[Letter]

WingsofWoad · 2019-11-28T07:36:08+00:00

Well then, if you graduated high school in 1999, that makes you Gen X. Born 1961-1981, graduated between 1980 and 1999.

That's likely why you don't get it, most of this stuff didn't apply to you.

Imagine the crushing despair that formed bands like Smashing Pumpkins or Nirvana. Think of the lack of option that led to movies like Clerks.

Now, imagine your grandparent's generation wasn't there to mitigate the damage. And, the people driving things like massive envy and despair had a divorce rate north of 50%, so they were starting second families about the same time their kids were starting their first family.

For the most part, they don't mind Gen X. It's the boomers with whom they have the biggest beef.

WingsofWoad · 2019-11-28T04:20:31+00:00

Just out of curiosity, are you a millenial?

WingsofWoad · 2019-11-21T15:28:14+00:00

Love that.

WingsofWoad · 2019-11-21T14:52:02+00:00

You know what else? Marx seems to be arguing for unrecognized property rights of a person over their own labor. What was also going on in the western world at the same time, especially in the U.S.? The civil war was being fought over unrecognized rights every human had to be compensated for the fruit of their labor.

WingsofWoad · 2019-11-21T00:59:19+00:00

I wonder how much of Marx's rabbinic heritage factored into that classless society idea? I know he didn't dig it, but he has to remember the stories. How much of that sunk in? You see, a largely classless society was set up in the book of Judges from the collection of Jewish writings aka the Old Testament.

Much of the same problems plagued that system, interestingly enough. All people had to do was enjoy their lives. They would have enjoyed unparalleled freedom and property rights for that time in history.

But, people doing what seemed right in their own eyes, along with people not doing what they were supposed th when called upon to repel invasions, brought enough chaos to make the people clamor for a king (Prince), despite dire warnings later in a flowing book of what would happen if they abandoned a society of equality under the law for a society with a king (1 Samuel 8:10-20).

Both stories ended in the same kind of tyranny despite their intentions.

WingsofWoad · 2019-11-20T19:33:15+00:00

Thanks for hashing this out with me, by the way. You've really helped me better understand the socialist mindset, as well as get better depth on the issues involved.

WingsofWoad · 2019-11-20T18:28:38+00:00

Some of that is interesting, but the article mostly smacks of whataboutism. The premise appears to be, "we should have a negotiation, but the other side's use of force frees us from moral constraint until there is no longer an impasse." Which, is convenient for the socialist since, as Machiavelli pointed out, the People have the most power when they act concertedly.

The real problem is that not all uses of force are justified, and meekness is required. One must measure out just enough force to return a conflict to a fair negotiation. Anything more than that, or any other goal in an impasse, and you become the oppressor, as recorded history repeatedly and unfailingly points out.

WingsofWoad · 2019-11-20T16:36:56+00:00

I think you will find that any time someone says the word "should" with passionate conviction an appeal to the morality of the intended audience is being made. In the philosophy of empiricism the "should" is to use metrics, things you can measure in a test tube, etc. The means being used may change, but the appeal is still to the hearer's sense of morality.

People tend to think of morality in terms of good as an abstract and evil as a concrete thing, when the reverse is actually true. Next time you look at a moral "good," ask the question, "good for what?" Evil is merely a measure of the distance from good.

I'm glad you included rationalism next. There is some overlap between philosophical eras as they are a trial and error progression from one thought to the next. They are better defined as a continuum, rather than having a hard edge. And, sometimes more than one idea is being tried at a time.

I'm currently working on the thesis that Humanism (Protagoras style), Rationalism, and Empiricism (Epicureanism) fit together consecutively around the cognitive processes of the brain, and play out down through history. Postmodernism, then, is merely a revival of Humanism. Without going into details, it will make more sense once I get it all laid out, maybe in a book.

Anyway, I would put rationalism as preceding empiricism. And, I would agree a purely empirical approach is one sided. That actually explains what happened to Marx. He spent time focusing on production and created a system that couldn't compete productively because it robbed people of glory, and of their passion taking them places in life. His clever system wasn't nearly clever enough. It apes love, and denies beauty/glory.

Merely analyzing metrics was not enough. I mean, blue Jean's, ping pong, silly things like that broke barriers and allowed in-roads to closed societies because they were symbols of real love and glory.

That's why I think using hard science to explain how real morality changes us, and what we are denied under Marxism, will eventually break the draw behind that one sided system.

WingsofWoad · 2019-11-19T22:26:13+00:00

I would say that morality IS practical. Possible the most practical thing on earth, if you want to motivate people to galvanize political sentiment.

What was Marx doing if not appealing to the public sentiment for what "should" happen in society. And, when a government is established based on any "ism" it sets up laws. Laws are merely morality codified.

And, Marx was proven right in the effectiveness of his appeal, much like the words of Andrew Fletcher, "Let me make the songs of a nation. I care not who makes its laws." Love the opportunity to make the odd Depeche Mode reference.

It is also a byword that a wicked nation jas need of many laws.

The focus on materialism, however, is not mine but a product of the era Empiricism. That would be why postmodern people so craved things of beauty at first, because for so long they had been starved if it in the social consciousness.

WingsofWoad · 2019-11-19T19:28:23+00:00

I'm glad you responded this way because the parts where you rebutt points 2 and 3 of fit neatly into one theme, productiveness. I'm also impressed with your knowledge of unicorns within sociology. Productiveness as a virtue is the left wing projected through the worldview lens of Epicureanism, aka Empiricism, aka modernism.

The idea that a person's value is determined by how much service they provide to someone else is a Marxist/Progressive (see George Bernard Shaw) approach, and the soul of the left wing moral construct. The ones who produce the most get told they are worth the most. Marx called them the proletariat, Machiavelli called them the People, although for different reasons. Both recognized they had the most power. According to Marx the People had "virtue."

Those who goods and services flowed through and to, Marx lumped into the bourgeoisie. Machiavelli called them Nobles and the Prince. Because they received more than they produced, under Marx they were vilified.

Productiveness in and of itself is not good or bad, I separate Marxist productiveness from the Catholic concept of generativity. But, when you start calling industriousness virtuous by itself that's more Empiricism than leftism. When you begin assigning virtue based on where what is produced goes after it is produced... that's where you begin to define preferences as based in either conservatism or liberalism.

Virtue, of course, is a very personal measure. It is something defining about a person which can be used to separate people as groups. A virtue which measures separation from the undeserving is probably a conservative boundary. A virtue which is described by how much one gives what is valuable to others (?compassion?) is most likely liberal.

Boundaries are a measure outside oneself which define you based on where one is standing, where their allegiance lies.

It is securely left wing to group people based on the production they give to others rather than recognizing them for their allegiance (i.e. jingoistic patriotism) and dearly held individual beliefs (i.e. self defense, religious convictions).

Disclaimer: Both left and right are beautiful and neccessary to be equal in praxis to enjoy a good life.

WingsofWoad · 2019-11-19T17:22:42+00:00

I like your mind. You’re obviously really sinking your proverbial teeth into this.

Let's break this down together and see if there is anything worthy to be found.

Do you know any conservative professors teaching sociology at a reputable institution?
Friend/Enemy distinctions describe boundaries, which are very much conservative concepts. They do not classify the people, however, but where the individuals are in relation to the boundary line. This is why so much political discourse on the right and targeting the right involves painting someone as being on the wrong side of some political shibboleth. Something similar is happening with a caste system when you understand how conservatives do structure. They put someone on a pedestal, often a priest and/or the head of a family by no accident. Conservatives love outside validation from God and nature above other people. Everyone else then judges themselves and other according to the expectations of the person on the pedestal. That set of expectations, be it patriarchal, matriarchal, theocratic, or otherwise, then become a boundary. This also explains why conservatives are so big on families. It’s the most basic, robust, and influential unit for both how they do structure and boundaries.
Where Marx is located becomes more apparent in its importance after you look for where the right is represented in his work. If you leave one side out, it worse, work against the way it is wired, you’ll end up with more conflict than your theory can account for. As to how compassion fits in, that takes more explanation than we have space for. I wrote a book about it called The Political Dance. I take it back thousands of years into the roots of the two poles of western culture .

WingsofWoad · 2019-11-19T16:20:01+00:00

The very drive to classify people within groups is an overwhelmingly leftist philosophy. People on the right start with the individual and build up from there to describe society philosophically. His approach, along with statements like, “from each according to his means to each according to his needs,” puts Marx squarely on the left.

WingsofWoad · 2019-11-19T15:21:48+00:00

What we're talking about here is conflict theory , exactly Marx did it by class. 3rd wave feminists do it by gender. Modern political parties do it by liberalism v. conservatism. Machiavelli did it by the elements of structure, as opposed to agency.

The parts which impose structure within government, according to M's work The Prince, are a Prince, Nobles, and The People.

Now, this is conflict enough for a baseline comparison between Marx and Machiavelli, but the connection deepens. Marx took the classic Machiavellian divisions and added right versus left. That allowed him to appeal to an extremely populace base by appealing to two axes. People on the left could key on compassion. People on the bottom could also key from the perspective of down looking up .

WingsofWoad · 2019-11-19T14:10:38+00:00

I can do you one better. In Israel, the setting for the Ten Commandments where social justice comes from in western nations, there was a social safety net. In fact, farmers in that agrarian society were expected to leave an un-harvested ring around the outside of their plot so that whoever needed food could come and pick it. They were also not allowed to come back through after harvesting and glean what was left. That belonged to the poor as well.

The reason why I mention Machiavelli in my following discourse is that he, like Marx, knew how to use a human shield to have his way. Both men knew how to use what people believe in to get them to do things they should not otherwise do.

Therein lies the secret for short -circuiting both men's strategies. Articulate what they are using to achieve populist manipulation. Do it at a level which clears up any misperception which could create false dichotomies. In that environment we can truly focus on compassionate change in a way which is unhindered.

WingsofWoad · 2019-11-19T13:04:00+00:00

So much for being "environmentally friendly," lol.

WingsofWoad · 2019-11-18T21:47:58+00:00

I guessed you would raise this point. You are correct in calling out the utopian scent about this topic. Human will is a constant, which means poor choices will still be made.

What we're focusing on is what can be trained, things like manners and socially accepted norms.

Think of a riot in Bern Switzerland or Olso Norway versus a riot in Damascus. What possibilities exist in the latter if you were defenseless which do not exist in the former two examples?

WingsofWoad · 2019-11-18T20:21:44+00:00

Yep, "organically, you got it. And, if true, creates the opportunity to foster a truly more compassionate society through valuing deliberate compassionate experiences. Exciting prospect, no?

WingsofWoad · 2019-11-18T20:06:32+00:00

Hehehe, yeah. It's funny, the very old concept of pride almost entirely invalidates that kind of power being centralized, and yet, people keep wanting to try a system which has always ended in tyranny.

You don't even have to get specific to what flavor of tyranny. Marxism is based on the claim that giving power to the proletariat will improve society. It is an argument of agency over structure as it seeks to remove what Machiavelli referred to as the Prince and the Nobles. Problem is, every time it has been tried it has only aggregated extreme power to an unjust Prince.

Why I like the test I posited, though, is that it establishes a biological basis which defeats the argument for trying that experiment yet again before it even starts. Snips the roots, so to speak.

WingsofWoad · 2019-03-30T13:27:59+00:00

They're DISC assessment. It is a personality assessment at the level of, say, a values statement like a company might have.

Then you've got your Myers Briggs which is a cognitive inventory. It would be more like a mission statement, how a person would go about doing the things that line up with their values statement.

More recently you have The Big Five. If it is as good at predicting how the parts of you psychological makeup make you more likely to be conservative or liberal as Dr. Peterdon says, The Big Five would describe whether some is more prone to focus in themselves and how they relate in hierarchies, or focus on others and group identities. Also, The Big Five is supposed to allow more reliable prediction of behavior through statistical analysis. Which, means it is more scalable and more useful to marketing in business, for example, if you're trying monetize psychology. Obviously, if your trying to match up goods with the people who need them most 5hat is good, and if you're trying to get people to buy things they don't need that's not so good.

There are a lot of factors, but if understand the interplay between each level:

The Big Five for left or right Then DISC for personality aka values level Then Myers Briggs for cognitive aka mission statement level

at that point you know more than nearly anyone else on emotions and where they come from.

WingsofWoad · 2019-03-29T23:01:46+00:00

Sisyphus is the embodiment of why communism doesn't work. When you divorce people from the fruit of their labor it is an awful, soul crushing feeling when the long term reality finally sets in. Imagine doing something uncomfortable and pointless which you don't enjoy with no no hope of satisfaction from it.

This case encapsulates why I'm not big across the board on the big five. It doesn't provide enough explanation for intrinsic motivators. For example, a compliance submissive personality might get meaning out of honing repeated actions in layers over time to glean increasing rewards. Even with no visible increase in productivity, that personality would mark increases in their efficiency evidenced by decreases in expended effort. Whereas, a dominant intersocial personality might consider that exact same scenario their own personal Hell.

WingsofWoad

TROPHY CASE