Wednesday, March 25, 2009

The Politics of Ideologies…

I'll not take much of your busy schedule right now, but I thought I'd just mention about ideologies in the simplest manner possible... Every subject under the sun can be turned to an ideology, whether political economy, anthropology, religion, psychology, pseudo-histories, philosophies or what not. All these subject area people do is expand their world views from their chosen bases, and apply them to total global realities, that's why I choose "Eclecticism"___It takes the best from all views and ideologies, and casts away the worst. It's never set___It's always changing according to the evolution of ideas and historical evolution. This is where and why it’s the opposite of pluralism, which includes all views as valid___Na Da...

As to "A Priori"___It's just the ground base of how we "Know"___A priori refers to our essence agents(prior inborn instincts) and agency, that can truly "Know"(also called instinctual "logica utens" or instinctual "folk logic", or common sense and Mother Wit, or natural Wisdom Logic). This is where the triadic understanding of Peirce comes in. We know by "three" methods___1.Experience, 2.Direct Perception___Seeing, and 3.Arithmetic abstraction___Doing the math proofs of. These three are the only authentic methods, spiritually, scientifically or whatever, of thoroughly/truthfully knowing. And, experience and direct perception can sometimes/often fool us, as life's journey may have already taught you, but math applied to 1 and 2 always finds the actual truth of. I found through all my years of study, the mathematicians offered the wisest philosophies, as they offered the corrections to the philosophers, psychologists, or whatever worldview(psychology, etc.) talked of.
Just look thoroughly at Mathematician Godel's quote;

"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel
and Peirce's; “Consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings you conceive the objects of your (best possible liberty)conception to have. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the (best and highest possible)object(a priori arithmetic liberty).” The pragmatic maxim, C.S. Peirce plus my bolded additions...

Extra advise comments to a friend;

Ideology question…? It was also moralism/humanism against science/logicism, and many humanists that backed the scientists and logicians. Quite a mixed bag of idea cross-overs. Nominalists and Phenominalists is also another way to name it, i.e., subjectivists and objectivists, i.e., internalists vs. externalists, sensists vs. physicalists. These argument differences were always referenced in philosophical terms until the later 19th century when psychology entered the scene, yet it has just about as many term classifications of its own, and many valid and invalid ones. Remember the taxonomy list I sent you last fall? There were about 500 philosophy classifications, of just systems alone, not counting all of each 500's terms. Education is far more complex than necessary until you know who and where the classifications are. Most of that would be 1.Aristotle, 2.Kant, 3.Linneas, 4.Whewell and 5.Peirce. These 5 are your major historical classificationists, who had wide historical influence, though there are many others, these were the best for their eras. No really scientific ones exist after Peirce, as things just got too complex for any human to tackle the present job. That's why Peirce is so important, as it's the only correct and complete classification of total ideas.

As to ideologies again…? Exactly. Historical time ideas always must also be considered when viewing such base desires and habits of all the people involved. Each and all have their own hidden agendas.

Truth question…? Yeah true, but true isn't always the best. Always follow the money first, then the beliefs/habits of the people, to locate the true motives of histories. Power usually has opposing desires to the people, then as now. That's why investigations toward truth must be grounded in scientific perception, the a priori arithmetic of the ancients, and moderns such as Kant, Schopenhauer, Locke, Peirce, Adorno, and many, many more good scientific spiritist thinkers. Aristotle(ethics good, but his logica docens needs major updating), Hegel, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Quine, Chomsky, etc., are more the separator, fallacy, anti-philosophers. The opposite sides always exist in all fields of study. As you say, "What a mess". Now you see what I'm trying to get to the bottom of. We gotta separate the true from the false, the pro- from the anti-, the love from the hate.

As to oppositions…? Being intelligently discretionary, and differentiating the wheat from the chaff, is never bigoted, yet the true bigots of their own ideologies will try to convince you, you are. Mind is a battlefield, so always be ready to stand your ground, yet be grounded thoroughly in your own solid ground, either a priori internally, or physically externally. When in real physical debate, remember there's only one public mind-space, and everyone fights for the floor of selves, in that single mind space.

A Priori applied to ideologies…? Anyone who thinks for the best natures, and higher natures of people, as long as the higher natures respect the best natures, and the best natures respect, what's incentive-wise necessary of the higher natures. Of course, there's many interpretations of this, such as Romanticism, egalitarianism, utilitarianism, liberalism, or even fair conservatism. The problem is, most use cross-current ideologies, instead of any pure defined ideology or system. Therein lies the communication problem, and inter-disciplinary problems.

Ideological linguistic question…? These ideas of teaching through literary classics and grammar are still prominent today, and much of post-mordernism believes, whereas I, as well as Phyllis Chiasson and many others say, people must be taught how to think first, before what to think, i.e., our leanings toward Peirce pragmatism.

Ideology question again…? Yes, most entirely, but there's more than one branch of liberalism___Valid and invalid, as there is to conservatism. Another problem is the meanings are often reversed between Europe and America. Financial liberalism, as in Europe, and here in America, when dealing with economics, means "to free a free markets, i.e., printing too much money by gov. and living beyond your means, while here, most often means too much social ligislation against free markets". Yet most Democrats think all liberalisms mean their idea of liberalism, i.e., social liberalism. Usually, Republicans interpret liberalism as the evil demon, when their own economists practice financial liberalism, for themselves, yet want financial conservativism, for all democrats, thus liberals. Republicans, just as Napolean did, know the state works best, for the powers that be when they preach the Janus Faced rhetoric of duplicity. This duplicity of power's meaning, to the people's corrupted interpretations of meanings, is the major dichotomy, one must see through first, to interpret any history, correctly. Colleges of the “All Too Rich” teach these duplicities of doctrines, and even debate the opposing Democrat/Liberal and Republican/Conservative positions, from all positions possible. So, the Republicans end extremely more educated than the liberals/democrats/Democrats. It's the democrats soul positions of cultural upbringing that is usually offended by such duplicit college training, they either don't take philosophy and rhetoric of, or quit such courses. So, in the end it comes down to humanism being good, but naive, unless taught the higher natures, along with the better natures. To only choose one, is to half-cripple oneself, and yet that's just what most of the world's best people do. Half an education, is almost no education. Ya gotta know how the more evil mind thinks and works, to survive the social intellectual world forum…

No comments: