Tuesday, October 27, 2009

The Shadows of Totalization, Part XLIV

Continuing to examine Fido the Yak’s recent post, Asymmetries of the Question:

What I assume is that if faced with Totalization there are thought-moves I can make to weaken the stranglehold and hopefully get myself out of there.

The thought-moves I assume I can make are these,

1. Openness.
2. Possibility.
3. Question.
4. Extroversion (a very strange and startlingly inaccurate concept both philosophically and psychologically—but nevertheless important.)
5. Experiment.
6. Problem-posing.

(Or combinations of these.)

I assume these are motion-making and therefore Totalization overcoming. Maybe so—in some cases, certainly so. However, in general the assumption is too bland—sometimes a question works to make a motion, and other times a question will do nothing at all. Until I can find a way to distinguish the cases when motion is produced from those doing nothing, I will refer to the above list as atropic-tropic. The goal is to be able to predict how to produce a motion.

In Fido’s comment,

“Taking a cue from Morris, who posits a deep connection between asymmetrical postures, openness and extroversion (Sense, pp. 164 ff.), let's provisionally categorize questions as either being symmetrical or asymmetrical.”-Fido, from above.

I appreciate the effort to distinguish between questions. It appears to me Fido considers the questions he categorizes as asymmetrical to be those I consider motion-producing. If so, if Fido can accurately categorize questions as asymmetrical, Fido will be able to predict which questions will be motion-producing. I will examine this further.

Friday, October 16, 2009

The Shadows of Totalization, Part XLIII

I am going to examine Fido the Yak’s recent post, Asymmetries of the Question.

The purpose of this is to better delineate what I am trying to do--regarding motion—in order to subject what I am trying to do--regarding thought-motion-- to criticism.

“Taking a cue from Morris, who posits a deep connection between asymmetrical postures, openness and extroversion (Sense, pp. 164 ff.), let's provisionally categorize questions as either being symmetrical or asymmetrical.”-Fido, from above.

A connection is made between something provisionally called "asymmetrical postures", and openness, extroversion, and questions. Immediately, we're led into very deep waters, but what I get out of it on a first pass is this:

There are six tropes philosophers use to indicate thought-motion. These are,

1. Openness.
2. Possibility.
3. Question.
4. Extroversion (a very strange and startlingly inaccurate concept both philosophically and psychologically—but nevertheless important.)
5. Experiment.
6. Problem.

Are there other tropes? If so, please remind me.

What we need to ask: do these six necessarily indicate motion? If they do not, in which cases do they not?

Sunday, October 11, 2009

The Shadows of Totalization, Part XLII

Polemical deadlocks are not uncommon at any time or level of society—-hostile, antagonistic, and not budging.

Prior to the historical Enlightenment, Europe had been gripped by war, civil war, ceaseless dispute, never-ending strife, and rivalry. The Enlightenment was, I believe, in response—scientifically, politically, and culturally—to this, a way of moving past it.

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."-- George Washington, Farewell Address.

A long time ago on this blog, Carlos said,

“Why do I date the Enlightenment, as a historical phenomenon, as beginning in 1648 and ending in 1789? 1648 marked the end of the Thirty Year's War and the Peace of Westphalia. This was the beginning of the secularization of the political; from this point onwards, religious claims were progressively withdrawn from the political and public spheres of society. This made possible the freethinking attitude of Thomas Jefferson, who said, ‘It does me no harm for my neighbor to say that there are many gods or that there are none.’”--Carlos, The Importance of History.

I find this remarkably compatible with my own view—Carlos marks the beginning of the Enlightenment with the end of a protracted war, a new and productive peace, and a change of attitude about what’s worth disputing with one’s neighbor (rightfully called freethinking.)

Monday, October 05, 2009

The Shadows of Totalization, Part XLI

I take a rigid polemical series,

A: “Yes, it is.”
B. “No, it is not.”

A: “Yes, it is.”
B. “No, it is not.”

A: “Yes, it is.”
B. “No, it is not.”
….

Without taking away the slightest bit of its passive tedious unpleasant stupidity, the series can be endlessly embellished,

A: “Yes, it is, idiot, and if you knew anything at all, you’d know it was.”
B. “No, it is not, dingle-berry butt, and if you had any brains, it would be obvious it was not.”

A: “Yes, it is, idiot, and if you knew anything at all, you’d know it was.”
B. “No, it is not, dingle-berry butt, and if you had any brains, it would be obvious it was not.”

A: “Yes, it is, idiot, and if you knew anything at all, you’d know it was.”
B. “No, it is not, dingle-berry butt, and if you had any brains, it would be obvious it was not.”
….

In summary, maybe the series can be symbolized,

∑A: “Yes, …. ∞” B:“N, …. ∞” = 0▲


The common misstep of analysis is to look for some underlying condition of A or B: low intelligence, lack of childhood cuddling, lack of a pulse. This has the wonderful effect of perpetuating the dead polemic, but more importantly, it fails to see the trans-conditionality of the dead polemic over all spectra of intelligence, sanity, vitality, and historicity.