Author: Christopher

65

reading the chapter on children in Khalil Gibran’s the Prophet, which beautifully says how we should provide for them and care for them but without shaping their ideas/souls after our own, the following occurred to me:

If unconscious ideology exists as described in entry 11, then we unwittingly deny our children the option to re-shape the world to fit the new perspectives that each new generation can bring.

To truly be free to change things so as to live the way they see fit, future generations must be able to freely conceive of how to live, how the world could be. And they cannot freely conceive if they are born into systems with implicit ideology. Which is indeed the case: one comes into the world embedded within systems that implicitly dictate ways of thinking for one to survive or thrive.

We must find some kind of escape from this bind – some way for our children to not be forced into the same ways of thinking as us.

To be clear about what the problem is here: I’m distinguishing between the individual and societal level and stating that Gibran’s vision cannot be fulfilled by an individual family, no matter how well-intentioned they are, as long as the children are thrown into systems that implicitly produce ideology – as is the norm.

64

Neologisms are a sign of weak philosophy.

True philosophy finds new ways of using existing words.

confronting the harder process of finding more meaningful ways of integrating existing words with eachother – of course aptly, so without loss or degradation of meaning…

to heal those rifts that our words cleaved long ago – instead of creating new words to layer on top of the lacerated body in an attempt to hold it

63

Democracy means that decisions are made publicly.

In a representative democracy that is truly democratic, we would know where decisions are made. We would see not merely the [procedural and policy] results of party/company-internal decisions – we would be able to see the decisions themselves.

Indeed those discussions and decisions would be the most interesting thing to watch. In contrast, [really existing ]parliamentary discussion and procedure is boring to watch – precisely because it isn’t the actual decision making process.

Whether such transparency is possible in a representative system is an open question. And so also: whether a representative system could even potentially be a democracy is an open question.

61

The main sign of the stagnation[ which is in turn a sign of failure] of science is the rise of pseudo-science.

And the success of pseudo-science is not from its own merit – in fact it is entirely independent of its own merit.

so: non-p and non-non-p

but those are two types of negation.

the one abstractly logical,

the other referring to the manifestation of the first negation(, the historical reaction to it),

and thus

59

Maybe it is very significant that analytic philosophy has a traditional consensus that words have meaning, not things.

An analytic philosopher is so used to the praxis of this consensus that this may sound like a bizarre attack on a notion that is trivially correct. But isn’t this actually a pre-supposition that’s both obviously contingent/questionable & vastly impactful/consequential? (& indeed ideological, begging much explanation?)

  • furthermore, words are taken as having (primarily or only) extensional meaning, which can be regarded as disconnecting/removing meaning from individual minds/persons…

so: Therefore, naturally focusing on that which seems most meaningful – and specifically words being that -, the focus of the analytic methodology and tradition in general is on words! – And this focus and prioritisation in turn(, especially considered beyond the limited aspects/interests of philosophical enquiry,) gives words[, in principal and in general,] authority and power.

or, more simply: The rational mind sees words as the locus of meaning, therefore focuses on words, thereby endowing them with power… Rational traditions supports the power of the words, and more specifically commands and law-utterances, of authorities. I.e. such traditions support [power-]hierarchy.

  • So, this seems to fit perfectly with the law & order of [the lord] god & [church] hierarchy – & theology?

– Both the things [esp. nature] & the common/lay people have no [inherent] meaning – & should thus submit under the law/order of the word, the word that is authority and power due to carrying/holding meaning, indeed the totalised, objective meaning of the god-perspective – whether explicitly or implicitly – whether administered by a monk or a philosopher…

p.s. just as a reminder for contrast: The alternative is to consider it generally reasonable and possible that things have meaning – natural entities, phenomena, people, etc. – whilst words are just compromising, abstracting tools of communication between minds and meanings. (And of course, why not also that things are meaning? – An absurd notion in our reality, but really not absurd at all.)

58

Are contradictions in things or between things?

 

Is an event nothing but the realisation of a contradiction,

its consequences developing in logical progression as a process in time?

 

or is every process, and thus every sum of processes or things, naturally free of any internal contradiction?

Is contradiction only to be found at the distinction and boundary between two things,

thus any and every two things, thus every individual and every part and every aspect? – Cartesian Atomism?

 

57

techne makes a tree into a table

by means of turning a tree into wood.

to produce something out of material, the engineer sees each thing through something else – technology abstracts.

we turn what we experience into material –

dualistic transformation?