryder and his entourage would find much with which to disagree in Lynch and Walzer's remarks.)
End aside - 23-24Sep2005 - Doug.
Liberals need backbone in showing that classical dialectic is a bunch of objective hocus pocus! Until liberals take on dialectic as the political issue, conservatives are going to keep them in SOMites' own "church of reason," their own detention center of parochial, polemical, provincial, naïvely-localized one-size-fits-all, dogmatic, dialectic.
What can liberals pragmatically be passionate about?
Compared to conservatives, liberals are relatively adept. How? Most liberals intuit reality as change, reality as emerging. Most conservatives demand that reality be immutable, reality holds still so their dialectic will work. Most conservatives say reality is an "intelligent design." But Pirsig has shown us that classical 'design' is ESQ! Conservatives, most of them, deny any notions of evolution. Why? They adhere dialectic. Dialectic forbids mutability! Dialectic's two most fundamental axioms Henri Bergson disclosed to us over 100 years ago:
Paul Dirac said it a little differently:
"...we must revise our [classical] ideas of causality. Causality applies only to a system which is left undisturbed." Page 4, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Dirac, like Bergson, criticizes this massive failure of classic dialectical thought.
For us this is where traction is genuinely possible. It is demonstrable that reality is n¤t classically dialectical absolute stasis; rather, reality is absolute change. How is this demonstrable? By direct experience and direct observation of reality. In those few but potent words lie liberals' sources of passion. It goes something like this, "Do you see this egg? With it you can overthrow all the schools of theology, all the churches of the earth." Denis Diderot. Those schools, of which Diderot speaks, are founded in and upon classical Aristotelian and Thomist dialectic. Diderot is showing and telling us that an egg exhibits via direct experience and direct observation that evolutionary emergence is real and dialectic is just plain phony. To us, in Quantonics, that is something to be passionate about. Liberal politics must learn to be more egglike and less objectlike!!! BTW quantum politics finds its bases in evolutionary emergence and wholly disavows and rebukes dialectical politics.
Probably conservatives and conservatism will evolve out of 'existence' as we currently (2005) know them, during Earth's next century. Ditto dialectical liberalism! Dialectical conservatism and liberalism are dialectical failures of thought, politics, theology, education, law, and so on... History will show us it is so...
Walzer calls for "Egalitarian Liberalism." First of all, to us, that is an oxymoron. Second, Walzer might just as well say "Conservative Liberalism."
That's jumping back into SOM's box.
Which is more important in reality, from a human perspective, emotion? Dialectical logic? OK, which is more valuable? In any given day, how often are you logical? How often are you emotional? Are you logical about food? Emotional? Logical about sex? Emotional? Logical about your kids? Emotional? Logical about your clothes? Emotional? Logical about your car? Emotional?
What are conservatives totally emotional and almost totally illogical about? What they believe!
But liberals can show, hands down that what conservatives believe, when it finds its bases in dialectic, is just plain bogus! How? Why? Dialectic is demonstrably bogus! We demonstrate dialectic's bogosity here in Quantonics every day and nearly every way!
Who is our best example of what we are talking about here? George W. Bush! His War on Iraq is about emotion, n¤t logic! His strutting phony confidence is about his own ego which begs nearly total emotional self-impetus to survive. George Bush is an emotional man, and in that sense, for us his emotions belie his logic. But he uses dialectical language which belies his intellectual quotient, IQ. Dialectical IQ! His emotions and belief allow him to repeatedly lie and his dialectic allows him to rationally cover it up.
But why do conservatives like GWB? They like his emotion, his sleeve borne fundamentalist belief. He can steal from them, lie to and cheat them, destroy their country, and just like followers of Usama hasbin Laden they still worship and love him. They like his emotion (passion), and his sleeve borne beliefs. That makes their beliefs real and, for them, valuable.
Many liberals tend to avoid public displays of emotion borne of conviction and tend to counsel against it (due their, we believe correct, adherence to pluralism and diversity of opinion, which demands respectfulness, n¤t conservative putative, normative "our way or the highway" emotional conviction). Similarly many conservatives worry about emotion as dangerous, instable, ill-thought, and imprudent. Yet as conservative fundamentalists have shown us, emotion is more powerful than any logic ever will (can) be (even though their emotion is ill-founded in dialectical monism). Many other liberals, by-the-way, are extraordinarily emotional: tree huggers, green peace, save the seals, animal rights, etc. In our view, those naïve folk have lapsed into their own 'conservative' and putative dialectical OSFA convictions. Why are some liberals publicly averse public displays of emotion based upon conviction of belief? They have good and sane thought to back them up: they are pluralists and they believe that reality is intrinsically uncertain! Now that, n¤t conservative putatives, establishes bases for passion borne of conviction!
Every time anyone asserts absolute, unambiguous dialectical certainty, challenge them! It is safe to challenge classical certainty. Classical dialectical certainty has n¤ traction, n¤ valid bases of judgment! Even classical 'science' admits that bivalent 'truth' is provisional. Liberal pluralism knocks another leg from 'science's' provisional 'stool' by asserting validity of plethoric contexts of perspective and assessment. Humorous observation: no 'stool' works when we remove all but one of its legs. That is a metaphor of classical dialectical monism, friends!
Simply, though, liberals need to stay with their pluralism and learn how to be emotional about pluralism and genuine uncertainty! They have to learn how to instantly refute putatives from dialectical monists! Say, "prove it!" Say, "do you really believe reality is either | or?" Say, "do you really believe there is only one 'truth?'" Say, "do you really believe truth is stable, holds still?"
Ad oculos nature desnouers her plurality and her mandate for affectational, Bergsonian durational, uncertain change!
Humans are naturally emotional (large complements of durational uncertainty), n¤t classically logical (large complements of, only apparent, state-ic certainty). We say with extreme pluralistic and quantum uncertain comviction, dump dialectic!
And yet Walzer and apparently Lynch counsel more objectivism equates more passion. Wrong! Dong! Those bells are ringing...better listen.
Successful beliefs carry enormous ensemble constituencies of emotion. Failing beliefs revere and carry a burden of enormous pieces of logic. Former rises, latter sinks.
What we see is liberalism issi quanton(uncertainty,certainty) and conservatism issi quanton(uncertainty,certainty), but apparent to us liberals are more uncertain (which appears, honestly, as "lack of conviction,") and conservatives are more certain (which appears, honestly, as "conventional conviction.") But as Bergson, Dirac, Pirsig, Ho, et al., have warned latter is but an illusion! Understanding that is a key enabler to natural passion borne of plurality and change. Tactically and strategically, it is a major mistake for liberals to attempt any return to conventional passion worn as old clothes on scaffolded conventional conviction.
Now let's make all of this even more troubling: who is more emotional, Christians or Muslims? Which outnumbers its counterpart by at least 2:1. Now why is Bush passionate?
Thence, why are liberals still dispassionate?
Earth's cultural future is at stake folks and dialectic just isn't going to cut it anymore (pun intended). What's stranger than strange about this is that liberals were apparently more compassionate, via their contrived social policies and social engineering...but it didn't work. Why? Classic liberals worship society and attempt to attenuate individuals as individual. For emotional humans that is a huge turnoff. Any individual, especially any emotional individual, ranks self above society. That self~ranking is only available to and achievable by predominately subjective thinkers. It is predominately n¤n available to objective thingkers.
Aside - very important, if you want to understand our bold just above:
Four fabulous chapters which will help us here, help us see how and why liberals can and should be passionate appear in Womens' Ways of Knowing, Chapters 1-4, Basic Books, 1986; If you are steeped in dialectic your immediate reaction will be to reject this; We rejected it 15 years ago, but to our own personal and immense detriment; read those chapters and again. Don't be weak of backbone, be stalwart of passionate and emotional, individual, "Doug says this is good for me," will.
But liberals just cann¤t grasp and comprehend how that could be so...their beliefs in society are so strong. Liberal compassion is social hegemony! Conservative passion is genuinely individual. Conservative individuals get emotionally pumped with leaders who feel like they feel.
What conservatives caught on to before liberals, is that they could tap into individual emotion politically better and more easily than liberals. How? They and their constituents have belief bases of shared (n¤t societal, but individual) passion! Liberals' notions of diversity drive out any shared belief bases of shared passion! If we could, we shouldn't, but if we could at this juncture, we would say "it's as simple as that."
But why isn't it as simple as that? We have to do a long and tedious rant on common sense, what it is dialectically, what it isn't dialectically, what it is more subjectively, and what it isn't more subjectively. That effort is beyond our scope of work here in our May, 2005 News. But we can offer a start for those of you who are interested at our QELR of consensus. Consensus to a conservative is dialectical agreement. Comsensus to a liberal subjectivist is pragmatic (pragma in its original semantic as recursive~process~flux~impetus~action) and unending quantum~Planck~rate~fecund recapitulationings of individual~social accord (n¤t dialectical ESQ 'contract') with all individuals engaged coobsfective~respectfully above any dialectical society's common sense. Yes, we agree, "That's a tall order!" See our QTM.
Liberals failed to establish pluralism as a basis of belief bearing shared passion. And guess what? Pluralism is antithetical dialectical objectivism! Power for liberals here is in fathoming that conservatives simply do n¤t understand latter! To conservatives, dialectically it is absolutely wrong! Herein lies source and agency of conservatism's imminent downfall. To extreme benefit of liberals, conservative arrogance and gloat ("our way or the highway") blinds them to that apparitional hole in their Maginot dike, er...um...SOM's wall.
If we were to offer counsel to liberals, it would n¤t be in any objective vein of Lynch, Walzer, et al., it would follow more closely what we have just written.
A good example is this from Lynch's article, "...the fact that human beings' primary sources of value emerge from the communities to which we belong." Now that is pure liberal social bogosity! Primary sources of human beings' value are individual emotional values, period. Society pretends to have much, but actually has little, to do with individual human values. (Especially dialectical) societies do n¤t have individual emotional values, period! That is what is wrong with liberalism! Liberals say genuinely stupid statements like, "It takes a village." But that is a purely social conspective. It is n¤t an individual perspective. An individual needs self first, and a few other friends, that's it! Society cann¤t understand what we just said, just like conservatives likely will never understand what we said above about pluralism. Liberals' societal pluralism is actually a dialectical monism: the public, the people, the Demos, etc. Three emotional individuals on a camping trip 50 miles from any others are a coherent plurality n¤t a decoherent dialectical monism.
That last sentence is what Mae-wan Ho meant when she said:
|Any social system described "...as a domain of coherent activities, opens the way to envisaging individuals which are aggregates of individuals, as, for example, a population or a society engaging in coherent activities. As coherence maximizes both local freedom and global cohesion, it defines [inter]relationship[s] between the individual and the collective|
|which ha[ve] previously been deemed contradictory or impossible. The 'inevitable' conflict between the individual and||
||Read Mae-wan's two cons as:
'dialectradictory,' and 'dialectflict.'
|the collective, between private and public interests, has been the starting point for all social as well as biological theories of western society. Coherence tells us it is n¤t so 'inevitable' after all. Eminent sociologists have been deploring the lack of progress in sociology, and saying that it is time to frame new questions. Perhaps sociology needs a new set of premises altogether. In a coherent society, such conflicts do n¤t exist. The problem is how to arrive at such an ideal state of organization that in a real sense, nurtures diversity (and individuality) with universal love." (Our brackets, bold, quantization of 'not,' and italicization of thelogos. We left out footnotes 22 and 23 from Mae-wan's 2nd edition. We corrected spelling to US 'premises.' All other punctuation and marks are hers.)|
We believe liberals do n¤t understand that of which Mae-wan speaks. If they are using classical dialectic to try to understand, we can almost guarantee that liberals do n¤t (can n¤t) understand. Mayhaps it is timings for them to be learnings..., but then perhaps n¤t... (FYI, Mae-wan Ho agrees with our position here. To affirm that assessment read her book, the Rainbow and the Worm.)
Classical liberals appear to us to be seeking egalitarian, catholic, OSFA liberalism. They appear to us to desire catholic inquisitionalism, i.e., egalitarian, self-righteous societal hegemony. It didn't work during 16th century and it won't work now! Liberals appear to want to dialectically, formally, radically-mechanically architect society. It won't work. Best we can do is cooperatively emerscitect a n¤n dialectical society.
Lynch quotes Walzer's harsh retro-liberal views, saying standard liberalism is "an inadequate theory and a disabled political practice." But nearly all of us already intuited that. It was transparent in Kerry's campaign. Kerry appeared 'standard liberally disabled' by some metastat(e)ic fear! A kind of antithetical 'standard conservative Gingrichesque gloat.' Why is it taking liberal theorists so long to catch on? Mae-wan saw it at least 12-15 years ago. And one of her favorites, Henri Louis Bergson saw it over 100 years prior...
Another example? Here is a quote from Lynch's article, on an assumption of Walzer's, "...human beings' primary sources of value emerge from the communities to which we belong."
Only if those communities impose, propagandize and proselytize monolithic Demos will (e.g., "metastat(e)ic fear") on all individuals, thus depriving those individuals of their individual freedom of thought! Doug - 5May2005.
Lynch surmises, "By overlooking those facts, standard liberalism not only overplays the role of reason and autonomy in our lives, Walzer thinks, but also ends up being less egalitarian [which can mean, dispassionate - Doug]. If an individual's passions and values are formed in a community, then it is not just individuals who deserve equal respect and opportunity, but the communities themselves. Only by providing such respectand in some cases, actual financial supportto traditional communities can we hope to encourage their members to fully participate in liberal civil society. In short, if it takes a village to raise a tolerant liberal citizen, then villages, not just villagers, deserve the support and the protection of the state."
This is a huge liberal faux pas! Enormous! Classical! Wrong!!
Standard liberalism has n¤t 'proven' that "...human beings' primary sources of value [rather, induced metastat(e)ic fear] emerge from the communities to which we belong."
Standard liberalism has n¤t 'proven' that overplaying "the role of reason [when dialectical] and autonomy in our lives" is an inept approach. Rather, when using n¤n dialectical reason, we believe it is Mae-wan Hoesque adept.
There are other standard liberalism issues vastly more problematic than ones Lynch and Walzer have chosen: "the people," "the public," "Demos will," "civil responsibility," and "pogromatic 'community' induction of tolerance via enforced metastat(e)ic fear of intolerance."
As Boris Sidis observed (Doug putting some words in his mouth), "Standard liberalism AKA liberal society creates OSFA somnambulatory herds: AKA 'the people.' " (Red text added 29Mar2007 - Doug.)
Our intraquote brackets - Doug - 5May2005.
Classical state is n¤t individual. Classical state cann¤t be individual. Classical state cann¤t think, let alone thingk. 'State' means "hold still..." State means do n¤t evolve, rather be immutable! State means stuck. Classical society is state. Classical society is stuck. Classical society-state is dialectical! Individuals are k-nowing that.
Here is a picture which may help liberals become genuinely passionate about a n¤vel way of thinking about interrelationships among individuals and societies:
In our Quantonics perspectives neither liberals n¤r conservatives grasp enormous issues underlying what that graphic shows. Try to get inside a meme of our top curve as a monism. Then try to extend that meme to a monism as an emergent process of many individual monisms' emergent processings as we show statically in our bottom complex of curves.
Now ask yourself, "Did you notice that we took away that large monism in our middle set of curves to achieve our bottom set of curves?" Now add cultural semantic and ensemble cultural heuristics and hermeneutics to our top curve as society, and our bottom set of curves (without any societal monism) as a Mae-wanesque coherency of autonomous individuals! (Be sure to click on that graphic and read text at that link.)
Think about what happens to any society when that top monism is ESQ, while all those individuals (middle and bottom set of curves) continue their much more rapid processes of individual emergence.
Wouldn't you say to that monism, "Get the hell out of our way?"
Lynch and Walzer do n¤t see what we just described, let alone understand it...
Bush's religious fundamentalism provides a weak dialectical paradigm of Mae-wan's "coherence of autonomies." Trouble is he and his fundamentalist Christian fascist buddies gird it in an ESQ monism, don't they? But, even so, that weak conservative imitation is yet potent against an ignorant liberal foe. Imagine what will happen when conservatives figure this out before liberals do and take us from society above (while disrespecting; democracy disrespects all minorities, innately) individuals to individuals above (while respecting) society.
In a very palpable way Mae-wan's quantum coherence is emotion! It is passion, that which liberals appear to lack! Now a shocker! In order to gain passion, liberals have to give up what they cherish most: society as a monism above individuals. Quantum flux issi quantum coherences' emotional crux! Passionate crux! Think of your own being's experiencings cowithin reality as a ride on a roller-coaster and you'll get a sense of what we intend here...
Let's do two more lists
Doug's list of memeos about which liberals should, in Doug's view, be passionate:
Doug's next list of memeos which liberals must learn to change and then become passionate about includes these quantum~novel memeos too:
Doug isn't very good at slogans, but if liberals need a simple mantra they can just say, "Conservatives are DIQheads. Liberals are QICheads." And, "Conservatives are stuck. Liberals are free and working on being more free." Both are simple, effective, and generally adept posits. But to say those slogans liberals have to give up dialectic as their own legacy means of thought and reason! If liberals do n¤t give up dialectic, they are stuck, just like conservatives, with their own underlying detention center of thought: Pirsig's "Church of Reason!" And this is exactly what we see Michael Lynch and Michael Walzer showing us above. They do n¤t yet recognize dialectic as their problem. How do we know? They appear to us to be recommending objectivism and truth: both find their proemial funda in classical dialectic. Classical dialectic denies any notions of emergent change! Why? Dialectic fails in any attempts to analyze real physial, emergent change! See Henri Louis Bergson's An Introduction to Metaphysics, his Creative Evolution, and his Time and Free Will. See William James' Some Problems of Philosophy.
Conservatism is a dying creed. Gingrich's butterfly affector was a potent chaotic tell of conservatism's current self-destructive storm of SaS-ERP arrogance and gloat (which liberals apparently see as passion?). Ditto other radical society over individual fundamentalisms.
As you can see, we're late, but we think this effort is worth it!
See you here again in early June, 2005!
The Quantonics Society appreciates your support.