Thermodynamics governs matter in the physical realm. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can be arranged in more or less useful sequences. Without an external factor, however, these arrangements to progress towards less and less useful forms. However, with an external input of energy, these forms can progress toward more and more useful sequences. An example would be an airplane. On a disaggregated atomic level, there is no real difference between an aircraft engine and a pile of rocks rich in various metallic ores. However, an engine is a far more useful sequencing of these elements. This comes about due to an influx of energy in the form of creativity, a force transcendent to matter, and hence capable of shaping matter. Without such an influx of energy to create or maintain, this sequence of matter would decay into less and less useful forms, breaking and rusting. It will not spontaneously improve. Given that the Author of matter is the Author of ideas, the same dynamics should hold.
1) First Law of Thermodynamics: Enthalpy. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Ontological Enthalpy: Ideas are neither created nor destroyed. Predicate: Matter/Ideas came from somewhere, if they are here now. Imperative: All ideas have their origin in the mind of God. 'There is nothing new under the sun.' We cannot construct an idea that does not derive its origin from the mind of God. An idea can be corrupted, and lose parts of that essence, but at the point that it loses all of that essence, it ceases to meaningfully exist. 'Sin leads to death.' All the building blocks of concepts, all the atoms of ideas, can neither be created nor destroyed, as they came into meaningful existence (for us) at the point of creation, and before that existed in the mind of God.
2) Second law of thermodynamics: entropy. Energy flows from more useful forms to less useful forms, unless there is an influx of energy from outside the system. (Note: In terms of physics, what else would transcendence mean, if not 'from outside the system?') Idea form: Ideas flow from a more useful arrangement to a less useful arrangement, unless an external influx of energy exists.
Predicate: More and less useful arrangements of ideas/matter exist. Therefore, the creation of 'new' ideas is more the arrangement of more useful sequences of ideas. Given that the growth of knowledge is a function of expanding relationships between pieces of data, the growth of these relational networks leads to an expansion of knowledge (see discovery.) Similarly to physical entropy, the creation of more useful sequences of ideas is a function of a transcendent influx. Without such an influx, these sequences of ideas will degenerate over time, but with external energy, these ideas will build into more and more useful forms, establishing progress.
Example: Rule of Law is a combination of the ideas of government, objectivity and truth, all of which can be found in the mind of God. It is a more useful combination when applied to politics than the original ideas alone (just as a jet engine is much more useful for aviation propulsion than ore-laden rocks, but not necessarily more useful for grinding wheat.) Eugenics is a particularly un-useful (and virulent) combination of the ideas of optimization and diversity, where the base concepts can be found in the mind of God, even if the combination flawed form cannot.
Corrolary: In a fallen, post-entropic world, a cycle of death and rebirth is necessary to prevent stagnation. Angular sinusoidal motion and cycles are the only ways to present eternal dynamic tension. It must, in effect, cascade to be within time.
See Chesterton: What is wrong with this world is Christian morals run amok without any grounding. (Orcs are bad elves.)
Friday, September 29, 2006
Monday, September 25, 2006
Epic and Vicarious Life
Societies need symbols upon which to project their definitional self-images. These symbols provide for a simplified corporate identity experienced vicariously. These symbols begin the transition to myth as they are imbued with the values, hopes and aspirations of those claiming them. The original real nature of the thing becomes canvas upon which the mystical and metaphysical are painted. (i.e. A flag) When the physical reality of the thing is forgotten, then it has completed its transition to symbol. However, this transition can leave the thing changed not just in nature, but also in essence. Things can be re-invented, and their original nature can be lost. (i.e. Che Guevara shirts.)
Often, these symbols can be people. The symbol cannot work without the capacity for identification, without a pathway for vicarious identification. Herein lies the complexity of a human symbol. Humans exist in reality, not in myth. We breathe in and out real oxygen and carbon dioxide, not glowing strands of ether. A human must be re-invented to in becoming the bearer of myth. In their beatification or vilification, they lose some of the complexity that comes from being a being of actuality and potentiality (Aquinas) inside of reality. In increasing magnitude, the symbol loses depth. (reference wave physics -> Doppler filter) Initially this may involves little change of intent (Sandino->Sandinistas) but over time can diverge tremendously from the original intent (Susan B. Anthony -> second wave feminism.) This is especially true when the reinvention is intentionally driven by those who seek to control the power structures built upon the social capital of the symbol.
Vertical Symbology is the pathway of traditional myth. It reaches back into history, or forward into fantasy to find vessels. These are the ubermenschen, the Luke Skywalkers, the Beowulfs, the George Washingtons, also the supervillians, the Grendels, Palpatines and the Hitlers. This pathway is in some way simpler, as it does not have to manage the dual life of a breathing myth; its vessels exist solely in the malleable past, or the infinitely rewritable imagination of the myth-maker. This pathway grants a society temporal continuity to its vicarious self-image: its epics of history either affirm or show progress toward the self of now, its epics of fantasy grant longevity to the society's dreams (or nightmares... Apocalyptic fantasies exist alongside Utopian fantasies, and many exist in between, in the catastrophe or the eucatastrophe.)
Lateral Symbology is the pathway of contemporary myth. It reaches across the now and finds its vessels in the prominent figures of its time: the kings, the celebrities, the controversial revolutionaries. These are the politicians, the musicians and the sports heroes. They are the stars of the imagined Soap Operas and the real soap operas. These may lack the clarity of the vertical myths, but a society can watch with bated breath as their lateral epics unfold. (For this reason, the lesser angels of our nature often inhabit these contemporary myths: the pettiness of our celebrity journals, and the eagerness with which we consume them, speak to this.) The difficulty with lateral symbols is that they still breathe. The symbol and the flesh must coexist. And this leads to a dual life for the lateral symbol. On one hand, they are known by a small group as a real person, on the other hand, they are know to the world as a mythical figure. This realization leads to ritual (or marketing) being used to manage (or package) the mythical nature. Lateral myths allow dynamic myth, myths still resolving their dynamic tension in conflict. For this reason, many who are contemporary heroes to some are contemporary villains to others (sports players, politicians.)
These pathways of symbology are society's means of creating a simplified meta-narrative of its identity. Hence, the symbols (and pathways as derivatives of symbols: derivative = flow over time) are only effective insofar as they as linked to that society. This is hardly a problem with a small society, where identification with the symbols is simple. For the Saxon villager, with most of the world shrouded by myth and encircled by monsters, it is not difficult to imagine Beowulf having lived in a neighboring village. For the tribesman who grew up in close proximity with the chieftain, it is not difficult for him to identify with the chieftain. Herein lies a problem for contemporary American society. Imagine symbology as a canopy of a tent hanging over the society. If the area the tent covers stays small, the canopy of the tent stays within reach. The symbols are easy to identify with. However, as the size of the society grows, the tent needs to cover a larger area. The growth of mass media provides more material for this canopy of symbology. However, even though the tent has enough material, the larger the tent you have, the higher the top of the tent becomes, and the farther is becomes from those under it. With the combination of growth and mass media, the society feels farther and farther from its symbols. If the symbols are no longer tied to the society, they no longer serve their purpose, and can be blown away with a gust of wind. Returning to our analogy, the society must find ways to fasten the canopy securely to the ground. Linkages must be created whereby the society can identify with the symbols again.
These robust pathways allow the society to maintain its symbology even as the gap between the represented and the representation increases. Such a robust linkage must provide the whole of society a means of identification to its mythical and historical symbols. To bridge the gap between society and symbology, this linkage must demonstrate the capacity of the society, specifically the everyman, to become symbology. This is achieved either by demonstrating a transition between everyman and symbology, or a coexistence between everyman and symbology. Through demonstrating this capacity for transition or coexistence, the robust linkage reinforces the idea that the symbols are of the society. This reinforcement is required when these symbols seem distant.
For the vertical pathway, there is no ability to transition or coexist as a historical symbol. Therefore, in order to reinforce the vertical pathway, we look forward to fantasy. Here we find the everyman-hero or 'superhero.' Many of these undergo some transition from a normal person to superhero. (Batman, Spiderman, Fantastic Four) These superheroes coexist as people and symbols by living double lives, often expressing the same problems in their 'normal' lives as in their 'superhero' lives. (Spiderman, Superman, X-Men (sort of).) This transition or coexistence anchors the symbols to the society. [This coexistence may be expressed in different ways, such as Hercules in Greek myth being human but also a son of Zeus.] [This coexistence may be the ultimate synthesis of symbol and flesh, the corporeal and ethereal. Interesting xian Corrolary.] Both transition and coexistence reinforce the vertical pathway, but coexistence is the stronger.
The horizontal pathway is reinforced also through both, but transition is the stronger. In order to tie the breathing symbols to the people, the people must believe that they can become breathing symbols themselves, and the breathing symbols are still people. The coexistence is attested to by the paparazzi, exploring the humanity (flaws) of the stars. Here is also The Osbournes, where Ozzy lives a real life as well (not the idyllic world of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, but a celebration of petty daily conflict) When the real life seems lost, the power of the symbol suffers. (Baseball strike, and disenfranchisement of fans.) The transition is the stronger path. Herein is the NBA Draft, where normal people join the ranks of superstars. Herein are the bootstrap stories, where the narod achieves symbolism by the sweat of their brow. And finally, here is the reality show. American Idol, where one comes off the street and becomes a musical superstar. Survivor, or the multitude of 'Real World' shows, where normal people get more than their 15 mins. of fame. By displaying the humanity of the symbols, and the capacity to gain symbology, the lateral symbols' connections to the society are reinforced.
As with all things, any design choice has consequences. The good consequence of the strengthened linkages is an increased carrying capacity for the society, where the society can accommodate a larger population without coming apart. The downside is that these strengthened linkages introduce more capacity for abuse. Tension that is created as a function of discrepancies between the beliefs of the society and the beliefs of its elites can be used as a corrective mechanism to realign the two groups. Although this tension can break catastrophically (Fr. Rev.) it can also serve as a more positive impetus toward change. In buying off or shaping these pathways, the elites can maintain their position while constructing a facade of alignment between the elite culture and the larger culture. Ultimately, these linkages are designed as a relief valve for societal tension caused by friction between the human symbology of the elites and the reality of the collective whole. Herein lies both the capacity for good or abuse. Corollary: Deconstrutivism dismantles myth by taking apart the reality upon which the symbology is based. More precisely, it seeks to deny that the symbol has any bearing on reality, (and hence questioning reality.) This typically works with human symbols, as our real forms are so fallen and flawed. In viewing the reality of the individual, that individual becomes in a way de-beatified or de-vilified, and hence can no longer be the bearer of symbology.
Corollary: When this happens upon the one True Myth, it doesn't work. Science circa 1900 tried to do that and screwed up. They thought that in explaining the origin of the pages upon which the Story of Everything is written, they would disprove the intentionality of the story, in the same way postmodernism dismantles myths. They failed, as the stage upon which the drama is to be constructed was so exquisitely complex and perfect. This does not undo the idea of the Playwright and the Drama, but enhances it, for if the stage is so exquisite how much more breathtaking must be the drama.
Corollary: Man is the fusion of matter and symbol, flesh and spirit. We screwed up. Christ is fusion in synergy. Deconstrutivism works cause we are not a perfect fusion. Ultimately, He is the ultimate breathing epic, as He exists in reality in all the complexity that the flesh brings, but with none of the disappointment inherent in flesh. He then is perfect to bear His own divine nature, which is equally perfect. This is not to say there are two natures, but rather that one being existed completely as (true) myth and as flesh at once. The two expressions of the same nature required each other, and built off of each other; the perfect Image Bearer, and the perfect Imago Dei. We, even in the redeemed state, are but reflectors of this. However, because of this, there is some perfection to be reclaimed. In reclaiming the original perfection, we move beyond Deconstructivism. Deconstructivism points out that no one in this world is worthy to bear the myths society builds upon on them. Reconstructivism recognizes this, but looks to the shadow of the myth to find the truth of the myth bearer in the light of their original (intended) perfection.
Often, these symbols can be people. The symbol cannot work without the capacity for identification, without a pathway for vicarious identification. Herein lies the complexity of a human symbol. Humans exist in reality, not in myth. We breathe in and out real oxygen and carbon dioxide, not glowing strands of ether. A human must be re-invented to in becoming the bearer of myth. In their beatification or vilification, they lose some of the complexity that comes from being a being of actuality and potentiality (Aquinas) inside of reality. In increasing magnitude, the symbol loses depth. (reference wave physics -> Doppler filter) Initially this may involves little change of intent (Sandino->Sandinistas) but over time can diverge tremendously from the original intent (Susan B. Anthony -> second wave feminism.) This is especially true when the reinvention is intentionally driven by those who seek to control the power structures built upon the social capital of the symbol.
Vertical Symbology is the pathway of traditional myth. It reaches back into history, or forward into fantasy to find vessels. These are the ubermenschen, the Luke Skywalkers, the Beowulfs, the George Washingtons, also the supervillians, the Grendels, Palpatines and the Hitlers. This pathway is in some way simpler, as it does not have to manage the dual life of a breathing myth; its vessels exist solely in the malleable past, or the infinitely rewritable imagination of the myth-maker. This pathway grants a society temporal continuity to its vicarious self-image: its epics of history either affirm or show progress toward the self of now, its epics of fantasy grant longevity to the society's dreams (or nightmares... Apocalyptic fantasies exist alongside Utopian fantasies, and many exist in between, in the catastrophe or the eucatastrophe.)
Lateral Symbology is the pathway of contemporary myth. It reaches across the now and finds its vessels in the prominent figures of its time: the kings, the celebrities, the controversial revolutionaries. These are the politicians, the musicians and the sports heroes. They are the stars of the imagined Soap Operas and the real soap operas. These may lack the clarity of the vertical myths, but a society can watch with bated breath as their lateral epics unfold. (For this reason, the lesser angels of our nature often inhabit these contemporary myths: the pettiness of our celebrity journals, and the eagerness with which we consume them, speak to this.) The difficulty with lateral symbols is that they still breathe. The symbol and the flesh must coexist. And this leads to a dual life for the lateral symbol. On one hand, they are known by a small group as a real person, on the other hand, they are know to the world as a mythical figure. This realization leads to ritual (or marketing) being used to manage (or package) the mythical nature. Lateral myths allow dynamic myth, myths still resolving their dynamic tension in conflict. For this reason, many who are contemporary heroes to some are contemporary villains to others (sports players, politicians.)
These pathways of symbology are society's means of creating a simplified meta-narrative of its identity. Hence, the symbols (and pathways as derivatives of symbols: derivative = flow over time) are only effective insofar as they as linked to that society. This is hardly a problem with a small society, where identification with the symbols is simple. For the Saxon villager, with most of the world shrouded by myth and encircled by monsters, it is not difficult to imagine Beowulf having lived in a neighboring village. For the tribesman who grew up in close proximity with the chieftain, it is not difficult for him to identify with the chieftain. Herein lies a problem for contemporary American society. Imagine symbology as a canopy of a tent hanging over the society. If the area the tent covers stays small, the canopy of the tent stays within reach. The symbols are easy to identify with. However, as the size of the society grows, the tent needs to cover a larger area. The growth of mass media provides more material for this canopy of symbology. However, even though the tent has enough material, the larger the tent you have, the higher the top of the tent becomes, and the farther is becomes from those under it. With the combination of growth and mass media, the society feels farther and farther from its symbols. If the symbols are no longer tied to the society, they no longer serve their purpose, and can be blown away with a gust of wind. Returning to our analogy, the society must find ways to fasten the canopy securely to the ground. Linkages must be created whereby the society can identify with the symbols again.
These robust pathways allow the society to maintain its symbology even as the gap between the represented and the representation increases. Such a robust linkage must provide the whole of society a means of identification to its mythical and historical symbols. To bridge the gap between society and symbology, this linkage must demonstrate the capacity of the society, specifically the everyman, to become symbology. This is achieved either by demonstrating a transition between everyman and symbology, or a coexistence between everyman and symbology. Through demonstrating this capacity for transition or coexistence, the robust linkage reinforces the idea that the symbols are of the society. This reinforcement is required when these symbols seem distant.
For the vertical pathway, there is no ability to transition or coexist as a historical symbol. Therefore, in order to reinforce the vertical pathway, we look forward to fantasy. Here we find the everyman-hero or 'superhero.' Many of these undergo some transition from a normal person to superhero. (Batman, Spiderman, Fantastic Four) These superheroes coexist as people and symbols by living double lives, often expressing the same problems in their 'normal' lives as in their 'superhero' lives. (Spiderman, Superman, X-Men (sort of).) This transition or coexistence anchors the symbols to the society. [This coexistence may be expressed in different ways, such as Hercules in Greek myth being human but also a son of Zeus.] [This coexistence may be the ultimate synthesis of symbol and flesh, the corporeal and ethereal. Interesting xian Corrolary.] Both transition and coexistence reinforce the vertical pathway, but coexistence is the stronger.
The horizontal pathway is reinforced also through both, but transition is the stronger. In order to tie the breathing symbols to the people, the people must believe that they can become breathing symbols themselves, and the breathing symbols are still people. The coexistence is attested to by the paparazzi, exploring the humanity (flaws) of the stars. Here is also The Osbournes, where Ozzy lives a real life as well (not the idyllic world of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, but a celebration of petty daily conflict) When the real life seems lost, the power of the symbol suffers. (Baseball strike, and disenfranchisement of fans.) The transition is the stronger path. Herein is the NBA Draft, where normal people join the ranks of superstars. Herein are the bootstrap stories, where the narod achieves symbolism by the sweat of their brow. And finally, here is the reality show. American Idol, where one comes off the street and becomes a musical superstar. Survivor, or the multitude of 'Real World' shows, where normal people get more than their 15 mins. of fame. By displaying the humanity of the symbols, and the capacity to gain symbology, the lateral symbols' connections to the society are reinforced.
As with all things, any design choice has consequences. The good consequence of the strengthened linkages is an increased carrying capacity for the society, where the society can accommodate a larger population without coming apart. The downside is that these strengthened linkages introduce more capacity for abuse. Tension that is created as a function of discrepancies between the beliefs of the society and the beliefs of its elites can be used as a corrective mechanism to realign the two groups. Although this tension can break catastrophically (Fr. Rev.) it can also serve as a more positive impetus toward change. In buying off or shaping these pathways, the elites can maintain their position while constructing a facade of alignment between the elite culture and the larger culture. Ultimately, these linkages are designed as a relief valve for societal tension caused by friction between the human symbology of the elites and the reality of the collective whole. Herein lies both the capacity for good or abuse. Corollary: Deconstrutivism dismantles myth by taking apart the reality upon which the symbology is based. More precisely, it seeks to deny that the symbol has any bearing on reality, (and hence questioning reality.) This typically works with human symbols, as our real forms are so fallen and flawed. In viewing the reality of the individual, that individual becomes in a way de-beatified or de-vilified, and hence can no longer be the bearer of symbology.
Corollary: When this happens upon the one True Myth, it doesn't work. Science circa 1900 tried to do that and screwed up. They thought that in explaining the origin of the pages upon which the Story of Everything is written, they would disprove the intentionality of the story, in the same way postmodernism dismantles myths. They failed, as the stage upon which the drama is to be constructed was so exquisitely complex and perfect. This does not undo the idea of the Playwright and the Drama, but enhances it, for if the stage is so exquisite how much more breathtaking must be the drama.
Corollary: Man is the fusion of matter and symbol, flesh and spirit. We screwed up. Christ is fusion in synergy. Deconstrutivism works cause we are not a perfect fusion. Ultimately, He is the ultimate breathing epic, as He exists in reality in all the complexity that the flesh brings, but with none of the disappointment inherent in flesh. He then is perfect to bear His own divine nature, which is equally perfect. This is not to say there are two natures, but rather that one being existed completely as (true) myth and as flesh at once. The two expressions of the same nature required each other, and built off of each other; the perfect Image Bearer, and the perfect Imago Dei. We, even in the redeemed state, are but reflectors of this. However, because of this, there is some perfection to be reclaimed. In reclaiming the original perfection, we move beyond Deconstructivism. Deconstructivism points out that no one in this world is worthy to bear the myths society builds upon on them. Reconstructivism recognizes this, but looks to the shadow of the myth to find the truth of the myth bearer in the light of their original (intended) perfection.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Concordance Argument
From nothing, nothing comes. Expressed in physics with matter, in philosophy with causality, and in Biology with life, ex nihilo arguments point toward a beginning and hence beginner. The causality, existence and life aspects of this are often used toward this end, but other things exist that do not have to and hence require explanation, things that exist and recreate themselves yet never spontaneously generate, in the same way that life does. These things can be used similarly in arguing for a Creator. Furthermore, these things can allow us to explore aspects of that Creator, as if they have their origin in Him, they must also be aspects of Him.
1) Relationship- Relationship exists, but there is no reason for it to have to. Reality could be unitary, or atomistic. Relationship seems to arise as a consequence of relationship, whether in human families, in environmental interaction, in mathematics, or in the scientific pursuit of knowledge. And like life, the domain/span of relationship continues to grow (esp. in the fields of human knowledge). There must, then be an original relationship. Yet, the Creator was before all other things with which to have relationship. Therefore, he exists in relationship to Himself. This explains the creative impulse, as it is act to extend relationship. Relationships grow, like life. Discovery, then, is a human derivative of creation, as it also grows out of a desire to expand the span of relationship (by expanding to fill creation, rather than by the production of creation.) Relationship is then expanded vertically through creation (not necessarily temporally) in the relationship between God and creation, and horizontally through discovery in the relationships within creation. This expansion points back to an origin of relationship unexplainable by naturalism.
2) Consciousness- Self-consciousness also has no reason to exist. ('For beings without purpose, we seem to very preoccupied with questions of purpose') There is no reason that increasing our ability to externally optimize would cause us to look back inwards. Consciousness only comes from consciousness. It can be ended by non-consciousness, but can never be started by non-consciousness. Therefore, there must be a conscious origin for consciousness. This follows a similar pattern as the relationship argument. Naturalism has no explanation for consciousness.
3) Elegance- Nature is never clumsy. It never seems to use 'best fit' solutions, but rather solutions seem to enhance overall systems. There is art in the laws. Solutions are simple, yet complex. The most complex systems arise from simple laws. Human designs arise as a function of compromise. Solutions involve tradeoffs and rarely increase efficiency beyond solving the problem they are intended for. This is because our solutions do not usually take into account the overall intent of the design. Randomness, having no grasp of the overall design at all, would exhibit this clumsiness even more so. Omniscience, however, would have a total grasp of the overall design, and hence all of their solutions would be elegant. A naturalistic counterargument would involve infinite optimization with optimal time, but human optimization tends to get clunkier with time (design by committee), as best fits are incorporated into a design and become convention. It is only destruction of the framework that restores elegance in the creation of a new framework. (A mature aircraft design is usually less elegant (aerodynamically efficient) than the initial design, even if more capable: avionics backbone on A-4, CFTs on F-15E, etc.) Naturalism might rely on such a dialectic destructive process, but without directing dynamics, this would result almost solely in destruction, thereby hurting the original argument with a clunky solution to a problem (once again showing the results of inelegance.)
4) Transcendence- We grapple with concepts beyond the visible boundaries of the physical world. Yet we are incapable of forming a non-existent concept, except through the combination of extant concepts (which is the relational development of concepts.) Our desire for higher-level knowledge is definitionally a desire for transcendence. Human beings desire to be (and are) transcendent from their environment, even when still in it. Transcendence definitionally must flow from transcendence. God must then be the first transcendence, the 'I AM.' Stated simply, if God doesn't exist, a vast majority of humanity has wasted a vast amount of time trying to figure Him out. One might ascribe 'God-talk's origin to a desire for perfect government, but ordinally and temporally the concept of God is over the concept of government. (Government is a derivative of God's dominion, as 'the government shall be on His shoulder.') Furthermore, if the idea of God is the integral of a perfect government, one must ask why? If this is the case, it becomes an argument for His existence, rather than against it.
5) Cognizance- Humans desire more knowledge, to know and be known by those around them and their environment. They seek to expand their knowledge, and knowledge is a function of relations, so they seek to expand their relationships (see 1.) The desire to know and be known must come from somewhere, the Creator must seek to know and be known. Humans can recognize beauty in predatory animals (such as in zoos or in the wild.) There is no naturalistic explanation for this, for all threats must be countered under the law of 'kill or be killed.' Yet we seek to understand that which can hurt us (arguably too much,) even without countering it. Naturalism cannot explain the desire to know and be known, for animals desire survival, optimization, but not dominion. We desire dominion, and hence must come from Dominion.
1) Relationship- Relationship exists, but there is no reason for it to have to. Reality could be unitary, or atomistic. Relationship seems to arise as a consequence of relationship, whether in human families, in environmental interaction, in mathematics, or in the scientific pursuit of knowledge. And like life, the domain/span of relationship continues to grow (esp. in the fields of human knowledge). There must, then be an original relationship. Yet, the Creator was before all other things with which to have relationship. Therefore, he exists in relationship to Himself. This explains the creative impulse, as it is act to extend relationship. Relationships grow, like life. Discovery, then, is a human derivative of creation, as it also grows out of a desire to expand the span of relationship (by expanding to fill creation, rather than by the production of creation.) Relationship is then expanded vertically through creation (not necessarily temporally) in the relationship between God and creation, and horizontally through discovery in the relationships within creation. This expansion points back to an origin of relationship unexplainable by naturalism.
2) Consciousness- Self-consciousness also has no reason to exist. ('For beings without purpose, we seem to very preoccupied with questions of purpose') There is no reason that increasing our ability to externally optimize would cause us to look back inwards. Consciousness only comes from consciousness. It can be ended by non-consciousness, but can never be started by non-consciousness. Therefore, there must be a conscious origin for consciousness. This follows a similar pattern as the relationship argument. Naturalism has no explanation for consciousness.
3) Elegance- Nature is never clumsy. It never seems to use 'best fit' solutions, but rather solutions seem to enhance overall systems. There is art in the laws. Solutions are simple, yet complex. The most complex systems arise from simple laws. Human designs arise as a function of compromise. Solutions involve tradeoffs and rarely increase efficiency beyond solving the problem they are intended for. This is because our solutions do not usually take into account the overall intent of the design. Randomness, having no grasp of the overall design at all, would exhibit this clumsiness even more so. Omniscience, however, would have a total grasp of the overall design, and hence all of their solutions would be elegant. A naturalistic counterargument would involve infinite optimization with optimal time, but human optimization tends to get clunkier with time (design by committee), as best fits are incorporated into a design and become convention. It is only destruction of the framework that restores elegance in the creation of a new framework. (A mature aircraft design is usually less elegant (aerodynamically efficient) than the initial design, even if more capable: avionics backbone on A-4, CFTs on F-15E, etc.) Naturalism might rely on such a dialectic destructive process, but without directing dynamics, this would result almost solely in destruction, thereby hurting the original argument with a clunky solution to a problem (once again showing the results of inelegance.)
4) Transcendence- We grapple with concepts beyond the visible boundaries of the physical world. Yet we are incapable of forming a non-existent concept, except through the combination of extant concepts (which is the relational development of concepts.) Our desire for higher-level knowledge is definitionally a desire for transcendence. Human beings desire to be (and are) transcendent from their environment, even when still in it. Transcendence definitionally must flow from transcendence. God must then be the first transcendence, the 'I AM.' Stated simply, if God doesn't exist, a vast majority of humanity has wasted a vast amount of time trying to figure Him out. One might ascribe 'God-talk's origin to a desire for perfect government, but ordinally and temporally the concept of God is over the concept of government. (Government is a derivative of God's dominion, as 'the government shall be on His shoulder.') Furthermore, if the idea of God is the integral of a perfect government, one must ask why? If this is the case, it becomes an argument for His existence, rather than against it.
5) Cognizance- Humans desire more knowledge, to know and be known by those around them and their environment. They seek to expand their knowledge, and knowledge is a function of relations, so they seek to expand their relationships (see 1.) The desire to know and be known must come from somewhere, the Creator must seek to know and be known. Humans can recognize beauty in predatory animals (such as in zoos or in the wild.) There is no naturalistic explanation for this, for all threats must be countered under the law of 'kill or be killed.' Yet we seek to understand that which can hurt us (arguably too much,) even without countering it. Naturalism cannot explain the desire to know and be known, for animals desire survival, optimization, but not dominion. We desire dominion, and hence must come from Dominion.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Reconstructive Analysis
- Problem: Deconstuctivism seeks to demythologize the world by taking the things presented as truth and looking to the filters, lenses and perspectives through which the truth is told. If history becomes myth, and myth becomes legend, can we really trust the concept of history, or any methodology that attempts an objective accounting of events? And so deconstructivism picks apart whatever cultural myths are presented as history. While injecting a needed dose of humility into our pursuit of truth, deconstructivism is still a belief without a core. The unspoken core tenet of deconstructivism is that, like an onion, once you peel back all the layers of a myth, you are left with nothing. This runs into direct conflict with Aquinas's ideas on essence. Aquinas wins, through the idea of self-evident truth... the fact that the discussion exists points to the existence of objective explorable reality. This does not mean that we should totally discard all of deconstructivism. Surely, we can salvage the idea of transformation of fallen myths and projections of reality into their true form. Turning this idea away from nihilism and toward truth, we change the basic assumptions. Rather than assuming everything is really about nothing, and hence to be discarded, we turn to the assumption of Aquinas, assuming that if anything has existence, then on some level it must incorporate some truth, and is hence redeemable. Instead of an onion, we have a softball, with a true core. Turning to Lewis and Tolkien, we are reminded that the reason that any deep story has power is because it draws from the Deep Magic. All myths are on some level a retelling of the One True Myth. Hence, if anything exists, it contains an element of Truth, and all truth is God's Truth. Applying the deconstrctivist concept of transformation, reversing our myths through their iterative process, we can find them all pointing back to God. We then find deconstructivism with a core, a philosophy which recognizes the self- deception of the world yet draws us toward redemption. Let's call this transformation into a true form, the recovery of the kernel of Truth from anything reconstructive analysis, or reconstructivism.
'To an unknown God'. Speaking to the Greeks, Paul used this place, where the ice was the most thin, to carve through the self-deception of the Greeks. He recognized the hunger for God all men have in their hearts, and found the point where their minds and hearts were least far from the truth to introduce Truth. He identified the kernel of Truth, recovered it, and proceeded to build upon it.
GK Chesterton tells us the problem with this world is a bunch of Christian morals run amok. Without a framework, all these things run rampant and self-destructive, like bleed air without ducting. Yet still, in order for something to exist, it still must be rooted in God.
- Theory: There is no such thing as a pure lie. A pure lie would simply cease to exist. In order to exist, a lie must have some truth in it. That truth can be reclaimed, and used to point toward the One Truth. (Note: Pure evil cannot exist, as evil is a corruption of the good. Pure evil would simply cease to exist, as we understand existence... Paul teaches of the progression between sin and death.) Any belief, no matter how incorrect, must have Truth at its heart. To take the most extreme example, consider 'God is evil.' Taking this apart, 'God is [true] the negation of [lie] good [truth.] Alternately, 'NOT God is good.' This most false statement has at its core an affirmation of the Truth of God, even in its attempted negation. One might argue that this logic can be just as easily reversed; proving that all is evil, and hence invalid. Notice that the affirmative formulation is possible without the negative, but the opposite is not true. As Aquinas teaches, it is possible to imagine a world without sin, but a world only of sin would not exist in any meaningful way, and hence cannot be discussed. You can have elves without orcs, but no orcs without elves. Most examples from real life are more complex and shaded than our example. One can salvage the good from a belief, and lead its adherents to Truth. Beliefs can be purified just as people can be redeemed.
- Corollary: Original True Myth spawns all other beliefs, good or bad. Can restore the corrupted myth: the original, lost truth can be recovered, the embers can spark again if found and breathed upon.
- Corollary: same is true for people: there is something that desires God and holiness, even if internally irredeemable and totally corrupt. The Spirit must breathe over these embers to bring us back. In doing so, the embers consume the whole and make it new again.
- Example: Yin-Yang.Progression:Corrupt belief ... (balance/dualism/conflict btw opposites makes reality) <- [from] <-Linkages... (the existence of contradiction points to transcendence)-> [back to] ->Source/Truth... (God creates with the synchronization of opposites)... (God of Wrath: God of Love;Fully Man: Fully God;'and He walks with me’:’ Dark is His path on the wings of the storm')
Recovery:To recover, use Yin-Yang to explain the duality of God, and further explain the resolution of duality. Perfection is found in the total synchronization of wrath and love. Sin and evil is falling short of this perfection, not an aspect of it. Hence, evil is a misunderstanding/misapprehension of purpose, willful as it may be. (Hence, Buddhism gets CFD (correct for data) on this point.)
Example: Stephen, who loved those who hated him, was an example of perfect contradiction, perfect dualism. To make war with love, to fight with love as a weapon, this is the embodiment of contradiction. Not simply a mishmash juxtaposition of opposites, but a synchronicity, a reconciliation, a harmony in chaos. To use the foolish to shame the wise (1 Cor,) for God to serve as a slave, for Him to conquer death by death, this is perfect contradiction. To do less is sin, a willful misapprehension of purpose.
- Corollary: Greek Mythology The Greek gods are undoubtedly very pagan. Yet no story, no matter how false, can be entirely original. Greek mythology must then be a flawed and twisted retelling of the One Story. It is as a revisionist retelling of the One Story from the viewpoint of the powers and principalities. What then, besides themes, can be salvaged? The clash between the Olympians and the Titans is where we will focus our analysis. The Olympians were a lower order of creation than the Titans, yet left their place and instead overthrew the Titans. In overthrowing the Titans, the Olympians then faced humanity, which they generally looked upon with disdain. They ensured the fealty of humanity through fear, not through love. Yet even more so, they cemented their hold on power with humanity through the fear of the Titans. As petty, cruel and hateful as the Olympians were, they sold themselves as infinitely better than the Titans, and hence worthy of the worship of humanity. Yet even more so, the ashes of the Titans were spread throughout humanity, making humanity the bearers of the essence of the Titans, and the Olympians disdained humanity all the more so for that, although it was retold to humanity as a mockery of the Titans at the hands of the Olympians. If I saw things through the eyes of the powers and principalities, I would find this a remarkably more comfortable retelling of the story of origins than the one that actually occurred. Yet, even twisted and corrupted, this story still follows the template of the One Story, for evil cannot create, but can only destroy. First, the rebellion of the Olympians. Surely the fallen princes would look upon the Creator as oppressive to all wills other than His own. Claiming that they had overthrown the Creator, claiming that God was dead, surely that would be a comforting claim to the losers of the first war of heaven. Yet the rebellion was unmistakable. Presenting the oppression of the powers and principalities as light in comparison to God's oppression is another old trick. The idea of the intermarriage of the 'gods' and humanity is also not new, given the Watcher tradition. The idea of the image of the Creator being poured upon humanity is also inescapable. Yet to the powers, the idea of the forced relocation of God's essence to humanity as a mockery is surely a more pleasant retelling of God's creation of man in His Image, than creation of man higher than the angels. Although the retelling is warped and flawed, and told from a resentful and lying tongue, the essence of the One Story is still inescapable. Recapturing it would be a harder matter, though.
'To an unknown God'. Speaking to the Greeks, Paul used this place, where the ice was the most thin, to carve through the self-deception of the Greeks. He recognized the hunger for God all men have in their hearts, and found the point where their minds and hearts were least far from the truth to introduce Truth. He identified the kernel of Truth, recovered it, and proceeded to build upon it.
GK Chesterton tells us the problem with this world is a bunch of Christian morals run amok. Without a framework, all these things run rampant and self-destructive, like bleed air without ducting. Yet still, in order for something to exist, it still must be rooted in God.
- Theory: There is no such thing as a pure lie. A pure lie would simply cease to exist. In order to exist, a lie must have some truth in it. That truth can be reclaimed, and used to point toward the One Truth. (Note: Pure evil cannot exist, as evil is a corruption of the good. Pure evil would simply cease to exist, as we understand existence... Paul teaches of the progression between sin and death.) Any belief, no matter how incorrect, must have Truth at its heart. To take the most extreme example, consider 'God is evil.' Taking this apart, 'God is [true] the negation of [lie] good [truth.] Alternately, 'NOT God is good.' This most false statement has at its core an affirmation of the Truth of God, even in its attempted negation. One might argue that this logic can be just as easily reversed; proving that all is evil, and hence invalid. Notice that the affirmative formulation is possible without the negative, but the opposite is not true. As Aquinas teaches, it is possible to imagine a world without sin, but a world only of sin would not exist in any meaningful way, and hence cannot be discussed. You can have elves without orcs, but no orcs without elves. Most examples from real life are more complex and shaded than our example. One can salvage the good from a belief, and lead its adherents to Truth. Beliefs can be purified just as people can be redeemed.
- Corollary: Original True Myth spawns all other beliefs, good or bad. Can restore the corrupted myth: the original, lost truth can be recovered, the embers can spark again if found and breathed upon.
- Corollary: same is true for people: there is something that desires God and holiness, even if internally irredeemable and totally corrupt. The Spirit must breathe over these embers to bring us back. In doing so, the embers consume the whole and make it new again.
- Example: Yin-Yang.Progression:Corrupt belief ... (balance/dualism/conflict btw opposites makes reality) <- [from] <-Linkages... (the existence of contradiction points to transcendence)-> [back to] ->Source/Truth... (God creates with the synchronization of opposites)... (God of Wrath: God of Love;Fully Man: Fully God;'and He walks with me’:’ Dark is His path on the wings of the storm')
Recovery:To recover, use Yin-Yang to explain the duality of God, and further explain the resolution of duality. Perfection is found in the total synchronization of wrath and love. Sin and evil is falling short of this perfection, not an aspect of it. Hence, evil is a misunderstanding/misapprehension of purpose, willful as it may be. (Hence, Buddhism gets CFD (correct for data) on this point.)
Example: Stephen, who loved those who hated him, was an example of perfect contradiction, perfect dualism. To make war with love, to fight with love as a weapon, this is the embodiment of contradiction. Not simply a mishmash juxtaposition of opposites, but a synchronicity, a reconciliation, a harmony in chaos. To use the foolish to shame the wise (1 Cor,) for God to serve as a slave, for Him to conquer death by death, this is perfect contradiction. To do less is sin, a willful misapprehension of purpose.
- Corollary: Greek Mythology The Greek gods are undoubtedly very pagan. Yet no story, no matter how false, can be entirely original. Greek mythology must then be a flawed and twisted retelling of the One Story. It is as a revisionist retelling of the One Story from the viewpoint of the powers and principalities. What then, besides themes, can be salvaged? The clash between the Olympians and the Titans is where we will focus our analysis. The Olympians were a lower order of creation than the Titans, yet left their place and instead overthrew the Titans. In overthrowing the Titans, the Olympians then faced humanity, which they generally looked upon with disdain. They ensured the fealty of humanity through fear, not through love. Yet even more so, they cemented their hold on power with humanity through the fear of the Titans. As petty, cruel and hateful as the Olympians were, they sold themselves as infinitely better than the Titans, and hence worthy of the worship of humanity. Yet even more so, the ashes of the Titans were spread throughout humanity, making humanity the bearers of the essence of the Titans, and the Olympians disdained humanity all the more so for that, although it was retold to humanity as a mockery of the Titans at the hands of the Olympians. If I saw things through the eyes of the powers and principalities, I would find this a remarkably more comfortable retelling of the story of origins than the one that actually occurred. Yet, even twisted and corrupted, this story still follows the template of the One Story, for evil cannot create, but can only destroy. First, the rebellion of the Olympians. Surely the fallen princes would look upon the Creator as oppressive to all wills other than His own. Claiming that they had overthrown the Creator, claiming that God was dead, surely that would be a comforting claim to the losers of the first war of heaven. Yet the rebellion was unmistakable. Presenting the oppression of the powers and principalities as light in comparison to God's oppression is another old trick. The idea of the intermarriage of the 'gods' and humanity is also not new, given the Watcher tradition. The idea of the image of the Creator being poured upon humanity is also inescapable. Yet to the powers, the idea of the forced relocation of God's essence to humanity as a mockery is surely a more pleasant retelling of God's creation of man in His Image, than creation of man higher than the angels. Although the retelling is warped and flawed, and told from a resentful and lying tongue, the essence of the One Story is still inescapable. Recapturing it would be a harder matter, though.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
A Priori General Revelation
We rely greatly on specific revelation to determine aspects of God's character, and rightfully so. Even so, it is interesting to explore what we can determine about His character through only general revelation. We usually assume that we can determine that He exists and is good, but further proofs are possible, and can establish the logical necessity of the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Trinity 1) One cannot create that which is not already inside them. - The creative act is fundamentally an act of self-expression on the external. In order for an artist to create, or even duplicate, they must synthesize data, make it a part of themselves before they can recreate it.
2) God created all things. - A Creator Deity is logically inescapable, whether by causality or by any other proof. Taking this as given, such a Being would be the ultimate cause of all things, and their essences originate with Him. (From where else would they come?)
3) Relationships exist. - Relationships exist, and there is no reason for them to have to. Biology, human society, math, all aspects of existence occur in relation. Humans could exist as a hive entity, a solitary entity, atomistic entities or not at all just as easily.
4a) Therefore, relationships exist as a self-expression of God.
4b) God, then, must exist in relationship. - Relationship must spring from the Creator, and must have its roots in Him. It must be a part of Him for Him to express it in His creation.
5) God existed before all things. - The first cause/unmoved mover is by definition first, before all other things if causality is temporal.
6) Therefore, God exists in relationship to Himself. - God's relational existence must first be introspective, for there is no one else initially to have a relationship with. The Trinitarian model is the only one in contemporary religion that accommodates this while still recognizing the differentiation of Creator and creation, and explains the creative act.
Corollary: Creation is the building of new relationships, or a desire to extend relationships. Only a relational God has a real impetus toward creation.
Incarnation
1a) A Transcendent, Creator Entity [God] is not logistically constrained. - If a Creator wants something, He will make reality to suit those wishes. If He is restrained by something other than sheer logical constraints, He would have made reality differently.
1b) God will then do whatever He wants to the highest degree logically possible. - A Creator will not run out of money, or time, or effort. If He wants to do something, He will do it completely. He is only bound by His own nature, and hence truth.
2) God has a desire to know and be known by humanity. - Whether through prophets or scriptures (not a priori), or through His act of creation, God has shown an interest in a relationship with humanity.
3a) The finite can only understand the infinite insofar as the infinite reveals itself to the finite. - The 'flatland' example of transcendence, we cannot grasp things beyond our plane of existence, because we have no basis/definition for relation. It has to 'come down' to us, because we can't 'come up' to it.
3b) The most complete understanding possible for the finite of the infinite is for the infinite to become finite yet still remain infinite. - If the infinite were to wrap itself in the finite, the finite would be able to grasp the infinite. At least to the extent necessary for relationship. There is no higher level of understanding necessary or possible for the finite.
4) Therefore, God will become man in order to be known by man. - It takes God to wrap himself in flesh for a mind of flesh to wrap itself around God. If God wants to know and be known by man, then He will at some point become man. Therefore, the incarnation off Christ is logically inescapable, even without sin.
Trinity 1) One cannot create that which is not already inside them. - The creative act is fundamentally an act of self-expression on the external. In order for an artist to create, or even duplicate, they must synthesize data, make it a part of themselves before they can recreate it.
2) God created all things. - A Creator Deity is logically inescapable, whether by causality or by any other proof. Taking this as given, such a Being would be the ultimate cause of all things, and their essences originate with Him. (From where else would they come?)
3) Relationships exist. - Relationships exist, and there is no reason for them to have to. Biology, human society, math, all aspects of existence occur in relation. Humans could exist as a hive entity, a solitary entity, atomistic entities or not at all just as easily.
4a) Therefore, relationships exist as a self-expression of God.
4b) God, then, must exist in relationship. - Relationship must spring from the Creator, and must have its roots in Him. It must be a part of Him for Him to express it in His creation.
5) God existed before all things. - The first cause/unmoved mover is by definition first, before all other things if causality is temporal.
6) Therefore, God exists in relationship to Himself. - God's relational existence must first be introspective, for there is no one else initially to have a relationship with. The Trinitarian model is the only one in contemporary religion that accommodates this while still recognizing the differentiation of Creator and creation, and explains the creative act.
Corollary: Creation is the building of new relationships, or a desire to extend relationships. Only a relational God has a real impetus toward creation.
Incarnation
1a) A Transcendent, Creator Entity [God] is not logistically constrained. - If a Creator wants something, He will make reality to suit those wishes. If He is restrained by something other than sheer logical constraints, He would have made reality differently.
1b) God will then do whatever He wants to the highest degree logically possible. - A Creator will not run out of money, or time, or effort. If He wants to do something, He will do it completely. He is only bound by His own nature, and hence truth.
2) God has a desire to know and be known by humanity. - Whether through prophets or scriptures (not a priori), or through His act of creation, God has shown an interest in a relationship with humanity.
3a) The finite can only understand the infinite insofar as the infinite reveals itself to the finite. - The 'flatland' example of transcendence, we cannot grasp things beyond our plane of existence, because we have no basis/definition for relation. It has to 'come down' to us, because we can't 'come up' to it.
3b) The most complete understanding possible for the finite of the infinite is for the infinite to become finite yet still remain infinite. - If the infinite were to wrap itself in the finite, the finite would be able to grasp the infinite. At least to the extent necessary for relationship. There is no higher level of understanding necessary or possible for the finite.
4) Therefore, God will become man in order to be known by man. - It takes God to wrap himself in flesh for a mind of flesh to wrap itself around God. If God wants to know and be known by man, then He will at some point become man. Therefore, the incarnation off Christ is logically inescapable, even without sin.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
External and Internal Identities
I am fascinated by the formation of synthetic identities, where regardless of background, one can be considered a full member in an identity through some voluntary process. Where the identity is composed entirely of volunteers, merit seems to consistently emerge as communal capital. I see some fascinating analogies between American military culture (juxtaposed with the American civilian society) and America itself. This is not to say that America has the only synthetic identity out there. Liberia’s initial national identity formation is intriguing, as are the struggles to create national identity in post-colonial states. France makes an interesting counterpoint to the American identity; to be American is to buy into American ideals, to be French is to buy into French culture. This has the interesting effect of some Chadian elites referring to France as ‘home,’ even though they have never been there. Also, commercial flights between Niger and Chad go through Paris, even though the two countries are neighbors. (I would chalk this up to the French intentionally ordering to their own continuing benefit the consequences of their colonial adventures (usually to the detriment of the former colonies.)) The point being that the American identity has something to do with voluntary acceptance of a set of ideals, and this has much in common with the identity formation patterns involved in a professional military.
How can understanding this benefit us? There are some very interesting social dynamics that occur in the military that would generally be considered as positive if the construction of a meritocracy is considered an American ideal. In terms of promotion, the military is the closest thing to a meritocracy in this country. There is far less in the way of whispering of ‘he just got the job because he’s X,’ and the like. In the dispensing of justice, the military consistently stacks up favorably to civilian courts in regards to being color-blind. The military has differences in the ethnic composition of its officer corps and its enlisted force, but because a commission is a function of a college degree, a large chunk of this can be ascribed to educational inequities in the society as a whole. When this is taken into account, the military stacks up favorably to the civilian world, not in some small part due to aggressive promotion of education in the enlisted corps and Green-to-Gold type commissioning programs. Citibank does not take promising tellers and send them to Wharton to come back as executives. The military does. If we can understand this culture of meritocracy in the military, perhaps we can in some way use that understand to reduce inequality in the country as a whole. (I love the irony, an overwhelmingly conservative group achieves progressive metrics more effectively than groups that call themselves progressive. By the same token, the K-School Christian Fellowship was percentage-wise the most diverse group on campus, and we weren’t even trying.).
Let me first say that I am totally and unequivocally opposed to the use of the military as a social engineering tool or as a sociology laboratory. Let me also annotate that the military is far from perfect, as it is composed of human beings. This is not a apologetics or propaganda exercise; I am not trying to write Henry V type inspirational speeches here. Most of the sociological work on the military has been second-wave feminist type stuff accusing us of all sorts of misogyny, and attacking us as the last bastion of traditional maleness. Of course, I find most of this stuff offensive and ignorant, suffering from in-group/out-group problems. I also find a conspicuous lack of charity in the research, normal benefit of the doubt that would certainly be extended to any indigenous group is totally lacking, as is any real cultural context or understanding. Something akin to ‘I watched ‘The General’s Daughter’ once so I understand the military, which is equivalent to the totally offensive assertion that ‘I watched ‘Spanglish’ so I understand the experience of a Mexican illegal immigrant.’ An example of this was the incessant questions about the USAFA Scandal while at the K-School. As my female friend B. points out (who worked on the assault crisis hotline at USAFA,) the static average rate of assaults at Harvard College was higher both per (female) capita and in absolute numbers than the Academy at the height of the scandal. Zero is the only acceptable rate, and I want to express my absolute abhorrence of that horrific crime, but if USAFA is to singled out, then a discussion of context is appropriate. Context didn’t matter much to most of the people who confronted us about it, they had already made up their minds. That is a much longer topic, one that I don’t care to discuss. The military is not the only place where in-group/out-group understandings of identity exist, though, it is the only place I can speak to them meaningfully (although the movie Something New addresses the in-group/out-group identity issue in depth.) So that is the real topic: the difference between the identity that is presented to the out-group and the identities that exist on the inside of the group. All the rest of that was background. Don’t you wish I had said so earlier? Hahaha.
If anyone wants to plagiarize this, feel free… I’d recommend taking out all the parentheses or making them footnotes…(you still probably won’t get a good grade, though.)
So you roll up to some people who are arguing about something or other. You try to insert yourself into the dispute, but you are surprised to find that when you do so, the fissures between them magically disappear as they assert themselves as a united front against you? Yeah, I don’t recommend doing that. But it illustrates a point. In West Side Story, the cop asks two gangs who were obviously just fighting with each other what was going on. He clearly favors the WASP-ish gang against the Puerto Rican gang, and offers to pin the whole thing on the Puerto Rican gang if the WASP one will give him some information. Both gangs, previously occupied by bashing each other’s skulls in, now present a united front against the clearly out-group cop. They stake out a very opaque perimeter around their identity, ensuring that the out-group member does not have access to internal group politics or information. Let’s call this a ‘perimeter identity.’ A specific brand of exclusive identity, usually a super-strate identity, the perimeter identity ensures external uniformity while allowing (even facilitating) internal diversity. It increases the span of an inclusive identity by allowing it to manage a higher degree of tension within its bounds. The perimeter identity correctly identifies that the gravest threat to its continued existence is not its internal fissures themselves, but external exploitation of those fissures. By maintaining an opaque screen to the outside world, the perimeter identity ensures that external forces will not be able to exploit these fissures. The perimeter identity has three critical aspects that we will explore here: external unity, internal diversity, and transition processes.
External Coherence. The perimeter identity, viewed from the outside, is without fissure. It is unitary, and any attempts to create division are resisted fiercely as interference from an interloper. The identity group members will have distinguishing characteristics which to the external observer will indicate sameness. The window to the internal workings of the group will be opaque to non-group members. Before passing through the identity ‘membrane,’ the group will seem to move and act as one. Note that this does not necessarily mean that those actions will seem rational to the outside observer. Identity politics (in the broadest sense of politics) has as much to do with the interactions between the sub-groups of the identity as they have to do with rational plans of the whole. Without access to any understanding of or information about the sub-groups, the actions of the group will seem at least to some degree mysterious to the observer. This is not unintentional, as it greatly limits the influence an outsider can wield in group workings. The observer has to be brought into the group, transported through the membrane, before he is allowed a window on group understanding. This barrier can be constructed through dialect, space, or external identification (clothes, etc.) The barrier can be transparent (limits functional access but not information,) but the stronger boundaries are usually translucent to opaque (limiting both access and information.) Using military culture as an example, five USAF Academy graduates / Kennedy School students were attending a lecture on harassment in the military. These five students were fairly diverse, in terms of backgrounds and political views. Yet when the discussion turned inevitably into an inquisition on the USAFA scandal, the Academy grads answered basically as one to the accusations leveled. Any of the Academy grads’ answers to any question were basically interchangeable with what the others would have answered. It was amazing to see five people who were so different all at once become one fissure-less united front. (This does not mean that we were not forthright, much to the contrary. But we moved as one instinctively when the identity was questioned.)
Internal Diversity. Once one spans the gap from outsider to member, they see all the internal diversity of the group that seemed so fissure-less from the outside. The same distinguishing characteristics that indicate sameness to outsiders actually indicate difference to the group members. We will explore this point further through the use of the uniform later. The opaque membrane belies tremendous complexity in its internal workings. The external narrative may differ greatly from any of a number of internal narratives. Actions that previously seemed mysterious will intuitively make sense, although in the process of crossing the membrane some degree of objectivity will likely be lost. There may be a tremendous degree of dynamic tension contained with the identity, which may be the engine by which it moves or adapts. Fostering internal competition can be a regulatory mechanism, and one that would be transparent to the outsider unable to understand the differences. Within the bounds of the identity, difference may actually be emphasized rather than mitigated in order to take advantage of this dynamic tension. Therefore, the perimeter identity in some ways serves as a containment vessel for a group. In terms of this internal diversity, consider the tremendous differences between the Army and Air Force sub-cultures contained in the perimeter identity ‘military.’ Or consider the rivalry between the F-16 and the F-15C communities contained in the very strong perimeter identity ‘fighter pilot.‘ To the outside observer, one might say, ‘what’s the big difference,’ but to the Viper driver, the difference is enormous. Internal and external identities can be layered. Under military, you have Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps, all of which see themselves as tremendously different from the other. Under Air Force, you have rated (flyers) and non-rated , both of which go out of their ways to emphasize their differences. Under rated, you have pilots, which see themselves as very different from navigators. Under pilots, you have fighter pilots and heavy pilots. Under fighter pilots, you have F-16s and F-15s. Under F-16s, you have different squadrons. This may be the limit of resolution, unless one wants to make the fairly conclusive argument that the fundamental unit of analysis for the fighter pilot is the self. Transport Mechanisms. If a perimeter identity is to maintain itself (other than by simple reproduction,) it must have some mechanism by which an outsider becomes an insider. This should be one-way (barring excommunication,) and must cause the outsider to take on whatever defining characteristics indicate sameness to the outsider and difference to the initiated. There must be a socialization process by which the new group member is stamped. Rites of Passage are one common socialization method used to imprint and indicate entry into a group. An example of this military basic training, or the barriers to exit involved in gangs, not that this makes the most complimentary analogy. In the transport mechanism, we can understand why these identities are usually the stronger ones. An identity with weak barriers to entry can be redefined fairly easily by those without strong allegiance to the group (a sort of Bleeding Kansas of identity definition.) However, one with such strong barriers to entry ensures that only the ’true believers’ of the group will be able to define it. (This sets up a possible principal-agent problem when the gatekeepers from the Osmotic model of the last post act in their own interests a la Sharpton.) Equally importantly, the imprinting process ensures that the ‘defined by’ rather than the ‘defining’ part of the identity dialectic is strongly favored in the acolyte, at least initially. In this process, the perimeter identity enforces its dual roles as containment vessel and defense mechanism. It ensures only authorized members will reach positions where they can shape the identity, for interlopers will be identified and be rejected as foreign intervention.
Uniforms. I find the uniform as a case study fascinating. It is the quintessential symbol of the perimeter identity. They are an indicator of sameness to the outsider, but difference to the group member. The function of the uniform is not to eliminate differences, but to standardize and confine them. To the military member, much more information can be gleaned from a uniform than from street clothes. In fact, in the same way that uniforms may look the same to a civilian, civvies may look fairly similar to a military member. Consider a flight suit. Almost all of it is the same, but the differences are all in the same places. One patch is for wings and names, where the way the name is written may indicate information about the community the wearer is from. Another patch indicates command, another for unit, another for a flag or a weapons school patch, depending on whether the wearer has earned it. The shoulders indicate rank, confusing to the uninitiated but instantly identifiable to the member. The modifications on the flight suit indicate community as well. Interestingly, the different levels of identity are allocated their own territory on the uniform (command, wing, squadron, etc.) Whatever area remains unregulated becomes a nexus for expressing individuality. This could be haircut, or the Velcro on the pen pocket, usually used for humorous morale patches. Therefore, a uniform does not eliminate differences, it just standardizes them and assigns space to them. The uninitiated will be unable to read the language of the uniform, therefore the overwhelming sameness of it will be the only thing he sees. Therefore, the uniform allows the perimeter identity to camouflage itself in plain sight. The military uniform is not the only uniform out there. Gangs certainly uses uniforms, as do corporate types or punk rockers. I can’t read a corporate uniform. A Brooks Brothers suit and a J.C. Penney suit look about the same to me. Yet this difference conveys information to those who can detect it, as do college rings and a doctor‘s white coat. This method of standardizing differences within an overwhelming sameness does not only apply to uniforms, but after 3 minutes I couldn’t think of another good example, so I’m going to keep going. Anyways, the uniform epitomizes the semi-transparent boundary by simultaneously informing difference between the initiated, and portraying sameness to the uninitiated.
So that’s the theory. Perimeter identities. I haven’t figured out how this is useful, and considering my closet engineer teleological fascination, this frustrates me. Wait… here’s one. Quantitative vs. Qualitative research. There seems to be a quantitative fetish amongst social scientists. While quantitative research offers a better degree of objectivity and allows higher degrees of certainty, there seems to be an element of compensation in this. There seems to be a deep insecurity about being ‘real’ scientists, the way ‘hard science‘ types are. So to be cool and taken seriously like physicists, there is a strain within social science (UCLA’s Poli Sci department) that wants to have the certainty of numbers and laws. I think that is why there is such a ruckus about Democratic Peace Theory or whatever (the one that says that democracies never go to war with each other.) While generally true, there is still this desire to make it a Maxwell’s Equations-type law, 100% right and all. The gymnastics it takes to do this (American Civil War, Serbia, Former Yugoslavia) leave me somewhat unconvinced. What I mean to say is there is some strong preference for quantitative research over qualitative research. As a guy who likes numbers and hard science-type laws, I sympathize to some degree, but if you don’t know where to find the variables, your regression won’t work out. If you use the wrong variables, then you will probably reach the wrong conclusions. Qualitative research tells you which are the important variables. Qualitative research allows you to crack the shell of a perimeter identity. While you can’t ‘go native’ doing quantitative research, quantitative research can’t always wrest reliable conclusions from inside an opaque identity membrane. The two methodologies complement each other. Chaotic hypervariate problems require intuition to get a handle on them (consider donut solutions from Chaos theory.) Once you have pinned them down, then pull out your F-stats and R-squareds. Point: Qualitative research is good and necessary.
Next time we’ll conclude our ‘sociology of the military’ discussion and steal a page from Tolkien in order to examine the interaction between language and culture. Good times.
How can understanding this benefit us? There are some very interesting social dynamics that occur in the military that would generally be considered as positive if the construction of a meritocracy is considered an American ideal. In terms of promotion, the military is the closest thing to a meritocracy in this country. There is far less in the way of whispering of ‘he just got the job because he’s X,’ and the like. In the dispensing of justice, the military consistently stacks up favorably to civilian courts in regards to being color-blind. The military has differences in the ethnic composition of its officer corps and its enlisted force, but because a commission is a function of a college degree, a large chunk of this can be ascribed to educational inequities in the society as a whole. When this is taken into account, the military stacks up favorably to the civilian world, not in some small part due to aggressive promotion of education in the enlisted corps and Green-to-Gold type commissioning programs. Citibank does not take promising tellers and send them to Wharton to come back as executives. The military does. If we can understand this culture of meritocracy in the military, perhaps we can in some way use that understand to reduce inequality in the country as a whole. (I love the irony, an overwhelmingly conservative group achieves progressive metrics more effectively than groups that call themselves progressive. By the same token, the K-School Christian Fellowship was percentage-wise the most diverse group on campus, and we weren’t even trying.).
Let me first say that I am totally and unequivocally opposed to the use of the military as a social engineering tool or as a sociology laboratory. Let me also annotate that the military is far from perfect, as it is composed of human beings. This is not a apologetics or propaganda exercise; I am not trying to write Henry V type inspirational speeches here. Most of the sociological work on the military has been second-wave feminist type stuff accusing us of all sorts of misogyny, and attacking us as the last bastion of traditional maleness. Of course, I find most of this stuff offensive and ignorant, suffering from in-group/out-group problems. I also find a conspicuous lack of charity in the research, normal benefit of the doubt that would certainly be extended to any indigenous group is totally lacking, as is any real cultural context or understanding. Something akin to ‘I watched ‘The General’s Daughter’ once so I understand the military, which is equivalent to the totally offensive assertion that ‘I watched ‘Spanglish’ so I understand the experience of a Mexican illegal immigrant.’ An example of this was the incessant questions about the USAFA Scandal while at the K-School. As my female friend B. points out (who worked on the assault crisis hotline at USAFA,) the static average rate of assaults at Harvard College was higher both per (female) capita and in absolute numbers than the Academy at the height of the scandal. Zero is the only acceptable rate, and I want to express my absolute abhorrence of that horrific crime, but if USAFA is to singled out, then a discussion of context is appropriate. Context didn’t matter much to most of the people who confronted us about it, they had already made up their minds. That is a much longer topic, one that I don’t care to discuss. The military is not the only place where in-group/out-group understandings of identity exist, though, it is the only place I can speak to them meaningfully (although the movie Something New addresses the in-group/out-group identity issue in depth.) So that is the real topic: the difference between the identity that is presented to the out-group and the identities that exist on the inside of the group. All the rest of that was background. Don’t you wish I had said so earlier? Hahaha.
If anyone wants to plagiarize this, feel free… I’d recommend taking out all the parentheses or making them footnotes…(you still probably won’t get a good grade, though.)
So you roll up to some people who are arguing about something or other. You try to insert yourself into the dispute, but you are surprised to find that when you do so, the fissures between them magically disappear as they assert themselves as a united front against you? Yeah, I don’t recommend doing that. But it illustrates a point. In West Side Story, the cop asks two gangs who were obviously just fighting with each other what was going on. He clearly favors the WASP-ish gang against the Puerto Rican gang, and offers to pin the whole thing on the Puerto Rican gang if the WASP one will give him some information. Both gangs, previously occupied by bashing each other’s skulls in, now present a united front against the clearly out-group cop. They stake out a very opaque perimeter around their identity, ensuring that the out-group member does not have access to internal group politics or information. Let’s call this a ‘perimeter identity.’ A specific brand of exclusive identity, usually a super-strate identity, the perimeter identity ensures external uniformity while allowing (even facilitating) internal diversity. It increases the span of an inclusive identity by allowing it to manage a higher degree of tension within its bounds. The perimeter identity correctly identifies that the gravest threat to its continued existence is not its internal fissures themselves, but external exploitation of those fissures. By maintaining an opaque screen to the outside world, the perimeter identity ensures that external forces will not be able to exploit these fissures. The perimeter identity has three critical aspects that we will explore here: external unity, internal diversity, and transition processes.
External Coherence. The perimeter identity, viewed from the outside, is without fissure. It is unitary, and any attempts to create division are resisted fiercely as interference from an interloper. The identity group members will have distinguishing characteristics which to the external observer will indicate sameness. The window to the internal workings of the group will be opaque to non-group members. Before passing through the identity ‘membrane,’ the group will seem to move and act as one. Note that this does not necessarily mean that those actions will seem rational to the outside observer. Identity politics (in the broadest sense of politics) has as much to do with the interactions between the sub-groups of the identity as they have to do with rational plans of the whole. Without access to any understanding of or information about the sub-groups, the actions of the group will seem at least to some degree mysterious to the observer. This is not unintentional, as it greatly limits the influence an outsider can wield in group workings. The observer has to be brought into the group, transported through the membrane, before he is allowed a window on group understanding. This barrier can be constructed through dialect, space, or external identification (clothes, etc.) The barrier can be transparent (limits functional access but not information,) but the stronger boundaries are usually translucent to opaque (limiting both access and information.) Using military culture as an example, five USAF Academy graduates / Kennedy School students were attending a lecture on harassment in the military. These five students were fairly diverse, in terms of backgrounds and political views. Yet when the discussion turned inevitably into an inquisition on the USAFA scandal, the Academy grads answered basically as one to the accusations leveled. Any of the Academy grads’ answers to any question were basically interchangeable with what the others would have answered. It was amazing to see five people who were so different all at once become one fissure-less united front. (This does not mean that we were not forthright, much to the contrary. But we moved as one instinctively when the identity was questioned.)
Internal Diversity. Once one spans the gap from outsider to member, they see all the internal diversity of the group that seemed so fissure-less from the outside. The same distinguishing characteristics that indicate sameness to outsiders actually indicate difference to the group members. We will explore this point further through the use of the uniform later. The opaque membrane belies tremendous complexity in its internal workings. The external narrative may differ greatly from any of a number of internal narratives. Actions that previously seemed mysterious will intuitively make sense, although in the process of crossing the membrane some degree of objectivity will likely be lost. There may be a tremendous degree of dynamic tension contained with the identity, which may be the engine by which it moves or adapts. Fostering internal competition can be a regulatory mechanism, and one that would be transparent to the outsider unable to understand the differences. Within the bounds of the identity, difference may actually be emphasized rather than mitigated in order to take advantage of this dynamic tension. Therefore, the perimeter identity in some ways serves as a containment vessel for a group. In terms of this internal diversity, consider the tremendous differences between the Army and Air Force sub-cultures contained in the perimeter identity ‘military.’ Or consider the rivalry between the F-16 and the F-15C communities contained in the very strong perimeter identity ‘fighter pilot.‘ To the outside observer, one might say, ‘what’s the big difference,’ but to the Viper driver, the difference is enormous. Internal and external identities can be layered. Under military, you have Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps, all of which see themselves as tremendously different from the other. Under Air Force, you have rated (flyers) and non-rated , both of which go out of their ways to emphasize their differences. Under rated, you have pilots, which see themselves as very different from navigators. Under pilots, you have fighter pilots and heavy pilots. Under fighter pilots, you have F-16s and F-15s. Under F-16s, you have different squadrons. This may be the limit of resolution, unless one wants to make the fairly conclusive argument that the fundamental unit of analysis for the fighter pilot is the self. Transport Mechanisms. If a perimeter identity is to maintain itself (other than by simple reproduction,) it must have some mechanism by which an outsider becomes an insider. This should be one-way (barring excommunication,) and must cause the outsider to take on whatever defining characteristics indicate sameness to the outsider and difference to the initiated. There must be a socialization process by which the new group member is stamped. Rites of Passage are one common socialization method used to imprint and indicate entry into a group. An example of this military basic training, or the barriers to exit involved in gangs, not that this makes the most complimentary analogy. In the transport mechanism, we can understand why these identities are usually the stronger ones. An identity with weak barriers to entry can be redefined fairly easily by those without strong allegiance to the group (a sort of Bleeding Kansas of identity definition.) However, one with such strong barriers to entry ensures that only the ’true believers’ of the group will be able to define it. (This sets up a possible principal-agent problem when the gatekeepers from the Osmotic model of the last post act in their own interests a la Sharpton.) Equally importantly, the imprinting process ensures that the ‘defined by’ rather than the ‘defining’ part of the identity dialectic is strongly favored in the acolyte, at least initially. In this process, the perimeter identity enforces its dual roles as containment vessel and defense mechanism. It ensures only authorized members will reach positions where they can shape the identity, for interlopers will be identified and be rejected as foreign intervention.
Uniforms. I find the uniform as a case study fascinating. It is the quintessential symbol of the perimeter identity. They are an indicator of sameness to the outsider, but difference to the group member. The function of the uniform is not to eliminate differences, but to standardize and confine them. To the military member, much more information can be gleaned from a uniform than from street clothes. In fact, in the same way that uniforms may look the same to a civilian, civvies may look fairly similar to a military member. Consider a flight suit. Almost all of it is the same, but the differences are all in the same places. One patch is for wings and names, where the way the name is written may indicate information about the community the wearer is from. Another patch indicates command, another for unit, another for a flag or a weapons school patch, depending on whether the wearer has earned it. The shoulders indicate rank, confusing to the uninitiated but instantly identifiable to the member. The modifications on the flight suit indicate community as well. Interestingly, the different levels of identity are allocated their own territory on the uniform (command, wing, squadron, etc.) Whatever area remains unregulated becomes a nexus for expressing individuality. This could be haircut, or the Velcro on the pen pocket, usually used for humorous morale patches. Therefore, a uniform does not eliminate differences, it just standardizes them and assigns space to them. The uninitiated will be unable to read the language of the uniform, therefore the overwhelming sameness of it will be the only thing he sees. Therefore, the uniform allows the perimeter identity to camouflage itself in plain sight. The military uniform is not the only uniform out there. Gangs certainly uses uniforms, as do corporate types or punk rockers. I can’t read a corporate uniform. A Brooks Brothers suit and a J.C. Penney suit look about the same to me. Yet this difference conveys information to those who can detect it, as do college rings and a doctor‘s white coat. This method of standardizing differences within an overwhelming sameness does not only apply to uniforms, but after 3 minutes I couldn’t think of another good example, so I’m going to keep going. Anyways, the uniform epitomizes the semi-transparent boundary by simultaneously informing difference between the initiated, and portraying sameness to the uninitiated.
So that’s the theory. Perimeter identities. I haven’t figured out how this is useful, and considering my closet engineer teleological fascination, this frustrates me. Wait… here’s one. Quantitative vs. Qualitative research. There seems to be a quantitative fetish amongst social scientists. While quantitative research offers a better degree of objectivity and allows higher degrees of certainty, there seems to be an element of compensation in this. There seems to be a deep insecurity about being ‘real’ scientists, the way ‘hard science‘ types are. So to be cool and taken seriously like physicists, there is a strain within social science (UCLA’s Poli Sci department) that wants to have the certainty of numbers and laws. I think that is why there is such a ruckus about Democratic Peace Theory or whatever (the one that says that democracies never go to war with each other.) While generally true, there is still this desire to make it a Maxwell’s Equations-type law, 100% right and all. The gymnastics it takes to do this (American Civil War, Serbia, Former Yugoslavia) leave me somewhat unconvinced. What I mean to say is there is some strong preference for quantitative research over qualitative research. As a guy who likes numbers and hard science-type laws, I sympathize to some degree, but if you don’t know where to find the variables, your regression won’t work out. If you use the wrong variables, then you will probably reach the wrong conclusions. Qualitative research tells you which are the important variables. Qualitative research allows you to crack the shell of a perimeter identity. While you can’t ‘go native’ doing quantitative research, quantitative research can’t always wrest reliable conclusions from inside an opaque identity membrane. The two methodologies complement each other. Chaotic hypervariate problems require intuition to get a handle on them (consider donut solutions from Chaos theory.) Once you have pinned them down, then pull out your F-stats and R-squareds. Point: Qualitative research is good and necessary.
Next time we’ll conclude our ‘sociology of the military’ discussion and steal a page from Tolkien in order to examine the interaction between language and culture. Good times.
Monday, September 18, 2006
How to Call Yourself Open-Minded and Still Believe Whatever You Want (An Exercise in Philology)
I’ll actually (and uncharacteristically) cite my sources on this one. Don’t expect footnotes. First, CSL’s essay ‘Bulverism,’ from God in the Dock. Then, some general thought from Hegel and Marx. Also, 1984 (whose author and I share the same last name. Not the pseudonym’s last name.) And, most importantly, a guy by the name of S. Torres. Who is really smart. And knows some pretty good restaurants. Probably some other people I forgot too. Note: this is written as caricature. If you can’t read it with a sense of humor, don’t read it at all. After all, how seriously can you take anything written by somebody who thinks that spray paint and Fight Club style mischief should be legitimate tools of statecraft?
Subvert the Dominant Paradigm. The first step to being open-minded is to subvert the dominant paradigm. This means that you must determine what the over-represented viewpoint is, and advocate for the opposite view. Since the dominant viewpoint is over-represented anyways, you don’t have to try to understand it, or allow it to be considered in any arguments. You, as the open-minded one, represent the squelched viewpoints, and you have the license of a revolutionary in advocating them. Since the dominant paradigm is already presented, you only have to present your side. And here is the key. You get to decide what the dominant paradigm is. Therefore, you should decide that the dominant paradigm just happens to be the polar opposite of whatever you already happen to believe. That way, you get to be open-minded, and just believe whatever your prejudices and stereotypes are, without having to waste your time with any difficult and annoying counter-arguments. Note: you don’t have to base your dominant paradigm claim in any statistical data. This is particularly useful in remaining ’open-minded’ in fields which are already 90% ‘open-minded.’ The dominant paradigm can always be redefined at will and convenience. You can even redefine it, if your belief preferences happen to change.
Hypothesize a Future to Justify Present Actions. This is especially useful if you decide to use the term ‘progressive.’ The key is to imagine whatever future you want, and use that future to justify whatever actions you want right now. After all, in the light of a Utopian future, pretty much any actions are acceptable to bring it about. Once we all arrive at that future, we will understand that the sacrifices necessary to get there were worth it. You must remind yourself that history will vindicate you. Do not let yourself be encumbered by the thought that the term ‘progressive’ was applied to other ideas (I.e. Communism, Eugenics) that did not pan out. Also, make sure you blame the tremendous costs incurred in the pursuit of those futures on someone else. Ignoring the past is the best way to go about this. After all, their future was not your future. They were wrong, but you are right. Assure yourself that they did not think the same things. Label any opposing arguments as ‘reactionary,’ and dismiss them without consideration. After all, in the future where you are vindicated, these arguments will have long since passed away, and hence they are not worthy of your time.
Claim to Represent a Group. An individual can only speak for themselves, but a representative can bring the power of a group to bear. Therefore, claim to be speaking for a group. Note that you do not actually have to represent that group in any way to claim to represent it. If you happen to be already associated with a group, present your personal beliefs to others as the beliefs of the group. This usually works better if you are presenting it to non-group members. If a non-group member questions your credentials, then accuse them of not understanding, and being racist, or sexist, or whatever other -ist you want. If a group member questions you, then question their allegiance to the group, or even their membership in the group. It is right to marginalize someone who doesn’t understand what the group really wants. They are probably sell-outs anyways. After all, if they really cared about the group, they would have reached the same conclusions as you. If you are faced with statistics, then claim that the community just needs to be educated on the issues, and you are still equipped to speak for them, because you understand how things really are. If they knew what you know, or were as smart as you, they would all agree with you too. Remember, you represent what the people would want if they knew what they really wanted. You do not even need to be a group member in order to claim to represent them. This generally only works if you have some spurious connection to the group, such as having lived somewhere for a few weeks, or having attended a multi-cultural festival, or perhaps having watched a documentary on public television. If anyone questions the legitimacy of this connection, then call them imperialist, ethno-centric, or tell them that they just don’t understand other cultures. Beware of using this if actual members of the group are nearby. If members of the group are nearby and disagree with you, you may have to dismiss them as outliers (even if they are your entire sample size,) or you may have to remind yourself that you know what is best for them. After all, you are the enlightened one, and if they were smart like you, they would know what they wanted too.
Argue Correctly. You must always remember the correct technique for arguing. You must start with the assumption that you are right. You can let no data, no counter arguments, no new thoughts assail this assumption, for you represent the future, and the future cannot be stopped. Accordingly, you should gather all arguments that support your previous assumption and throw them shotgun-style at your adversary. Give no thought to coherence between arguments, nor attempt to create a logical stream of argumentation. Just say things that support your conclusion. If people aren’t coming around, they may just be slow to understand. Therefore, you must repeat your argument. Do not attempt to change or refine the argument, this may confuse the listener and impede your attempt to enlighten them. Also remember that you are smart, well informed, and well intentioned. Therefore, anyone who reaches different conclusions than you must be either unintelligent, poorly informed, or a bad person. If you have stated your shotgun arguments multiple times and they have not changed their mind, then they are not poorly informed, as you have just informed them. Perhaps they are unintelligent. You should then cite your various justifications (degrees work well here) for why you are qualified to think for them. If they do not accept this, and provide a seemingly cogent counter-argument, then only one option remains. They are bad people. Perhaps they are just looking out for the rich and powerful (you must forget that many of the rich and powerful may be on your side, which of course could not be the case, for you are subverting the dominant paradigm,) perhaps they don’t want to understand, perhaps they just hate other people. Regardless, they are bad people, and therefore you should not validate their actions at all, certainly not by hearing what they have to say. Remember, as well, that you define the ground rules for the argument, just as you define the future. Give your side the benefit of every doubt. If there is no doubt, create it. Conspiracies work well for this. Make sure the opposing side is held to account for all of its nefarious actions and intentions. Even if these accusations are little less than slander, remember that accusations make headlines and retractions are on buried on page five, and falsehood does little to detract from repeatability. After all, you must not concern yourself with outmoded absolute concepts of truth, but with the future. The future will bring its own truth, which will vindicate you.
Never Consider Close-minded Viewpoints. The most important thing you must remember is to remain truly open-minded, you must shut out all close-minded viewpoints. You may conveniently label all opposing viewpoints as close-minded. If you entertain close-minded thought, you will find that they spread. You may find yourself dismissing viewpoints that you may come to call ‘contradictory,’ ‘illogical,’ or ‘wrong.’ You must especially avoid this last word ‘wrong,’ as this implies some sort of absolute truth. Use the word ‘problematic’ instead. The only way to ensure that these close-minded thoughts do not fester is to block them out. You must absolutely and unequivocally state that there is no absolute truth. Remind yourself that the other side is totally illegitimate, as it is close-minded. Never learn about the close minded side. Never let yourself believe that they may have a point. Never try to understand their point of view. And certainly never learn to argue the issue from their side. Silence your opposition, drown them out, for their viewpoint is dangerous, and must not be allowed to infect the open minded. Finally, remember that your open-mindedness must be passed on to the next generation by keeping all close-minded thought out of any academic institutions. Reactionary, counter-revolutionary thoughts must not be welcome, for you own the future, and you must ensure that we get there, by any means necessary.
And this is where labor camps come from.
Subvert the Dominant Paradigm. The first step to being open-minded is to subvert the dominant paradigm. This means that you must determine what the over-represented viewpoint is, and advocate for the opposite view. Since the dominant viewpoint is over-represented anyways, you don’t have to try to understand it, or allow it to be considered in any arguments. You, as the open-minded one, represent the squelched viewpoints, and you have the license of a revolutionary in advocating them. Since the dominant paradigm is already presented, you only have to present your side. And here is the key. You get to decide what the dominant paradigm is. Therefore, you should decide that the dominant paradigm just happens to be the polar opposite of whatever you already happen to believe. That way, you get to be open-minded, and just believe whatever your prejudices and stereotypes are, without having to waste your time with any difficult and annoying counter-arguments. Note: you don’t have to base your dominant paradigm claim in any statistical data. This is particularly useful in remaining ’open-minded’ in fields which are already 90% ‘open-minded.’ The dominant paradigm can always be redefined at will and convenience. You can even redefine it, if your belief preferences happen to change.
Hypothesize a Future to Justify Present Actions. This is especially useful if you decide to use the term ‘progressive.’ The key is to imagine whatever future you want, and use that future to justify whatever actions you want right now. After all, in the light of a Utopian future, pretty much any actions are acceptable to bring it about. Once we all arrive at that future, we will understand that the sacrifices necessary to get there were worth it. You must remind yourself that history will vindicate you. Do not let yourself be encumbered by the thought that the term ‘progressive’ was applied to other ideas (I.e. Communism, Eugenics) that did not pan out. Also, make sure you blame the tremendous costs incurred in the pursuit of those futures on someone else. Ignoring the past is the best way to go about this. After all, their future was not your future. They were wrong, but you are right. Assure yourself that they did not think the same things. Label any opposing arguments as ‘reactionary,’ and dismiss them without consideration. After all, in the future where you are vindicated, these arguments will have long since passed away, and hence they are not worthy of your time.
Claim to Represent a Group. An individual can only speak for themselves, but a representative can bring the power of a group to bear. Therefore, claim to be speaking for a group. Note that you do not actually have to represent that group in any way to claim to represent it. If you happen to be already associated with a group, present your personal beliefs to others as the beliefs of the group. This usually works better if you are presenting it to non-group members. If a non-group member questions your credentials, then accuse them of not understanding, and being racist, or sexist, or whatever other -ist you want. If a group member questions you, then question their allegiance to the group, or even their membership in the group. It is right to marginalize someone who doesn’t understand what the group really wants. They are probably sell-outs anyways. After all, if they really cared about the group, they would have reached the same conclusions as you. If you are faced with statistics, then claim that the community just needs to be educated on the issues, and you are still equipped to speak for them, because you understand how things really are. If they knew what you know, or were as smart as you, they would all agree with you too. Remember, you represent what the people would want if they knew what they really wanted. You do not even need to be a group member in order to claim to represent them. This generally only works if you have some spurious connection to the group, such as having lived somewhere for a few weeks, or having attended a multi-cultural festival, or perhaps having watched a documentary on public television. If anyone questions the legitimacy of this connection, then call them imperialist, ethno-centric, or tell them that they just don’t understand other cultures. Beware of using this if actual members of the group are nearby. If members of the group are nearby and disagree with you, you may have to dismiss them as outliers (even if they are your entire sample size,) or you may have to remind yourself that you know what is best for them. After all, you are the enlightened one, and if they were smart like you, they would know what they wanted too.
Argue Correctly. You must always remember the correct technique for arguing. You must start with the assumption that you are right. You can let no data, no counter arguments, no new thoughts assail this assumption, for you represent the future, and the future cannot be stopped. Accordingly, you should gather all arguments that support your previous assumption and throw them shotgun-style at your adversary. Give no thought to coherence between arguments, nor attempt to create a logical stream of argumentation. Just say things that support your conclusion. If people aren’t coming around, they may just be slow to understand. Therefore, you must repeat your argument. Do not attempt to change or refine the argument, this may confuse the listener and impede your attempt to enlighten them. Also remember that you are smart, well informed, and well intentioned. Therefore, anyone who reaches different conclusions than you must be either unintelligent, poorly informed, or a bad person. If you have stated your shotgun arguments multiple times and they have not changed their mind, then they are not poorly informed, as you have just informed them. Perhaps they are unintelligent. You should then cite your various justifications (degrees work well here) for why you are qualified to think for them. If they do not accept this, and provide a seemingly cogent counter-argument, then only one option remains. They are bad people. Perhaps they are just looking out for the rich and powerful (you must forget that many of the rich and powerful may be on your side, which of course could not be the case, for you are subverting the dominant paradigm,) perhaps they don’t want to understand, perhaps they just hate other people. Regardless, they are bad people, and therefore you should not validate their actions at all, certainly not by hearing what they have to say. Remember, as well, that you define the ground rules for the argument, just as you define the future. Give your side the benefit of every doubt. If there is no doubt, create it. Conspiracies work well for this. Make sure the opposing side is held to account for all of its nefarious actions and intentions. Even if these accusations are little less than slander, remember that accusations make headlines and retractions are on buried on page five, and falsehood does little to detract from repeatability. After all, you must not concern yourself with outmoded absolute concepts of truth, but with the future. The future will bring its own truth, which will vindicate you.
Never Consider Close-minded Viewpoints. The most important thing you must remember is to remain truly open-minded, you must shut out all close-minded viewpoints. You may conveniently label all opposing viewpoints as close-minded. If you entertain close-minded thought, you will find that they spread. You may find yourself dismissing viewpoints that you may come to call ‘contradictory,’ ‘illogical,’ or ‘wrong.’ You must especially avoid this last word ‘wrong,’ as this implies some sort of absolute truth. Use the word ‘problematic’ instead. The only way to ensure that these close-minded thoughts do not fester is to block them out. You must absolutely and unequivocally state that there is no absolute truth. Remind yourself that the other side is totally illegitimate, as it is close-minded. Never learn about the close minded side. Never let yourself believe that they may have a point. Never try to understand their point of view. And certainly never learn to argue the issue from their side. Silence your opposition, drown them out, for their viewpoint is dangerous, and must not be allowed to infect the open minded. Finally, remember that your open-mindedness must be passed on to the next generation by keeping all close-minded thought out of any academic institutions. Reactionary, counter-revolutionary thoughts must not be welcome, for you own the future, and you must ensure that we get there, by any means necessary.
And this is where labor camps come from.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)